|
On August 07 2014 15:13 Broodwurst wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2014 15:03 Xiphias wrote: Is not just playing music on stream considered a mashup which is covered under fair use laws? Well I guess if the channel is partnered and it is making money off of it, then maybe not. Also twitch is always making money off of any streams, but how much is due to background music?
I guess this is just in general a mess when it comes to laws.
In general though, it is not breaking copyright to play some copyrighted music on a VOD you are not making any money on. Wrong. This is neither covered by fair use nor is there a "it's ok if you don't make a profit" thing when it comes to copyright. It's all irrelevant. The problem is that arguing fair use or otherwise would be too expensive and take too much time, so most people can't be bothered to even try.
|
I don't watch twitch vod's... ever... But this is just plain stupid. Can't they just move to a country where you can't sue someone because of ambiant music?
edit: If it comes down to Twitch flagging actual live streams then they are screwed. People won't switch to another streaming site because of vods, but if the actual purpose of the site gets crippled...
|
|
The problem with this is the same problem with youtube's content flagging, it assumes the flagging program always works correctly. It doesn't. The content flagging system should be used as a tool by actual staff to judge whether it constitutes a violation or not. For example, in-game ambience music is on soundtracks FOR THE GAME, but clearly should not be flagged. Licensed music, sure, mute that, but auto-flagging systems should not automatically mute or take down videos.
|
Do we know if VOD's of streamers who do have permission to use an alleged infringed upon song are being taken down as well?
|
Video downloader plug in for Firefox and Chrome
|
On August 07 2014 17:17 dabom88 wrote: The problem with this is the same problem with youtube's content flagging, it assumes the flagging program always works correctly. It doesn't. The content flagging system should be used as a tool by actual staff to judge whether it constitutes a violation or not. For example, in-game ambience music is on soundtracks FOR THE GAME, but clearly should not be flagged. Licensed music, sure, mute that, but auto-flagging systems should not automatically mute or take down videos. employing staff is expensive. an automated bot is not.
|
On August 07 2014 17:51 Uracil wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2014 17:17 dabom88 wrote: The problem with this is the same problem with youtube's content flagging, it assumes the flagging program always works correctly. It doesn't. The content flagging system should be used as a tool by actual staff to judge whether it constitutes a violation or not. For example, in-game ambience music is on soundtracks FOR THE GAME, but clearly should not be flagged. Licensed music, sure, mute that, but auto-flagging systems should not automatically mute or take down videos. employing staff is expensive. an automated bot is not. It may end up being a bigger hassle to have staff comb through the many forms that will inevitably be submitted due to all the flse-positives.
|
Twitch is going to kill itself if they are going to hit livestreaming with it as well, instead of just vods. I suppose it's only going to be a matter of time now.
|
On August 07 2014 18:36 Thorakh wrote: Twitch is going to kill itself if they are going to hit livestreaming with it as well, instead of just vods. I suppose it's only going to be a matter of time now. It already hits livestreaming for those streamers that want to make VODs of their livestream.
|
Crazy world.
You can't legally listen to music while broadcasting yourself playing a game. It's really silly, since if anything, it actually promotes the music. How many people are going to ask "song name"? while watching a stream or a VOD?
Let's get real, how popular would Darude be without Twitch? Huh?!
|
On August 07 2014 10:56 Plexa wrote: <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Hm. So what does this mean for OGN's paywall system? I pretty much subscribed solely to be able to watch VODs of old Champions seasons.</p>— Kiett (@KiettPanda) <a href="https://twitter.com/KiettPanda/statuses/497198140957540352">August 7, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
They will have special treatment.
|
China6326 Posts
So the exodus to ustream and hitbox has begun.
|
I see more of this as a thing of what happened with Own3d.tv. They will end up screwing over enough streamers that people will just start going to a different streaming service that offers the ability to have music played, even on vods, and then twitch will slowly lose popularity.
|
|
On August 07 2014 19:25 Nacl(Draq) wrote: I see more of this as a thing of what happened with Own3d.tv. They will end up screwing over enough streamers that people will just start going to a different streaming service that offers the ability to have music played, even on vods, and then twitch will slowly lose popularity. No it will not. Twitch has a quasi-monopoly, just like Youtube. They are so far ahead now that they cant lose it anymore. Which is why they are worth a billion $.
Own3d was in a better position than any of the "competitors" now, but still they could not win simply because less people would watch a particular streamer on Own3d than on Twitch (maybe 30% less viewers). So they had to pay higher CPM rates to their streamers to make up for it, which ruined them. As long as a streamer wont have higher viewer numbers on a competing streaming platform than on Twitch, he has no reason to stream there.
|
On August 07 2014 14:59 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2014 14:27 WindWolf wrote: Isn't it technically illegal to stream using music you don't have permission to? Twitch pay a ton to make it legal to stream it, just not record it. Hm, interesting. Do you have a source for that?
