Variety is reporting that Youtube will acquire Twitch for over $1 billion dollars. According to the article, both Youtube and Twitch have declined to comment at the time.
Google’s YouTube has reached a deal to buy Twitch, a popular videogame-streaming company, for more than $1 billion, according to sources familiar with the pact.
The deal, in an all-cash offer, is expected to be announced imminently, sources said. If completed the acquisition would be the most significant in the history of YouTube, which Google acquired in 2006 for $1.65 billion. The impending acquisition comes after longtime Google ad exec Susan Wojcicki was named CEO of YouTube earlier this year.
The article also states that YouTube is prepared for the deal to be challenged by the Justice Department, as the two companies together account for a large share of the online video market.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting a similar deal, but unlike Variety states that the deal is in the early phases and that it is not "imminent."
Google Inc. is in talks about a possible acquisition of Twitch, a fast-growing live video-streaming service, according to two people familiar with the matter.
The talks are at an early stage, and a deal isn't imminent, the people said. The potential purchase price couldn't be learned. Twitch also has considered raising additional funding instead of selling the company, according to one of the people.
According to TheVerge, Microsoft was also among the companies bidding for Twitch.
This is what Google does, their YouTube live is kind of a failure so they buy up the competition. I can see how Googles backing will help twitch but also YouTube has declined in my opinion since Google did things like Google plus integration with YouTube.
RIP Twitch if it ever happens. Google will push that lame Google+ there, change twitch's layout to something nearly unusable every 2 months without any reason and of course they won't let streamers to play any music during their streams. Oh well, I thought it would be difficult to live without youtube ( I used to watch A LOT of stuff there), but it's actually fine. So I'm sure I'll be ok without twitch as well.
On May 19 2014 08:34 Kiernan wrote: I hope the Twitch Guys just start a new Twitch with their knowlage. I bet Google will ruin Twitch like they ruined YouTube...
It's not rare in these cases that most of the staff of a company just stays after an acquisition. They are just not the 'owners' anymore, and they already know how to make things work
And I think this is a very good deal The brands of Google/Youtube might attract more announcers to twitch, which is good for the streamers
Nooooooooooooooooooooo. I really don't like Google's push towards one account tied to your real name, and haven't logged in to YouTube since the change. Twitch, it seems, will suffer the same fate.
If this is true... Wow that'll be crazy. Hopefully it improves Twitch and gets rid of their bugs and stream lags. At the same time, I hate this world where it is dictated by money and corporations.
On May 19 2014 08:43 FiWiFaKi wrote: Wow, twitch is worth over a billion? Didn't think it was that much.
I don't really know what to think of this. I like google as a company, and they have the better infrastructure... I like it.
Instagram isn't worth a billion. Neither is Oculus VR.
I've never liked twitch so thats ok. Google will make them shitter with + commercials etc.
and why i dislike twitch? because it lags so fkn much and its not because of my internet. I can't watch 360p on twitch due lag, however i can watch same thing 720p on azubu without a single spike.
The only positive I can see from this is better revenue for streamers. The most obvious bad thing is the regulation of music being played on stream. Youtube may also play a crap ton more ads to the point where they are annoying (even if they do help out certain streamers more).
On May 19 2014 08:43 FiWiFaKi wrote: Wow, twitch is worth over a billion? Didn't think it was that much.
I don't really know what to think of this. I like google as a company, and they have the better infrastructure... I like it.
These types of deals are more about buying the eyeballs and accounts than it is about buying the company or tech. SnapChat was the same kind of deal and there have been several others.
It will be interesting to see what the result of this is. They could integrate it to youtube and make it better (no more lag in EU, more servers, better add revenue). Or they could keep it separate, much like waze is separate from google maps, even though both beneffit from each other and have similar features.
I think this could be very good. Also it is interesting that they are buyin twitch.tv, and not justin.tv, because twitch.tv focus is more of videogames/e-sports so it looks google is interested in that.
On May 19 2014 08:43 FiWiFaKi wrote: Wow, twitch is worth over a billion? Didn't think it was that much.
I don't really know what to think of this. I like google as a company, and they have the better infrastructure... I like it.
Google does a bunch of ostensibly nice things to make you like them. They provide free, simple, and reliable email, free storage for all sorts of different documents through google drive, a free (and fast) web browser, tons of good pr from their weird tech experiments and the amenities of the googolplex, etc.
However, look at their actions and you'll see that they truly wish to dominate in almost all aspects of the tech industry, and thanks to their data collection and custom tailored advertisements, they can simply buy out those that truly outcompete them.
I Dont know why people are saying they are going to force google plus onto twitch if this turns out to be real. They recently cut alot of the people on the google plus project and they said they are working on ending forced integration so i dont see why it would be any different for this potential acquisition.
On May 19 2014 08:34 Kiernan wrote: I hope the Twitch Guys just start a new Twitch with their knowlage. I bet Google will ruin Twitch like they ruined YouTube...
google would be stupid to acquire them without having them sign a non-compete...and google isn't stupid
On May 19 2014 08:50 [SXG]Phantom wrote: lol google ruined you tube? Sure.
Well maybe it's me who thinks this, but google seem to somehow go backwards in terms of features and functionality of all their services.
Niconico for example has features in it that Youtube should've had years ago, some of them eventually got added in, then consequentally removed again. Somehow the UI on Youtube has gotten worse and worse as the years have gone on too.
Then again, I don't really like twitches anything either, their network infrastructure is a total joke so hopefully having google on side will help.
I can personally see someone setting up a "new twitch" because the amount of streamers who will be hit with copyright just for listening to music will skyrocket.
Well I hope it doesn't affect the personal income of streamers too much. It will suffer, but perhaps a larger audience will compensate (I imagine YouTube's streaming service will cease to exist after this).
A lot of streamers rely on that revenue. It would be crippling to see it taken away from them.
Good ol' capitalism at work, cutting the tree at the top and not caring who it falls on.
On May 19 2014 08:56 Larkin wrote: Well I hope it doesn't affect the personal income of streamers too much. It will suffer, but perhaps a larger audience will compensate (I imagine YouTube's streaming service will cease to exist after this).
A lot of streamers rely on that revenue. It would be crippling to see it taken away from them.
Good ol' capitalism at work, cutting the tree at the top and not caring who it falls on.
I hope google keep that and replace twitches service, because youtube streaming is lightyears ahead of twitches offerings. In terms of both streaming itself and watching without any lag/delay.
I have no idea why people are hating on Google. Google is an awesome company, and I think what they did to YouTube was good overall. They will surely make Twitch better, and it will also give more attention to eSports
On May 19 2014 08:50 [SXG]Phantom wrote: lol google ruined you tube? Sure.
Well maybe it's me who thinks this, but google seem to somehow go backwards in terms of features and functionality of all their services.
Niconico for example has features in it that Youtube should've had years ago, some of them eventually got added in, then consequentally removed again. Somehow the UI on Youtube has gotten worse and worse as the years have gone on too.
Then again, I don't really like twitches anything either, their network infrastructure is a total joke so hopefully having google on side will help.
I can personally see someone setting up a "new twitch" because the amount of streamers who will be hit with copyright just for listening to music will skyrocket.
"A new twitch" requires a lot of venture capital and probably even more now if twitch really does get bought out by Google. Azubu is trying to compete with Twitch and is falling pretty flat right now in the extremely unscientific method of comparing viewer numbers of streamers post twitch to their twitch days. Voyboy, huge LoL streamer who got 11k on a good evening? Scrapes up about 1.5k on Azubu. MLG seems to be an interesting alternative but their model right now is heavily focused on CoD, events they run themselves and seemingly random people like Idra.
Could you sell VC people on a market where your main and direct (not much room for creating a niche in a niche sector) competitor is Google?
Probably a good thing. People always cried about how awful Twitch was, now they will get solid backing from Google's endless supply of resources and they are crying b/c they might have to use their "real name" (*gasp*) on the internet and won't be able to troll in a pool of stupidity anymore *gasp*.
Edit: Twitch's mobile app also leaves a lot to be desired, as does a lot of other facets of their website. Twitch should only continue to get better with this.
On May 19 2014 08:43 FiWiFaKi wrote: Wow, twitch is worth over a billion? Didn't think it was that much.
I don't really know what to think of this. I like google as a company, and they have the better infrastructure... I like it.
Google does a bunch of ostensibly nice things to make you like them. They provide free, simple, and reliable email, free storage for all sorts of different documents through google drive, a free (and fast) web browser, tons of good pr from their weird tech experiments and the amenities of the googolplex, etc.
However, look at their actions and you'll see that they truly wish to dominate in almost all aspects of the tech industry, and thanks to their data collection and custom tailored advertisements, they can simply buy out those that truly outcompete them.
Now all I want to do is get a startup going.
I'm not refuting what you're saying, but would you mind expanding on some examples? And some links to where this is evident? I just like google, and would like to educate myself better in it.
I can't even remember the 'old' Youtube, when you go through UI change after UI change it gets hard to recall specifics. There is still a lot of stuff I would prefer implemented or brought back, but Google's shit works for the most part and they're ahead of the curve in a lot of areas. What I can understand concern about is the sheer size of Google and what a stifling effect it could have on a competitive marketplace.
As to stuff on copyright claims, yeah Google should tweak how flagging etc is done, unfortunately they can't realistically say 'fuck you' to GEMA and the likes who make these claims.
I don't see Twitch as one such places. In fact within that particular market their pseudo-monopoly is detrimental to the user experience IMO, literally every LR will contain somebody with some problems with the service.
On May 19 2014 09:14 ACrow wrote: So, that means TL will soon be sponsored by google (per proxy)?
And wouldn't it be the same for other teams/organizations sponsored by twitch, as well? Could they potentially get dropped by Google/Twitch after the acquisition?
On May 19 2014 08:41 SpikeStarcraft wrote: Before Google Youtube was just a page for funny videos. After Google its a place where people can earn their living.
I would expect that monetization would get a lot better because more companies would run their ads through twitch. Which is a huge problem currently.
I actually never thought about it like this. It seems like they still did a lot of good work for youtube.
On May 19 2014 09:12 Boucot wrote: I like Google, I like YouTube. YouTube's VOD tech + Twitch's live tech + Google's servers seems to be a pretty nice combo IMO.
Just imagine what a Twitch stream will look/sound like. No music for the streamers, no music between the matches of the tournaments... We will watch and play games silently. Wonderful. Not to mention the awesome Google Ads. Twitch will be great.
Please no. Google has slowly become the enemy over the past several years. Using anything related to google (outside of searches) has become a pain in the ass. Please don't touch twitch
I think a lot of people don't understand Google's decisions. Some think it's all about greed, and I would say part of it is greed. Google delivers a great product, so they control the price, which is free! They understand marketing, and have found a solution to maximize the most out of every dollar invested. The amount of data allows them to cater ads to you so specific, that the companies advertising along with the publisher, all make money.
So they found a way to print money through advertising. Not so greedy, but still an advantage for the publisher.
Some say G ruined YT, but how many know they bought YT just before bankruptcy. Before G, YT was being bombarded with lawsuits that almost put them under. After G, anyone that wanted to stay could stay. Everyone stayed. They fired no one, and took care of all the lawsuits.
So the big greedy company delivers a great free product; then saves YT from near death. And now people complain about YT having G+. In fact, I like it and I am sad they decided to stop doing that. It put accountability on the internet, which many would agree is necessary.
I know a lot of people resent Google for being such a large company, but you have to understand everytime they buy up a company, no one is ever fired. That is what they mean by doing no evil.
And as many have suggested, with Google buying up Twitch, all our favourite content developers (this includes Polt, who is fucking amazing to watch) will get rich off all those stupid ads. I hate them, but because I know it is benefiting Polt I watch some.
Now if you ask me, I want Tw to tell G to fuck off. I truly don't think Tw needs G, but I imagine if it does happen G will slowly release small changes but still try to retain the original identity of Tw.
There are pros and cons of G acquiring Tw, but I think Tw knows they have a great product. I would imagine if that number went up to $2b, Tw can't say no.
The Wall Street Journal's story suggests the talks may be at a much more early phase, and far from a done deal like the Variety article suggests. Let's see how this unfolds.
I hope the structure that was established at Twitch remains for the better of the streaming partners... Though, one thing I fear without equal is the "updates" google will bring to twitch. It is no mystery that youtube's UI has been all over the place, and imo, is only getting worse.
faces above that they approach this in a more hands off manner.
I imagine the adsense and such will increase in value, which is good for those who do this for a living. If I am not mistaken the CPM on established youtube partners is nearly double? or triple? the CPM rate of starting partners on twitch atm... which is pretttttttty good... + Show Spoiler +
this is based on the twitchbux i signed vs what someone with a partnership on youtube has told me about theirs. also, husky is rich son
I'm not seeing a huge problem with this? There's other streaming services if it actually gets bad which I don't really think it will. Guess we may find out though.
On May 19 2014 09:34 vult wrote: Well this isn't good...
why isn't it good?
i see plenty of advantages, especially in improving twitch's core service, which is streaming. we've all experienced that excruciating twitch lag. it will most likely help monetisation as well
Oh my god, I just realized... please jesus god almighty do not make us have a google+ account to watch twitch.tv................... if this happens......
I am POSITIVE 99% of the viewers who are there for fun do not want to sign up with their real name, date of birth, hospital of birth, current position on a map, mothers maiden name, credit card number, social security number, and 4 digit pin to your bank to post in the twitch chat. I can only imagine how destructive that would be to the copy pasta culture D;
Pros : -Better streamer revenue balance ( ie : Everyone will earn the same amount of money regardless of where they're from ) -Better servers -Better video encryption -Directly posting vods on YT -Google knowledge and engineering means ( I love twitch but google is #1 worldwide ) -Better mobile app, stream on you adroid phone ?
Cons : -Google lobbying ( use your g+ account to connect bullshit ) -Google Copyright policy -Possible censor in some countries (UAE/China...) -Information gathering -Killing concurrence kills innovation, i'd rather have google create their own video game streaming platform and provide new ideas.
On May 19 2014 09:34 vult wrote: Well this isn't good...
why isn't it good?
i see plenty of advantages, especially in improving twitch's core service, which is streaming. we've all experienced that excruciating twitch lag. it will most likely help monetisation as well
I see twitch wanting to use you real name for twitchchat, prompting to ask for your phone number every few weeks, coupling your twitch account to your gmail and a stupid amount of UI changes that culminates in a bunch of shapeless vague gray icons instead of useful buttons and interface. Also pop up commercials that you have to click away.
1. Google makes no changes to the visual or user interaction of the site. 2. Google invests money to better the infrastructure globally 3. Advertising works effectively (sometimes content stops after ad) 4. Content developers get more CPM 5. They do implement G+ to chat/comment
On May 19 2014 08:34 Kiernan wrote: I hope the Twitch Guys just start a new Twitch with their knowlage. I bet Google will ruin Twitch like they ruined YouTube...
I agree completely Google ruined Youtube and they will ruin Twitch if they acquire them I hope this doesn't happen
I;m against Google, because I am against monopolies. Google has also been dabbling in biometrics, which could have immoral implications somewhere down the road.
On May 19 2014 10:16 Zooper31 wrote: The more I think about it the more I want G+ to be required to talk in twitch chat. Do you know how much shit that will immediately solve?!
soo what are the odds of a number of streams not being watchable from germany due to unclear copyright licenses? there is a whole bunch of youtube vids that you cannot access with a german ip.
On May 19 2014 10:16 Zooper31 wrote: The more I think about it the more I want G+ to be required to talk in twitch chat. Do you know how much shit that will immediately solve?!
You're probably one of those guys that likes calling the cops on a small house party a block down the street
On May 19 2014 10:16 Zooper31 wrote: The more I think about it the more I want G+ to be required to talk in twitch chat. Do you know how much shit that will immediately solve?!
You're probably one of those guys that likes calling the cops on a small house party a block down the street
Once and awhile having a loud party is fine. Not every night... 24/7 365...
I don't see how this can be anything but good. I'm sure the streamers would make more money because Youtube would be a little better at getting ad money from companies. Also I see people saying how Google ruined Youtube, but I don't remember the last time I looked up a video on a website that wasn't Youtube, or someone sent me a video link from website that wasn't Youtube.
Wow..... Must be a very exciting time for the owners of Twitch but at the same time I'm disappointed/sad. Google has made Youtube horrible and I very rarely use it anymore because I can't stand all the changes that have been made. About the only thing I use it for is Proleague VODs, I listen to music and watch videos elsewhere. Twitch provides a great product and sure it can use some improvements but I'm not so sure of Google.
I'm curious about how "big" of a monopoly this could become.
Some other things to consider: How will this affect current streamers? VODs? Subscriptions/subscribers? Will the UI change? For better or worse? What about CPM? How will this change? How about commercials? Will you still be able to use ad-block or will they do the MLG thing that stops the video unless you turn it off?
On May 19 2014 08:50 [SXG]Phantom wrote: lol google ruined you tube? Sure.
Hello, would you like to watch this video as X username or your real name? *click x username* Okay you are now watching as "real name"
expect all kinds of annoying google+ shit to be shoved into twitch, more ads, no more music, twitch chat will be reduced to nothing if everyone has to sign in with real names and will boring as hell.
On May 19 2014 10:16 Zooper31 wrote: The more I think about it the more I want G+ to be required to talk in twitch chat. Do you know how much shit that will immediately solve?!
You're probably one of those guys that likes calling the cops on a small house party a block down the street
twitch chat is more analogous to a trap house being crashed by a racist biker gang next door to your small house party and the bikers are trying to sell your guests meth
On May 19 2014 10:26 CParks wrote: I don't see how this can be anything but good. I'm sure the streamers would make more money because Youtube would be a little better at getting ad money from companies. Also I see people saying how Google ruined Youtube, but I don't remember the last time I looked up a video on a website that wasn't Youtube, or someone sent me a video link from website that wasn't Youtube.
I think everyone is just butt hurt that Google forced G+ onto it / keeps pestering you to change to G+. The UI has arguably gotten worse but it's still usable and still quite good compared to most other services.
On May 19 2014 10:24 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: amazingxkcd, what about all the racist comments before G+?
Youtube is putting accountability in the internet.
Just watched a Tracy Morgan interview and the most upvoted comment was how he looks like a gorilla/chimpanzee I don't think it's the racist idiots that are most worried about their information being stored and tracked on the internet
On May 19 2014 10:16 Zooper31 wrote: The more I think about it the more I want G+ to be required to talk in twitch chat. Do you know how much shit that will immediately solve?!
You're probably one of those guys that likes calling the cops on a small house party a block down the street
There's a distinct difference between a small party and having a gathering of random people scream random things at the top of their lounges for hours upon hours on end. One is perfectly fine and the other is retarded and really should be put to an end sooner rather than later.
If the Google actually puts a atop a o the idiocy that is twitch chat that alone would make up for just about anything bad they could do to twitch
This makes me feel like I'm the only person who hates hive-minded twitch chats that all yell meaningless meme trash for the sole reason of feeling like they belong with the other mindless twitch users. While I wouldn't necessarily like having to use my real name on Twitch because I try to keep my internet self and irl self entirely separate, that would solve more problems than it causes.
...unless they break the follow system and the GUI and the view counter and all my twitch add-ons (not adblock).
On May 19 2014 10:24 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: amazingxkcd, what about all the racist comments before G+?
Youtube is putting accountability in the internet.
Just watched a Tracy Morgan interview and the most upvoted comment was how he looks like a gorilla/chimpanzee I don't think it's the racist idiots that are most worried about their information being stored and tracked on the internet
you're insane if you think youtube comments haven't improved since the changes. i hate the new youtube and i hate google, but i have no desire to go back to the "democracy" of seeing literally every single comment be djones69420 saying "ur all faggets". at least a MAJORITY of comments now are relatively coherent
:| How in the world would the FTC allow this? This is basically the biggest video service taking over the biggest streaming service. It would basically make them a massive monopoly on user content.
I find it funny that this deal is only rumored to be worth 1 billion considering how Facebook bought Whatsapp for 16 or something billion worth in shares and cash and Oculus for 2 billion.
On May 19 2014 11:03 skylarr wrote: This could actually help esports alot... youtube is 10x the platform than twitch
Screw that we need to be alive not big! Videogame content is all over youtube and if you have any interest in games particularly competitive ones youtube is going to point you towards esports sooner rather than later.
I hadn't realized twitch had completely split from justin.tv. I supposed we could always go back and make them split videogames off again
I think this could be potentially a good thing... but I'm curious how Subscriptions will be handled with streamers. Will they leave the format the same? hmmm...
At the very least, talks are underway and it should be interesting to see where they go. If played right, Google can take Twitch and its users to much further places.
My biggest concern is that if this deal goes through that it does not impact the livelihoods of the Twitch broadcasters who use it as a source of income. If they destroyed the subscription model or something of that nature it could neuter all of the content creators that make Twitch great.
That said, after thinking about this the past couple of hours, I doubt that after spending $1 billion dollars that YouTube/Google would do such a thing as it would make the acquisition worthless. They no doubt have the money and engineering capability to create a Twitch infrastructure if that was their end goal, what they are buying IS these content creators as well as the user base who loyally use the service and log such a high average content watched per session.
Yeah G+ integration can be a bitch at times, but its not that hard to make a throwaway account if linking to your primary contact details is your biggest gripe with that. As long as they keep Twitch operating relatively the same, keep the primary (re: non executive) staff who run the company the same, I see this potential acquisition as a huge stepping stone and validation for an industry that those of us engaged in eSports/regular game streaming consumption sometimes may take for granted as knowing about. Think of the millions of people who know nothing about Twitch or video game streaming that will now get exposure to it through this purchase.
I remain optimistic about this deal until such a time that it is clear that the primary content creators on Twitch are being negatively impacted by this deal.
Are these not true? I'm curious what downsides people are seeing. Google has already backed down from g+ it seems, so I don't expect them to require g+ for twitch.
On May 19 2014 09:12 NKexquisite wrote: Probably a good thing. People always cried about how awful Twitch was, now they will get solid backing from Google's endless supply of resources and they are crying b/c they might have to use their "real name" (*gasp*) on the internet and won't be able to troll in a pool of stupidity anymore *gasp*.
Edit: Twitch's mobile app also leaves a lot to be desired, as does a lot of other facets of their website. Twitch should only continue to get better with this.
Right, I should use my real name and expose myself to the "pool of stupidity"--nothing dangerous about that.
On May 19 2014 08:43 FiWiFaKi wrote: Wow, twitch is worth over a billion? Didn't think it was that much.
I don't really know what to think of this. I like google as a company, and they have the better infrastructure... I like it.
Google does a bunch of ostensibly nice things to make you like them. They provide free, simple, and reliable email, free storage for all sorts of different documents through google drive, a free (and fast) web browser, tons of good pr from their weird tech experiments and the amenities of the googolplex, etc.
However, look at their actions and you'll see that they truly wish to dominate in almost all aspects of the tech industry, and thanks to their data collection and custom tailored advertisements, they can simply buy out those that truly outcompete them.
Now all I want to do is get a startup going.
preach my friend =) thumps up however monopoly is never good unless its a natural monopoly.
why does youtube not stream movies or "live" of the people that use youtube.example live music show from peoples homes with a dash of security recordings. I would like to see more options on xbox at twitch. I miss the old youtube rating system. is the content of movies on youtube advertising method or stolen? or is movie makers afraid? facebook vs twitch vs blizz vs google. why does youtube not start their own same with blizz it appears risky. blizz or other gaming companies could show or give players option to show with a delay option. it doesnt get much riskier. if blizz and other companies had such plans probably prompt such a sale. if these companies is that valuable why they dont expand to live good quality chat. if there was starcraft 2 equal with good video chat I would consider playing it instead. if there is one please message me. imagine watching participants from favorite talent shows live. why does youtube not take their natural expansion? twitch fake bet natural expansion. is youtube afraid twitch will expand to something similar to youtube? teamliquid.net good video chat cafe expansion? teamliquid.net card hero game expansion? teamliquid.net video puzzle of starcraft 2 expansion? teamliquid.net.tv?
On May 19 2014 12:45 WilliamDonaldLewis wrote: why does youtube not stream movies or "live" of the people that use youtube.example live music show from peoples homes with a dash of security recordings. I would like to see more options on xbox at twitch. I miss the old youtube rating system. is the content of movies on youtube advertising method or stolen? or is movie makers afraid? facebook vs twitch vs blizz vs google. why does youtube not start their own same with blizz it appears risky. blizz or other gaming companies could show or give players option to show with a delay option. it doesnt get much riskier. if blizz and other companies had such plans probably prompt such a sale. if these companies is that valuable why they dont expand to live good quality chat. if there was starcraft 2 equal with good video chat I would consider playing it instead. if there is one please message me. imagine watching participants from favorite talent shows live. why does youtube not take their natural expansion? twitch fake bet natural expansion. is youtube afraid twitch will expand to something similar to youtube? teamliquid.net good video chat cafe expansion? teamliquid.net card hero game expansion? teamliquid.net video puzzle of starcraft 2 expansion? teamliquid.net.tv?
Can someone decipher this for me? I am hoping that everything turns out well for the community of streamers and viewers.
On May 19 2014 12:45 WilliamDonaldLewis wrote: why does youtube not stream movies or "live" of the people that use youtube.example live music show from peoples homes with a dash of security recordings. I would like to see more options on xbox at twitch. I miss the old youtube rating system. is the content of movies on youtube advertising method or stolen? or is movie makers afraid? facebook vs twitch vs blizz vs google. why does youtube not start their own same with blizz it appears risky. blizz or other gaming companies could show or give players option to show with a delay option. it doesnt get much riskier. if blizz and other companies had such plans probably prompt such a sale. if these companies is that valuable why they dont expand to live good quality chat. if there was starcraft 2 equal with good video chat I would consider playing it instead. if there is one please message me. imagine watching participants from favorite talent shows live. why does youtube not take their natural expansion? twitch fake bet natural expansion. is youtube afraid twitch will expand to something similar to youtube? teamliquid.net good video chat cafe expansion? teamliquid.net card hero game expansion? teamliquid.net video puzzle of starcraft 2 expansion? teamliquid.net.tv?
What????
Youtube does have a streaming service... Google is not buying Twitch for their shitty service, they are buying it for the content creators and brand.
So it looks Microsoft and others made offer to twitch but they rejected them because they think google and youtube would be a better fit for the service and help them grow more:
On May 19 2014 09:12 NKexquisite wrote: Probably a good thing. People always cried about how awful Twitch was, now they will get solid backing from Google's endless supply of resources and they are crying b/c they might have to use their "real name" (*gasp*) on the internet and won't be able to troll in a pool of stupidity anymore *gasp*.
Edit: Twitch's mobile app also leaves a lot to be desired, as does a lot of other facets of their website. Twitch should only continue to get better with this.
Right, I should use my real name and expose myself to the "pool of stupidity"--nothing dangerous about that.
People might have to act civiilzed, I know right...
On May 19 2014 13:14 BreAKerTV wrote: Personally I would rather have Microsoft picking up the slack than google. Anyone else with me?
lol... no thanks. Microsoft has ruined everything they've owned / purchased.
Agreed, look at Skype. Microsoft can keep its fucking fingers away from Twitch, same for Apple. Google only rightful heir if it ever has to come to this.
On May 19 2014 13:14 BreAKerTV wrote: Personally I would rather have Microsoft picking up the slack than google. Anyone else with me?
lol... no thanks. Microsoft has ruined everything they've owned / purchased.
Agreed, look at Skype. Microsoft can keep its fucking fingers away from Twitch, same for Apple. Google only rightful heir if it ever has to come to this.
Well, what does this mean for the streamers like myself?
On May 19 2014 13:14 BreAKerTV wrote: Personally I would rather have Microsoft picking up the slack than google. Anyone else with me?
lol... no thanks. Microsoft has ruined everything they've owned / purchased.
Agreed, look at Skype. Microsoft can keep its fucking fingers away from Twitch, same for Apple. Google only rightful heir if it ever has to come to this.
Well, what does this mean for the streamers like myself?
No one knows yet, might mean absolutely nothing. Heck it's still a rumor tbh at this point and not even confirmed.
On May 19 2014 08:46 Lobotomist wrote: Nooooooooooooooooooooo. I really don't like Google's push towards one account tied to your real name, and haven't logged in to YouTube since the change. Twitch, it seems, will suffer the same fate.
I've heard that Google stopped doing this, or is planning to stop doing it.
On May 19 2014 13:14 BreAKerTV wrote: Personally I would rather have Microsoft picking up the slack than google. Anyone else with me?
lol... no thanks. Microsoft has ruined everything they've owned / purchased.
I can say the same about google. How many of their products were just closed or ruined (yes, I consider Youtube as ruined by now)? For how long G+ was pushed to every google product before they finally realized that people won't use anyway? How many weird experiements on users they did? Left aligned youtube anyone (and yes, I did fix it with scripts, but still)?
Also I believe google is pretty much the only search engine which forced safe search on for everyone in 2012. They did hide it in PR bluff, but instead of the old 3 options off/moderate/on, it has moderate/on now. You can see the difference in search results if you play around with user agents/old browsers even now.
"Don't be evil". That's not about google these days, that's for sure.
Well, if it can put more CPM in my pocket, I'm OK with it... But at the same time I don't want this to turn my twitch account in to something I am uncomfortable with.
EDIT: I remember the jump from Justin.tv to twitch.tv was just a little scary in the beginning.
Money is definitely great (especially for the streamers), but the question is whether a big corporation's goal is compatible with that of a start-up like Twitch's.
Twitch is definitely becoming more mainstream, but it still grants some autonomy towards its users.
Google, like any other big corporation, is also becoming mainstream, BUT the problem is how much regulation they exert on their properties like restricting certain types of music, suggesting more popular videos that bury some of the lesser known yet hidden gems (machinimas are a good example of how much it has been affected by the new youtube policy), and others.
Google can definitely help with the optimization of twitch, but I am very worried that it might simply hijack it, as it did with youtube...
EDIT: However, if Google can help twitch evolve from its abusive Kappa bullshit, then I would be happy with that. I mean ever since Google+ happened, the comment quality havs definitely improved!
Man google is trying for a monopoly even harder than micro$oft in the 90's. And given that everything they touch goes either really well or really horribly, I'm not sure how I feel about this. It will mean that a copy right crackdown is coming in regards to music and videos on streams. I can't wait to see take down trolls come to twitch.
However, if Google can help twitch evolve from its abusive Kappa bullshit, then I would be happy with that. I mean ever since Google+ happened, the comment quality havs definitely improved!
As long as I dont have to go into a proxy server to acces some twitch channels (like I have to with some stupid youtube videos).
You'd think a Danish IP wouldn't have those problems, and I don't get what you guys are worried about, pretty sure you allready have your twitch accounts, not like they'll force a gmail or a google + account down your throat.
This probally also means a new competitor to twitch will start eventually
On May 19 2014 10:16 Zooper31 wrote: The more I think about it the more I want G+ to be required to talk in twitch chat. Do you know how much shit that will immediately solve?!
You're probably one of those guys that likes calling the cops on a small house party a block down the street
There's a distinct difference between a small party and having a gathering of random people scream random things at the top of their lounges for hours upon hours on end. One is perfectly fine and the other is retarded and really should be put to an end sooner rather than later.
If the Google actually puts a atop a o the idiocy that is twitch chat that alone would make up for just about anything bad they could do to twitch
"People are doing things that I don't like and think is retarded, therefore it needs to end" I forgot why I stopped reading comments on internet websites, but you've reminded me
It's good for Twitch if they want to grow I think. Whether it's Google or Microsoft I don't really care (although I like Microsoft :D), but that's how this shit works.
now the streamers are in a horrible horrible spot because google might EASILY drop the cpm to their youtube level which might be the end of an era for a bunch of these guys
On May 19 2014 08:34 Kiernan wrote: I hope the Twitch Guys just start a new Twitch with their knowlage. I bet Google will ruin Twitch like they ruined YouTube...
Twitch has gone from good to ok to bad. So they can't ruin that much more(we don't even have 360p anymore). The exception is their stupid "one account for all google products" though.
As a German I have to say this sucks. Youtube and GEMA are making YT live streams and so many videos unwatchable already, I am really frightened they'll block all the Twitch streams as well. -.- May the proxy servers be with us.
Well this sucks. Considering how Google and Youtube have changed in the past couple of years, I can't see anything positive about this merging. Ad-revenue may go higher, but is it really worth it? It's detrimental for competition, and twitch is probably going to get worse in user-experience and quality.
On May 19 2014 08:34 Kiernan wrote: I hope the Twitch Guys just start a new Twitch with their knowlage. I bet Google will ruin Twitch like they ruined YouTube...
ruin twitch? what on earth? if anything they will make it better and run smoother lmao. great sale and buy for both.
On May 19 2014 15:10 Headnoob wrote: Youtube is a piece of shit now, time for twitch to get even worse than it is already.
they monetized it, whoopdeedoo. youtube is rolling in the money.
Meh. I like independent companies. It's nice for the Twitch guys that their brainchild gives them a fuckton of money, but I guess we as users will not benefit from this. I don't want every online account I have to be a subpart of google.
On May 19 2014 12:45 WilliamDonaldLewis wrote: why does youtube not stream movies or "live" of the people that use youtube.example live music show from peoples homes with a dash of security recordings. I would like to see more options on xbox at twitch. I miss the old youtube rating system. is the content of movies on youtube advertising method or stolen? or is movie makers afraid? facebook vs twitch vs blizz vs google. why does youtube not start their own same with blizz it appears risky. blizz or other gaming companies could show or give players option to show with a delay option. it doesnt get much riskier. if blizz and other companies had such plans probably prompt such a sale. if these companies is that valuable why they dont expand to live good quality chat. if there was starcraft 2 equal with good video chat I would consider playing it instead. if there is one please message me. imagine watching participants from favorite talent shows live. why does youtube not take their natural expansion? twitch fake bet natural expansion. is youtube afraid twitch will expand to something similar to youtube? teamliquid.net good video chat cafe expansion? teamliquid.net card hero game expansion? teamliquid.net video puzzle of starcraft 2 expansion? teamliquid.net.tv?
What????
Youtube does have a streaming service... Google is not buying Twitch for their shitty service, they are buying it for the content creators and brand.
A lot of Youtube content creators named Twitch as their exit strategy should Youtube policies get too restrictive (which they already kind of are). Now Youtube is making sure there is no alternative, and considering how difficult it is to start a service like that form scratch and become a competitor, there may never be one.
On May 19 2014 15:44 Talin wrote: This is really bad.
A lot of Youtube content creators named Twitch as their exit strategy should Youtube policies get too restrictive (which they already kind of are). Now Youtube is making sure there is no alternative, and considering how difficult it is to start a service like that form scratch and become a competitor, there may never be one.
Well, I have to ask you guys, do you think Blizzard is just going to let this happen? They are a twitch investor, and their content can be streamed live nowhere else while WCS and its partners are conducting all relative events (or so I believe).
On May 19 2014 08:34 Kiernan wrote: I hope the Twitch Guys just start a new Twitch with their knowlage. I bet Google will ruin Twitch like they ruined YouTube...
I agree completely Google ruined Youtube and they will ruin Twitch if they acquire them I hope this doesn't happen
Yup, youtube is so ruined. Who even uses that anymore?
Youtube streaming is way more reliable than twitch, if anything this will improve the service.
On May 19 2014 15:10 TheOneAboveU wrote: As a German I have to say this sucks. Youtube and GEMA are making YT live streams and so many videos unwatchable already, I am really frightened they'll block all the Twitch streams as well. -.- May the proxy servers be with us.
This is the true problem for us germans.... Everytime when I opened a video it is 90% blocked because of the GEMA .bullshit.
On May 19 2014 16:02 urboss wrote: You guys do realize that YouTube's streaming service is miles better than twitch?
Youtube is not 60 FPS capable if I recall correctly.
If I had to guess, I would say that maybe youtube would allow twitch streamers to stream independently while using youtube in and of itself as a back-up.
EDIT: I meant to say use youtube as an archiving system.
On May 19 2014 16:02 urboss wrote: You guys do realize that YouTube's streaming service is miles better than twitch?
Youtube is not 60 FPS capable if I recall correctly.
If I had to guess, I would say that maybe youtube would allow twitch streamers to stream independently while using youtube in and of itself as a back-up.
It wasn't 60 FPS capable, but they changed that.
Edit: nvm, it seems that live streaming is still in 30fps Anyway, the technology is there, so this should be easy to fix.
Im all for this, finally we will get some decent fucking European servers and it will improve the lag everyone other than Americans get when watching a stream when there is a LOL tournament on. Finally!!! Im pretty sure YouTube/Google whoever wont even touch the layout or anything, maybe add more things to link it to YouTube but it is going to be nothing to do with YouTube imo apart from an affiliate source to eachother. Twitch on its own generates money like YouTube does.
Also the big part of this is whether the Justice system even allows this to happen as YouTube and Twitch is pretty much 90% of the internet streaming market lol? That is going take a while to go through if at all?
Also, lol Microsoft was bidding for it ;o oh gosh. That probably would of been a cool outcome to see what they would of done to it haha
Glad it didn't go to someone like Zuckerberg though, probably would of switched to Afreeca if that happened
And yeah gz to Twitch guys on becoming millionaires :D
On May 19 2014 16:08 Jaaaaasper wrote: Its really not...
Pause and rewind. Less laggy in Europe. Lower res and frame rate.
I would take live pause and less lag over res and fps. And I do every time I watch LCS. The YouTube experience is enough better. Live pause and rewind is amazing. Never miss the start of an event. Start watching 30mins "late" and skip all the breaks to catch up over time.
Youtube is completely unwatchable here is germany without a proxy since half the content is being blocked due to "copyright violations" ... I dont want this to happen to twitch ;_;
On May 19 2014 16:34 SigmaoctanusIV wrote: I honestly didn't notice a difference when they bought youtube and I probably won't notice when they acquire twitch.
I'm with this guy.
But recently Nintendo threw a fit over YouTube awarding CPM to people who used Nintendo titles to increase their channel's viewership. So, youtube started giving all of that CPM money on youtube straight to Japan's pockets. Amazingly Nintendo did not try to do any such thing to twitch.tv. No lawsuits or threats or statements of that nature.
I'm thinking everyone's biggest concern would be something like that happening to streamers - their money being taken from them at any given moment.
Twitch service is already awful in China because they don't have local servers/nodes, but if it becomes a part of Youtube, then it will simply be blocked.
I don't feel comfortable knowing google will buy twitch honestly. Even tho they have all the $$ in the world i have a feeling they will do more harm to what we came to love and use almost daily, than good.
But from a business point of view, if i were Twitch, i would sell it in a heartbeat. I mean come on..1 billion....that's more 0''s then most can count.
So yea...let's not forget Twitch is a business first.
On May 19 2014 16:51 endy wrote: Twitch service is already awful in China because they don't have local servers/nodes, but if it becomes a part of Youtube, then it will simply be blocked.
No more snipealot
I also wanted to bring this up. This is a big issue as well, but you might want to try looking in to douyu.tv, endy. I've heard that I can stream to this channel from outside of China and may one day be able to provide English broadcasts to it if you guys should want it.
Why would it be blocked? Twitch will continue as is because it's streams don't go against regulations. It streams games (MAYBE block some of those games). What u see now from twitch in China should still work.
Youtube is a whole other beast. You can put videos there lifetime and can cover ANY subject possible including delicate ones for which some countries may feel it's a bad thing. We don't want them politicians to feel threatened by the "internet truth" don't we? Twitch is just for games.
I honestly don't see how Twitch could ever be blocked in China as long as it continues doing what it did so far. Only difference now is u will see more adds then a teleshopping channel and also G+ integrated hardcore in it.
What i truly wonder even tho i am not a streamer myself, is how this move will influence stream payment and so on. Will they decrease/stay/increase? do the conditions change and so on. Personally i think the biggest impact will be on the streamers themselves who a big majority of them earn their living from streaming.
@Attunga ....it's a website...even if microsoft got its hands on it..how can they change a website in such a way to not work with your OS? Even then what would their benefit be from that because this site relies strictly on viewer numbers. That's a dumb statement sry.
On May 19 2014 17:08 ReboundEU wrote: @Attunga ....it's a website...even if microsoft got its hands on it..how can they change a website in such a way to not work with your OS? That's a dumb statement sry.
I hope Google doesn't get their hands on it. I like watching Twitch on my Windows computer and if Google bought it then it would obviously go Chrome/Android only. Also I wish I had Skype for android. Also I wish Microsoft websites worked outside IE.
On May 19 2014 16:51 endy wrote: Twitch service is already awful in China because they don't have local servers/nodes, but if it becomes a part of Youtube, then it will simply be blocked.
No more snipealot
I also wanted to bring this up. This is a big issue as well, but you might want to try looking in to douyu.tv, endy. I've heard that I can stream to this channel from outside of China and may one day be able to provide English broadcasts to it if you guys should want it.
Sorry I don't understand your post. Unless someone provides a restream on douyu.tv I won't be able to watch anything that used to be on twitch.tv
On May 19 2014 17:05 ReboundEU wrote: Why would it be blocked? Twitch will continue as is because it's streams don't go against regulations. It streams games (MAYBE block some of those games). What u see now from twitch in China should still work.
Youtube is a whole other beast. You can put videos there lifetime and can cover ANY subject possible including delicate ones for which some countries may feel it's a bad thing. We don't want them politicians to feel threatened by the "internet truth" don't we? Twitch is just for games.
I honestly don't see how Twitch could ever be blocked in China as long as it continues doing what it did so far. Only difference now is u will see more adds then a teleshopping channel and also G+ integrated hardcore in it.
Youtube and G+ are blocked, so depending on how they integrate/merge Twitch into Youtube, then it will definitely be blocked.
They already do basically BananaJunkie...and it will be 100% official when they put in practice that program of theirs to give internet to everyone on the planet via all satellites, they talked about last year. Every bit of information passes through google...and not just end-user data..we are talking government level data as well.
Should i also add they also know where u live? trololo
@Endy maybe they will come to an agreement to keep G+ out of it in China...they care more about viewership (which means $$) then to risk completely blocking it and literally have "a whole continent" less income...atleast that's how i personally think. Who knows what's in their minds. Let's just hope u guys are not effected.
Also this is great publicity pre the purchase. Every radio station, news site and news channel is talking about this deal which is great for Twitch.tv and the gaming industry ^_^ Get more people looking at Twitch.tv in the next 48hours and potentially get more viewers. Will be interesting if Google does in fact push more people into viewing Twitch.tv
Of the big companies(Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook) that might want to buy, and could buy Twitch, I'm not sure Google is either the best or the worst.
The redesign and forcing + on people for youtube make me say worry. But thinking what Facebook would have done instead of Google, make me a bit less worried.
Well given that I can barely use youtube as a German I guess I'll have to use proxies for twitch in the future. I guess this may improve CPM for streamers as it's hard to have it be less than what twitch is currently paying, but personally I would have preferred to see Microsoft buy them over Youtube. At least with MS there is the chance that they won't fuck twitch with all the crap google have done to youtube since they acquired it way back.
So everytime I said anything critical about the failure of a service that Twitch is, everyone was like "look, that's stupid, twitch is so small, they can't afford good content delivery, the gaming industry is sooo fringe, you can't comapre it to anything major" ... only to see that Google themselves think that it's worth $1 billion. Who looks stupid now, heh?
I for one couldn't be happier with this. It's finally a hope that I will be able to watch SC2 without constant lag issues, that the stream won't be interrupted in the middle of a game because Twitch just felt like putting all their serves offline for an hour. Because as much as everyone hates Google, their services have one unifing feature: they fucking work.
Also, I really don't get all this "Google ruined Youtube" talk. I don't know about enyone else, but I go to youtube to watch videos and what exactly changed on that? Oh, you now need G+ to participate in the most idiotic comment enviroment known to mankind? If you really, really care about that, you can always just make a fake one, as easily as you could make a youtube account before ...
On May 19 2014 18:31 opisska wrote: So everytime I said anything critical about the failure of a service that Twitch is, everyone was like "look, that's stupid, twitch is so small, they can't afford good content delivery, the gaming industry is sooo fringe, you can't comapre it to anything major" ... only to see that Google themselves think that it's worth $1 billion. Who looks stupid now, heh?
Being able to invest in content delivery contracts/infrastructure has nothing to do with how much Google thinks they are worth. cash =/= capitalization
As long as they keep Google+, silly copyright shit like not being allowed to play music on stream and monthly UI overhauls (the Twitch UI is fine as it is) away I don't mind it happening. In fact, due to Google's enormous piles of cash and infrastructure it could even end up being beneficial.
Part of me is apprehensive Google will screw it up in some way. My primary concern is that the streamers are not affected negatively at all. Some of them seriously rely on the revenue from streaming their content, and it would be terrible to see that detrimented.
not sure whether this is a good thing or not. obviously this is likely bad for the likes of our german/chinese friends for copyright/outright blocking reasons, and this may be bad for streamers if they reduce ad revenues (although i think they just push more towards donations/subs instead in that instance), although if the end result is greater viewer numbers to compensate and more stable systems then it could be a wash. remaining neutral for now
edit - although that it is google is a concern, they probably end up making continual pointless UI changes, see also gmail, youtube, it's an issue not restricted to them to be fair, see also facebook
On May 19 2014 10:49 Badboyrune wrote:
If the Google actually puts a atop a o the idiocy that is twitch chat that alone would make up for just about anything bad they could do to twitch
1) nobody forces you to read twitch chat, just close it 2) ANY stream with large numbers of viewers will have the same problems, and partnership with google will likely make things worse if it just results in larger number of casuals 3) you're probably just watching the wrong streams. personally, i'm the other way and have stopped watching various streamers who incorporate way too restrictive chat moderation, i can point you in their direction if you wish. some of us watch twitch to have fun and streamer/chat interaction is part of that. shocking, i know
On May 19 2014 17:11 Lonyo wrote: I hope Google doesn't get their hands on it. I like watching Twitch on my Windows computer and if Google bought it then it would obviously go Chrome/Android only. Also I wish I had Skype for android. Also I wish Microsoft websites worked outside IE.
Except that Google has a history of being cross platform. MS on the other hand has their own products such as the XBox, if history is anything to go by then they are more likely to throw more resources at products that support their operating systems and products.
Skype is a good example, good you brought that one up. Give me Google any day over MS.
On May 19 2014 19:07 sixfour wrote: not sure whether this is a good thing or not. obviously this is likely bad for the likes of our german/chinese friends for copyright/outright blocking reasons, and this may be bad for streamers if they reduce ad revenues (although i think they just push more towards donations/subs instead in that instance), although if the end result is greater viewer numbers to compensate and more stable systems then it could be a wash. remaining neutral for now
edit - although that it is google is a concern, they probably end up making continual pointless UI changes, see also gmail, youtube, it's an issue not restricted to them to be fair, see also facebook
If the Google actually puts a atop a o the idiocy that is twitch chat that alone would make up for just about anything bad they could do to twitch
1) nobody forces you to read twitch chat, just close it 2) ANY stream with large numbers of viewers will have the same problems, and partnership with google will likely make things worse if it just results in larger number of casuals 3) you're probably just watching the wrong streams. personally, i'm the other way and have stopped watching various streamers who incorporate way too restrictive chat moderation, i can point you in their direction if you wish. some of us watch twitch to have fun and streamer/chat interaction is part of that. shocking, i know
About Twitch chat, Twitch chat is awesome for anything other than SC2 tournament streams i see. I for one watch the king of trolls in Sodapoppin and his chat is fucking awesome, its just a bunch of trolling and stupidity. That is great when you know that and dont need to discuss anything it.
On May 19 2014 08:52 jinglesassy wrote: I Dont know why people are saying they are going to force google plus onto twitch if this turns out to be real. They recently cut alot of the people on the google plus project and they said they are working on ending forced integration so i dont see why it would be any different for this potential acquisition.
This better be true... Or else heads are gonna roll... I mean at Google, not your head of course. >
This might suck for Germany especially, since there is always GEMA trouble with youtube. If that's not the case this might be cool, for better servers and vods etc.
I'm not sure why people are focusing on G+ and possible "google screwing it up" problems. Isn't the real problem that youtube and twitch are content sources without par, and more consolidation just ends up meaning fewer choices? Most internet things nowadays boil down to 1-3 choices, and the more choices, the more the companies involved have to vaguely try. Look at the shit Apple and Microsoft get to pull off, respectively in prices and in generally inferior, buggy products that add ultra annoying new features every iteration. Hell, look at the shit Facebook gets to pull off because it's alone in its field. Or, God save us all, Comcast. Monopolies/Oligopolies are usually formed by companies that turn out really good products, and all the companies in question did. Then most of them got lazy, because once you have no competitors, who cares what you do?
I just hope they don't introduce region locking. It is incredibly annoying to open a youtube video only to find I can't watch it because I live in the wrong country.
On May 19 2014 14:34 Survivor61316 wrote: Wow Twitch is worth over 1 Billion dollars and they can't afford to pay their streamers enough to earn a living off of..sad
People who want to make a living off streaming know that's a risk they take. Twitch is not their employer, they can give them whatever cut of money earned by advertising they want. Real jobs are still the best option if you want a steady, risk-free income each month.
I never really understood this way of earning money. You can do it for a couple of years max before you grow to old or the industry jumps on to the next big fad. After that you will have to find a - real - job and be able to explain that all your professional experience is basically broadcasting yourself while you play video games. You may have gotten some technical experience with broadcasting software, but that's about it.
On May 19 2014 20:30 SupaChicken wrote: I just hope they don't introduce region locking. It is incredibly annoying to open a youtube video only to find I can't watch it because I live in the wrong country.
That's different case. Region locking is a requirement if you want to put on YT copyrighted material that you have limited license for. The alternative would be to remove the material completely from YT so you can imagine that region locked material is better than no material.
So far nobody wanted to stream something with similar limitation although I wonder if someone will target music played by players when streaming (as they are essentially broadcasting music like small radio station).
On May 19 2014 14:34 Survivor61316 wrote: Wow Twitch is worth over 1 Billion dollars and they can't afford to pay their streamers enough to earn a living off of..sad
People who want to make a living off streaming know that's a risk they take. Twitch is not their employer, they can give them whatever cut of money earned by advertising they want. Real jobs are still the best option if you want a steady, risk-free income each month.
I never really understood this way of earning money. You can do it for a couple of years max before you grow to old or the industry jumps on to the next big fad. After that you will have to find a - real - job and be able to explain that all your professional experience is basically broadcasting yourself while you play video games. You may have gotten some technical experience with broadcasting software, but that's about it.
This is true but the fad seems to be longer than you say. Sodapoppin is the only noteable streamer i know on the site that makes more money than sense from sitting in front of a webcam and streaming video games. He has over 4000 subs giving him $4.99 a month on top of people donating him around $200-300 a stream in where he streams 6 hours a day 6 days a week minimum. He has just moved into a house in Cali recently and this is probably going be scarying him a little. However he does have a YouTube channel on top of the sub money so im sure he will have "some" as it is. But it is an interesting time, i just hope it is all out in their air as quick as possible so we can see what plans the companies have.
How did Google do the YouTube take over? Did they just straight up replace the top dogs of YouTube and feed in Google people or was it more of a YouTube is still run by the YouTube team but with new ideas filtering in from hierarchy every now and then? If it is the latter then im pretty sure all we will see is a better product for the first 12 months before a big overhaul comes in. Also means that when the overhaul comes in it will be pretty different though XD
Count down until you no longer log on to the internet - you log on to "the google" :p
With the incredibly poor effort they put into their own youtube streaming, I can't see this improving twitch at all.
Not to mention all the recent crap that happened on youtube on their watch such as basically shutting down thousands of channels for no valid reasons and the period of the exploitable comment section. Also I'm sick of having g+ and gmail shoved at me! My account throws a hissy fit every time I log in using my hotmail email, it's frustrating.
I also generally don't like when competition gets diminished.
On May 19 2014 13:14 BreAKerTV wrote: Personally I would rather have Microsoft picking up the slack than google. Anyone else with me?
Yeah, because M$ has done such a great job with Skype, huh?
This will be terrible, YouTube is near unuseable without custom Scripts to make the Layout better.
Over exaggerate much? No idea what you do on Youtube but I just click Subscriptions and viola a list of videos...
Look at the Channel Pages etc. Back then everything was better. I was not on the YT Mainpage since Years, because its terrible and does not show me what I want. Back then you just had your Videos in a better, more compact layout.
I can almost always watch youtube videos in 720p, while I frequently have to change twitch stream from 480 to 360, and sometimes it stutters even in 360. If this means that twitch will get access to googles bandwidth, it'll be a great improvement for me.
I don't really approve of the shared login etc, but I dont mind it too much either.
do you really believe that twitch is worth only 1 billion dollar?
i think the site generates more profit than that in a year, so it's value should be much higher. especially since the site is on the uprising and with the fact that livestreaming gets more popular by the minute.
On May 19 2014 08:43 FiWiFaKi wrote: Wow, twitch is worth over a billion? Didn't think it was that much.
r u serious? Facebook paid 19 billion for a stupid chatprogramm (that every kid is using today although, before installing, it actually warns you, that it will save all your private data, pictures, calls, texts, your GPS data, your passwords onto their servers and sell some of it) Why shouldnt a service like twitch be worth that?
On May 19 2014 08:47 geokilla wrote: If this is true... Wow that'll be crazy. Hopefully it improves Twitch and gets rid of their bugs and stream lags. At the same time, I hate this world where it is dictated by money and corporations.
On May 19 2014 08:43 FiWiFaKi wrote: Wow, twitch is worth over a billion? Didn't think it was that much.
I don't really know what to think of this. I like google as a company, and they have the better infrastructure... I like it.
Instagram isn't worth a billion. Neither is Oculus VR.
sure it is. Instagram had millions of users and growing, meaning there is lots of personal data to sell. Not only at the useraccount, but think of what every picture on instagram also has in its EXIF data... Oculus has a huge potential to be the VR leader in games. PPL dont care if it is owned by FB now. Well some do, but the mass won't care, as the mass doesn't care about facebook or instagram or whatsapp in general. And if Oculus ever gets into more then games, like 3D using some internet stuff or similar things to google glass, it is ofc worth more then a billion.
On May 19 2014 09:12 Boucot wrote: I like Google, I like YouTube. YouTube's VOD tech + Twitch's live tech + Google's servers seems to be a pretty nice combo IMO.
on the technical side it is an absolute improvement. Twitch has lagged and was bugged so many times. Just recently, where I had to look at stephanos twitter account, to see how the game went, because all twitch streams were down...
On May 19 2014 09:12 Boucot wrote: I like Google, I like YouTube. YouTube's VOD tech + Twitch's live tech + Google's servers seems to be a pretty nice combo IMO.
Have fun using YouTube(now Twitch) in Germany...
which isn't youtubes fault, but GEMA. Other countries have the same "Verwertungsgesellschaft" but they don't act that stupid as the GEMA does...
On May 19 2014 09:12 Boucot wrote: I like Google, I like YouTube. YouTube's VOD tech + Twitch's live tech + Google's servers seems to be a pretty nice combo IMO.
Have fun using YouTube(now Twitch) in Germany...
which isn't youtubes fault, but GEMA. Other countries have the same "Verwertungsgesellschaft" but they don't act that stupid as the GEMA does...
Sure, but for us that does not really change a lot, right? No matter whos fault it is, both sides are acting stupid as fuck in that conflict and the viewers suffer the consequences. I can live with huge chunks of Youtube being only accessable by proxies, but Twitch as well? That wouldt be just awful.
On May 19 2014 22:04 atenthirtyone wrote: And we were worried about our Battle.Net Real IDs a few years ago. Now, we get to have Twitch chat linked with our Google+s.
Oh, the real life threats we will see... Or will we? now that the aggressor cannot hide in anonymity? Hmmm....
I took a look at other communities and news aggregation sites on the web. It looks like the general consensus is quite negative. So uh, yeah, people have similar concerns.
Im gonna go ahead and say goodbye in the name of the German community. We will disappear from viewership but only for a few that go through the trouble to circumvent the restrictions.
The ramifications will be interesting if this actually happens since WCS is done by a German company.
Hope Im wrong, but this could be really bad for German viewers.
I don't want Google to buy Twitch because I like competition in the market, but I don't understand why everyone thinks G will ruin Twitch.
First, when G bought YouTube, they saved YT from the brink of bankruptcy from lawsuits piled sky high. After buying YT, they kept all 67 original employees.
I don't like monopolies like many others, but Google is the least evil monopoly. We will see if the FTC approves this, because this is a huge acquisition.
Google still has to do the paperworks and jump the hoops the FTC makes, so this isn't 100% yet.
What I don't understand though, when G bought YT for $1.65b, YT really needed that lifeboat. Now G wants to buy Twitch for $1b, but Tw is no where near dead and can probably make $1b in revenue in a year or two.
Some people don't think Tw is worth $1b, but I think they are worth 2 because of the amount of content that gets developed on their platform.
I think in terms of operations this may be good for Twitch, and could help to solve some of the latency issues Twitch has been unwilling/able to address with users outside of the US.
I am laughing a bit at the Anti-Trust, or whatever the Justice Dpt. is thinking of doing because of market share.
On May 19 2014 19:47 Overtime wrote: R.I.P Twitch. You will be missed.
Another step for Skynet Google to complete internet & world domination.
That statement would be justified if G+ would have succeeded in winning casuals over FB.
G+ didn't succeed ? Well then I guess they have no other choice but to buy facebook too
Not gonna happen. There are a lot of companies ready to throw money and FB and some of them - inlcuding Microsoft and probably Apple - have a lot bigger cash reserves. Plus Zuckerberg is not selling.
So, one thing people fear is the google+ integration, because of what happened to youtube ? How come I have a youtube account, same as before, not showing my real name, not linked to anything g+ ? Am I an exception or are people acting a bit dumb about that ? I can post comments, publish videos. Maybe I couldn't get paid for that, don't know, don't care.
Only terrible thing (well, interface could be one, but that's a matter of taste I guess) was the shutdown of many channels because of copyrights. About which I'm fairly sure even Google wasn't too pleased, but maybe they got tired of receiving complaints from the copyrights holders. People seem to think that they did that to piss off the community or something, again, acting a bit dumb imo, it's probably way more complicated than that.
Yes, Google wants to pretty much rule the world. Yes, they want the monopoly over the internet, and are well on their way to do that. And considering what they have done so far, I'd be much happier with this becoming true than a lot of alternatives coming from governments or other firms (hullo Facebook). Hell, I even plan to help them achieve that...
As far as I'm aware twitch hasn't even turned a profit yet so I'm not sure why some people think they'll make a billion over the next few years. YouTube makes about ~5 USD revenue (not profit) per user a year, they have a billion users a month and a great ad system (from a monetization POV). Twitch has 45 million users and a rather crappy ad system.
On May 19 2014 22:59 Cynry wrote: So, one thing people fear is the google+ integration, because of what happened to youtube ? How come I have a youtube account, same as before, not showing my real name, not linked to anything g+ ? Am I an exception or are people acting a bit dumb about that ? I can post comments, publish videos. Maybe I couldn't get paid for that, don't know, don't care.
Only terrible thing (well, interface could be one, but that's a matter of taste I guess) was the shutdown of many channels because of copyrights. About which I'm fairly sure even Google wasn't too pleased, but maybe they got tired of receiving complaints from the copyrights holders. People seem to think that they did that to piss off the community or something, again, acting a bit dumb imo, it's probably way more complicated than that.
Yes, Google wants to pretty much rule the world. Yes, they want the monopoly over the internet, and are well on their way to do that. And considering what they have done so far, I'd be much happier with this becoming true than a lot of alternatives coming from governments or other firms (hullo Facebook). Hell, I even plan to help them achieve that...