I would imagine that twitch only pays for the rights to stream music in the US (and maybe Canada/UK). Getting the rights worldwide would mean that twitch had to make a deal with each individual country. So, technically, twitch would have to block streaming in most of the world right now.
|
United Kingdom1381 Posts
|
While browsing reddit, found an interesting little article. This is by Ron Amadeo, and Reddit user southernmallard said this about him:
For those that don't know Ron Amadeo he is a well known journalist who follows Google and writes for Ars Technica. He got his reputation on the blog Android Police breaking down news on app updates and long form articles about Android. A TLDR about what he wrote:
-The actions by Twitch seem more like panic then preparing for purchase.
-Why would Twitch start deleting old content to save on storage cost? One thing Google doesn't worry about is too much data and storage.
-Why are they using a content flagging system that competes with Google's ContentID?
His conclusion is that a possible deal between Google and Twitch may have fell through and we are seeing the result of it.
Entire text can be found here: https://plus.google.com/u/0/ RonAmadeo/posts/e5VJHRYsNEE
+ Show Spoiler +What the hell is going on at Twitch? Been paying attention to Twitch news the last few days? Yesterday, Justin.tv, (http://www.justin.tv/) the parent company of Twitch and general-purpose streaming site, was shut down. Everyone's accounts are being deleted, all the saved videos are being erased. Today, Twitch announces past broadcasts can no longer be saved forever. They will now be deleted after 14 days for normal accounts and 60 days for subscribers. In three weeks all past broadcasts older than 60 days will be erased. http://blog.twitch.tv/2014/08/update-changes-to-vods-on-twitch/ Highlights can be saved indefinitely, but they are now limited to 2 hours in length. (Many existing highlights on Twitch are way longer than 2 hours.). What is up with this mass deletion of content and all these sudden limitations? I don't see how this would be a result of a Google acquisition. All three of these moves seem designed to cut costs and save on storage space, two ideas that are completely foreign to Google. Why would a company that was about to get a billion dollar cash injection and unlimited resources start wiping all this data and limiting archiving? Google loves data and wants to keep everything around forever. Just look at things like G+ Auto Upload and Gmail. It's not copyright-related because deleting content older than a certain arbitrary date doesn't do anything to fix copyright violations. Twitch still has live video and 60-day old video, and if you're going to call streaming a video game copyright infringement, all of that is still infringing. There's nothing about a video being old that makes copyright infringement more or less bad. There is also no need to "clean up" Twitch before an acquisition. If Google bought a site that was full of infringing content it would just have a bunch of DMCA takedown notices to process (on top of the million it normally processes a day, that's no big deal). The DMCA protects sites that make an effort to remove content. That's why YouTube exists today. Also today, Twitch announced it would automatically scan videos for copyrighted music and mute them. This includes game music. They've already muted videos of Pokemon for containing Pokemon music and Punch Out for the NES because it contained music from Punch Out. Yes, a video game site banned video game music. Keep in mind these videos still infringe copyright. There is nothing magical about audio; images from a game are also copyrighted and Twitch has left the video up, which means they are still violating copyright. That Mario sprite is ©Nintendo and if the audio isn't covered under fair use, the video isn't either. I don't see a company prepping for a Google takeover, I see panic. Panic and a lack of understanding of what it should be doing. I think Google would want to keep all the old data instead of deleting it and enforce the DMCA on existing videos by processing takedown requests as they come in, which is all the law requires. Why is Twitch doing this? Who the hell thinks any of this is a good idea? I think if Google was behind these changes you would see a much more organised and experienced transition. Part of me thinks the Google deal fell through or something and this is Twitch's attempt to tighten down costs and try to stand on its own. It's just weird that all of a sudden there are all these changes over at Twitch and all of them seem to be misguided, harmful to the service, and don't really solve any of Twitch's problems. I see three instances of cutting storage costs and one ham-fisted misapplication of copyright enforcement, none of which smell like Google to me. Thoughts?
He's bringing up a good point though.
|
I have no doubt that Twitch is likely being threatened with lawsuits from number of record labels due to the recording of songs into VODs without the license to do so. Also the fact that they are not using the google system is a super interesting point.
Regardless of how record labels feel about the music being used during live broad case(I would wager to bet they don’t mind that much, since they don’t go after small DJs that play the music at shows without royalties) the recording of the song is something they need to legal go after. One of the parts about copy right law that people forget is that it’s a “protect it or lose is” system. Which means if you ignore violations, it erodes your rights to the thing you have a copy right for.
The changing of the VODs system makes sense though, if they are worried about storage. I bet some streamers just record everything and over time that has to build up and if the VODs are not being used(like who watches 8 hours of singsing on VoD), than it is just money out the window.
|
|
|
|