I am a user who has kept his original youtube name. I have separated my g+ account and my youtube account by declining all the merging options. The only thing I hate about youtube is that they constantly reconfigure something that makes it that much harder for me to find what I am looking for. Hope that doesn't plague twitch post acquisition.
I think technology and interface wise there won't be any real issues to speak of, better servers, bigger corporate background should improve service quality. Gmail is an excellent product as has been for the past decade for example, chrome is nice as well. People being butthurt about g+ in youtube I realy don't get because you can circumvent that with 2 clicks. What I'm wary of is the legal team that will be a pain, the company patrolling streams for illegal music or anything deemed NSFW can put a dent in the nice grassroots feel twitch has right now
EDIT: Imagine chromecast integration and watching WCS in 1080p without having to fumble around with HDMI extenders!!
Yes, the nice 42 million provided by venture capitalists 'grassroots' feel. Some takeover was always coming, as was the copyright police if the website proved a success.
Wait 6 months and google-twitch will pester you to merge your twitch account with a google account or else you cannot participate in twitch chat or PMs or other stuff. Not much of a loss for me, as I can happily life without twitch chat (and youtube comments) but a dickmove nontheless.
I hope honest streamers will go the Total Biscuit route. As he closes comments in his youtube videos and refers to his reddit, honest streamers post google-aquisition should close the chat and link to a external website with IRC webchat and the embedded twitch stream.
There's this belief google is a god send company when really they're any other. When a small company gets acquired by a larger one the larger one is supposed to introduce efficiencies its gained through experience. What really happens is it introduces bloated traditions and slows down development.
As a rule of thumb I can see where you're coming from in that respect. Google do tend to produce a lot of good products and are still now doing so for the most part.
In terms of Twitch, I'm quite ambivalent until we see something more concrete , however within the streaming marketplace if anything it's Twitch's dominance that has seen it stagnate and really not push service improvements. Not that YouTube provides such things currently, but things like spoiler-free VoD capability is something many have cried out for and haven't really been implemented.
It was pleasant to use Twitch and the average people around you not knowing what that is (not making any conclusions about it), but now Google will make it famous. Ah well, it's for the good of games to get even bigger, so I'm happy, of course. But I'll miss the less popular Twitch.
On May 19 2014 17:49 crow_mw wrote: Comming soon - can't watch a stream unless you share it on Google+.
Im afraid this can get even worse. Cant watch stream cus ur not logged into g+. That whole g+ bullshit is scaring me as is cus im against fb and other shit like that but if that comes to twitch I might end up watching it for good or just a lurker no chatting cus ure not logged and ur not providing us your data...
"Here's some cash guy's someone take it" "money, money, money" "It's raining money!" "Dosh! Grab it while it's hot"
On May 19 2014 23:28 obesechicken13 wrote:when really they're any other.
Yeah, right, any other. I just looked at the biggest companies, where google ranks 50+, and you'd have to compare them to banks, oil companies, Apple and Microsoft. Could you keep a straith face saying they're the same ? Google isn't "godsent", of course, but at least they haven't screwed us yet, even though they totally could.
On May 19 2014 23:28 obesechicken13 wrote:when really they're any other.
Yeah, right, any other. I just looked at the biggest companies, where google ranks 50+, and you'd have to compare them to banks, oil companies, Apple and Microsoft. Could you keep a straith face saying they're the same ? Google isn't "godsent", of course, but at least they haven't screwed us yet, even though they totally could.
Yes. I can. It's not like google can somehow hire more talent than Microsoft or Apple or their company philosophy "do no evil" makes everyone at the company into saints. They follow the same agile development principles as any other big company and have the same types of teams. In human terms they put their pants on one leg at a time.
On May 19 2014 23:06 Derez wrote: As far as I'm aware twitch hasn't even turned a profit yet so I'm not sure why some people think they'll make a billion over the next few years. YouTube makes about ~5 USD revenue (not profit) per user a year, they have a billion users a month and a great ad system (from a monetization POV). Twitch has 45 million users and a rather crappy ad system.
When G bought YT, it was still earning no profit and it took years to finally make a business out of it.
On May 19 2014 23:59 Ctone23 wrote: Awesome news. Can't believe some people are disappointed... do you guys even business? Holy cow this is huge in terms of eSports legitimacy..
Not if they force themselves into using their "free services." I don't use Google and I don't want be forced to just to use Twitch. All this does is force a near monopoly.
On May 19 2014 23:28 obesechicken13 wrote:when really they're any other.
Yeah, right, any other. I just looked at the biggest companies, where google ranks 50+, and you'd have to compare them to banks, oil companies, Apple and Microsoft. Could you keep a straith face saying they're the same ? Google isn't "godsent", of course, but at least they haven't screwed us yet, even though they totally could.
Yes. I can. It's not like google can somehow hire more talent than Microsoft or Apple or their company philosophy "do no evil" makes everyone at the company into saints. They follow the same agile development principles as any other big company and have the same types of teams. In human terms they put their pants on one leg at a time.
Stop putting them on a pedestal.
Going that way, I could also tell you that they make money too, and that their compagny name uses letters and they have a logo. So they must be the same. Of course they are very close to Microsoft and Apple, although they tend to make better products than the first and are not as greedy as the second, but if you compare them to the other big companies I quoted and still stand on your ground, well, there is probably nothing I can do to make you think otherwise.
Edit : I do, though, totally admit that I'm biased. Maybe I put them on a pedestal, but how does that concern you ? Still, saying they're the same as any other compagny seems a bit of a stretch. As far as I know they harm no one making their money. Prove me wrong and I'll change my mind.
On May 19 2014 23:59 Ctone23 wrote: Awesome news. Can't believe some people are disappointed... do you guys even business? Holy cow this is huge in terms of eSports legitimacy..
+1 It's great news for e.sports and for the casters who will have access to a much wider ads network.
On May 19 2014 23:59 Ctone23 wrote: Awesome news. Can't believe some people are disappointed... do you guys even business? Holy cow this is huge in terms of eSports legitimacy..
And if only esports legitimacy was important enough to outweigh all the negative consequences of complete monopoly over a growing industry, that would matter.
If you "even business", you can bet they'll make the most out of the fact that there's literally nowhere else to take your content to, both on VOD and streaming side of things. If you think they're going to improve the quality of service just because of warm feelings they have for their user base, well... see how that goes.
Nobody that does business on Twitch or Youtube will enjoy the fact that there's no alternative other than adapting to whatever policies the owner of everything comes up with. Nor the fact that if this deal goes through, that alternative may never exist due to the entry barrier being pretty much insurmountable.
On May 19 2014 23:59 Ctone23 wrote: Awesome news. Can't believe some people are disappointed... do you guys even business? Holy cow this is huge in terms of eSports legitimacy..
And if only esports legitimacy was important enough to outweigh all the negative consequences of complete monopoly over a growing industry, that would matter.
If you "even business", you can bet they'll make the most out of the fact that there's literally nowhere else to take your content to, both on VOD and streaming side of things. If you think they're going to improve the quality of service just because of warm feelings they have for their user base, well... see how that goes.
Nobody that does business on Twitch or Youtube will enjoy the fact that there's no alternative other than adapting to whatever policies the owner of everything comes up with. Nor the fact that if this deal goes through, that alternative may never exist due to the entry barrier being pretty much insurmountable.
The supposed offer of 1 Billion is enough to garner attention from a wide range of investors. Youtube won't come in and completely re-design twitch. They "bought" Twitch on revenue statistics, etc, why would they screw everything up? Do you think they offered a billion... just because? No, they looked and ran out models to make a fair-market-value offer.
You seem to think you understand what the deal is structured like and the terms, but obviously you do not, no one does. To speculate on small details does nothing to speak to the $1 billion deal, those issues you mention are "a drop in the bucket" as they say, compared to a billion dollars.
People notice money, and now more and more will take a look at this "eSports" stuff going on. To talk of a monopoly implies that eSports has arrived to the main stream, which most certainly has not. You admit as much in your comment that literally no other services exist at the moment that offer what Twitch and Youtube do.
I don't remember how it was before Google acquired them, but didn't you need an account for anything already ? And if you wanted, couldn't you create an account only for youtube usage ?
Jesus, I thought they'd be worth a number of millions, but over a billion dollars is pretty insane. I don't think it would be a bad thing if it were to go through either. I'm sure a few things would change, but I bet there would be an increase in the platforms reliability and capacity for events with streams that have very large amounts of viewers.
On May 20 2014 01:28 Cynry wrote: I don't remember how it was before Google acquired them, but didn't you need an account for anything already ? And if you wanted, couldn't you create an account only for youtube usage ?
To chat and upload yes, but I didn't need a google email/ account. And I don't want one. Feels forced to go with their "services" for everything. Good for them, bad for the consumer, especially with Twitch is main game streaming, and Youtube main video uploader. Doesn't leave many choices.
Is Twitch even THAT big for E-Sports content? Outside of the current big hitters every time I log there are a lot of Let's Plays and people watching single player games as well.
The chances of a successful tech start-up not being bought out is practically nil, if not Google who would people of preferred to buy Twitch?
Of the tech giants Google seems to be to me the one that still has any vestiges of the people who were not there just for money but for humanity too. While profits have been much higher on Googles priorities lately, could you imagine if instead of google it was Comcast that was trying to buy Twitch? It's not ridiculous considering Comcast is beginning to understand that content production is mostly a money hole, it's all about content delivery. Which is why Comcast wants to own all of the cables, just imagine if they also owned the primary sites user generated content was hosted through?
People who remember the 'good ole days' will complain about changes but I imagine any new comers or people who only watched twitch occasionally wont even notice any significant changes.
Pretty torn on this, in a lot of ways I think YouTube is undoubtedly superior. Lagging and all the other problems Twitch suffers from shouldn't be a problem on YT, I also think it it might lead to a larger audience if they do any promotion on it. Since I'd argue the huge majority of people in the world have no idea esports even exists.
Having said that I agree with many of the points I've read on here, monopolies are rarely if ever a good thing. G+ integration is stupid and infuriating at times (Like constantly asking for my cell phone number and or real name, if I turned you down the first time do they really think I'm going to give it to them on the tenth?), and frankly YT has been getting worse and worse over the years, but because they are effectively a monopoly it's almost impossible to not use.
Pretty unlikely but I'm genuinely hoping Azubu does reasonably well if this deal does go through.
The idea that Twitch.tv might be soiled by the likes of Google+ makes me so very sad, but now the infrastructure to stream events live would be amazing. I'm torn.
On May 20 2014 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote: if not Google who would people of preferred to buy Twitch?
Preferably nobody.
If not that, then the company that already has a dominant presence in user generated gaming content would easily be the last on my list.
Hell, even if Comcast bought Twitch, they would still be competing against Youtube'services, and only competition can yield benefits to the users. It's not about the profile of the company, it's about how much of a specific market is already in their hands.
And no, there is no "humanity" in any of those corporations. Not Google, not Valve, nobody. It's more so that some of them maintain calculated public image to profit off of consumer good will, while others care less or see no direct benefit in that (it mostly depends on their consumer base). There's no good guys here.
On May 20 2014 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote: if not Google who would people of preferred to buy Twitch?
Preferably nobody.
If not that, then the company that already has a dominant presence in user generated gaming content would easily be the last on my list.
Hell, even if Comcast bought Twitch, they would still be competing against Youtube'services, and only competition can yield benefits to the users. It's not about the profile of the company, it's about how much of a specific market is already in their hands.
And no, there is no "humanity" in any of those corporations. Not Google, not Valve, nobody. It's more so that some of them maintain calculated public image to profit off of consumer good will, while others care less or see no direct benefit in that (it mostly depends on their consumer base). There's no good guys here.
Twitch was never up to snuff. Now they will be whether you guys like it or not. Monopoly money be coming. Deal with it.
O god another Google thing to ruin, will be shit, so I hope someone sets something better up. Id at least want some guarantees regarding payment for streamers and not messing about with the music rules.
i know a lot of people are down on this, but psyched to see what they do. It may be kind of nice to see what they do with all streaming and vods all in one place
On May 19 2014 23:28 obesechicken13 wrote:when really they're any other.
Yeah, right, any other. I just looked at the biggest companies, where google ranks 50+, and you'd have to compare them to banks, oil companies, Apple and Microsoft. Could you keep a straith face saying they're the same ? Google isn't "godsent", of course, but at least they haven't screwed us yet, even though they totally could.
Yes. I can. It's not like google can somehow hire more talent than Microsoft or Apple or their company philosophy "do no evil" makes everyone at the company into saints. They follow the same agile development principles as any other big company and have the same types of teams. In human terms they put their pants on one leg at a time.
Stop putting them on a pedestal.
Going that way, I could also tell you that they make money too, and that their compagny name uses letters and they have a logo. So they must be the same. Of course they are very close to Microsoft and Apple, although they tend to make better products than the first and are not as greedy as the second, but if you compare them to the other big companies I quoted and still stand on your ground, well, there is probably nothing I can do to make you think otherwise.
Edit : I do, though, totally admit that I'm biased. Maybe I put them on a pedestal, but how does that concern you ? Still, saying they're the same as any other compagny seems a bit of a stretch. As far as I know they harm no one making their money. Prove me wrong and I'll change my mind.
Like Microsoft and Apple, Google was one of the companies that gave private information to the NSA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) That's the only example I can think of where Google behaved like any other large company in doing something that could be considered evil.
Whatever. Twitch was pretty much a monopoly already ever since Azubu closed down and the software is already pretty decent. Google just has to not ruin that. Can't be hard. If it sucks, hopefully the community doesn't get too divided between a suckish streaming site and a good one.
On May 19 2014 23:28 obesechicken13 wrote:when really they're any other.
Yeah, right, any other. I just looked at the biggest companies, where google ranks 50+, and you'd have to compare them to banks, oil companies, Apple and Microsoft. Could you keep a straith face saying they're the same ? Google isn't "godsent", of course, but at least they haven't screwed us yet, even though they totally could.
Yes. I can. It's not like google can somehow hire more talent than Microsoft or Apple or their company philosophy "do no evil" makes everyone at the company into saints. They follow the same agile development principles as any other big company and have the same types of teams. In human terms they put their pants on one leg at a time.
Stop putting them on a pedestal.
Going that way, I could also tell you that they make money too, and that their compagny name uses letters and they have a logo. So they must be the same. Of course they are very close to Microsoft and Apple, although they tend to make better products than the first and are not as greedy as the second, but if you compare them to the other big companies I quoted and still stand on your ground, well, there is probably nothing I can do to make you think otherwise.
Edit : I do, though, totally admit that I'm biased. Maybe I put them on a pedestal, but how does that concern you ? Still, saying they're the same as any other compagny seems a bit of a stretch. As far as I know they harm no one making their money. Prove me wrong and I'll change my mind.
Like Microsoft and Apple, Google was one of the companies that gave private information to the NSA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) That's the only example I can think of where Google behaved like any other large company in doing something that could be considered evil.
Noted. Part of me still wants to argue (like, how do you even say no to the NSA ? Has there been any major compagny that said no to that ?) but that would be way off topic.
On May 19 2014 23:28 obesechicken13 wrote:when really they're any other.
Yeah, right, any other. I just looked at the biggest companies, where google ranks 50+, and you'd have to compare them to banks, oil companies, Apple and Microsoft. Could you keep a straith face saying they're the same ? Google isn't "godsent", of course, but at least they haven't screwed us yet, even though they totally could.
Yes. I can. It's not like google can somehow hire more talent than Microsoft or Apple or their company philosophy "do no evil" makes everyone at the company into saints. They follow the same agile development principles as any other big company and have the same types of teams. In human terms they put their pants on one leg at a time.
Stop putting them on a pedestal.
Going that way, I could also tell you that they make money too, and that their compagny name uses letters and they have a logo. So they must be the same. Of course they are very close to Microsoft and Apple, although they tend to make better products than the first and are not as greedy as the second, but if you compare them to the other big companies I quoted and still stand on your ground, well, there is probably nothing I can do to make you think otherwise.
Edit : I do, though, totally admit that I'm biased. Maybe I put them on a pedestal, but how does that concern you ? Still, saying they're the same as any other compagny seems a bit of a stretch. As far as I know they harm no one making their money. Prove me wrong and I'll change my mind.
Like Microsoft and Apple, Google was one of the companies that gave private information to the NSA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) That's the only example I can think of where Google behaved like any other large company in doing something that could be considered evil.
Whatever. Twitch was pretty much a monopoly already ever since Azubu closed down and the software is already pretty decent. Google just has to not ruin that. Can't be hard. If it sucks, hopefully the community doesn't get too divided between a suckish streaming site and a good one.
Own3d shut down. Azubu is making a push, and I have a feeling that the GEM represented players/personalities are getting behind to give it some extra oomf. (Take a look at who's been streaming recently on Azubu from the SC2 side of things.)
Not sure if I'd think of Azubu as serious competition at this point, but it seems to have name recognition over someone like hitbox. And unless you're French, you're unlikely to look at DailyMotion. Still, Twitch is the reigning giant in the market niche, and I can see them being pretty attractive to someone looking to expand into that space.
If Google buys Twitch, hopefully they leave it independent but offer monetary and technical support - without me having to say "No!" to a prompt and be told "Okay, we'll ask you again later..."
On May 19 2014 23:28 obesechicken13 wrote:when really they're any other.
Yeah, right, any other. I just looked at the biggest companies, where google ranks 50+, and you'd have to compare them to banks, oil companies, Apple and Microsoft. Could you keep a straith face saying they're the same ? Google isn't "godsent", of course, but at least they haven't screwed us yet, even though they totally could.
Yes. I can. It's not like google can somehow hire more talent than Microsoft or Apple or their company philosophy "do no evil" makes everyone at the company into saints. They follow the same agile development principles as any other big company and have the same types of teams. In human terms they put their pants on one leg at a time.
Stop putting them on a pedestal.
Going that way, I could also tell you that they make money too, and that their compagny name uses letters and they have a logo. So they must be the same. Of course they are very close to Microsoft and Apple, although they tend to make better products than the first and are not as greedy as the second, but if you compare them to the other big companies I quoted and still stand on your ground, well, there is probably nothing I can do to make you think otherwise.
Edit : I do, though, totally admit that I'm biased. Maybe I put them on a pedestal, but how does that concern you ? Still, saying they're the same as any other compagny seems a bit of a stretch. As far as I know they harm no one making their money. Prove me wrong and I'll change my mind.
Like Microsoft and Apple, Google was one of the companies that gave private information to the NSA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) That's the only example I can think of where Google behaved like any other large company in doing something that could be considered evil.
Whatever. Twitch was pretty much a monopoly already ever since Azubu closed down and the software is already pretty decent. Google just has to not ruin that. Can't be hard. If it sucks, hopefully the community doesn't get too divided between a suckish streaming site and a good one.
Own3d shut down. Azubu is making a push, and I have a feeling that the GEM represented players/personalities are getting behind to give it some extra oomf. (Take a look at who's been streaming recently on Azubu from the SC2 side of things.)
Not sure if I'd think of Azubu as serious competition at this point, but it seems to have name recognition over someone like hitbox. And unless you're French, you're unlikely to look at DailyMotion. Still, Twitch is the reigning giant in the market niche, and I can see them being pretty attractive to someone looking to expand into that space.
If Google buys Twitch, hopefully they leave it independent but offer monetary and technical support - without me having to say "No!" to a prompt and be told "Okay, we'll ask you again later..."
I didn't really like the way google took over youtube, trying to use it to force us to use their crappy products (like google plus) and ruining youtube in the process.
On May 20 2014 01:37 Wombat_NI wrote: Is Twitch even THAT big for E-Sports content? Outside of the current big hitters every time I log there are a lot of Let's Plays and people watching single player games as well.
Esports made twitch what it is today. However, it was a symbiotic relationship and twitch helped make esports what it is today as well. Esports titles still dominate it by a fair margin.
Here's the top 10 games on twitch right now. If you add up the viewers of the top 4 esports games lol, dota, cs and sc2 it accounts for about 73% of total viewers right now. I left out hearthstone right now because it can be an esport title too, but also a casual experience for people. However, I have no problem adding hearth to the esports total too and if I did, the number would rise to about 81%.
Sure people play single player pc games and there's let's plays on twitch, but the amount of viewers for those games are pretty small in comparison to esports viewers. The console revolution is still young, so not that fair to compare yet, but these are the top 10 streams for xbox one and ps4. They are paltry in comparison to pc games, let alone esports games.
This is djwheat, the gunrun and the rest of them right now as they count their millions!
However, this leads me to a question about former employees and whether or not they get to cash in too. Like I know 2gd worked for twitch, but that was a while ago, so not sure if he still has any stock after he left. However, I know that Jared Rae guy recently left twitch to work for 2k games. Is he going to miss out on the big pay day?
eSports definitely made Twitch that it is today. That being said they did do a relatively good job with Own3d shutting down. Hopefully this means another competitor will rise so we're not stuck with the Goog monopoly.
This is djwheat, the gunrun and the rest of them right now as they count their millions!
sirscootsgifmoney
However, this leads me to a question about former employees and whether or not they get to cash in too. Like I know 2gd worked for twitch, but that was a while ago, so not sure if he still has any stock after he left. However, I know that Jared Rae guy recently left twitch to work for 2k games. Is he going to miss out on the big pay day?
Does twitch have stock at all? I'd say it's probably the founders and the venture capitalists that suppported them who will get the money.
@Canucklehead only if those guys earn an equity share in the company. I highly doubt they do. Unless Twitch began as a private equity backed company, but even then, doubtful. I'm not really sure how Twitch got started, but for most private equity backed companies it goes like this:
Equity Firm puts up 75%, partners of company put up 25%
When they sell, firm gets 75% of net profit, partners get the other 25%. If those partners issued equity along the way, then yea those people will see some revenue.
On May 20 2014 04:38 Jerom wrote: Another attempt to make us use google plus?
I didn't really like the way google took over youtube, trying to use it to force us to use their crappy products (like google plus) and ruining youtube in the process.
This is djwheat, the gunrun and the rest of them right now as they count their millions!
However, this leads me to a question about former employees and whether or not they get to cash in too. Like I know 2gd worked for twitch, but that was a while ago, so not sure if he still has any stock after he left. However, I know that Jared Rae guy recently left twitch to work for 2k games. Is he going to miss out on the big pay day?
Good for them though. Well deserved for all the effort and time devoted to eSports.
On a side note, I hope DJWheat does some of the things he said he would do now that he's come into some real eSports dollars.
This is djwheat, the gunrun and the rest of them right now as they count their millions!
sirscootsgifmoney
However, this leads me to a question about former employees and whether or not they get to cash in too. Like I know 2gd worked for twitch, but that was a while ago, so not sure if he still has any stock after he left. However, I know that Jared Rae guy recently left twitch to work for 2k games. Is he going to miss out on the big pay day?
Does twitch have stock at all? I'd say it's probably the founders and the venture capitalists that suppported them who will get the money.
On May 20 2014 05:15 Ctone23 wrote: @Canucklehead only if those guys earn an equity share in the company. I highly doubt they do. Unless Twitch began as a private equity backed company, but even then, doubtful. I'm not really sure how Twitch got started, but for most private equity backed companies it goes like this:
Equity Firm puts up 75%, partners of company put up 25%
When they sell, firm gets 75% of net profit, partners get the other 25%. If those partners issued equity along the way, then yea those people will see some revenue.
I'm not sure about other industries, but in tech these days and certain at the stage when twitch was hiring those guys, you'd pretty much have to give your employees a slice to get them to come.
This is djwheat, the gunrun and the rest of them right now as they count their millions!
sirscootsgifmoney
However, this leads me to a question about former employees and whether or not they get to cash in too. Like I know 2gd worked for twitch, but that was a while ago, so not sure if he still has any stock after he left. However, I know that Jared Rae guy recently left twitch to work for 2k games. Is he going to miss out on the big pay day?
Does twitch have stock at all? I'd say it's probably the founders and the venture capitalists that suppported them who will get the money.
Well I don't mean publicly traded stock. You just always hear about employees from small startups striking it rich once they get bought out by a large company. Take whatsapp for example.
Yesterday, Facebook bought messaging app WhatsApp for $19 billion — $12 billion in stock, $4 billion in cash, and another $3 billion in stock grants for employees that will vest over the next four years.
How much will WhatsApp's employees make in the deal?
We don't know how that $3 billion will be divided.
We do know the $12 billion in stock and $4 billion in cash will be divided among Whatsapp owners.
Whatsapp employees own a piece of the company.
How much?
Forbes' Parmy Olson reports: "Early employees are said to have comparatively large equity shares of close to 1%."
This is djwheat, the gunrun and the rest of them right now as they count their millions!
sirscootsgifmoney
However, this leads me to a question about former employees and whether or not they get to cash in too. Like I know 2gd worked for twitch, but that was a while ago, so not sure if he still has any stock after he left. However, I know that Jared Rae guy recently left twitch to work for 2k games. Is he going to miss out on the big pay day?
Does twitch have stock at all? I'd say it's probably the founders and the venture capitalists that suppported them who will get the money.
Well I don't mean publicly traded stock. You just always hear about employees from small startups striking it rich once they get bought out by a large company. Take whatsapp for example.
Yesterday, Facebook bought messaging app WhatsApp for $19 billion — $12 billion in stock, $4 billion in cash, and another $3 billion in stock grants for employees that will vest over the next four years.
How much will WhatsApp's employees make in the deal?
We don't know how that $3 billion will be divided.
We do know the $12 billion in stock and $4 billion in cash will be divided among Whatsapp owners.
Whatsapp employees own a piece of the company.
How much?
Forbes' Parmy Olson reports: "Early employees are said to have comparatively large equity shares of close to 1%."
Ready to have your mind blown?
1% of $16 billion is …
… $160 million.
Right but in this case I doubt most of these guys have a percent. Probably less than a quarter point. Even if you have 1/10 of a percent. That's 1 million.
On May 20 2014 05:15 Ctone23 wrote: @Canucklehead only if those guys earn an equity share in the company. I highly doubt they do. Unless Twitch began as a private equity backed company, but even then, doubtful. I'm not really sure how Twitch got started, but for most private equity backed companies it goes like this:
Equity Firm puts up 75%, partners of company put up 25%
When they sell, firm gets 75% of net profit, partners get the other 25%. If those partners issued equity along the way, then yea those people will see some revenue.
I'm not sure about other industries, but in tech these days and certain at the stage when twitch was hiring those guys, you'd pretty much have to give your employees a slice to get them to come.
Absolutely, it's the driving factor in getting talented people away from corporate America. Just not sure how many people they included a long the way. If you come cast a couple of tournaments, do I really want to give you equity?
This is djwheat, the gunrun and the rest of them right now as they count their millions!
sirscootsgifmoney
However, this leads me to a question about former employees and whether or not they get to cash in too. Like I know 2gd worked for twitch, but that was a while ago, so not sure if he still has any stock after he left. However, I know that Jared Rae guy recently left twitch to work for 2k games. Is he going to miss out on the big pay day?
Does twitch have stock at all? I'd say it's probably the founders and the venture capitalists that suppported them who will get the money.
Well I don't mean publicly traded stock. You just always hear about employees from small startups striking it rich once they get bought out by a large company. Take whatsapp for example.
On May 20 2014 05:15 Ctone23 wrote: @Canucklehead only if those guys earn an equity share in the company. I highly doubt they do. Unless Twitch began as a private equity backed company, but even then, doubtful. I'm not really sure how Twitch got started, but for most private equity backed companies it goes like this:
Equity Firm puts up 75%, partners of company put up 25%
When they sell, firm gets 75% of net profit, partners get the other 25%. If those partners issued equity along the way, then yea those people will see some revenue.
I'm not sure about other industries, but in tech these days and certain at the stage when twitch was hiring those guys, you'd pretty much have to give your employees a slice to get them to come.
Absolutely, it's the driving factor in getting talented people away from corporate America. Just not sure how many people they included a long the way. If you come cast a couple of tournaments, do I really want to give you equity?
Worth noting, DJWheat does more than just cast - he actually has position as a new media person. Not sure of the specifics of his position (he's mentioned it a few times while streaming) but I think it has to do with developing new opportunities for Twitch on different platforms. (I could be wrong - but he specifically does more for Twitch than just being a pretty face.)
On May 20 2014 05:15 Ctone23 wrote: @Canucklehead only if those guys earn an equity share in the company. I highly doubt they do. Unless Twitch began as a private equity backed company, but even then, doubtful. I'm not really sure how Twitch got started, but for most private equity backed companies it goes like this:
Equity Firm puts up 75%, partners of company put up 25%
When they sell, firm gets 75% of net profit, partners get the other 25%. If those partners issued equity along the way, then yea those people will see some revenue.
I'm not sure about other industries, but in tech these days and certain at the stage when twitch was hiring those guys, you'd pretty much have to give your employees a slice to get them to come.
Absolutely, it's the driving factor in getting talented people away from corporate America. Just not sure how many people they included a long the way. If you come cast a couple of tournaments, do I really want to give you equity?
Worth noting, DJWheat does more than just cast - he actually has position as a new media person. Not sure of the specifics of his position (he's mentioned it a few times while streaming) but I think it has to do with developing new opportunities for Twitch on different platforms. (I could be wrong - but he specifically does more for Twitch than just being a pretty face.)
doesn't necessarily mean he's going to get a huge payoff from the sale though.
This is djwheat, the gunrun and the rest of them right now as they count their millions!
sirscootsgifmoney
However, this leads me to a question about former employees and whether or not they get to cash in too. Like I know 2gd worked for twitch, but that was a while ago, so not sure if he still has any stock after he left. However, I know that Jared Rae guy recently left twitch to work for 2k games. Is he going to miss out on the big pay day?
Does twitch have stock at all? I'd say it's probably the founders and the venture capitalists that suppported them who will get the money.
Well I don't mean publicly traded stock. You just always hear about employees from small startups striking it rich once they get bought out by a large company. Take whatsapp for example.
On May 20 2014 05:15 Ctone23 wrote: @Canucklehead only if those guys earn an equity share in the company. I highly doubt they do. Unless Twitch began as a private equity backed company, but even then, doubtful. I'm not really sure how Twitch got started, but for most private equity backed companies it goes like this:
Equity Firm puts up 75%, partners of company put up 25%
When they sell, firm gets 75% of net profit, partners get the other 25%. If those partners issued equity along the way, then yea those people will see some revenue.
I'm not sure about other industries, but in tech these days and certain at the stage when twitch was hiring those guys, you'd pretty much have to give your employees a slice to get them to come.
Absolutely, it's the driving factor in getting talented people away from corporate America. Just not sure how many people they included a long the way. If you come cast a couple of tournaments, do I really want to give you equity?
Worth noting, DJWheat does more than just cast - he actually has position as a new media person. Not sure of the specifics of his position (he's mentioned it a few times while streaming) but I think it has to do with developing new opportunities for Twitch on different platforms. (I could be wrong - but he specifically does more for Twitch than just being a pretty face.)
Indeed, I would fully expect Wheat to have some skin in the game. I wasn't trying to say casters aren't deserving of the equity, but at the same time I highly doubt an equity owner said "Hey "caster", you get x% if you come cast this Tournament". Who knows, it's all speculation, I am excited though!!
On May 19 2014 21:17 Tanzklaue wrote: lethalfrag made a good point actually.
do you really believe that twitch is worth only 1 billion dollar?
i think the site generates more profit than that in a year, so it's value should be much higher. especially since the site is on the uprising and with the fact that livestreaming gets more popular by the minute.
It's a bad, uninformed point, at least if he really expects Twitch to be printing money right now. Their revenue and net income aren't public, but there have been some reports and analyst estimates suggesting that they've only recently become profitable and likely aren't making much more than single or double digits millions. Regardless of the accuracy of those estimates, it's completely laughable to suggest they make anywhere near 1 billion in a year. The amount of venture capital they've been raising should give some idea; 20 million last September, for a total of 42 million in outside funding.
How much Twitch is actually worth is a trickier question, but I am quite confident in saying that Lethalfrag has no clue whatsoever.
On May 19 2014 21:17 Tanzklaue wrote: lethalfrag made a good point actually.
do you really believe that twitch is worth only 1 billion dollar?
i think the site generates more profit than that in a year, so it's value should be much higher. especially since the site is on the uprising and with the fact that livestreaming gets more popular by the minute.
It's a bad, uninformed point, at least if he really expects Twitch to be printing money right now. Their revenue and net income aren't public, but there have been some reports and analyst estimates suggesting that they've only recently become profitable and likely aren't making much more than single or double digits millions. Regardless of the accuracy of those estimates, it's completely laughable to suggest they make anywhere near 1 billion in a year. The amount of venture capital they've been raising should give some idea; 20 million last September, for a total of 42 million in outside funding.
How much Twitch is actually worth is a trickier question, but I am quite confident in saying that Lethalfrag has no clue whatsoever.
+1
The value of the supposed $1 Billion offer would be based on several factors. Current revenue, future projections on a depreciated scale to assess risk, allocated values for each game and the current time. Youtube/Google did not pull this number out of their arse, and I would be willing to bet that Twitch and them have been working this deal for some time now. How else would YT have all of the data it needed to make an offer?
On May 19 2014 08:54 Erik.TheRed wrote: hope you guys had fun listening to music while streaming, because that is most likely coming to an end.
Just play it via a streaming service like Spotify and I believe you would be fine.
No, that does not get a person around copyright. While the streaming service has a license to play that music if you are restreaming music from that service your rebroadcast doesn't have the license. Spotify can't make ad impressions on viewers who aren't technically listening by not being connected directly.
On May 19 2014 08:54 Erik.TheRed wrote: hope you guys had fun listening to music while streaming, because that is most likely coming to an end.
Just play it via a streaming service like Spotify and I believe you would be fine.
No, that does not get a person around copyright. While the streaming service has a license to play that music if you are restreaming music from that service your rebroadcast doesn't have the license. Spotify can't make ad impressions on viewers who aren't technically listening by not being connected directly.
What if YT integrated a way for a Twitch user to create a playlist within Twitch itself? Same issue?
On May 19 2014 08:54 Erik.TheRed wrote: hope you guys had fun listening to music while streaming, because that is most likely coming to an end.
Just play it via a streaming service like Spotify and I believe you would be fine.
No, that does not get a person around copyright. While the streaming service has a license to play that music if you are restreaming music from that service your rebroadcast doesn't have the license. Spotify can't make ad impressions on viewers who aren't technically listening by not being connected directly.
I'll just assume you know what you are talking about and say gotta love silly regulations.
On May 19 2014 08:54 Erik.TheRed wrote: hope you guys had fun listening to music while streaming, because that is most likely coming to an end.
Just play it via a streaming service like Spotify and I believe you would be fine.
No, that does not get a person around copyright. While the streaming service has a license to play that music if you are restreaming music from that service your rebroadcast doesn't have the license. Spotify can't make ad impressions on viewers who aren't technically listening by not being connected directly.
What if YT integrated a way for a Twitch user to create a playlist within Twitch itself? Same issue?
Yup, any time you broadcast or rebroadcast music without a license through spotify, youtube videos, pandora, or any similar service you break copyright. Even if you are listening to music you legally downloaded from iTunes or a similar servies you and only you have the license to listen to it. When you broadcast or rebroadcast it out without permission it breaks copyright.
I'll just assume you know what you are talking about and say gotta love silly regulations.
I work through youtube and twitch casting/commentating League of Legends and making videos for Heathstone.
On May 19 2014 08:54 Erik.TheRed wrote: hope you guys had fun listening to music while streaming, because that is most likely coming to an end.
Just play it via a streaming service like Spotify and I believe you would be fine.
No, that does not get a person around copyright. While the streaming service has a license to play that music if you are restreaming music from that service your rebroadcast doesn't have the license. Spotify can't make ad impressions on viewers who aren't technically listening by not being connected directly.
What if YT integrated a way for a Twitch user to create a playlist within Twitch itself? Same issue?
Yup, any time you broadcast or rebroadcast music without a license through spotify, youtube videos, pandora, or any similar service you break copyright. Even if you are listening to music you legally downloaded from iTunes or a similar servies you and only you have the license to listen to it. When you broadcast or rebroadcast it out without permission it breaks copyright.
The joy is that there are various copyright laws around the world - that's how Dreamhack does it. Although the application of various laws and what exact rights are being bought play into it a lot (example, region locked broadcast rights - why Netflix may have something available in the US, but not the UK).
On May 19 2014 08:54 Erik.TheRed wrote: hope you guys had fun listening to music while streaming, because that is most likely coming to an end.
Just play it via a streaming service like Spotify and I believe you would be fine.
No, that does not get a person around copyright. While the streaming service has a license to play that music if you are restreaming music from that service your rebroadcast doesn't have the license. Spotify can't make ad impressions on viewers who aren't technically listening by not being connected directly.
What if YT integrated a way for a Twitch user to create a playlist within Twitch itself? Same issue?
Yup, any time you broadcast or rebroadcast music without a license through spotify, youtube videos, pandora, or any similar service you break copyright. Even if you are listening to music you legally downloaded from iTunes or a similar servies you and only you have the license to listen to it. When you broadcast or rebroadcast it out without permission it breaks copyright.
The joy is that there are various copyright laws around the world - that's how Dreamhack does it. Although the application of various laws and what exact rights are being bought play into it a lot (example, region locked broadcast rights - why Netflix may have something available in the US, but not the UK).
Copyright is a mess.
Yea, according to his reply to me, it would seem most streamers are breaking copyright now?
On May 19 2014 08:54 Erik.TheRed wrote: hope you guys had fun listening to music while streaming, because that is most likely coming to an end.
Just play it via a streaming service like Spotify and I believe you would be fine.
No, that does not get a person around copyright. While the streaming service has a license to play that music if you are restreaming music from that service your rebroadcast doesn't have the license. Spotify can't make ad impressions on viewers who aren't technically listening by not being connected directly.
What if YT integrated a way for a Twitch user to create a playlist within Twitch itself? Same issue?
Yup, any time you broadcast or rebroadcast music without a license through spotify, youtube videos, pandora, or any similar service you break copyright. Even if you are listening to music you legally downloaded from iTunes or a similar servies you and only you have the license to listen to it. When you broadcast or rebroadcast it out without permission it breaks copyright.
The joy is that there are various copyright laws around the world - that's how Dreamhack does it. Although the application of various laws and what exact rights are being bought play into it a lot (example, region locked broadcast rights - why Netflix may have something available in the US, but not the UK).
Copyright is a mess.
Yea, according to his reply to me, it would seem most streamers are breaking copyright now?
Yes, the appeal for many about twitch is that the copyright has been going mostly unenforced. If you try to rip a video from twitch and upload it to youtube while it contains music youtube's autodetect copyright will see the music and disable you from monetizing the video. In some cases this can even lead to strikes against your youtube account. Since many streamers listen to music while playing, because hearing the LoL in-game music on repeat for hundreds of hours gets really old, they have videos highlighted on twitch and do not export them to youtube at all. It is breaking copyright but it goes massively underreported because frankly we don't want to put viewers through listening to the hearthstone music on loop for a 6hr stream. Similar goes for League of Legends, Starcraft 2, MechWarrior Online, and many other games.
On May 19 2014 08:54 Erik.TheRed wrote: hope you guys had fun listening to music while streaming, because that is most likely coming to an end.
Just play it via a streaming service like Spotify and I believe you would be fine.
No, that does not get a person around copyright. While the streaming service has a license to play that music if you are restreaming music from that service your rebroadcast doesn't have the license. Spotify can't make ad impressions on viewers who aren't technically listening by not being connected directly.
What if YT integrated a way for a Twitch user to create a playlist within Twitch itself? Same issue?
Yup, any time you broadcast or rebroadcast music without a license through spotify, youtube videos, pandora, or any similar service you break copyright. Even if you are listening to music you legally downloaded from iTunes or a similar servies you and only you have the license to listen to it. When you broadcast or rebroadcast it out without permission it breaks copyright.
The joy is that there are various copyright laws around the world - that's how Dreamhack does it. Although the application of various laws and what exact rights are being bought play into it a lot (example, region locked broadcast rights - why Netflix may have something available in the US, but not the UK).
Copyright is a mess.
Yea, according to his reply to me, it would seem most streamers are breaking copyright now?
Yes, the appeal for many about twitch is that the copyright has been going mostly unenforced. If you try to rip a video from twitch and upload it to youtube while it contains music youtube's autodetect copyright will see the music and disable you from monetizing the video. In some cases this can even lead to strikes against your youtube account. Since many streamers listen to music while playing, because hearing the LoL in-game music on repeat for hundreds of hours gets really old, they have videos highlighted on twitch and do not export them to youtube at all. It is breaking copyright but it goes massively underreported because frankly we don't want to put viewers through listening to the hearthstone music on loop for a 6hr stream. Similar goes for League of Legends, Starcraft 2, MechWarrior Online, and many other games.
It's definitely an area of concern, that said I think of it more as copyright laws needing reformation of some kind, or people like GEMA being reined in over something problematic in the way Google operates.
So you people really think google would buy twitch, only to let blizzard (jsut an example) or any other companny block the streaming of a game or take it down because of "copyright infrigment"? What sense would that make? obviosly they have a plan or something. Maybe twitch didn't get copyright warnings because it wan't all that well known, now with google it will have way more attention, but still, is a videogame streaming service, if google/youtube let companies block the content what sense would it make?
The only think they might block is the music, and even that is doubtful because they aren't VODs, they are live streaming it and that makes it more difficult. Anyway you could use other music or the free music collection of youtube. Also, since google has its own streaming service (google play music) they could very well let you play any music you like as long as you use that for example.
This could actually be great news for casters and players. I would bet that the pay for viewer would be higher on AdSense/Youtube Ads than it is on Twitch currently.
As far as music is concerned. Would it be possible to set up a 3rd party website for independent musicians that WANT their music played in situations like this. Creating a list of artists would allow streamers to build a playlist with varied music without breaking any copyright laws.
On May 20 2014 09:36 [SXG]Phantom wrote: So you people really think google would buy twitch, only to let blizzard (jsut an example) or any other companny block the streaming of a game or take it down because of "copyright infrigment"? What sense would that make? obviosly they have a plan or something. Maybe twitch didn't get copyright warnings because it wan't all that well known, now with google it will have way more attention, but still, is a videogame streaming service, if google/youtube let companies block the content what sense would it make?
The only think they might block is the music, and even that is doubtful because they aren't VODs, they are live streaming it and that makes it more difficult. Anyway you could use other music or the free music collection of youtube. Also, since google has its own streaming service (google play music) they could very well let you play any music you like as long as you use that for example.
What sense does it make when 10+ minute videos are taken down because of 10s of music played in it ? Right now youtube is a complete mess. There are some companies that will flag your account for nothing and because the system favours the companies, the users can't do shit. I can't see why it will be different with Twitch.
On May 19 2014 08:54 Erik.TheRed wrote: hope you guys had fun listening to music while streaming, because that is most likely coming to an end.
Just play it via a streaming service like Spotify and I believe you would be fine.
No, that does not get a person around copyright. While the streaming service has a license to play that music if you are restreaming music from that service your rebroadcast doesn't have the license. Spotify can't make ad impressions on viewers who aren't technically listening by not being connected directly.
What if YT integrated a way for a Twitch user to create a playlist within Twitch itself? Same issue?
Yup, any time you broadcast or rebroadcast music without a license through spotify, youtube videos, pandora, or any similar service you break copyright. Even if you are listening to music you legally downloaded from iTunes or a similar servies you and only you have the license to listen to it. When you broadcast or rebroadcast it out without permission it breaks copyright.
The joy is that there are various copyright laws around the world - that's how Dreamhack does it. Although the application of various laws and what exact rights are being bought play into it a lot (example, region locked broadcast rights - why Netflix may have something available in the US, but not the UK).
Copyright is a mess.
Yea, according to his reply to me, it would seem most streamers are breaking copyright now?
Yes, the appeal for many about twitch is that the copyright has been going mostly unenforced. If you try to rip a video from twitch and upload it to youtube while it contains music youtube's autodetect copyright will see the music and disable you from monetizing the video. In some cases this can even lead to strikes against your youtube account. Since many streamers listen to music while playing, because hearing the LoL in-game music on repeat for hundreds of hours gets really old, they have videos highlighted on twitch and do not export them to youtube at all. It is breaking copyright but it goes massively underreported because frankly we don't want to put viewers through listening to the hearthstone music on loop for a 6hr stream. Similar goes for League of Legends, Starcraft 2, MechWarrior Online, and many other games.
It's definitely an area of concern, that said I think of it more as copyright laws needing reformation of some kind, or people like GEMA being reined in over something problematic in the way Google operates.
Copyright reformation has been a concern for decades. Its a little bit of a bigger issue than some tech company buying out another tech company.
On May 20 2014 09:36 [SXG]Phantom wrote: So you people really think google would buy twitch, only to let blizzard (jsut an example) or any other companny block the streaming of a game or take it down because of "copyright infrigment"? What sense would that make? obviosly they have a plan or something. Maybe twitch didn't get copyright warnings because it wan't all that well known, now with google it will have way more attention, but still, is a videogame streaming service, if google/youtube let companies block the content what sense would it make?
The only think they might block is the music, and even that is doubtful because they aren't VODs, they are live streaming it and that makes it more difficult. Anyway you could use other music or the free music collection of youtube. Also, since google has its own streaming service (google play music) they could very well let you play any music you like as long as you use that for example.
What sense does it make when 10+ minute videos are taken down because of 10s of music played in it ? Right now youtube is a complete mess. There are some companies that will flag your account for nothing and because the system favours the companies, the users can't do shit. I can't see why it will be different with Twitch.
Because it becomes a "fixed medium of expression" when you record a video. If you play music live like in a playlist you aren't breaking any copyright laws while streaming. That is the difference between youtube and a live stream. So it's really nothing to worry about. Besides I really doubt google would fully integrate twitch into youtube. it's not worht the money that would cost to go through all of that. Twitch would be a standalone service with twitch partners instantly becoming youtube partners. There are a lot of pros people in this thread aren't discussing.
On May 20 2014 12:10 thirtyapm wrote: excellent news, twitch quality has been horrendous.
That is the point of the buyout to improve their service but i don't think the justice department is gonna just nod their head without questions. We are talking about Google acquiring the 4th ranked website in peak Internet traffic in the U.S. Hell MLG could could step in and claim anti trust issues that could make things more difficult. I mean you also have to consider with google and their 57 billion reasons to support you in cash who would be able to ever compete with that service? This won't be easy hurdles to overcome.
Google is too big of a company to be ignoring copyright issues, they dont have a choice. TwitchTV has done so up to this point but even if they stay independant they will have to adjust at some point in the future. Therefore we shouldnt get angry about the fact that they are enforcing copyright, but rather about the fact that the copyright organisations , such as GEMA for Germany, have such ridiculously high demands for their copyrights, that it is simply not feasable for a lot of internet companies to reach an agreement with them.
Besides the music issues, this really brings a lot of positives for twitch. Being part of a big organisation means funding, attention and profitability. Most likely it will only get better for all parties involved, allthough I wont count google out for messing it up.
On May 20 2014 10:59 Sway420 wrote: As far as music is concerned. Would it be possible to set up a 3rd party website for independent musicians that WANT their music played in situations like this. Creating a list of artists would allow streamers to build a playlist with varied music without breaking any copyright laws.
Yes it would, but it probably is not needed. There are many songs released on things like the creative commons license. Streamers just need to do their homework and make sure that there playlists contain music they they are legally allowed to stream.
The only reason twitch streamers have gotten away with it so far is because Twitch has not gotten big enough for the big record labels to care about. That will definitely change if google buys twitch.
Is not close to market value of twitch, with little to no knowledge in online marketing, I can't actually be accurate but I would estimate the value of twitch to run between 220 million and 300 million, and that is being fairly generous.
However, google is taking a very proactive approach, offering well over four times the value.
This should throw up a red flag, however Google new offering anything above 500 million would do just that, and if Twitch declined intially, they would lose all hope of buying out twitch anytime in the near future, even if they offered 2 billion +
With that being said, it is clear to me why Google offered such a large ammount so quiickly, it puts the owner of twicht in a situation where it is almost impossible to decline. However, Twitch know's this, but even knowing it, if you was in their seat would you have the confidence to say, no, and push your companyto the limit, as far as he knows, youtube could offer streaming next month, and twitch may die in the next year. Google played a very powerful card, with not only the confidence that they could make twitch into huge sucess, but also the money to back it up if things get hairy.
Just know that with out being 100% certain, and having no facts or proof, just going off he/she said on Reddit* - that what I am saying is just an opinion, and should not be taken as truth, but it is fairly safe to say Google is playing the Super Monster Instant Win card, and twitch still has 40 Cards left to draw, Do you side with Google's super monster or keep going and hope the next 40 cards don't leave you empty handed, trying to revive your graveyard.
* (Yes the source of all knowledge, one day I will write an essay and tag reddit as my educational source just to see the professor flip the next day during lecture.)
Google, has yet to add streaming into their aresnal .. but if they do can twitch really compete with the powerhouse (google)
Well, with Google attempting to buy the company, I think people seeking to push advertiment may find themself adding twitch into their campaign, simply because if google want's it.. it has to be worth the money.. right?
In their shoes, I wouldn't take the money, simply by offering such a large ammount, Google has in a weird way actually helped twitch out. so I don't expect to see twitch dying in a year, but youtube and steaming will most likely offer better money for pro streamers. It's time to raise the bar twitch, ask for 10x the value or tell Google to get out, because you will never beat them, but don't join them with out putting up a really freaking good fight :D
EDIT
.. because music laws keep getting brought up.
Twitch WILL have to incorporate this, because with Google attempting to buy twitch.. like i just said.. if you didn't know about twitch last week, there is a pretty good shot you do now, and as streaming viewers increase so will the potential gain for placing a law suit, so now... Twitch has to begin to take pro active measures to stay within copyright laws.
This would of happened eventually.. but Google... is a very good catalyst :D (for lack of better words)
Is not close to market value of twitch, with little to no knowledge in online marketing, I can't actually be accurate but I would estimate the value of twitch to run between 220 million and 300 million, and that is being fairly generous.
Just curious, as you don't really explain, why is 220 to 300 million a generous offer? I don't agree with that so just wanted to see your thoughts, thanks.
Is not close to market value of twitch, with little to no knowledge in online marketing, I can't actually be accurate but I would estimate the value of twitch to run between 220 million and 300 million, and that is being fairly generous.
However, google is taking a very proactive approach, offering well over four times the value.
This should throw up a red flag, however Google new offering anything above 500 million would do just that, and if Twitch declined intially, they would lose all hope of buying out twitch anytime in the near future, even if they offered 2 billion +
With that being said, it is clear to me why Google offered such a large ammount so quiickly, it puts the owner of twicht in a situation where it is almost impossible to decline. However, Twitch know's this, but even knowing it, if you was in their seat would you have the confidence to say, no, and push your companyto the limit, as far as he knows, youtube could offer streaming next month, and twitch may die in the next year. Google played a very powerful card, with not only the confidence that they could make twitch into huge sucess, but also the money to back it up if things get hairy.
Just know that with out being 100% certain, and having no facts or proof, just going off he/she said on Reddit* - that what I am saying is just an opinion, and should not be taken as truth, but it is fairly safe to say Google is playing the Super Monster Instant Win card, and twitch still has 40 Cards left to draw, Do you side with Google's super monster or keep going and hope the next 40 cards don't leave you empty handed, trying to revive your graveyard.
* (Yes the source of all knowledge, one day I will write an essay and tag reddit as my educational source just to see the professor flip the next day during lecture.)
Google, has yet to add streaming into their aresnal .. but if they do can twitch really compete with the powerhouse (google)
Well, with Google attempting to buy the company, I think people seeking to push advertiment may find themself adding twitch into their campaign, simply because if google want's it.. it has to be worth the money.. right?
In their shoes, I wouldn't take the money, simply by offering such a large ammount, Google has in a weird way actually helped twitch out. so I don't expect to see twitch dying in a year, but youtube and steaming will most likely offer better money for pro streamers. It's time to raise the bar twitch, ask for 10x the value or tell Google to get out, because you will never beat them, but don't join them with out putting up a really freaking good fight :D
EDIT
.. because music laws keep getting brought up.
Twitch WILL have to incorporate this, because with Google attempting to buy twitch.. like i just said.. if you didn't know about twitch last week, there is a pretty good shot you do now, and as streaming viewers increase so will the potential gain for placing a law suit, so now... Twitch has to begin to take pro active measures to stay within copyright laws.
This would of happened eventually.. but Google... is a very good catalyst :D (for lack of better words)
You realize Youtube has had streaming since like 2011 or 2012... lol. You clearly don't have a clue about what you're talking about
The article also states that YouTube is prepared for the deal to be challenged by the Justice Department, as the two companies together account for a large share of the online video market.
Can someone explain this to me? I don't understand why the Justice Department would care
The article also states that YouTube is prepared for the deal to be challenged by the Justice Department, as the two companies together account for a large share of the online video market.
Can someone explain this to me? I don't understand why the Justice Department would care
because if they together account for a large enough share of the market (in this case online videos) then the merger would form a monopoly which is illegal.
The article also states that YouTube is prepared for the deal to be challenged by the Justice Department, as the two companies together account for a large share of the online video market.
Can someone explain this to me? I don't understand why the Justice Department would care
All major acquisitions in the US must be approved by DoJ because of anti-trust laws. Just like how all major acquisitions in Canada needs approval by the competition bureau.
They should buy the all internet that would be simpler. google video games, google stream, google money, google bank account, google online school, google coins, teamgoogle.net, googlecraft, EA sport to the google, GoogleStarLeague... It is only a matter of time before you eat Google food.
On May 20 2014 09:36 [SXG]Phantom wrote: So you people really think google would buy twitch, only to let blizzard (jsut an example) or any other companny block the streaming of a game or take it down because of "copyright infrigment"? What sense would that make? obviosly they have a plan or something. Maybe twitch didn't get copyright warnings because it wan't all that well known, now with google it will have way more attention, but still, is a videogame streaming service, if google/youtube let companies block the content what sense would it make?
The only think they might block is the music, and even that is doubtful because they aren't VODs, they are live streaming it and that makes it more difficult. Anyway you could use other music or the free music collection of youtube. Also, since google has its own streaming service (google play music) they could very well let you play any music you like as long as you use that for example.
What sense does it make when 10+ minute videos are taken down because of 10s of music played in it ? Right now youtube is a complete mess. There are some companies that will flag your account for nothing and because the system favours the companies, the users can't do shit. I can't see why it will be different with Twitch.
Because it becomes a "fixed medium of expression" when you record a video. If you play music live like in a playlist you aren't breaking any copyright laws while streaming. That is the difference between youtube and a live stream. So it's really nothing to worry about.
I don't think youtube treats a video or live stream differently for music. Star citizen's live stream on youtube got cut because they sang happy birthday to someone.
Well, that is a first, it is looking like YouTube kicked our stream because we sang happy Birthday. It is copyrighted music.
Our very own Viewmaster is in the process of getting the full thing up on our YouTube channel and redacting the audiences spontaneous singing to our Star Citizen Community person Chelsea - who shares a birthday with us of October 10th.
We should get a post as more details arrive, but I wanted to get our initial analysis out there, as once again, you guys and us crash the interwebs.
To fuel the rumours some more , sirscoots just said on unfiltered, unknown sources of him said that facebook is looking to offer 2 billion for twitch o_O
On May 21 2014 07:02 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: To fuel the rumours some more , sirscoots just said on unfiltered, unknown sources of him said that facebook is looking to offer 2 billion for twitch o_O
not sure if troll or not - nevertheless, we are all doomed anyway.
On May 20 2014 09:36 [SXG]Phantom wrote: So you people really think google would buy twitch, only to let blizzard (jsut an example) or any other companny block the streaming of a game or take it down because of "copyright infrigment"? What sense would that make? obviosly they have a plan or something. Maybe twitch didn't get copyright warnings because it wan't all that well known, now with google it will have way more attention, but still, is a videogame streaming service, if google/youtube let companies block the content what sense would it make?
The only think they might block is the music, and even that is doubtful because they aren't VODs, they are live streaming it and that makes it more difficult. Anyway you could use other music or the free music collection of youtube. Also, since google has its own streaming service (google play music) they could very well let you play any music you like as long as you use that for example.
What sense does it make when 10+ minute videos are taken down because of 10s of music played in it ? Right now youtube is a complete mess. There are some companies that will flag your account for nothing and because the system favours the companies, the users can't do shit. I can't see why it will be different with Twitch.
Because it becomes a "fixed medium of expression" when you record a video. If you play music live like in a playlist you aren't breaking any copyright laws while streaming. That is the difference between youtube and a live stream. So it's really nothing to worry about.
I don't think youtube treats a video or live stream differently for music. Star citizen's live stream on youtube got cut because they sang happy birthday to someone.
Well, that is a first, it is looking like YouTube kicked our stream because we sang happy Birthday. It is copyrighted music.
Our very own Viewmaster is in the process of getting the full thing up on our YouTube channel and redacting the audiences spontaneous singing to our Star Citizen Community person Chelsea - who shares a birthday with us of October 10th.
We should get a post as more details arrive, but I wanted to get our initial analysis out there, as once again, you guys and us crash the interwebs.
They treat it the same way twitch does. If you receive a violation then you can lose your stream if you don't stop. The difference is that if all those bots on youtube moved to twitch which they can without youtube ever being directly involved with twitch. Let's say Facebook buys Twitch then the bots will come to Twitch just like any other company that buys them. Then again if whoever buys them let's them remain autonomous (very highly likely) then that won't happen at all.
The birthday song thing is just wrong. I really hope those lawyers in that public domain case win so warner can go shove it.
Don't see why so much negativity about this deal, Youtube is a better place now than it ever was. Twitch is so shitty atm, it could only get better, I take it you naysayers have never subscribed to the new GomEXP on twitch? Well, its fucking horrible. I subscribed to GSL 2014 season 1 and 2, but I will not subscribe anymore, that is... until this deal goes through! Good Riddance Twitch.TV/Justin.TV.
On May 21 2014 08:05 skorched wrote: Don't see why so much negativity about this deal, Youtube is a better place now than it ever was. Twitch is so shitty atm, it could only get better, I take it you naysayers have never subscribed to the new GomEXP on twitch? Well, its fucking horrible. I subscribed to GSL 2014 season 1 and 2, but I will not subscribe anymore, that is... until this deal goes through! Good Riddance Twitch.TV/Justin.TV.
Is not close to market value of twitch, with little to no knowledge in online marketing, I can't actually be accurate but I would estimate the value of twitch to run between 220 million and 300 million, and that is being fairly generous.
However, google is taking a very proactive approach, offering well over four times the value.
This should throw up a red flag, however Google new offering anything above 500 million would do just that, and if Twitch declined intially, they would lose all hope of buying out twitch anytime in the near future, even if they offered 2 billion +
With that being said, it is clear to me why Google offered such a large ammount so quiickly, it puts the owner of twicht in a situation where it is almost impossible to decline. However, Twitch know's this, but even knowing it, if you was in their seat would you have the confidence to say, no, and push your companyto the limit, as far as he knows, youtube could offer streaming next month, and twitch may die in the next year. Google played a very powerful card, with not only the confidence that they could make twitch into huge sucess, but also the money to back it up if things get hairy.
Just know that with out being 100% certain, and having no facts or proof, just going off he/she said on Reddit* - that what I am saying is just an opinion, and should not be taken as truth, but it is fairly safe to say Google is playing the Super Monster Instant Win card, and twitch still has 40 Cards left to draw, Do you side with Google's super monster or keep going and hope the next 40 cards don't leave you empty handed, trying to revive your graveyard.
* (Yes the source of all knowledge, one day I will write an essay and tag reddit as my educational source just to see the professor flip the next day during lecture.)
Google, has yet to add streaming into their aresnal .. but if they do can twitch really compete with the powerhouse (google)
Well, with Google attempting to buy the company, I think people seeking to push advertiment may find themself adding twitch into their campaign, simply because if google want's it.. it has to be worth the money.. right?
In their shoes, I wouldn't take the money, simply by offering such a large ammount, Google has in a weird way actually helped twitch out. so I don't expect to see twitch dying in a year, but youtube and steaming will most likely offer better money for pro streamers. It's time to raise the bar twitch, ask for 10x the value or tell Google to get out, because you will never beat them, but don't join them with out putting up a really freaking good fight :D
EDIT
.. because music laws keep getting brought up.
Twitch WILL have to incorporate this, because with Google attempting to buy twitch.. like i just said.. if you didn't know about twitch last week, there is a pretty good shot you do now, and as streaming viewers increase so will the potential gain for placing a law suit, so now... Twitch has to begin to take pro active measures to stay within copyright laws.
This would of happened eventually.. but Google... is a very good catalyst :D (for lack of better words)
Wow... It's not often misinformation makes me angry... but you are a fucking idiot! Learn what you are talking about before you say anything.
I'm a professional day trader, and everything you said is so ridiculous I want to puke. Omg !
Is not close to market value of twitch, with little to no knowledge in online marketing, I can't actually be accurate but I would estimate the value of twitch to run between 220 million and 300 million, and that is being fairly generous.
However, google is taking a very proactive approach, offering well over four times the value.
This should throw up a red flag, however Google new offering anything above 500 million would do just that, and if Twitch declined intially, they would lose all hope of buying out twitch anytime in the near future, even if they offered 2 billion +
With that being said, it is clear to me why Google offered such a large ammount so quiickly, it puts the owner of twicht in a situation where it is almost impossible to decline. However, Twitch know's this, but even knowing it, if you was in their seat would you have the confidence to say, no, and push your companyto the limit, as far as he knows, youtube could offer streaming next month, and twitch may die in the next year. Google played a very powerful card, with not only the confidence that they could make twitch into huge sucess, but also the money to back it up if things get hairy.
Just know that with out being 100% certain, and having no facts or proof, just going off he/she said on Reddit* - that what I am saying is just an opinion, and should not be taken as truth, but it is fairly safe to say Google is playing the Super Monster Instant Win card, and twitch still has 40 Cards left to draw, Do you side with Google's super monster or keep going and hope the next 40 cards don't leave you empty handed, trying to revive your graveyard.
* (Yes the source of all knowledge, one day I will write an essay and tag reddit as my educational source just to see the professor flip the next day during lecture.)
Google, has yet to add streaming into their aresnal .. but if they do can twitch really compete with the powerhouse (google)
Well, with Google attempting to buy the company, I think people seeking to push advertiment may find themself adding twitch into their campaign, simply because if google want's it.. it has to be worth the money.. right?
In their shoes, I wouldn't take the money, simply by offering such a large ammount, Google has in a weird way actually helped twitch out. so I don't expect to see twitch dying in a year, but youtube and steaming will most likely offer better money for pro streamers. It's time to raise the bar twitch, ask for 10x the value or tell Google to get out, because you will never beat them, but don't join them with out putting up a really freaking good fight :D
EDIT
.. because music laws keep getting brought up.
Twitch WILL have to incorporate this, because with Google attempting to buy twitch.. like i just said.. if you didn't know about twitch last week, there is a pretty good shot you do now, and as streaming viewers increase so will the potential gain for placing a law suit, so now... Twitch has to begin to take pro active measures to stay within copyright laws.
This would of happened eventually.. but Google... is a very good catalyst :D (for lack of better words)
Wow... It's not often misinformation makes me angry... but you are a fucking idiot! Learn what you are talking about before you say anything.
I'm a professional day trader, and everything you said is so ridiculous I want to puke. Omg !
User was warned for this post
If you're actually a day trader, I'd be interested in your extrapolation.
On May 20 2014 09:36 [SXG]Phantom wrote: So you people really think google would buy twitch, only to let blizzard (jsut an example) or any other companny block the streaming of a game or take it down because of "copyright infrigment"? What sense would that make? obviosly they have a plan or something. Maybe twitch didn't get copyright warnings because it wan't all that well known, now with google it will have way more attention, but still, is a videogame streaming service, if google/youtube let companies block the content what sense would it make?
The only think they might block is the music, and even that is doubtful because they aren't VODs, they are live streaming it and that makes it more difficult. Anyway you could use other music or the free music collection of youtube. Also, since google has its own streaming service (google play music) they could very well let you play any music you like as long as you use that for example.
What sense does it make when 10+ minute videos are taken down because of 10s of music played in it ? Right now youtube is a complete mess. There are some companies that will flag your account for nothing and because the system favours the companies, the users can't do shit. I can't see why it will be different with Twitch.
Because it becomes a "fixed medium of expression" when you record a video. If you play music live like in a playlist you aren't breaking any copyright laws while streaming. That is the difference between youtube and a live stream. So it's really nothing to worry about.
I don't think youtube treats a video or live stream differently for music. Star citizen's live stream on youtube got cut because they sang happy birthday to someone.
Well, that is a first, it is looking like YouTube kicked our stream because we sang happy Birthday. It is copyrighted music.
Our very own Viewmaster is in the process of getting the full thing up on our YouTube channel and redacting the audiences spontaneous singing to our Star Citizen Community person Chelsea - who shares a birthday with us of October 10th.
We should get a post as more details arrive, but I wanted to get our initial analysis out there, as once again, you guys and us crash the interwebs.
The difference is that if all those bots on youtube moved to twitch which they can without youtube ever being directly involved with twitch. Let's say Facebook buys Twitch then the bots will come to Twitch just like any other company that buys them.
Why would YouTube's content id bots move over to twitch if Facebook bought them? YouTube owns its own content id bots. Why would they let Facebook use them? Unless YouTube licenses their content id system to other companies, but I dunno if they do.
On May 21 2014 08:05 skorched wrote: Don't see why so much negativity about this deal, Youtube is a better place now than it ever was. Twitch is so shitty atm, it could only get better, I take it you naysayers have never subscribed to the new GomEXP on twitch? Well, its fucking horrible. I subscribed to GSL 2014 season 1 and 2, but I will not subscribe anymore, that is... until this deal goes through! Good Riddance Twitch.TV/Justin.TV.
On May 21 2014 08:05 skorched wrote: Don't see why so much negativity about this deal, Youtube is a better place now than it ever was. Twitch is so shitty atm, it could only get better, I take it you naysayers have never subscribed to the new GomEXP on twitch? Well, its fucking horrible. I subscribed to GSL 2014 season 1 and 2, but I will not subscribe anymore, that is... until this deal goes through! Good Riddance Twitch.TV/Justin.TV.
fucking lol
Exactly. Good reasoning.
YouTube is NOWHERE where it was at its height.
It had better DMCA policies instead of automation, posting comments were also more convenient, you could load video all the way through in order to skip parts, you didn't Gmail account integration to your main YouTube account, it didn't constantly ask you to log in and be insecure about using G+ accounts.
YouTube's height was RIGHT before it was acquired by Google w/ the most freedom of video sharing and the introduction of HD quality videos.
But right after it was acquired by Google, everything went a tad worse.
And who else remember those "Video being watched..." section on YouTube where you can jump to see the actual popular videos? Now you got "Video Advertised" on top because of $$$.
On May 21 2014 08:05 skorched wrote: Don't see why so much negativity about this deal, Youtube is a better place now than it ever was. Twitch is so shitty atm, it could only get better, I take it you naysayers have never subscribed to the new GomEXP on twitch? Well, its fucking horrible. I subscribed to GSL 2014 season 1 and 2, but I will not subscribe anymore, that is... until this deal goes through! Good Riddance Twitch.TV/Justin.TV.
fucking lol
Exactly. Good reasoning.
YouTube is NOWHERE where it was at its height.
It had better DMCA policies instead of automation, posting comments were also more convenient, you could load video all the way through in order to skip parts, you didn't Gmail account integration to your main YouTube account, it didn't constantly ask you to log in and be insecure about using G+ accounts.
YouTube's height was RIGHT before it was acquired by Google w/ the most freedom of video sharing and the introduction of HD quality videos.
But right after it was acquired by Google, everything went a tad worse.
And who else remember those "Video being watched..." section on YouTube where you can jump to see the actual popular videos? Now you got "Video Advertised" on top because of $$$.
lol... Youtube was only independent for a single year, I doubt you or the others saying how Google ruined Youtube even used Youtube when it was independent. 720p wasn't added until like two or three years after Google purchased it. Youtube's best time was definitely during Google's ownership, around when Chrome was becoming popular so around 2009 or 2010.
And "Videos being watched" was during Google's ownership fyi...
I'm just wondering if they're going to let twitch.tv sort of grow organically or if the potential buyer is going to mess with the way it works right now. I like twitch.tv to an extent, but the current user interface is crap. They're connections are crap. Twitch clearly needs a backer that has infrastructure or the ability to upgrade infrastructure. I just don't see what Google plans on getting out of this that they can't already do with Youtube so-to-speak. That has me worried. Is it really necessary to buy out a whole other company's site to stream content when you have a platform for this type of thing already?
Google was so much more awesome when it wasn't the corporate monster it is now. Their motives just aren't clear. At least to me they aren't.
On May 21 2014 12:43 chaos021 wrote: I'm just wondering if they're going to let twitch.tv sort of grow organically or if the potential buyer is going to mess with the way it works right now. I like twitch.tv to an extent, but the current user interface is crap. They're connections are crap. Twitch clearly needs a backer that has infrastructure or the ability to upgrade infrastructure. I just don't see what Google plans on getting out of this that they can't already do with Youtube so-to-speak. That has me worried. Is it really necessary to buy out a whole other company's site to stream content when you have a platform for this type of thing already?
Google was so much more awesome when it wasn't the corporate monster it is now. Their motives just aren't clear. At least to me they aren't.
It's easier to buy an established player than to waste time building from the ground up. It's not exactly easy to get millions of people to just switch services over night.
On May 21 2014 12:43 chaos021 wrote: I'm just wondering if they're going to let twitch.tv sort of grow organically or if the potential buyer is going to mess with the way it works right now. I like twitch.tv to an extent, but the current user interface is crap. They're connections are crap. Twitch clearly needs a backer that has infrastructure or the ability to upgrade infrastructure. I just don't see what Google plans on getting out of this that they can't already do with Youtube so-to-speak. That has me worried. Is it really necessary to buy out a whole other company's site to stream content when you have a platform for this type of thing already?
Google was so much more awesome when it wasn't the corporate monster it is now. Their motives just aren't clear. At least to me they aren't.
It's easier to buy an established player than to waste time building from the ground up. It's not exactly easy to get millions of people to just switch services over night.
My point is that they wouldn't exactly be building from the ground up. They already have a platform to use.
Uh yes they would be building from the ground up. How many people use Youtube to live stream games? Practically zero. Google starting its own service instead of buying Twitch is like hoping for a miracle that Twitch will be stupid enough to choose to die instead of selling out to the likes of Facebook or Microsoft.
On May 21 2014 12:43 chaos021 wrote: I'm just wondering if they're going to let twitch.tv sort of grow organically or if the potential buyer is going to mess with the way it works right now. I like twitch.tv to an extent, but the current user interface is crap. They're connections are crap. Twitch clearly needs a backer that has infrastructure or the ability to upgrade infrastructure. I just don't see what Google plans on getting out of this that they can't already do with Youtube so-to-speak. That has me worried. Is it really necessary to buy out a whole other company's site to stream content when you have a platform for this type of thing already?
Google was so much more awesome when it wasn't the corporate monster it is now. Their motives just aren't clear. At least to me they aren't.
It's easier to buy an established player than to waste time building from the ground up. It's not exactly easy to get millions of people to just switch services over night.
My point is that they wouldn't exactly be building from the ground up. They already have a platform to use.
To be fair, Google tried to implement Google+ and that sucked, as Facebook already took primary the user base.
On May 21 2014 15:00 skyR wrote: Uh yes they would be building from the ground up. How many people use Youtube to live stream games? Practically zero. Google starting its own service instead of buying Twitch is like hoping for a miracle that Twitch will be stupid enough to choose to die instead of selling out to the likes of Facebook or Microsoft.
So a start-up with Google's resources could never be outright better than Twitch?
On May 21 2014 15:00 skyR wrote: Uh yes they would be building from the ground up. How many people use Youtube to live stream games? Practically zero. Google starting its own service instead of buying Twitch is like hoping for a miracle that Twitch will be stupid enough to choose to die instead of selling out to the likes of Facebook or Microsoft.
So a start-up with Google's resources could never be outright better than Twitch?
Never said anything about being better. There's lots of better products out there but users still decide to use the older, crappier, but more familiar product, eg. Skype versus Hangouts.
What reasons would established streamers have to suddenly make the switch from Twitch to Google's service if Twitch works fine?
1.Twitch.tv Platform that allows players to livestream their video game play and viewers can chat in real-t...
2. Ign.com Movie news, previews and behind the scenes information.
3. Battle.net Battle.net has been home to an ever-growing number of gamers from around the world since 1996.
4. Pch.com Online sweepstakes and shopping site. Cookies required to use the site. 5. Steampowered.com Delivers a range of games straight to a computer's desktop. Includes automatic updates, lists o...
6. Leagueoflegends.com Official site. Features, media, screenshots, FAQs, and forums.
7. Gamefaqs.com Includes FAQs, walkthroughs, message boards, user submitted reviews, and codes for all console ...
8. Gamespot.com News, reviews, previews, screen shots, movies, message boards, FAQs, game guides, and downloads...
9. Freelotto.com Offers several daily games.
10. Williamhill.com Online betting and gambling at William Hill, the world's biggest bookmaker. Visit us now for sp...
11. Xbox.com The official web site for all things on the system.
12. Kongregate.com Single player and multiplayer games. Visitors can win badges and beat challenges and also uploa...
13. Ea.com Independent developer and publisher of interactive entertainment software for various platforms...
How is this site ranked relative to other sites? (How frequently visited)
There's more interesting information here if you are interested.
**WARNING** If you are paranoid about who's keeping track of what, this place isn't going to make you feel better....
On May 21 2014 15:00 skyR wrote: Uh yes they would be building from the ground up. How many people use Youtube to live stream games? Practically zero. Google starting its own service instead of buying Twitch is like hoping for a miracle that Twitch will be stupid enough to choose to die instead of selling out to the likes of Facebook or Microsoft.
So a start-up with Google's resources could never be outright better than Twitch?
having been in a startup for the last 4+ years, and seen it grow to almost 100 people now:
I'd doubt it. A lot of the growing pains we had could not be solved by throwing 'resources' at them. The amount of custom scripts/tools/reports we use is huge, and stuff evolves all the time. We even discovered some bugs in pretty standard open source products by just using them at scales that no one had imagined. Finetuning our servers took years. Some of our software is in the 3rd of 4th major iteration, and now faster by a factor of 100, compared to what we were using in the production environment only 3 years ago.
On May 23 2014 01:07 pebble444 wrote: wtf. Isn' t youtube google owned? google wants to take over the world.
Did you see their new slogan?
Google, a more friendly OmniCorp.
I just hope they build a backdoor to take out Skynet when they put it online.
Because the AI wouldn't shut that door?
Could only hope it would be one that humans would recognize but not AI... I mean it's going to happen, I can at least hope for a chance for humanity right? I don't like our chances in a terminator/matrix man vs machine type fight...
Google’s $1B purchase of Twitch confirmed — joins YouTube for new video empire
Google has reached a deal to buy game livestreaming firm Twitch for $1 billion, according to sources familiar with the matter.
We don’t know everything about this deal, such as when it will be announced and the exact purchase price. We do know that investors who participated in past rounds are pleased that they will be getting significant returns that are multiple times the amount they originally invested. The deal underscores the value of live Internet streaming and the rise of competitive gaming as a spectator sport — something that draws millions of viewers, can offer prize pools that surpass pro golf’s marquee events, and provides a multibillion dollar opportunity for advertisers.
Google and Twitch declined comment. Both companies happen to be speaking at our GamesBeat 2014 event in September. This deal was first cited by unnamed sources from Variety said back in May that Google had made an all-cash offer and that the deal could be announced soon.
Google’s YouTube division is reportedly in charge of the acquisition, which would represent a significant transformation of YouTube’s business. Google acquired YouTube in 2006 for $1.65 billion.
San Francisco-based Twitch enables people to broadcast their own gameplay sessions on the PC, Xbox One, or PlayStation 4 to online viewers. It enables both competitive gamers and average players to gain fleeting fame by entertaining those spectators, who sometimes number in the millions. In March, Twitch represented 1.35 percent of all Internet traffic, according to Sandvine.
Twitch has more than 50 million monthly active users and more than 1.1 million members who broadcast videos each month. Back in June 2011, Twitch had just 3.2 million monthly active users. Twitch also distributes shows from partners including CBS Interactive’s GameSpot, Joystiq, and Destructoid, all gaming-news sites. More than 13 billion minutes of video are watched per month on Twitch.
YouTube is the No. 1 platform for Internet video, serving more than 6 billion hours of video per month to 1 billion users worldwide. But most of those videos are uploaded.
Twitch began in June 2011 by Justin Kan and Emmett Shear, cofounders of Justin.tv. The site was one of the first to host livestreams, or real-time videos of something that was happening at that moment. Shear is still CEO of Twitch.
Twitch has raised about $35 million from Bessemer Venture Partners, Alsop Louie Partners, WestSummit Capital, Take-Two Interactive Software, Thrive Capital, and Draper Associates.
If you're not paying for a proprietary product, you ARE the product.
You might want to look into (actual) "free software". Support it if you would like to be able to control the product, instead of having the product control you.
Youtube is owned by Google, as well as Gmail is owned by Google.
So its not Youtube buying Twitch, its Google buying Twitch after owning Youtube. I cant understand why people sell anything for an instant 1 billion when your company stands to make that much over the course of a few years anyway.
Time for someone to create a new twitch-like video streaming service.
I'm going to be interested in seeing how Google will approach this. Given how many music violations occur on youtube, and how many streamers play music while they stream, I'm a little apprehensive.
Twitch began in June 2011 by Justin Kan and Emmett Shear, cofounders of Justin.tv. The site was one of the first to host livestreams, or real-time videos of something that was happening at that moment.
Lol, whoever wrote that article has apparently no clue at all.
Twitch began in June 2011 by Justin Kan and Emmett Shear, cofounders of Justin.tv. The site was one of the first to host livestreams, or real-time videos of something that was happening at that moment.
Lol, whoever wrote that article has apparently no clue at all.
It doesn't say it was the first. I mean, it's one of the firsts (justin.tv) along with services like ustream.
I don't think many people count old obscure streams like I remember watching CS 1.6 tournaments in ~2003 through clients and that WC3 stream program that was horrendous to get to work..
On July 25 2014 07:14 Tribute wrote: I'm going to be interested in seeing how Google will approach this. Given how many music violations occur on youtube, and how many streamers play music while they stream, I'm a little apprehensive.
Also thinking about this, if im streaming a game, with music in the background, will i be flagged? or banned? or perhaps never be allowed to listen to music while streaming again? Im quite worried.
On July 25 2014 07:14 Tribute wrote: I'm going to be interested in seeing how Google will approach this. Given how many music violations occur on youtube, and how many streamers play music while they stream, I'm a little apprehensive.
Also thinking about this, if im streaming a game, with music in the background, will i be flagged? or banned? or perhaps never be allowed to listen to music while streaming again? Im quite worried.
Aren't streamers really not supposed to be playing music technically but Twitch doesn't actually enforce it? Every once in a while they'd go around and tell everyone not to play music but it never stuck? Not that people listening to streams is tantamount to pirating music or monetizing it or whatever. No one watches a stream to wait for their favorite song to come on, it's just background while someone is playing a game so I don't see any real reason streaming music is the end of the world. Maybe google some how sorts it out where streaming the music is fine but you can't monetize the VoDs on youtube, I don't know. Considering the vast majority of VoDs from twitch are pretty much pointless for all intents and purposes that might be ok, you wouldn't be making much money off monetizing them anyway.
If music on twitch goes away personally I'm not going to riot. Every once in a while I'll catch a new song that I dig so I'll go pick the song up so it can be a nice way to get exposed to new stuff from time to time. There are also streams with god awful music or music that is too loud and that drives people away from some streams they might otherwise enjoy so there are benefits to going musicless as well. People can watch the streamer they like with the music they choose.
Personally if I ever were to stream I always figured I'd do it (if possible to configure, I have no idea) where I'd listen to my music or podcast or whatever but not broadcast it. Put a widget in the corner that says what I'm listening to so if someone is curious about my taste or whatever the info is there but no one is subjected to my stuff if they don't want to be and throw a playlist down in the info if anyone can't to see my comprehensive taste. Everyone can find what I'm into or listening to without making anyone feel like they're being ear raped.
Twitch began in June 2011 by Justin Kan and Emmett Shear, cofounders of Justin.tv. The site was one of the first to host livestreams, or real-time videos of something that was happening at that moment.
Lol, whoever wrote that article has apparently no clue at all.
It doesn't say it was the first. I mean, it's one of the firsts (justin.tv) along with services like ustream.
I don't think many people count old obscure streams like I remember watching CS 1.6 tournaments in ~2003 through clients and that WC3 stream program that was horrendous to get to work..
Modern streaming is pretty recent.
Unless they actually refer to Justin.tv, it's simply wrong. Twitch.tv was 4 years after the likes of Ustream, Justin.tv, livestream etc and even more than that in regards to non-international services.
There were a lot of streams for various things before 2007 and I wouldn't count them either. After all, those weren't exactly services...
Its amazing how people can predict the future, they are so sure there will be google+ integration even when google now has lessed focus on google plus, and they are sure that you won't be able to listen to music, the interfacw will suck, and the support, for some reason will suck. Also, there are already adds in twitch, google buying it wont make it worse.
On July 25 2014 09:29 TwiStEr wrote: It is very likely that Germans will completely blocked in the future as we are from youtube streams already. This could suck really really hard ..
The German live-streaming scene isn't that small, so I doubt they will be able to do that this easily.
On July 25 2014 09:29 TwiStEr wrote: It is very likely that Germans will completely blocked in the future as we are from youtube streams already. This could suck really really hard ..
The German live-streaming scene isn't that small, so I doubt they will be able to do that this easily.
They can and it's a legitimate concern for Germans I feel. On Youtube there are tons of German youtubers but that doesn't stop the issues.
Basically if you're German and want to use youtube you need to use a proxy. If they decide to bring the same type of copyright to Twitch (which would suck hard), they will probably be in the same situation.
One thing I'm wondering, some people do both twitch + youtube videos and get income from both. I'm a little worried how this will affect those people, if at all. They could easily choose to lower the pay since "it will be easier with integration!"
On July 25 2014 09:18 [SXG]Phantom wrote: Its amazing how people can predict the future, they are so sure there will be google+ integration even when google now has lessed focus on google plus, and they are sure that you won't be able to listen to music, the interfacw will suck, and the support, for some reason will suck. Also, there are already adds in twitch, google buying it wont make it worse.
If you ever see a newer android phone let me know if you still feel like google is moving away from google+
Have you ever uploaded a video to youtube with music in it? It detects the song and forces ads into your video if it detects certain songs.
Unless google decides to totaly separate its brand from Twitch and just operate from the background, shareholders and executives will expect Twitch to be handled the same as other google services.
Time to contact lawyers and figure out loopholes like the people who post full albums on youtube have. Maybe the new era of google+twitch streams will be active commentary on the music rather than the gameplay to keep the music usage under fair use laws.
Maybe Google will just buy spotify and you can link your twitch account and play approved google-proof music.
It's going to be a lot worse than people here seem to think
as for the ads, as long as adblock still works, who cares?
Sigh. Well, this is either a very good thing, or a very bad thing. because one thing is certain, with google/youtube and the likes owning twitch, things wont stay the same.
Best scenario.
Better servers Better support Better chat system for partnered Channels. (seperate chat channels for subs non subs if there is sub mode on.)
Worst case.
They force whatever they like on twitch (pay wall, more adds, copy right laws etc.) because twitch is the best thing out there and the Gaming community have matured enough so people wont leave unless the streamers does.
On July 25 2014 09:29 TwiStEr wrote: It is very likely that Germans will completely blocked in the future as we are from youtube streams already. This could suck really really hard ..
The German live-streaming scene isn't that small, so I doubt they will be able to do that this easily.
They can and it's a legitimate concern for Germans I feel. On Youtube there are tons of German youtubers but that doesn't stop the issues.
Basically if you're German and want to use youtube you need to use a proxy. If they decide to bring the same type of copyright to Twitch (which would suck hard), they will probably be in the same situation.
One thing I'm wondering, some people do both twitch + youtube videos and get income from both. I'm a little worried how this will affect those people, if at all. They could easily choose to lower the pay since "it will be easier with integration!"
Of course they can. But will they, that's the question I proposed. If there would be a large enough public outcry, they can't go through with this. Pretty much everyone(people) hates the GEMA, so an action like this could serve as a catalyst.
On July 25 2014 09:29 TwiStEr wrote: It is very likely that Germans will completely blocked in the future as we are from youtube streams already. This could suck really really hard ..
The German live-streaming scene isn't that small, so I doubt they will be able to do that this easily.
They can and it's a legitimate concern for Germans I feel. On Youtube there are tons of German youtubers but that doesn't stop the issues.
Basically if you're German and want to use youtube you need to use a proxy. If they decide to bring the same type of copyright to Twitch (which would suck hard), they will probably be in the same situation.
One thing I'm wondering, some people do both twitch + youtube videos and get income from both. I'm a little worried how this will affect those people, if at all. They could easily choose to lower the pay since "it will be easier with integration!"
Of course they can. But will they, that's the question I proposed. If there would be a large enough public outcry, they can't go through with this. Pretty much everyone(people) hates the GEMA, so an action like this could serve as a catalyst.
I disagree. They don't care about massive criticism.
See : Youtube copyright fiasco on yearly basis at minimum (and ongoing since December 2013 a ton of videos getting falsely flagged and people losing tons of money over false claims; some accounts often get closed because of false claims too with no way to fight back unless you want to spend years + lawyer fees; content getting flagged for background NOISES and not even music sometimes.... the list goes on), current state of youtube + GEMA, youtube comments, Google+ integration.
If Google wants to do something they do, no matter what people say. I stopped using Chrome and google completely except gmail tbh since I really hate their direction. And only reason I still use gmail is because I have too many contacts through it.
On July 25 2014 09:18 [SXG]Phantom wrote: Its amazing how people can predict the future, they are so sure there will be google+ integration even when google now has lessed focus on google plus, and they are sure that you won't be able to listen to music, the interfacw will suck, and the support, for some reason will suck. Also, there are already adds in twitch, google buying it wont make it worse.
If you ever see a newer android phone let me know if you still feel like google is moving away from google+
Have you ever uploaded a video to youtube with music in it? It detects the song and forces ads into your video if it detects certain songs.
Unless google decides to totaly separate its brand from Twitch and just operate from the background, shareholders and executives will expect Twitch to be handled the same as other google services.
Time to contact lawyers and figure out loopholes like the people who post full albums on youtube have. Maybe the new era of google+twitch streams will be active commentary on the music rather than the gameplay to keep the music usage under fair use laws.
Maybe Google will just buy spotify and you can link your twitch account and play approved google-proof music.
It's going to be a lot worse than people here seem to think
as for the ads, as long as adblock still works, who cares?
Google doesn't need to buy spotify, it already has a music streaming service, and soon it will have a youtube offline/background sound streaming service too, but i don't think they will force you to do it.
I don't understand what you are trying to say with the "newer android phone" it has the google plus app yeah, but i will give you 3 reasons of why i say google is departing from google plus.
1.-They used to use a google+ sing in button, that is being replaced with a Google button. 2.-You can now make google voice calls without a google+account 3.-The creator and "leader" of Google+, Vic Gundotra left google like 2-3 months ago, before the changes i listed before were made, and there have been more.
I'm sure with google, the experience will get way better. Better servers, better support, more awareness too. The changes to the interface are subjective, some will like them and some won't, but twitch eventually would have changed their interface too and the same would have happened. Obviously this could be wrong but i think is highly likely to happen.
A lot of things could go wrong too, like blocking streams and that kind of stuff, but i think its highly unlikely, and some people are jumping very fast to conclusions, and state things like facts as if they could predict the future.
We will see how things develop. Also lets remember that a lot of videos on youtube are removed because the companies whose content is being showcased report them to youtube, but with twitch and e-sports specially, I doubt Blizzard, Valve and others would report the streams. The only thing that could go wrong is with music, and even then there are dozens of solutions, so lets wait and see.
On July 25 2014 09:29 TwiStEr wrote: It is very likely that Germans will completely blocked in the future as we are from youtube streams already. This could suck really really hard ..
The German live-streaming scene isn't that small, so I doubt they will be able to do that this easily.
They can and it's a legitimate concern for Germans I feel. On Youtube there are tons of German youtubers but that doesn't stop the issues.
Basically if you're German and want to use youtube you need to use a proxy. If they decide to bring the same type of copyright to Twitch (which would suck hard), they will probably be in the same situation.
One thing I'm wondering, some people do both twitch + youtube videos and get income from both. I'm a little worried how this will affect those people, if at all. They could easily choose to lower the pay since "it will be easier with integration!"
Of course they can. But will they, that's the question I proposed. If there would be a large enough public outcry, they can't go through with this. Pretty much everyone(people) hates the GEMA, so an action like this could serve as a catalyst.
I disagree. They don't care about massive criticism.
See : Youtube copyright fiasco on yearly basis at minimum (and ongoing since December 2013 a ton of videos getting falsely flagged and people losing tons of money over false claims; some accounts often get closed because of false claims too with no way to fight back unless you want to spend years + lawyer fees; content getting flagged for background NOISES and not even music sometimes.... the list goes on), current state of youtube + GEMA, youtube comments, Google+ integration.
If Google wants to do something they do, no matter what people say. I stopped using Chrome and google completely except gmail tbh since I really hate their direction. And only reason I still use gmail is because I have too many contacts through it.
I was talking about GEMA, not Google.
On July 25 2014 11:06 writer22816 wrote: I'm fine as long as the twitch emoticons stay
Would love for them to go away, but I doubt it. They really need to include a function to block those.
On July 25 2014 20:20 LoneYoShi wrote: I just hope this means the twitch app will be compatible with ChromeCast soon. Can't wait to watch some nice quality sc2 on my TV !
You can just use Lakitu, the app itself is better than the shitty twitch app and it works with Chromecast
On July 25 2014 20:20 LoneYoShi wrote: I just hope this means the twitch app will be compatible with ChromeCast soon. Can't wait to watch some nice quality sc2 on my TV !
You can just use Lakitu, the app itself is better than the shitty twitch app and it works with Chromecast
Oh yeah ? Thanks, I'm gonna try it out this weekend with the Nation Wars ! :D
On July 26 2014 04:34 WindWolf wrote: I'm hoping that Twitch servers becomes more stable. It's not until very recently that Twitch started reaching good stability for me personally
Just recently they added more capacity for the euro servers. Stockholm got 200% increase and Frankfurt 2450% increase for example.
Stability has definitely improved but it's still not completely satisfactory. And they still need to give us the proper quality options back. Medium for some streams looks worse than low for others. I just want my 360p, sigh.
On July 26 2014 05:32 Lucumo wrote: Stability has definitely improved but it's still not completely satisfactory. And they still need to give us the proper quality options back. Medium for some streams looks worse than low for others. I just want my 360p, sigh.
I can't see any quality options on Twitch streams anymore.
On July 26 2014 05:32 Lucumo wrote: Stability has definitely improved but it's still not completely satisfactory. And they still need to give us the proper quality options back. Medium for some streams looks worse than low for others. I just want my 360p, sigh.
I can't see any quality options on Twitch streams anymore.
Unless it has changed, it depends on the streamer. I believe if they are partners you can have the options but if they aren't, no go. Don't quote me on this but this is what people have told me on the past.
On July 26 2014 05:32 Lucumo wrote: Stability has definitely improved but it's still not completely satisfactory. And they still need to give us the proper quality options back. Medium for some streams looks worse than low for others. I just want my 360p, sigh.
I can't see any quality options on Twitch streams anymore.
Unless it has changed, it depends on the streamer. I believe if they are partners you can have the options but if they aren't, no go. Don't quote me on this but this is what people have told me on the past.
yeah, this REALLY sucks. As in, new streamers will have to cut out a large audience when starting to stream. If they stream 1080+, then tons of people (including me) can't watch the stream due to insufficient download rate. If they figure out how to stream in lower quality, enough people will not want to watch (and who wants to turn down quality on purpose?). So the already big streamer get more viewers, as you can change the options there, whereas the small streamers have to have an excellent rating of the stream to have a chance at having sometimes the option for different resolutions (or be lucky enough to build a large enough audience with the resolution they selected, which is most likely 1080+). It really sucks and I read that over a year ago Twitch promised to better the situation, but they didn't. Really, often times I would be happy to at least only hear the audio without any lag and don't care at all about the video, but nope. Denied by twitch.tv.
On July 26 2014 05:32 Lucumo wrote: Stability has definitely improved but it's still not completely satisfactory. And they still need to give us the proper quality options back. Medium for some streams looks worse than low for others. I just want my 360p, sigh.
I can't see any quality options on Twitch streams anymore.
Unless it has changed, it depends on the streamer. I believe if they are partners you can have the options but if they aren't, no go. Don't quote me on this but this is what people have told me on the past.
Why is it this way in the first place? This is something Twitch also needs to improve
DotaTV just never stops improving. Not only have they fixed the GG lag now, you can also rewind the game in real time
On July 26 2014 05:32 Lucumo wrote: Stability has definitely improved but it's still not completely satisfactory. And they still need to give us the proper quality options back. Medium for some streams looks worse than low for others. I just want my 360p, sigh.
I can't see any quality options on Twitch streams anymore.
Unless it has changed, it depends on the streamer. I believe if they are partners you can have the options but if they aren't, no go. Don't quote me on this but this is what people have told me on the past.
Why is it this way in the first place? This is something Twitch also needs to improve
DotaTV just never stops improving. Not only have they fixed the GG lag now, you can also rewind the game in real time
they said in a public statement like a year+ ago that it was the conversion to other bitrates that took the most capacity of their servers (more likely it is simply about providing the stream 4 times in different qualities = 4x as much server load), so they cut it for the average joe. You only get it if you are partnered or if the server load is low people with a Dashboard rating of "Excellent" may also randomly get that option for some time. Source: http://help.twitch.tv/customer/portal/questions/794104-why-do-certain-streams-do-not-have-the-option-for-different-quality-
But yeah, if you are not partnered you are screwed and might not get enough of a user base to get partnered because you are not partnered.
On July 26 2014 05:32 Lucumo wrote: Stability has definitely improved but it's still not completely satisfactory. And they still need to give us the proper quality options back. Medium for some streams looks worse than low for others. I just want my 360p, sigh.
I can't see any quality options on Twitch streams anymore.
Unless it has changed, it depends on the streamer. I believe if they are partners you can have the options but if they aren't, no go. Don't quote me on this but this is what people have told me on the past.
Why is it this way in the first place? This is something Twitch also needs to improve
DotaTV just never stops improving. Not only have they fixed the GG lag now, you can also rewind the game in real time
(more likely it is simply about providing the stream 4 times in different qualities = 4x as much server load)
This is so wrong and so misundersting of how internet works... Actually, by having several qualities they probably save bandwidth (as long as lower quality wouldnt be the standard). But yes, conversion is load heavy on CPU: streamer provide 1 quality and twitch servers must convert them according to requests. Now, it's at most 3 conversions per stream? Not sure it is that heavy considering the number of servers they must own nowadays.
On July 26 2014 05:32 Lucumo wrote: Stability has definitely improved but it's still not completely satisfactory. And they still need to give us the proper quality options back. Medium for some streams looks worse than low for others. I just want my 360p, sigh.
I can't see any quality options on Twitch streams anymore.
Unless it has changed, it depends on the streamer. I believe if they are partners you can have the options but if they aren't, no go. Don't quote me on this but this is what people have told me on the past.
Why is it this way in the first place? This is something Twitch also needs to improve
DotaTV just never stops improving. Not only have they fixed the GG lag now, you can also rewind the game in real time
(more likely it is simply about providing the stream 4 times in different qualities = 4x as much server load)
This is so wrong and so misundersting of how internet works... Actually, by having several qualities they probably save bandwidth (as long as lower quality wouldnt be the standard). But yes, conversion is load heavy on CPU: streamer provide 1 quality and twitch servers must convert them according to requests. Now, it's at most 3 conversions per stream? Not sure it is that heavy considering the number of servers they must own nowadays.
Real-time conversion is incredibly intensive work and is NOT something they have the resources to provide to the 10,000s of streamers.
On July 26 2014 05:32 Lucumo wrote: Stability has definitely improved but it's still not completely satisfactory. And they still need to give us the proper quality options back. Medium for some streams looks worse than low for others. I just want my 360p, sigh.
I can't see any quality options on Twitch streams anymore.
Unless it has changed, it depends on the streamer. I believe if they are partners you can have the options but if they aren't, no go. Don't quote me on this but this is what people have told me on the past.
Why is it this way in the first place? This is something Twitch also needs to improve
DotaTV just never stops improving. Not only have they fixed the GG lag now, you can also rewind the game in real time
they said in a public statement like a year+ ago that it was the conversion to other bitrates that took the most capacity of their servers (more likely it is simply about providing the stream 4 times in different qualities = 4x as much server load), so they cut it for the average joe. You only get it if you are partnered or if the server load is low people with a Dashboard rating of "Excellent" may also randomly get that option for some time. Source: http://help.twitch.tv/customer/portal/questions/794104-why-do-certain-streams-do-not-have-the-option-for-different-quality-
But yeah, if you are not partnered you are screwed and might not get enough of a user base to get partnered because you are not partnered.
What would you like them to do? Every time you visit Twitch they only show you one of the thousand LoL/DotA channels with 1-2 viewers? Give random people transcoding? Most of the partnered people have made a tremendous amount of effort to do so by providing a good show or being exceptional at their game. It's very unlikely that the only thing holding back non-partnered streams is their stream quality being too high.
On July 28 2014 18:26 Fi0na wrote: But yeah, if you are not partnered you are screwed and might not get enough of a user base to get partnered because you are not partnered.
Chicken and egg issue really here. I'm hoping Google can fix things for the better
The obvious solution to the Chicken and Egg problem is to charge a fee (say an annual subscription) for non-partnered users to gain transcoding (ideally equal to the cost of providing the transcoding). If you think that is what is holding you back, you can pay for it and find out.
Calculating the cost is tricky though, but it doesn't need to be exactly correct, it just needs to be something that insures twitch against loss should. Twitch would need additional computing resources for people that opted into this scheme, but they would be able to roll cancellations into the general pool of computing resource they would need anyway.
Doing this on a long term basis makes sense, as some of what you are paying for is the upfront purchase of the hardware, and some the extra powerbill to run it.
Of course, if Twitch ends up with Google, they will have much more economy of scale to bring to bear on this and I wouldn't be surprised if everyone ended up with free transcoding just because in the bigger Google picture, it is in effect free.
But more importantly, I noticed today in past broadcasts for streamers you can't see how long ago the video was made anymore. AAAAAAAAAAAARGH WHAT WERE THEY THINKING. FUCK. I almost exclusively watch streams through past broadcasts and this is such a pain in the ass.
Here's another consequence that is likely coming as a result of the acquisition audio recognition. However, it looks like it's not as bad (yet?) as some people were fearing.
Audio Recognition will only be run against audio in VODs. We are not scanning live broadcasts and there is no automated takedown of live content.
We’ve partnered with Audible Magic, which works closely with the recorded music industry, to scan past and future VODs for music owned or controlled by clients of Audible Magic. This includes in-game and ambient music. When music in the Audible Magic database is detected (“Flagged Content”), the affected portion of the VOD will be muted and volume controls for that VOD will be turned off. Additionally, past broadcasts and highlights with Flagged Content are exportable but will remain muted
We’ve partnered with Audible Magic, which works closely with the recorded music industry, to scan past and future VODs for music owned or controlled by clients of Audible Magic. This includes in-game and ambient music. When music in the Audible Magic database is detected (“Flagged Content”), the affected portion of the VOD will be muted and volume controls for that VOD will be turned off. Additionally, past broadcasts and highlights with Flagged Content are exportable but will remain muted
So in-game music huh? This is going to be fun.
So it's gonna be the same bullshit system youtube uses... I fucking hate copyright laws and companies that enforce them like fucking nazis.
The big problem is that those sound recognition programs have a TON of false-positives. This is going to be hell, especially because you can't (afaik) export a flagged piece of vod to youtube, thus losing all the content. edit: well I mean, you can still record it locally, but twitch will be pretty useless for that function now.
On August 07 2014 07:16 ahswtini wrote: Wondering what some fo the big streaming studios are gonna say about this
I wonder too. It seems like this could cause issues with companies that use legal purchased third-party music. How does the bot tell the difference?
If you have rights to use something you are good to go. Day9 for example shouldn't have any problems because he has the right to use what he is playing.
But its another thing whether the system still works correctly. Dreamhack Vods are muted even though they've paid for the rights. But then again, just prove it and you should be good to go.
On August 07 2014 07:16 ahswtini wrote: Wondering what some fo the big streaming studios are gonna say about this
I wonder too. It seems like this could cause issues with companies that use legal purchased third-party music. How does the bot tell the difference?
Heres an example. If you have rights to use something you are good to go. Day9 for example shouldn't have any problems because he has the right to use what he is playing.
But its another thing whether the system still works correctly. For example, Dreamhack Vods are muted even though they've paid for the rights. But then again, just prove it and you should be good to go.
I guess it's nice that there are ways to get around it, but that still seems like a huge pain in the ass for most companies to deal with, and hurts them in the meantime until they can prove they have the rights.
Wow this is worse than I thought. Youtube-like copyrights and outright removal of most VODs?
This affects A LOT of leagues that keep their VODs there as well as some streamers that require you to be a subscriber to watch their VODs.
A lot of SC2 VODs will forever be deleted. Same thing with every other eSports games, they will lose soooo many games. And sometimes I watch old MTG VODs from the main streams.
This is absolutely insane. Twitch gets destroyed within a day basically.
On August 07 2014 07:01 Roggay wrote: The big problem is that those sound recognition programs have a TON of false-positives. This is going to be hell, especially because you can't (afaik) export a flagged piece of vod to youtube, thus losing all the content. edit: well I mean, you can still record it locally, but twitch will be pretty useless for that function now.
On Youtube, a lot of pretty big channels that I follow have had to go through hell and back because of false flags, lost tons of money and even risked getting their channels removed unfairly.
We’ve partnered with Audible Magic, which works closely with the recorded music industry, to scan past and future VODs for music owned or controlled by clients of Audible Magic. This includes in-game and ambient music. When music in the Audible Magic database is detected (“Flagged Content”), the affected portion of the VOD will be muted and volume controls for that VOD will be turned off. Additionally, past broadcasts and highlights with Flagged Content are exportable but will remain muted
So in-game music huh? This is going to be fun.
So it's gonna be the same bullshit system youtube uses... I fucking hate copyright laws and companies that enforce them like fucking nazis.
I think we all agree they can go eat a dick. When someone copyrights the sound of a bomb exploding in the background of a game that the viewer can barely hear, you know there's some fucking problem.
On August 07 2014 06:55 iHirO wrote: Is it possible to split the audio stream to record the voices/game sounds and the music separately.
Then the archived streams could automatically replace the music with some non copyrighted light jazz while keeping everything else unchanged.
From what I've seen/researched so far, none of the commonly used programs can do it as audio splitting is a pretty processor intensive process in and of itself. I know professional equipment can do it, but no one's gonna have that equipment lying around.
The simplest answer will be to record audio locally in a separate program (like Audacity, which I think can capture individual audio sources) and if it gets flagged, download the VOD from Twitch and edit it in a program like Adobe Premiere Pro.
On August 07 2014 07:16 ahswtini wrote: Wondering what some fo the big streaming studios are gonna say about this
I wonder too. It seems like this could cause issues with companies that use legal purchased third-party music. How does the bot tell the difference?
Heres an example. If you have rights to use something you are good to go. Day9 for example shouldn't have any problems because he has the right to use what he is playing.
But its another thing whether the system still works correctly. For example, Dreamhack Vods are muted even though they've paid for the rights. But then again, just prove it and you should be good to go.
I guess it's nice that there are ways to get around it, but that still seems like a huge pain in the ass for most companies to deal with, and hurts them in the meantime until they can prove they have the rights.
Oh absolutely, no doubt about that.
What baffles me most is the "in-game music" part. Popular streamer DansGaming's Fallout 3 vod was completely muted because of the in-game music/radio. Same with GTA games and lots of older games (according to speedgaming community)
See you on azubu! This is crazy, these copyright laws are so arcane. If anyone would want to listen a certain song, they wouldn't go to a video game stream praying that the person will play that song, let alone all the stupid video game sounds that would be blaring over it.
GG. I'm so pissed off words are beyond me. I mean I expected this when it was announced they were getting bought out but I never expected lightning speed self-destruction =(.
2 extremely fun facts: - Twitch's own vods are getting flagged, like the vod of Twitch weekly. - pressing spacebar twice over a muted section of vod unmutes the vod
On August 07 2014 07:40 Roggay wrote: 2 extremely fun facts: - Twitch's own vods are getting flagged, like the vod of Twitch weekly. - pressing spacebar twice over a muted section of vod unmutes the vod
On August 07 2014 07:16 ahswtini wrote: Wondering what some fo the big streaming studios are gonna say about this
I wonder too. It seems like this could cause issues with companies that use legal purchased third-party music. How does the bot tell the difference?
Heres an example. If you have rights to use something you are good to go. Day9 for example shouldn't have any problems because he has the right to use what he is playing.
But its another thing whether the system still works correctly. For example, Dreamhack Vods are muted even though they've paid for the rights. But then again, just prove it and you should be good to go.
I guess it's nice that there are ways to get around it, but that still seems like a huge pain in the ass for most companies to deal with, and hurts them in the meantime until they can prove they have the rights.
Oh absolutely, no doubt about that.
What baffles me most is the "in-game music" part. Popular streamer DansGaming's Fallout 3 vod was completely muted because of the in-game music/radio. Same with GTA games and lots of older games (according to speedgaming community)
Also, rofl.
Wow, this is just too damn funny. Their OWN VODS are getting muted!!!
This is unbelievable, i never understood all the fluff about copyright music, its free advertising and all they do is killing it for us.. I and friends buyed a lot of stuff we listned too on twitch / youtube and many people do it too :/
On August 07 2014 07:48 alienQT wrote: This is unbelievable, i never understood all the fluff about copyright music, its free advertising and all they do is killing it for us.. I and friends buyed a lot of stuff we listned too on twitch / youtube and many people do it too :/
And music companies that feel that way won't have their stuff flagged. Those who don't will. Its not going to be that big of a deal once they get the kinks worked out.
It definitely sounds weird that a site dedicated to streaming people playing video games would use software that mutes you for playing the music in those very games.
On July 25 2014 07:14 Tribute wrote: I'm going to be interested in seeing how Google will approach this. Given how many music violations occur on youtube, and how many streamers play music while they stream, I'm a little apprehensive.
And now I look like a fucking PROPHET. Come get your lottery ticket numbers while they're hot!
I honestly think this could be disastrous for twitch/google.
When shit hit the fan last year on youtube, there was no REAL alternative. I mean there are other video website but not many are well done to keep a community going or anything like that, like youtube allows you to do. And I don't think many other websites pay their content creators like that. There are too many advantages to youtube vs any other similar website at the time and at the moment.
But with twitch? There is some, albeit small relatively, competition and if hitbox (and maybe ustream/others?) play their cards right their could steal several good streamers and this could quickly get out of control for twitch. Just imagine if a dozen or so popular streamers go to hitbox. Suddenly, it's a very real competitor and twitch has to back-pedal or die within a few weeks. It wouldn't be the craziest thing we've ever seen on the internet.
As long as hitbox pays the streamers their dues and doesn't screw it up of course.
Also keep in a mind quite a few streamers do this for fun (smaller channels) and not to get paid. They will go wherever is more popular (where big streamer go) and where they have less hassle (music, VODs without having to jump through hoops, etc).
Even if twitch 100% backpedals right now (they won't), the damage is already partially done and it will expand exponentially within a few days.
On August 07 2014 07:48 alienQT wrote: This is unbelievable, i never understood all the fluff about copyright music, its free advertising and all they do is killing it for us.. I and friends buyed a lot of stuff we listned too on twitch / youtube and many people do it too :/
And the amount you and your few friends bought (assuming that is true) is really small compared to making (broadcasting) companies pay for the right to broadcast the music.
"Free advertising" is also one of the most retarded arguments. "Hey, I mowed your lawn even though you didn't ask me; NOW PAY ME!" even though you indented to mow it on the coming weekend (or wanted your nephew to do it, so he could earn some money) "Hey, I washed your windshield at the traffic light NOW PAY ME!" even though you were at the car wash 30min ago.
"You haven't asked me to do X (advertising) now give me compensation (don't sue me!)" is stupid. Respect copyright.
Or: There are a shitton of artists who offer royalty free music. Support those artists. Tell your favorite streamer / eSports company to only use royalty free music. Stop caring about companies (music / game) who enforce their copyright. Start embracing companies who offer licenses for their stuff (royalty free artists, Valve, Blizzard, Riot, ....)
On August 07 2014 07:48 alienQT wrote: This is unbelievable, i never understood all the fluff about copyright music, its free advertising and all they do is killing it for us.. I and friends buyed a lot of stuff we listned too on twitch / youtube and many people do it too :/
And the amount you and your few friends bought (assuming that is true) is really small compared to making (broadcasting) companies pay for the right to broadcast the music.
"Free advertising" is also one of the most retarded arguments. "Hey, I mowed your lawn even though you didn't ask me; NOW PAY ME!" even though you indented to mow it on the coming weekend (or wanted your nephew to do it, so he could earn some money) "Hey, I washed your windshield at the traffic light NOW PAY ME!" even though you were at the car wash 30min ago.
"You haven't asked me to do X (advertising) now give me compensation (don't sue me!)" is stupid. Respect copyright.
Or: There are a shitton of artists who offer royalty free music. Support those artists. Tell your favorite streamer / eSports company to only use royalty free music. Stop caring about companies (music / game) who enforce their copyright. Start embracing companies who offer licenses for their stuff (royalty free artists, Valve, Blizzard, Riot, ....)
Your comparisons make no sense. No one is asking to get paid for playing music on their stream. It's background noise while they play games. They just don't want all of their (soon to be nonexistent) VODs muted because of it.
On August 07 2014 07:48 alienQT wrote: This is unbelievable, i never understood all the fluff about copyright music, its free advertising and all they do is killing it for us.. I and friends buyed a lot of stuff we listned too on twitch / youtube and many people do it too :/
And the amount you and your few friends bought (assuming that is true) is really small compared to making (broadcasting) companies pay for the right to broadcast the music.
"Free advertising" is also one of the most retarded arguments. "Hey, I mowed your lawn even though you didn't ask me; NOW PAY ME!" even though you indented to mow it on the coming weekend (or wanted your nephew to do it, so he could earn some money) "Hey, I washed your windshield at the traffic light NOW PAY ME!" even though you were at the car wash 30min ago.
"You haven't asked me to do X (advertising) now give me compensation (don't sue me!)" is stupid. Respect copyright.
Or: There are a shitton of artists who offer royalty free music. Support those artists. Tell your favorite streamer / eSports company to only use royalty free music. Stop caring about companies (music / game) who enforce their copyright. Start embracing companies who offer licenses for their stuff (royalty free artists, Valve, Blizzard, Riot, ....)
Your comparisons make no sense. No one is asking to get paid for playing music on their stream. It's background noise while they play games. They just don't want all of their (soon to be nonexistent) VODs muted because of it.
The response to that is going to be, don't play the music on stream. This was always going to happen at some point, google or not. At some point the people who own the music were going to ask twitch to crack down on people using the music in the back ground.
I think it is safe to say that the program is flagging everything that sounds remotely like music. I wonder how close Twitch was to getting sued to have to rush this shit out so quickly. Clearly there wasn't a lot of time to plan this out.
"Please note that Audio Recognition is not guaranteed to be 100% accurate. It may return false positives or miss content from copyright owners who do not work with Audible Magic."
On August 07 2014 07:48 alienQT wrote: This is unbelievable, i never understood all the fluff about copyright music, its free advertising and all they do is killing it for us.. I and friends buyed a lot of stuff we listned too on twitch / youtube and many people do it too :/
And the amount you and your few friends bought (assuming that is true) is really small compared to making (broadcasting) companies pay for the right to broadcast the music.
"Free advertising" is also one of the most retarded arguments. "Hey, I mowed your lawn even though you didn't ask me; NOW PAY ME!" even though you indented to mow it on the coming weekend (or wanted your nephew to do it, so he could earn some money) "Hey, I washed your windshield at the traffic light NOW PAY ME!" even though you were at the car wash 30min ago.
"You haven't asked me to do X (advertising) now give me compensation (don't sue me!)" is stupid. Respect copyright.
Or: There are a shitton of artists who offer royalty free music. Support those artists. Tell your favorite streamer / eSports company to only use royalty free music. Stop caring about companies (music / game) who enforce their copyright. Start embracing companies who offer licenses for their stuff (royalty free artists, Valve, Blizzard, Riot, ....)
Your comparisons make no sense. No one is asking to get paid for playing music on their stream. It's background noise while they play games. They just don't want all of their (soon to be nonexistent) VODs muted because of it.
The response to that is going to be, don't play the music on stream. This was always going to happen at some point, google or not. At some point the people who own the music were going to ask twitch to crack down on people using the music in the back ground.
I watched a lot of ManVsGame before he started becoming a martyr with his outrageous antics. A long time ago he had several music producers on his cast while he played, and all of them loved to have their music played on Stream because it was literally free advertising. (I watched several of it and that was literally their words.) This isn't YouTube, where you can straight rip off of the video and turn into MP3.
There are literally countless streamers who play music while they play, most of us gamers here probably do the same, do we not? The only way is to have the music playing privately now when they are streaming. But now that the viewers are the ones that just sit there and depending on the game, hear nothing... or hear keyboard keys being punched while being played.
Not every music producer is going to want their music to not be played on stream. Some would love for it to happen, others won't.
Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
On August 07 2014 07:40 Roggay wrote: 2 extremely fun facts: - Twitch's own vods are getting flagged, like the vod of Twitch weekly. - pressing spacebar twice over a muted section of vod unmutes the vod
Hilarious. Edit: got sniped about twitch weekly.
Yes, currently the blocking seems to be implemented client-side, using volume control in the Flash player (lol). Any Twitch client not using the Flash player should not be affected (yet at least).
Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
And the fact that youtube had 0 competitors ready to welcome new users.
Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
Sure you can. Have you ever heard of "Let's Plays". Its just a recorded Twitch Stream on youtube and they are one of the most thriving scenes on Youtube.
People thinking this will kill twitch are just drinking the drama coolaid. It will just become like Lets plays on Youtube, which do just fine.
Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
And the fact that youtube had 0 competitors ready to welcome new users.
There are tons of other services out there, they just all kinda suck.
On August 07 2014 07:48 alienQT wrote: This is unbelievable, i never understood all the fluff about copyright music, its free advertising and all they do is killing it for us.. I and friends buyed a lot of stuff we listned too on twitch / youtube and many people do it too :/
And the amount you and your few friends bought (assuming that is true) is really small compared to making (broadcasting) companies pay for the right to broadcast the music.
"Free advertising" is also one of the most retarded arguments. "Hey, I mowed your lawn even though you didn't ask me; NOW PAY ME!" even though you indented to mow it on the coming weekend (or wanted your nephew to do it, so he could earn some money) "Hey, I washed your windshield at the traffic light NOW PAY ME!" even though you were at the car wash 30min ago.
"You haven't asked me to do X (advertising) now give me compensation (don't sue me!)" is stupid. Respect copyright.
Or: There are a shitton of artists who offer royalty free music. Support those artists. Tell your favorite streamer / eSports company to only use royalty free music. Stop caring about companies (music / game) who enforce their copyright. Start embracing companies who offer licenses for their stuff (royalty free artists, Valve, Blizzard, Riot, ....)
Your comparisons make no sense. No one is asking to get paid for playing music on their stream. It's background noise while they play games. They just don't want all of their (soon to be nonexistent) VODs muted because of it.
People are asking to get paid in ad revenue (if partnered; non partnered just means people are worthless to the ad seller, which doesn't mean the laws don't apply). Background noise means shit.
The music in a restaurant is background noise. The music in a supermarket is background noise. They all pay licensing fees. As soon as you make music publicly available (which a stream does) a license is required (which usually involves paying *cough royalty free music cough*)
Imagine the following crazy situation: You use my content. It makes you no cash. It makes me a billion dollars. I have all the rights to tell you to stop doing it. You have no legal claim saying "But you benefit from it" (like "you get free advertisement"). It would be the most stupid decision I would ever do in my life, but the law backs me up and you're fucked.
I can do the most retarded decision since it's MY content. Just as you are allowed to smoke & drink, even though smoking & drinking is bad for you and I cannot (legally) stop you from doing it. The only option is to stop using my content (royalty free music).
I have never went to a stream vod and was like "I have to listen to all these songs!" Twitch is going full Google on this one like YouTube did. Oh, Twitch. Closed Justin.tv, introduce this and no unlimited VODs all in the same 24hrs. Also, in-game music is licensed for the developer to have in the game. Developers know about Twitch and its usage I don't get why that's getting flagged.
Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
Sure you can. Have you ever heard of "Let's Plays". Its just a recorded Twitch Stream on youtube and they are one of the most thriving scenes on Youtube.
People thinking this will kill twitch are just drinking the drama coolaid. It will just become like Lets plays on Youtube, which do just fine.
Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
And the fact that youtube had 0 competitors ready to welcome new users.
There are tons of other services out there, they just all kinda suck.
Let's Plays (good ones) are NOTHING like streams. They are highly edited and thought out.
Streams are spontaneous "hey let's play this game and have some fun while chatting it up!"
Well, with them cutting down the VOD system to automatically delete all old VODs, and making pretty much all other VODs unusable, all that really happened is that twitch removed VODs entirely. It's not going to be the end of the world, but it sure removes some big features from the site.
Can't wait for the live audio-recognition to start up and do its magic in utterly destroying twitch, however.
Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
Sure you can. Have you ever heard of "Let's Plays". Its just a recorded Twitch Stream on youtube and they are one of the most thriving scenes on Youtube.
People thinking this will kill twitch are just drinking the drama coolaid. It will just become like Lets plays on Youtube, which do just fine.
Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
And the fact that youtube had 0 competitors ready to welcome new users.
There are tons of other services out there, they just all kinda suck.
Let's Plays (good ones) are NOTHING like streams. They are highly edited and thought out.
Streams are spontaneous "hey let's play this game and have some fun while chatting it up!"
Yeah, but this system only works on VODs. Who watches VODs of streams? Life streams are not effected and this avoids Twitch being sued by the record labels, which would happen. Twitch will be fine. People are just drinking up the drama coolaid.
On August 07 2014 09:57 Conti wrote: Well, with them cutting down the VOD system to automatically delete all old VODs, and making pretty much all other VODs unusable, all that really happened is that twitch removed VODs entirely. It's not going to be the end of the world, but it sure removes some big features from the site.
Can't wait for the live audio-recognition to start up and do its magic in utterly destroying twitch, however.
Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
Sure you can. Have you ever heard of "Let's Plays". Its just a recorded Twitch Stream on youtube and they are one of the most thriving scenes on Youtube.
People thinking this will kill twitch are just drinking the drama coolaid. It will just become like Lets plays on Youtube, which do just fine.
Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
And the fact that youtube had 0 competitors ready to welcome new users.
There are tons of other services out there, they just all kinda suck.
Let's Plays (good ones) are NOTHING like streams. They are highly edited and thought out.
Streams are spontaneous "hey let's play this game and have some fun while chatting it up!"
Yeah, but this system only works on VODs. Who watches VODs of streams? Life streams are not effected and this avoids Twitch being sued by the record labels, which would happen. Twitch will be fine. People are just drinking up the drama coolaid.
On August 07 2014 09:57 Conti wrote: Well, with them cutting down the VOD system to automatically delete all old VODs, and making pretty much all other VODs unusable, all that really happened is that twitch removed VODs entirely. It's not going to be the end of the world, but it sure removes some big features from the site.
Can't wait for the live audio-recognition to start up and do its magic in utterly destroying twitch, however.
Just like it did youtube, right? Oh wait....
For now it's just vods. Give it time.
Where else do you go to besides youtube? blip? Lol.
Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
Sure you can. Have you ever heard of "Let's Plays". Its just a recorded Twitch Stream on youtube and they are one of the most thriving scenes on Youtube.
People thinking this will kill twitch are just drinking the drama coolaid. It will just become like Lets plays on Youtube, which do just fine.
Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
And the fact that youtube had 0 competitors ready to welcome new users.
There are tons of other services out there, they just all kinda suck.
Let's Plays (good ones) are NOTHING like streams. They are highly edited and thought out.
Streams are spontaneous "hey let's play this game and have some fun while chatting it up!"
Yeah, but this system only works on VODs. Who watches VODs of streams? Life streams are not effected and this avoids Twitch being sued by the record labels, which would happen. Twitch will be fine. People are just drinking up the drama coolaid.
On August 07 2014 09:57 Conti wrote: Well, with them cutting down the VOD system to automatically delete all old VODs, and making pretty much all other VODs unusable, all that really happened is that twitch removed VODs entirely. It's not going to be the end of the world, but it sure removes some big features from the site.
Can't wait for the live audio-recognition to start up and do its magic in utterly destroying twitch, however.
Just like it did youtube, right? Oh wait....
For now it's just vods. Give it time.
Where else do you go to besides youtube? blip? Lol.
Daily motion and a bunch of others. They are all terrible, but exists. And it likely will come for live stuff, because the record labels can and will likely sue. Its not like Twitch wants to do this, but they have to or the record labels will try to use them as an ATM.
Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
Sure you can. Have you ever heard of "Let's Plays". Its just a recorded Twitch Stream on youtube and they are one of the most thriving scenes on Youtube.
People thinking this will kill twitch are just drinking the drama coolaid. It will just become like Lets plays on Youtube, which do just fine.
Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
And the fact that youtube had 0 competitors ready to welcome new users.
There are tons of other services out there, they just all kinda suck.
Let's Plays (good ones) are NOTHING like streams. They are highly edited and thought out.
Streams are spontaneous "hey let's play this game and have some fun while chatting it up!"
Yeah, but this system only works on VODs. Who watches VODs of streams? Life streams are not effected and this avoids Twitch being sued by the record labels, which would happen. Twitch will be fine. People are just drinking up the drama coolaid.
On August 07 2014 09:57 Conti wrote: Well, with them cutting down the VOD system to automatically delete all old VODs, and making pretty much all other VODs unusable, all that really happened is that twitch removed VODs entirely. It's not going to be the end of the world, but it sure removes some big features from the site.
Can't wait for the live audio-recognition to start up and do its magic in utterly destroying twitch, however.
Just like it did youtube, right? Oh wait....
I'd say my twitch usage is 70/30 ratio of VODs/live.
I like to watch speedrunners, marathons I missed, mtg, tourneys for different games. I get all those on VODs. Even some streamers that stream when I can't watch that are interesting even in VODs I watch sometimes. Just for an example, tornis is a streamer that streams 8-10 hours a day when I'm unable to watch and I like most of his videos. He plays TONS of games and I like to go see what I missed every once in a while and watch a bunch if I like the game. I've bought quite a few games because of him. Now I will only be able to see 14 or 60 days behind, with probable muted sound since he listens to music as he streams.
VODs are still very different than LPs. I enjoy those as well on youtube.
Random thought: Don't a lot of Pros of any game that stream listen to music while they play. I used to watch VODs when they were offline. Now they'll be in silence.
Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
Sure you can. Have you ever heard of "Let's Plays". Its just a recorded Twitch Stream on youtube and they are one of the most thriving scenes on Youtube.
People thinking this will kill twitch are just drinking the drama coolaid. It will just become like Lets plays on Youtube, which do just fine.
Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
And the fact that youtube had 0 competitors ready to welcome new users.
There are tons of other services out there, they just all kinda suck.
Let's Plays (good ones) are NOTHING like streams. They are highly edited and thought out.
Streams are spontaneous "hey let's play this game and have some fun while chatting it up!"
Yeah, but this system only works on VODs. Who watches VODs of streams? Life streams are not effected and this avoids Twitch being sued by the record labels, which would happen. Twitch will be fine. People are just drinking up the drama coolaid.
On August 07 2014 09:57 Conti wrote: Well, with them cutting down the VOD system to automatically delete all old VODs, and making pretty much all other VODs unusable, all that really happened is that twitch removed VODs entirely. It's not going to be the end of the world, but it sure removes some big features from the site.
Can't wait for the live audio-recognition to start up and do its magic in utterly destroying twitch, however.
Just like it did youtube, right? Oh wait....
For now it's just vods. Give it time.
Where else do you go to besides youtube? blip? Lol.
Daily motion and a bunch of others. They are all terrible, but exists. And it likely will come for live stuff, because the record labels can and will likely sue. Its not like Twitch wants to do this, but they have to or the record labels will try to use them as an ATM.
The difference is the barely usable interface of most of those websites and lack benefits (basically no viewers, they probably don't pay content producers much, they have just as many issues with copyrights, etc) on those websites are VERY different from youtube.
Going from twitch to hitbox is not that different (I'd say the hitbox interface is better even or at least as good as twitch's which is a huge deal) besides viewership. And if word passes like it is, that could be a null point very fast.
Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
Sure you can. Have you ever heard of "Let's Plays". Its just a recorded Twitch Stream on youtube and they are one of the most thriving scenes on Youtube.
People thinking this will kill twitch are just drinking the drama coolaid. It will just become like Lets plays on Youtube, which do just fine.
On August 07 2014 09:39 Kurr wrote:
On August 07 2014 09:26 NexUmbra wrote:
On August 07 2014 09:22 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
On August 07 2014 09:15 Sub40APM wrote: [quote] Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
And the fact that youtube had 0 competitors ready to welcome new users.
There are tons of other services out there, they just all kinda suck.
Let's Plays (good ones) are NOTHING like streams. They are highly edited and thought out.
Streams are spontaneous "hey let's play this game and have some fun while chatting it up!"
Yeah, but this system only works on VODs. Who watches VODs of streams? Life streams are not effected and this avoids Twitch being sued by the record labels, which would happen. Twitch will be fine. People are just drinking up the drama coolaid.
On August 07 2014 09:57 Conti wrote: Well, with them cutting down the VOD system to automatically delete all old VODs, and making pretty much all other VODs unusable, all that really happened is that twitch removed VODs entirely. It's not going to be the end of the world, but it sure removes some big features from the site.
Can't wait for the live audio-recognition to start up and do its magic in utterly destroying twitch, however.
Just like it did youtube, right? Oh wait....
For now it's just vods. Give it time.
Where else do you go to besides youtube? blip? Lol.
Daily motion and a bunch of others. They are all terrible, but exists. And it likely will come for live stuff, because the record labels can and will likely sue. Its not like Twitch wants to do this, but they have to or the record labels will try to use them as an ATM.
The difference is the barely usable interface of most of those websites and lack benefits (basically no viewers, they probably don't pay content producers much, they have just as many issues with copyrights, etc) on those websites are VERY different from youtube.
Going from twitch to hitbox is not that different (I'd say the hitbox interface is better even or at least as good as twitch's which is a huge deal) besides viewership. And if word passes like it is, that could be a null point very fast.
Until they get cease and desist letter from the record labels and have to use the same system. And the migration isn't going to happen. People didn't leave youtube and they aren't going to leave twitch.
And that is the reason Youtube is the top used site, because they have better features and don't suck as much as the other sites. Thats how the internet works, people go to the best, most widely used service.
Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
Sure you can. Have you ever heard of "Let's Plays". Its just a recorded Twitch Stream on youtube and they are one of the most thriving scenes on Youtube.
People thinking this will kill twitch are just drinking the drama coolaid. It will just become like Lets plays on Youtube, which do just fine.
Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
And the fact that youtube had 0 competitors ready to welcome new users.
There are tons of other services out there, they just all kinda suck.
Let's Plays (good ones) are NOTHING like streams. They are highly edited and thought out.
Streams are spontaneous "hey let's play this game and have some fun while chatting it up!"
Yeah, but this system only works on VODs. Who watches VODs of streams? Life streams are not effected and this avoids Twitch being sued by the record labels, which would happen. Twitch will be fine. People are just drinking up the drama coolaid.
On August 07 2014 09:57 Conti wrote: Well, with them cutting down the VOD system to automatically delete all old VODs, and making pretty much all other VODs unusable, all that really happened is that twitch removed VODs entirely. It's not going to be the end of the world, but it sure removes some big features from the site.
Can't wait for the live audio-recognition to start up and do its magic in utterly destroying twitch, however.
Just like it did youtube, right? Oh wait....
Youtube is not a music service. And before you say that twitch isn't, either, remember that the audio recognition software recognizes and blocks ambient/in-game sound/music as well. There's already reports of blocks coming from in-game sounds from Dota2, GTA and Hearthstone.
Removing any and all music from live streaming (don't start with the silly idea of using "free" music, that is never going to work) will be a huge blow to twitch. It's not just player streams. Imagine Dreamhack without any music whatsoever. Imagine 30 minute breaks, completely silent. Fun, isn't it? Installing youtube's contentID system that basically removes everything it can find will cripple twitch enough that some serious competition can finally rise.
I doubt that the guys at twitch are that stupid, but you never know, now that Google holds the reins.
Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
Sure you can. Have you ever heard of "Let's Plays". Its just a recorded Twitch Stream on youtube and they are one of the most thriving scenes on Youtube.
People thinking this will kill twitch are just drinking the drama coolaid. It will just become like Lets plays on Youtube, which do just fine.
Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
And the fact that youtube had 0 competitors ready to welcome new users.
There are tons of other services out there, they just all kinda suck.
Let's Plays (good ones) are NOTHING like streams. They are highly edited and thought out.
Streams are spontaneous "hey let's play this game and have some fun while chatting it up!"
Yeah, but this system only works on VODs. Who watches VODs of streams? Life streams are not effected and this avoids Twitch being sued by the record labels, which would happen. Twitch will be fine. People are just drinking up the drama coolaid.
On August 07 2014 09:57 Conti wrote: Well, with them cutting down the VOD system to automatically delete all old VODs, and making pretty much all other VODs unusable, all that really happened is that twitch removed VODs entirely. It's not going to be the end of the world, but it sure removes some big features from the site.
Can't wait for the live audio-recognition to start up and do its magic in utterly destroying twitch, however.
Just like it did youtube, right? Oh wait....
Youtube is not a music service. And before you say that twitch isn't, either, remember that the audio recognition software recognizes and blocks ambient/in-game sound/music as well. There's already reports of blocks coming from in-game sounds from Dota2, GTA and Hearthstone.
Removing any and all music from live streaming (don't start with the silly idea of using "free" music, that is never going to work) will be a huge blow to twitch. It's not just player streams. Imagine Dreamhack without any music whatsoever. Imagine 30 minute breaks, completely silent. Fun, isn't it? Installing youtube's contentID system that basically removes everything it can find will cripple twitch enough that some serious competition can finally rise.
I doubt that the guys at twitch are that stupid, but you never know, now that Google holds the reins.
From my understanding, its not something they can fix till they turn it on and see how it fucks up and tags stuff its not supposed to. Then they can fix those problems. But they need to know where the problem is to fix first.
And Dream hack will have music, they just might not have it in the VOD. Which is fine, since the music is during the down time anyways. There are ways around it production wise.
Oh, and there's this fun little tidbit. Content creators themselves have their own work flagged against their own will. Imagine that happening with live streaming.
Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
Sure you can. Have you ever heard of "Let's Plays". Its just a recorded Twitch Stream on youtube and they are one of the most thriving scenes on Youtube.
People thinking this will kill twitch are just drinking the drama coolaid. It will just become like Lets plays on Youtube, which do just fine.
Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
And the fact that youtube had 0 competitors ready to welcome new users.
There are tons of other services out there, they just all kinda suck.
Let's Plays (good ones) are NOTHING like streams. They are highly edited and thought out.
Streams are spontaneous "hey let's play this game and have some fun while chatting it up!"
Yeah, but this system only works on VODs. Who watches VODs of streams? Life streams are not effected and this avoids Twitch being sued by the record labels, which would happen. Twitch will be fine. People are just drinking up the drama coolaid.
On August 07 2014 09:57 Conti wrote: Well, with them cutting down the VOD system to automatically delete all old VODs, and making pretty much all other VODs unusable, all that really happened is that twitch removed VODs entirely. It's not going to be the end of the world, but it sure removes some big features from the site.
Can't wait for the live audio-recognition to start up and do its magic in utterly destroying twitch, however.
Just like it did youtube, right? Oh wait....
Youtube is not a music service. And before you say that twitch isn't, either, remember that the audio recognition software recognizes and blocks ambient/in-game sound/music as well. There's already reports of blocks coming from in-game sounds from Dota2, GTA and Hearthstone.
Removing any and all music from live streaming (don't start with the silly idea of using "free" music, that is never going to work) will be a huge blow to twitch. It's not just player streams. Imagine Dreamhack without any music whatsoever. Imagine 30 minute breaks, completely silent. Fun, isn't it? Installing youtube's contentID system that basically removes everything it can find will cripple twitch enough that some serious competition can finally rise.
I doubt that the guys at twitch are that stupid, but you never know, now that Google holds the reins.
From my understanding, its not something they can fix till they turn it on and see how it fucks up and tags stuff its not supposed to. Then they can fix those problems. But they need to know where the problem is to fix first.
And Dream hack will have music, they just might not have it in the VOD. Which is fine, since the music is during the down time anyways. There are ways around it production wise.
First of all, no, Dreamhack has music all the time. In-game music, for starters. Music when a player wins. Music in the previews. Of course it's just background music, but the content system doesn't care about that.
And my point is under the assumption that this will be turned on for live streaming. Which it will, if the technology is there and Google buys twitch.
Not to mention the awesome potential of "This stream is not available in your country".
Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
Sure you can. Have you ever heard of "Let's Plays". Its just a recorded Twitch Stream on youtube and they are one of the most thriving scenes on Youtube.
People thinking this will kill twitch are just drinking the drama coolaid. It will just become like Lets plays on Youtube, which do just fine.
On August 07 2014 09:39 Kurr wrote:
On August 07 2014 09:26 NexUmbra wrote:
On August 07 2014 09:22 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
On August 07 2014 09:15 Sub40APM wrote: [quote] Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
And the fact that youtube had 0 competitors ready to welcome new users.
There are tons of other services out there, they just all kinda suck.
Let's Plays (good ones) are NOTHING like streams. They are highly edited and thought out.
Streams are spontaneous "hey let's play this game and have some fun while chatting it up!"
Yeah, but this system only works on VODs. Who watches VODs of streams? Life streams are not effected and this avoids Twitch being sued by the record labels, which would happen. Twitch will be fine. People are just drinking up the drama coolaid.
On August 07 2014 09:57 Conti wrote: Well, with them cutting down the VOD system to automatically delete all old VODs, and making pretty much all other VODs unusable, all that really happened is that twitch removed VODs entirely. It's not going to be the end of the world, but it sure removes some big features from the site.
Can't wait for the live audio-recognition to start up and do its magic in utterly destroying twitch, however.
Just like it did youtube, right? Oh wait....
Youtube is not a music service. And before you say that twitch isn't, either, remember that the audio recognition software recognizes and blocks ambient/in-game sound/music as well. There's already reports of blocks coming from in-game sounds from Dota2, GTA and Hearthstone.
Removing any and all music from live streaming (don't start with the silly idea of using "free" music, that is never going to work) will be a huge blow to twitch. It's not just player streams. Imagine Dreamhack without any music whatsoever. Imagine 30 minute breaks, completely silent. Fun, isn't it? Installing youtube's contentID system that basically removes everything it can find will cripple twitch enough that some serious competition can finally rise.
I doubt that the guys at twitch are that stupid, but you never know, now that Google holds the reins.
From my understanding, its not something they can fix till they turn it on and see how it fucks up and tags stuff its not supposed to. Then they can fix those problems. But they need to know where the problem is to fix first.
And Dream hack will have music, they just might not have it in the VOD. Which is fine, since the music is during the down time anyways. There are ways around it production wise.
First of all, no, Dreamhack has music all the time. In-game music, for starters. Music when a player wins. Music in the previews. Of course it's just background music, but the content system doesn't care about that.
And my point is under the assumption that this will be turned on for live streaming. Which it will, if the technology is there and Google buys twitch.
Not to mention the awesome potential of "This stream is not available in your country".
It will be fine, they will have music and find a way to put up VODs. Maybe they just record it and upload the VODs to youtube. People will work around it.
On August 07 2014 09:15 Sub40APM wrote: [quote] Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
Sure you can. Have you ever heard of "Let's Plays". Its just a recorded Twitch Stream on youtube and they are one of the most thriving scenes on Youtube.
People thinking this will kill twitch are just drinking the drama coolaid. It will just become like Lets plays on Youtube, which do just fine.
On August 07 2014 09:39 Kurr wrote:
On August 07 2014 09:26 NexUmbra wrote:
On August 07 2014 09:22 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: [quote]
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
And the fact that youtube had 0 competitors ready to welcome new users.
There are tons of other services out there, they just all kinda suck.
Let's Plays (good ones) are NOTHING like streams. They are highly edited and thought out.
Streams are spontaneous "hey let's play this game and have some fun while chatting it up!"
Yeah, but this system only works on VODs. Who watches VODs of streams? Life streams are not effected and this avoids Twitch being sued by the record labels, which would happen. Twitch will be fine. People are just drinking up the drama coolaid.
On August 07 2014 09:57 Conti wrote: Well, with them cutting down the VOD system to automatically delete all old VODs, and making pretty much all other VODs unusable, all that really happened is that twitch removed VODs entirely. It's not going to be the end of the world, but it sure removes some big features from the site.
Can't wait for the live audio-recognition to start up and do its magic in utterly destroying twitch, however.
Just like it did youtube, right? Oh wait....
For now it's just vods. Give it time.
Where else do you go to besides youtube? blip? Lol.
Daily motion and a bunch of others. They are all terrible, but exists. And it likely will come for live stuff, because the record labels can and will likely sue. Its not like Twitch wants to do this, but they have to or the record labels will try to use them as an ATM.
The difference is the barely usable interface of most of those websites and lack benefits (basically no viewers, they probably don't pay content producers much, they have just as many issues with copyrights, etc) on those websites are VERY different from youtube.
Going from twitch to hitbox is not that different (I'd say the hitbox interface is better even or at least as good as twitch's which is a huge deal) besides viewership. And if word passes like it is, that could be a null point very fast.
Until they get cease and desist letter from the record labels and have to use the same system. And the migration isn't going to happen. People didn't leave youtube and they aren't going to leave twitch.
And that is the reason Youtube is the top used site, because they have better features and don't suck as much as the other sites. Thats how the internet works, people go to the best, most widely used service.
Feel free to disagree if you want. Youtube and Twitch are apples and oranges so comparing them as you are is wrong IMO but you seem stuck on that idea so I won't argue further.
On August 07 2014 09:15 Sub40APM wrote: [quote] Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
Sure you can. Have you ever heard of "Let's Plays". Its just a recorded Twitch Stream on youtube and they are one of the most thriving scenes on Youtube.
People thinking this will kill twitch are just drinking the drama coolaid. It will just become like Lets plays on Youtube, which do just fine.
On August 07 2014 09:39 Kurr wrote:
On August 07 2014 09:26 NexUmbra wrote:
On August 07 2014 09:22 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: [quote]
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
And the fact that youtube had 0 competitors ready to welcome new users.
There are tons of other services out there, they just all kinda suck.
Let's Plays (good ones) are NOTHING like streams. They are highly edited and thought out.
Streams are spontaneous "hey let's play this game and have some fun while chatting it up!"
Yeah, but this system only works on VODs. Who watches VODs of streams? Life streams are not effected and this avoids Twitch being sued by the record labels, which would happen. Twitch will be fine. People are just drinking up the drama coolaid.
On August 07 2014 09:57 Conti wrote: Well, with them cutting down the VOD system to automatically delete all old VODs, and making pretty much all other VODs unusable, all that really happened is that twitch removed VODs entirely. It's not going to be the end of the world, but it sure removes some big features from the site.
Can't wait for the live audio-recognition to start up and do its magic in utterly destroying twitch, however.
Just like it did youtube, right? Oh wait....
Youtube is not a music service. And before you say that twitch isn't, either, remember that the audio recognition software recognizes and blocks ambient/in-game sound/music as well. There's already reports of blocks coming from in-game sounds from Dota2, GTA and Hearthstone.
Removing any and all music from live streaming (don't start with the silly idea of using "free" music, that is never going to work) will be a huge blow to twitch. It's not just player streams. Imagine Dreamhack without any music whatsoever. Imagine 30 minute breaks, completely silent. Fun, isn't it? Installing youtube's contentID system that basically removes everything it can find will cripple twitch enough that some serious competition can finally rise.
I doubt that the guys at twitch are that stupid, but you never know, now that Google holds the reins.
From my understanding, its not something they can fix till they turn it on and see how it fucks up and tags stuff its not supposed to. Then they can fix those problems. But they need to know where the problem is to fix first.
And Dream hack will have music, they just might not have it in the VOD. Which is fine, since the music is during the down time anyways. There are ways around it production wise.
First of all, no, Dreamhack has music all the time. In-game music, for starters. Music when a player wins. Music in the previews. Of course it's just background music, but the content system doesn't care about that.
And my point is under the assumption that this will be turned on for live streaming. Which it will, if the technology is there and Google buys twitch.
Not to mention the awesome potential of "This stream is not available in your country".
It will be fine, they will have music and find a way to put up VODs. Maybe they just record it and upload the VODs to youtube. People will work around it.
Which is as I said: Twitch has de facto removed its VOD feature entirely.
I know that Twitch is not just going to spontaneously kill itself with the love of contentID in live streams. Twitch will work around it. But we don't know how that will look like. It is entirely realistic to assume that some streams (or, rather, pretty much all streams) will not be available in certain countries. It is quite possible that they will switch to a less radical database that does not include game music, and thus "only" killing streamers playing actual music.
But even then.. GTA plays actual music. There is no way to detect the difference between someone playing a song in GTA versus someone playing that song outside of GTA. So there will be collateral damage, and it will be quite ugly.
GTA...and Fallout and plenty of other games (and even more if you count mods) play copyrighted music. Doesn't help that copyrights last until they are about to expire and then Congress extends them for another 30 years.
On August 07 2014 09:15 Sub40APM wrote: [quote] Well, bravo to google. They spend a billion dollars on a company that their own action will possible make nearly valueless because of clumsy anti-piracy.
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
Sure you can. Have you ever heard of "Let's Plays". Its just a recorded Twitch Stream on youtube and they are one of the most thriving scenes on Youtube.
People thinking this will kill twitch are just drinking the drama coolaid. It will just become like Lets plays on Youtube, which do just fine.
On August 07 2014 09:39 Kurr wrote:
On August 07 2014 09:26 NexUmbra wrote:
On August 07 2014 09:22 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: [quote]
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
And the fact that youtube had 0 competitors ready to welcome new users.
There are tons of other services out there, they just all kinda suck.
Let's Plays (good ones) are NOTHING like streams. They are highly edited and thought out.
Streams are spontaneous "hey let's play this game and have some fun while chatting it up!"
Yeah, but this system only works on VODs. Who watches VODs of streams? Life streams are not effected and this avoids Twitch being sued by the record labels, which would happen. Twitch will be fine. People are just drinking up the drama coolaid.
On August 07 2014 09:57 Conti wrote: Well, with them cutting down the VOD system to automatically delete all old VODs, and making pretty much all other VODs unusable, all that really happened is that twitch removed VODs entirely. It's not going to be the end of the world, but it sure removes some big features from the site.
Can't wait for the live audio-recognition to start up and do its magic in utterly destroying twitch, however.
Just like it did youtube, right? Oh wait....
Youtube is not a music service. And before you say that twitch isn't, either, remember that the audio recognition software recognizes and blocks ambient/in-game sound/music as well. There's already reports of blocks coming from in-game sounds from Dota2, GTA and Hearthstone.
Removing any and all music from live streaming (don't start with the silly idea of using "free" music, that is never going to work) will be a huge blow to twitch. It's not just player streams. Imagine Dreamhack without any music whatsoever. Imagine 30 minute breaks, completely silent. Fun, isn't it? Installing youtube's contentID system that basically removes everything it can find will cripple twitch enough that some serious competition can finally rise.
I doubt that the guys at twitch are that stupid, but you never know, now that Google holds the reins.
From my understanding, its not something they can fix till they turn it on and see how it fucks up and tags stuff its not supposed to. Then they can fix those problems. But they need to know where the problem is to fix first.
And Dream hack will have music, they just might not have it in the VOD. Which is fine, since the music is during the down time anyways. There are ways around it production wise.
First of all, no, Dreamhack has music all the time. In-game music, for starters. Music when a player wins. Music in the previews. Of course it's just background music, but the content system doesn't care about that.
And my point is under the assumption that this will be turned on for live streaming. Which it will, if the technology is there and Google buys twitch.
Not to mention the awesome potential of "This stream is not available in your country".
It will be fine, they will have music and find a way to put up VODs. Maybe they just record it and upload the VODs to youtube. People will work around it.
"People will never switch from Livestream, it has great functionality and way too much momentum" - people like you, Spring 2010
"Why would anybody switch from ustream? It doesn't have 1000-person chat limits like livestream did, plus everybody already streams there so you'd lose collateral viewers switching" - people like you, Fall 2010
On August 07 2014 09:22 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: [quote]
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
Sure you can. Have you ever heard of "Let's Plays". Its just a recorded Twitch Stream on youtube and they are one of the most thriving scenes on Youtube.
People thinking this will kill twitch are just drinking the drama coolaid. It will just become like Lets plays on Youtube, which do just fine.
On August 07 2014 09:39 Kurr wrote:
On August 07 2014 09:26 NexUmbra wrote: [quote] That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
And the fact that youtube had 0 competitors ready to welcome new users.
There are tons of other services out there, they just all kinda suck.
Let's Plays (good ones) are NOTHING like streams. They are highly edited and thought out.
Streams are spontaneous "hey let's play this game and have some fun while chatting it up!"
Yeah, but this system only works on VODs. Who watches VODs of streams? Life streams are not effected and this avoids Twitch being sued by the record labels, which would happen. Twitch will be fine. People are just drinking up the drama coolaid.
On August 07 2014 09:57 Conti wrote: Well, with them cutting down the VOD system to automatically delete all old VODs, and making pretty much all other VODs unusable, all that really happened is that twitch removed VODs entirely. It's not going to be the end of the world, but it sure removes some big features from the site.
Can't wait for the live audio-recognition to start up and do its magic in utterly destroying twitch, however.
Just like it did youtube, right? Oh wait....
Youtube is not a music service. And before you say that twitch isn't, either, remember that the audio recognition software recognizes and blocks ambient/in-game sound/music as well. There's already reports of blocks coming from in-game sounds from Dota2, GTA and Hearthstone.
Removing any and all music from live streaming (don't start with the silly idea of using "free" music, that is never going to work) will be a huge blow to twitch. It's not just player streams. Imagine Dreamhack without any music whatsoever. Imagine 30 minute breaks, completely silent. Fun, isn't it? Installing youtube's contentID system that basically removes everything it can find will cripple twitch enough that some serious competition can finally rise.
I doubt that the guys at twitch are that stupid, but you never know, now that Google holds the reins.
From my understanding, its not something they can fix till they turn it on and see how it fucks up and tags stuff its not supposed to. Then they can fix those problems. But they need to know where the problem is to fix first.
And Dream hack will have music, they just might not have it in the VOD. Which is fine, since the music is during the down time anyways. There are ways around it production wise.
First of all, no, Dreamhack has music all the time. In-game music, for starters. Music when a player wins. Music in the previews. Of course it's just background music, but the content system doesn't care about that.
And my point is under the assumption that this will be turned on for live streaming. Which it will, if the technology is there and Google buys twitch.
Not to mention the awesome potential of "This stream is not available in your country".
It will be fine, they will have music and find a way to put up VODs. Maybe they just record it and upload the VODs to youtube. People will work around it.
"People will never switch from Livestream, it has great functionality and way too much momentum" - people like you, Spring 2010
"Why would anybody switch from ustream? It doesn't have 1000-person chat limits like livestream did, plus everybody already streams there so you'd lose collateral viewers switching" - people like you, Fall 2010
Yep. When pushed around too much the gaming community is definitely one community that doesn't stand around too long.
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>
I was wondering earlier as well. Some streamers have this as well and not just leagues...
On August 07 2014 09:22 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: [quote]
Okay, saying it's valueless is a bit of an overstatement. Did youtube become valueless? Cause they did the same thing with that.
That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
Sure you can. Have you ever heard of "Let's Plays". Its just a recorded Twitch Stream on youtube and they are one of the most thriving scenes on Youtube.
People thinking this will kill twitch are just drinking the drama coolaid. It will just become like Lets plays on Youtube, which do just fine.
On August 07 2014 09:39 Kurr wrote:
On August 07 2014 09:26 NexUmbra wrote: [quote] That isn't completely a fair comparison though. Consider the number of videos on YouTube of people playing music and compare it with the number of Twitch streams playing music.
And the fact that youtube had 0 competitors ready to welcome new users.
There are tons of other services out there, they just all kinda suck.
Let's Plays (good ones) are NOTHING like streams. They are highly edited and thought out.
Streams are spontaneous "hey let's play this game and have some fun while chatting it up!"
Yeah, but this system only works on VODs. Who watches VODs of streams? Life streams are not effected and this avoids Twitch being sued by the record labels, which would happen. Twitch will be fine. People are just drinking up the drama coolaid.
On August 07 2014 09:57 Conti wrote: Well, with them cutting down the VOD system to automatically delete all old VODs, and making pretty much all other VODs unusable, all that really happened is that twitch removed VODs entirely. It's not going to be the end of the world, but it sure removes some big features from the site.
Can't wait for the live audio-recognition to start up and do its magic in utterly destroying twitch, however.
Just like it did youtube, right? Oh wait....
Youtube is not a music service. And before you say that twitch isn't, either, remember that the audio recognition software recognizes and blocks ambient/in-game sound/music as well. There's already reports of blocks coming from in-game sounds from Dota2, GTA and Hearthstone.
Removing any and all music from live streaming (don't start with the silly idea of using "free" music, that is never going to work) will be a huge blow to twitch. It's not just player streams. Imagine Dreamhack without any music whatsoever. Imagine 30 minute breaks, completely silent. Fun, isn't it? Installing youtube's contentID system that basically removes everything it can find will cripple twitch enough that some serious competition can finally rise.
I doubt that the guys at twitch are that stupid, but you never know, now that Google holds the reins.
From my understanding, its not something they can fix till they turn it on and see how it fucks up and tags stuff its not supposed to. Then they can fix those problems. But they need to know where the problem is to fix first.
And Dream hack will have music, they just might not have it in the VOD. Which is fine, since the music is during the down time anyways. There are ways around it production wise.
First of all, no, Dreamhack has music all the time. In-game music, for starters. Music when a player wins. Music in the previews. Of course it's just background music, but the content system doesn't care about that.
And my point is under the assumption that this will be turned on for live streaming. Which it will, if the technology is there and Google buys twitch.
Not to mention the awesome potential of "This stream is not available in your country".
It will be fine, they will have music and find a way to put up VODs. Maybe they just record it and upload the VODs to youtube. People will work around it.
"People will never switch from Livestream, it has great functionality and way too much momentum" - people like you, Spring 2010
"Why would anybody switch from ustream? It doesn't have 1000-person chat limits like livestream did, plus everybody already streams there so you'd lose collateral viewers switching" - people like you, Fall 2010
The thing is that any streaming service that gets large enough will need to put a system like this in place. And its not like Twitch is doing this because they want to. Just like YouTube, they put it in place because they have to take down copyrighted material or open themselves to liability to the record labels. Its not like any other streaming service is going to be magically immune to this.
On August 07 2014 08:25 xuanzue wrote: dotatv is more strong than ever. shame in the rest of games that gonna need azubu to stream without trouble.
DotaTV has been more stable than Twitch since I started watching Dota2. And now that you can pause and rewind games in progress (from the point you started watching it), it doesn't look all that interesting to watch streams any longer of Dota2.
On August 07 2014 08:25 xuanzue wrote: dotatv is more strong than ever. shame in the rest of games that gonna need azubu to stream without trouble.
DotaTV has been more stable than Twitch since I started watching Dota2. And now that you can pause and rewind games in progress (from the point you started watching it), it doesn't look all that interesting to watch streams any longer of Dota2.
The upcoming addition of new production features like split-screen cams for base races and I think some more teamfight info will add a lot more to DotaTV, in addition to the ton of stuff that they've implemented these past months.
However, I still think streams still hold some advantage over DotaTV, like being able to more easily follow an individual player, being able to listen to his music and commentary. I can't imagine experiences like Singsing's stream or Arteezy's stream transferring over very well to DotaTV. Plus, I'm currently not in a position to pay for most tournament tickets to access them on DotaTV, so I prefer to watch them free over Twitch.
I do think there should be an active effort to rescue vods, though. A lot of decent history can potentially be lost, especially from older leagues.
Well Twitch is dead to me for watching VODs of a ton of streamers. Huge portions sometimes the entire VOD itself is muted because they were playing copyrighted music in the background. Can't watch any Dota2 streamer VOD and some CSGO streamers too. So much bullshit, was actually hoping Google wouldn't bring their Youtube type censorship over to Twitch but I was dead wrong.
Hitbox said that ever since Twitch implemented their rules today, they had a huge influx of users. So much so that their site crashed.
Gaming community isn't stupid, most of the people who are with Twitch are gamers themselves. Whatever the reasons that Twitch is doing this for, it will hurt them. Now streamers actually have a legit reason to find other places to stream. Streaming and Music goes along hand to hand. The fact that Twitch even did this is just confusing.
On August 07 2014 14:27 WindWolf wrote: Isn't it technically illegal to stream using music you don't have permission to?
Probably, but the way that Twitch and Youtube has been combating this has been way too blunt and messy. Too much of innocent content has been unfairly flagged on both sites already.
On August 07 2014 14:27 WindWolf wrote: Isn't it technically illegal to stream using music you don't have permission to?
Technically it is up to the person of the music you are listening to on stream. Some don't mind and would like the attention, some won't allow it.
Monstercat said on Twitter they will never mute any streamer that is using their music and has a form out that allows you to fill out info for the bypass. Obviously Monstercat actually cares.
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.
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.
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.
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 17:17 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.
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>
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 14:27 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I simply wouldn't be surprised if they're upgrading existing architecture for the future, in the case of VOD. If they are really storing it how they say they are, there's likely a lot of overhead on processing and hardware upgrades in the current system. Change the VOD system now to prevent larger headaches down the road.
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.
No, what playing music while streaming is not fair use.
Although there is no legal precedent, the point of a stream is to play the game, you may be able to stretch the meaning of fair use to cover the performance of a game. However music isn't a part of a game performance. It would be more comparable to the background music used in dining establishments (which gets businesses sued over if they use it without a licence http://www2.qsrmagazine.com/articles/exclusives/1209/copyright-1.phtml)
It is generally accepted that music contributes very little to the streaming experience, and there is no way courts would believe if suddenly everyone said that music was part of the streaming art.
Twitch is an American company and will have to follow American law. And even if Twitch reincorperated in another country they would still have to follow the law or risk threats to their core business.
Note: I am talking about playing copyrighted music that is not licensed by the streamers. Certainly there are issues with this system because of how hastily implemented this system was. It is pretty clear that Twitch was just hit with a lawsuit or about to be hit with one.
On August 07 2014 22:50 FFW_Rude wrote: So... Dailymotion or Azubu TV ? i'm starting to wonder...
Also i sued my neighboor. He put the sound of his computer too loud and i could hear music through the wall ! He didn't have a licence to broadcast.
I am not an expert on copyright law, but I am pretty sure it needs to be your music and he needs to be making money off of it. Unless he is running some weird DJ system where he charges to play the music for your entire block from the roof of his house, I think he is pretty safe from liability.
On August 07 2014 22:50 FFW_Rude wrote: So... Dailymotion or Azubu TV ? i'm starting to wonder...
Also i sued my neighboor. He put the sound of his computer too loud and i could hear music through the wall ! He didn't have a licence to broadcast.
I am not an expert on copyright law, but I am pretty sure it needs to be your music and he needs to be making money off of it. Unless he is running some weird DJ system where he charges to play the music for your entire block from the roof of his house, I think he is pretty safe from liability.
I don't make money on twitch vods... So... why would i be muted ?
You know that on youtube i got banned because i used copyright music on a CS video ? Yeah... it was my band.... Why oh why would i be muted because i have vods with music inside... I don't make money, i'm not hurting the music industry.
it's stupid when nintendo forbid to broadcast their game. It's equally stupid to do that for music...
On August 07 2014 22:50 FFW_Rude wrote: So... Dailymotion or Azubu TV ? i'm starting to wonder...
Also i sued my neighboor. He put the sound of his computer too loud and i could hear music through the wall ! He didn't have a licence to broadcast.
I am not an expert on copyright law, but I am pretty sure it needs to be your music and he needs to be making money off of it. Unless he is running some weird DJ system where he charges to play the music for your entire block from the roof of his house, I think he is pretty safe from liability.
I don't make money on twitch vods... So... why would i be muted ?
You know that on youtube i got banned because i used copyright music on a CS video ? Yeah... it was my band.... Why oh why would i be muted because i have vods with music inside... I don't make money, i'm not hurting the music industry.
it's stupid when nintendo forbid to broadcast their game. It's equally stupid to do that for music...
The issue isn't the broadcast, its the recording of music and making unauthorized copies. The problem for Twitch is that they are making copies of music they A) Don't own and B) don't have a license to record. Due to that, the record labels for sue them for failing to delete or police their VoD system to avoid making unauthorized copies of music Twitch does not own. The same would be true if I live broadcast a movie over twitch.
I have said it before, copy right law in the US is a "protect it or lose it" system. You can't camp a copyright, you must actively defend it if people are using it without your approval. And the way copy right law works right now, the "gate keep" or owner of the system that is allowing the copyright violation can be held liable for not policing their system. That is why both Youtube and Twitch have put a system like this in place. And it will happen for any other streaming service that wants to operate in the US.
Youtube streams have never been accessable from Germany as far as I know? does that mean once they merge, there will be no more streaming for the german market? interesting.
On August 07 2014 23:06 sephiria wrote: Youtube streams have never been accessable from Germany as far as I know? does that mean once they merge, there will be no more streaming for the german market? interesting.
Even if they don't merge Twitch (any another other video holding website) will in the future will stop vod access in germany and possibly even live streaming for streams where they detect copyrighted music and video because they can be liable for copyrighted video and music.
On August 07 2014 22:50 FFW_Rude wrote: So... Dailymotion or Azubu TV ? i'm starting to wonder...
Also i sued my neighboor. He put the sound of his computer too loud and i could hear music through the wall ! He didn't have a licence to broadcast.
I am not an expert on copyright law, but I am pretty sure it needs to be your music and he needs to be making money off of it. Unless he is running some weird DJ system where he charges to play the music for your entire block from the roof of his house, I think he is pretty safe from liability.
I don't make money on twitch vods... So... why would i be muted ?
You know that on youtube i got banned because i used copyright music on a CS video ? Yeah... it was my band.... Why oh why would i be muted because i have vods with music inside... I don't make money, i'm not hurting the music industry.
it's stupid when nintendo forbid to broadcast their game. It's equally stupid to do that for music...
The issue isn't the broadcast, its the recording of music and making unauthorized copies. The problem for Twitch is that they are making copies of music they A) Don't own and B) don't have a license to record. Due to that, the record labels for sue them for failing to delete or police their VoD system to avoid making unauthorized copies of music Twitch does not own. The same would be true if I live broadcast a movie over twitch.
I have said it before, copy right law in the US is a "protect it or lose it" system. You can't camp a copyright, you must actively defend it if people are using it without your approval. And the way copy right law works right now, the "gate keep" or owner of the system that is allowing the copyright violation can be held liable for not policing their system. That is why both Youtube and Twitch have put a system like this in place. And it will happen for any other streaming service that wants to operate in the US.
That's just pure bullshit...
I don't get why people that get revenue from streaming, vods, yt etc.. don't pay a percentage of their revenue when they use something they don't own. They did that on YT at a point. If you used a copyrighted song, you could let it and the owners could run commercial on your videos.
But for people that don't make revenue of streaming and stuff... that's just bs. Also their is no way to prove that you have the rights of the music. I spent days with YT trying to get my channel back at some point because they banned me for a song of my own band... and i let it go because it was just a stupid channel but i never got it back.
I used to be in that industry and i left it because it just makes me puke. I know i know.. i should have a rational discussion. I fail to do so Plansix. sorry about that i know you like to discuss things and debate but i'm just angry about this industry.
Prepare to have Twitch filled entirely with Kevin MacLeod for background music. I don't understand why the game's ambient music would be included. That makes streaming pretty much any game untenable unless you are the sort that prefers to play gamess in dead silence... or to Kevin MacLeod's jazz.
On August 08 2014 01:10 Falling wrote: Prepare to have Twitch filled entirely with Kevin MacLeod for background music. I don't understand why the game's ambient music would be included. That makes streaming pretty much any game untenable unless you are the sort that prefers to play gamess in dead silence... or to Kevin MacLeod's jazz.
I can only see this as stupidity on twitch's part for taking a service that includes game music. If twitch's basic assumption is that game companies are okay with their games being streamed/saved, the same assumption should be made about their music.
On August 08 2014 01:10 Falling wrote: Prepare to have Twitch filled entirely with Kevin MacLeod for background music. I don't understand why the game's ambient music would be included. That makes streaming pretty much any game untenable unless you are the sort that prefers to play gamess in dead silence... or to Kevin MacLeod's jazz.
I can only see this as stupidity on twitch's part for taking a service that includes game music. If twitch's basic assumption is that game companies are okay with their games being streamed/saved, the same assumption should be made about their music.
Twitch is trying to cover their ass from the swarms of copyright lawyers and lawsuits. Music publishers have a scorched earth policy in that regards. Gaming companies do not. It's relatively hard to tell which is which, so the initial rollout is bound to mute all copyrighted music.
On August 07 2014 22:50 FFW_Rude wrote: So... Dailymotion or Azubu TV ? i'm starting to wonder...
Also i sued my neighboor. He put the sound of his computer too loud and i could hear music through the wall ! He didn't have a licence to broadcast.
I am not an expert on copyright law, but I am pretty sure it needs to be your music and he needs to be making money off of it. Unless he is running some weird DJ system where he charges to play the music for your entire block from the roof of his house, I think he is pretty safe from liability.
I don't make money on twitch vods... So... why would i be muted ?
You know that on youtube i got banned because i used copyright music on a CS video ? Yeah... it was my band.... Why oh why would i be muted because i have vods with music inside... I don't make money, i'm not hurting the music industry.
it's stupid when nintendo forbid to broadcast their game. It's equally stupid to do that for music...
The issue isn't the broadcast, its the recording of music and making unauthorized copies. The problem for Twitch is that they are making copies of music they A) Don't own and B) don't have a license to record. Due to that, the record labels for sue them for failing to delete or police their VoD system to avoid making unauthorized copies of music Twitch does not own. The same would be true if I live broadcast a movie over twitch.
I have said it before, copy right law in the US is a "protect it or lose it" system. You can't camp a copyright, you must actively defend it if people are using it without your approval. And the way copy right law works right now, the "gate keep" or owner of the system that is allowing the copyright violation can be held liable for not policing their system. That is why both Youtube and Twitch have put a system like this in place. And it will happen for any other streaming service that wants to operate in the US.
They are also making images of something they don't own, and don't seem to give a fuck about that. They even basically charge for acess to material copyrighted by another company. They are not simply deleting copyrighted content, they are deleting material under free use, material from people that own the rights and material that was given permission specifically for that purpose.
You can't pretend this kind of behavior is fine and makes even a minimal amount of sense.
And as predicted, Twitch became one boring place. Just a question, what stops me from playing Beethoven, Mozart or Wagner ? Their music is not copyrighted. Can we have one new "High class" Twitch ? I know that the individual performances are copyrighted, but how do you actually prove who played it without some sort of investigation ?
On August 08 2014 01:59 Pr0wler wrote: And as predicted, Twitch became one boring place. Just a question, what stops me from playing Beethoven, Mozart or Wagner ? Their music is not copyrighted. Can we have one new "High class" Twitch ? I know that the individual performances are copyrighted, but how do you actually prove who played it without some sort of investigation ?
That would be pretty sweet actually. Nothing but classical music in the background.
On August 08 2014 01:59 Pr0wler wrote: And as predicted, Twitch became one boring place. Just a question, what stops me from playing Beethoven, Mozart or Wagner ? Their music is not copyrighted. Can we have one new "High class" Twitch ? I know that the individual performances are copyrighted, but how do you actually prove who played it without some sort of investigation ?
The music itself is not copyrighted, but as far as I know, the performance is by whatever orchestra that performed it. So unless you have your own public domain orchestra, you're out of luck there, too.
On August 08 2014 01:10 Falling wrote: Prepare to have Twitch filled entirely with Kevin MacLeod for background music. I don't understand why the game's ambient music would be included. That makes streaming pretty much any game untenable unless you are the sort that prefers to play gamess in dead silence... or to Kevin MacLeod's jazz.
I can only see this as stupidity on twitch's part for taking a service that includes game music. If twitch's basic assumption is that game companies are okay with their games being streamed/saved, the same assumption should be made about their music.
It's not exactly the fault of Twitch if a game developer says it's fine to stream their game video but it's not fine to stream their game audio. Also it wouldn't make much sense to use a content id system and then pick one that doesn't check for everything, I don't think being "a little safe" from copyright claims will cut it.
On August 07 2014 08:11 Kurr wrote: But with twitch? There is some, albeit small relatively, competition and if hitbox (and maybe ustream/others?) play their cards right their could steal several good streamers and this could quickly get out of control for twitch. Just imagine if a dozen or so popular streamers go to hitbox. Suddenly, it's a very real competitor and twitch has to back-pedal or die within a few weeks. It wouldn't be the craziest thing we've ever seen on the internet.
Ustream became shit, that's why people left for Justin.tv back in the day. I doubt they know how to play their cards right.
On August 07 2014 09:06 Plexa wrote: Well, time to make a hitbox account.
Got mine months ago
On August 07 2014 18:57 Spaylz wrote: Let's get real, how popular would Darude be without Twitch? Huh?!
? It's a pretty popular song regardless...unless you are like 13 years old or live in the woods.
On August 08 2014 01:59 Pr0wler wrote: And as predicted, Twitch became one boring place. Just a question, what stops me from playing Beethoven, Mozart or Wagner ? Their music is not copyrighted. Can we have one new "High class" Twitch ? I know that the individual performances are copyrighted, but how do you actually prove who played it without some sort of investigation ?
If they think the material is copyrighted they can flag it, they don't need to investigate it or prove it in any way. It's an automated service, so if the music is part of the list (or similar enough to it), your content should be muted. Probally not the case for classical music.
On August 08 2014 01:10 Falling wrote: Prepare to have Twitch filled entirely with Kevin MacLeod for background music. I don't understand why the game's ambient music would be included. That makes streaming pretty much any game untenable unless you are the sort that prefers to play gamess in dead silence... or to Kevin MacLeod's jazz.
I can only see this as stupidity on twitch's part for taking a service that includes game music. If twitch's basic assumption is that game companies are okay with their games being streamed/saved, the same assumption should be made about their music.
It's not exactly the fault of Twitch if a game developer says it's fine to stream their game video but it's not fine to stream their game audio. Also it wouldn't make much sense to use a content id system and then pick one that doesn't check for everything, I don't think being "a little safe" from copyright claims will cut it.
They developers don't say that. At least they were proven not to have in several cases.
On August 07 2014 22:50 FFW_Rude wrote: So... Dailymotion or Azubu TV ? i'm starting to wonder...
Also i sued my neighboor. He put the sound of his computer too loud and i could hear music through the wall ! He didn't have a licence to broadcast.
I am not an expert on copyright law, but I am pretty sure it needs to be your music and he needs to be making money off of it. Unless he is running some weird DJ system where he charges to play the music for your entire block from the roof of his house, I think he is pretty safe from liability.
I don't make money on twitch vods... So... why would i be muted ?
You know that on youtube i got banned because i used copyright music on a CS video ? Yeah... it was my band.... Why oh why would i be muted because i have vods with music inside... I don't make money, i'm not hurting the music industry.
it's stupid when nintendo forbid to broadcast their game. It's equally stupid to do that for music...
The issue isn't the broadcast, its the recording of music and making unauthorized copies. The problem for Twitch is that they are making copies of music they A) Don't own and B) don't have a license to record. Due to that, the record labels for sue them for failing to delete or police their VoD system to avoid making unauthorized copies of music Twitch does not own. The same would be true if I live broadcast a movie over twitch.
I have said it before, copy right law in the US is a "protect it or lose it" system. You can't camp a copyright, you must actively defend it if people are using it without your approval. And the way copy right law works right now, the "gate keep" or owner of the system that is allowing the copyright violation can be held liable for not policing their system. That is why both Youtube and Twitch have put a system like this in place. And it will happen for any other streaming service that wants to operate in the US.
They are also making images of something they don't own, and don't seem to give a fuck about that. They even basically charge for acess to material copyrighted by another company. They are not simply deleting copyrighted content, they are deleting material under free use, material from people that own the rights and material that was given permission specifically for that purpose.
You can't pretend this kind of behavior is fine and makes even a minimal amount of sense.
It makes total sense if someone is attempting to sue you, and if the video game companies were going to do that, they would have a long time ago. Also, they are not copying the code of the game, just an image of it being played.
This is the stuff people have to deal with when you have open broadcast platforms where people can make money. Also, it is far more effective to flag everything and then sort through the claims that were done in error. Don't think that was their master plan, but it is generally better to be overly safe than not. The claims will get sorted out after the fact.
On August 07 2014 22:50 FFW_Rude wrote: So... Dailymotion or Azubu TV ? i'm starting to wonder...
Also i sued my neighboor. He put the sound of his computer too loud and i could hear music through the wall ! He didn't have a licence to broadcast.
I am not an expert on copyright law, but I am pretty sure it needs to be your music and he needs to be making money off of it. Unless he is running some weird DJ system where he charges to play the music for your entire block from the roof of his house, I think he is pretty safe from liability.
I don't make money on twitch vods... So... why would i be muted ?
You know that on youtube i got banned because i used copyright music on a CS video ? Yeah... it was my band.... Why oh why would i be muted because i have vods with music inside... I don't make money, i'm not hurting the music industry.
it's stupid when nintendo forbid to broadcast their game. It's equally stupid to do that for music...
The issue isn't the broadcast, its the recording of music and making unauthorized copies. The problem for Twitch is that they are making copies of music they A) Don't own and B) don't have a license to record. Due to that, the record labels for sue them for failing to delete or police their VoD system to avoid making unauthorized copies of music Twitch does not own. The same would be true if I live broadcast a movie over twitch.
I have said it before, copy right law in the US is a "protect it or lose it" system. You can't camp a copyright, you must actively defend it if people are using it without your approval. And the way copy right law works right now, the "gate keep" or owner of the system that is allowing the copyright violation can be held liable for not policing their system. That is why both Youtube and Twitch have put a system like this in place. And it will happen for any other streaming service that wants to operate in the US.
They are also making images of something they don't own, and don't seem to give a fuck about that. They even basically charge for acess to material copyrighted by another company. They are not simply deleting copyrighted content, they are deleting material under free use, material from people that own the rights and material that was given permission specifically for that purpose.
You can't pretend this kind of behavior is fine and makes even a minimal amount of sense.
It makes total sense if someone is attempting to sue you, and if the video game companies were going to do that, they would have a long time ago. Also, they are not copying the code of the game, just an image of it being played.
This is the stuff people have to deal with when you have open broadcast platforms where people can make money. Also, it is far more effective to flag everything and then sort through the claims that were done in error. Don't think that was their master plan, but it is generally better to be overly safe than not. The claims will get sorted out after the fact.
Mario, Goron, etc. are copyrighted characters. They are used by several channels, you can even pay money to have acess to it and use it yourself. That one is certainly without consent. The images from a game are also under copyright, it's not only the code.
They don't take down only material that has a claim, they take down material the developers themselfs said they should not have taken down and is free to use. If you think they intentionally wanted to mute every VOD that had videogame music (since all of them have copyrighted music in one way or another), and then sort it out, you must be insane. They clearly think some are fine, some aren't, but have absolutelly no criteria on how that works.
On August 08 2014 01:59 Pr0wler wrote: And as predicted, Twitch became one boring place. Just a question, what stops me from playing Beethoven, Mozart or Wagner ? Their music is not copyrighted. Can we have one new "High class" Twitch ? I know that the individual performances are copyrighted, but how do you actually prove who played it without some sort of investigation ?
If they think the material is copyrighted they can flag it, they don't need to investigate it or prove it in any way. It's an automated service, so if the music is part of the list (or similar enough to it), your content should be muted. Probally not the case for classical music.
On August 08 2014 01:10 Falling wrote: Prepare to have Twitch filled entirely with Kevin MacLeod for background music. I don't understand why the game's ambient music would be included. That makes streaming pretty much any game untenable unless you are the sort that prefers to play gamess in dead silence... or to Kevin MacLeod's jazz.
I can only see this as stupidity on twitch's part for taking a service that includes game music. If twitch's basic assumption is that game companies are okay with their games being streamed/saved, the same assumption should be made about their music.
It's not exactly the fault of Twitch if a game developer says it's fine to stream their game video but it's not fine to stream their game audio. Also it wouldn't make much sense to use a content id system and then pick one that doesn't check for everything, I don't think being "a little safe" from copyright claims will cut it.
They developers don't say that. At least they were proven not to have in several cases.
Well someone signed the music up for that service, probably some publisher that gets paid to do so by the developers. Maybe the devs didn't think about what they signed up for, maybe the publisher just did so on his own or whatever, but somehow the music ended up in this content database, and I'm pretty sure these companies don't just add random music without being contracted to do so.
On August 08 2014 01:59 Pr0wler wrote: And as predicted, Twitch became one boring place. Just a question, what stops me from playing Beethoven, Mozart or Wagner ? Their music is not copyrighted. Can we have one new "High class" Twitch ? I know that the individual performances are copyrighted, but how do you actually prove who played it without some sort of investigation ?
If they think the material is copyrighted they can flag it, they don't need to investigate it or prove it in any way. It's an automated service, so if the music is part of the list (or similar enough to it), your content should be muted. Probally not the case for classical music.
On August 08 2014 02:05 Broodwurst wrote:
On August 08 2014 01:21 Conti wrote:
On August 08 2014 01:10 Falling wrote: Prepare to have Twitch filled entirely with Kevin MacLeod for background music. I don't understand why the game's ambient music would be included. That makes streaming pretty much any game untenable unless you are the sort that prefers to play gamess in dead silence... or to Kevin MacLeod's jazz.
I can only see this as stupidity on twitch's part for taking a service that includes game music. If twitch's basic assumption is that game companies are okay with their games being streamed/saved, the same assumption should be made about their music.
It's not exactly the fault of Twitch if a game developer says it's fine to stream their game video but it's not fine to stream their game audio. Also it wouldn't make much sense to use a content id system and then pick one that doesn't check for everything, I don't think being "a little safe" from copyright claims will cut it.
They developers don't say that. At least they were proven not to have in several cases.
Well someone signed the music up for that service, probably some publisher that gets paid to do so by the developers. Maybe the devs didn't think about what they signed up for, maybe the publisher just did so on his own or whatever, but somehow the music ended up in this content database, and I'm pretty sure these companies don't just add random music without being contracted to do so.
No, Valve for example writes their own music and say it's free to use. Crypt of the Necrodancer, another mentioned source, writes their own music and they have no publisher and never claimed anything. It's a game made by just a few people, they know what they did. Unless a random person can do it, that's false.
As mentioned several times, in YouTube people could have content flagged for music they created themselfs (a single person or small band).
On August 08 2014 01:59 Pr0wler wrote: And as predicted, Twitch became one boring place. Just a question, what stops me from playing Beethoven, Mozart or Wagner ? Their music is not copyrighted. Can we have one new "High class" Twitch ? I know that the individual performances are copyrighted, but how do you actually prove who played it without some sort of investigation ?
If they think the material is copyrighted they can flag it, they don't need to investigate it or prove it in any way. It's an automated service, so if the music is part of the list (or similar enough to it), your content should be muted. Probally not the case for classical music.
On August 08 2014 02:05 Broodwurst wrote:
On August 08 2014 01:21 Conti wrote:
On August 08 2014 01:10 Falling wrote: Prepare to have Twitch filled entirely with Kevin MacLeod for background music. I don't understand why the game's ambient music would be included. That makes streaming pretty much any game untenable unless you are the sort that prefers to play gamess in dead silence... or to Kevin MacLeod's jazz.
I can only see this as stupidity on twitch's part for taking a service that includes game music. If twitch's basic assumption is that game companies are okay with their games being streamed/saved, the same assumption should be made about their music.
It's not exactly the fault of Twitch if a game developer says it's fine to stream their game video but it's not fine to stream their game audio. Also it wouldn't make much sense to use a content id system and then pick one that doesn't check for everything, I don't think being "a little safe" from copyright claims will cut it.
They developers don't say that. At least they were proven not to have in several cases.
Well someone signed the music up for that service, probably some publisher that gets paid to do so by the developers. Maybe the devs didn't think about what they signed up for, maybe the publisher just did so on his own or whatever, but somehow the music ended up in this content database, and I'm pretty sure these companies don't just add random music without being contracted to do so.
Some game publishers already went public that they never signed up for any kind of service, and yet their music is in that detection database.
On August 08 2014 01:59 Pr0wler wrote: And as predicted, Twitch became one boring place. Just a question, what stops me from playing Beethoven, Mozart or Wagner ? Their music is not copyrighted. Can we have one new "High class" Twitch ? I know that the individual performances are copyrighted, but how do you actually prove who played it without some sort of investigation ?
If they think the material is copyrighted they can flag it, they don't need to investigate it or prove it in any way. It's an automated service, so if the music is part of the list (or similar enough to it), your content should be muted. Probally not the case for classical music.
On August 08 2014 02:05 Broodwurst wrote:
On August 08 2014 01:21 Conti wrote:
On August 08 2014 01:10 Falling wrote: Prepare to have Twitch filled entirely with Kevin MacLeod for background music. I don't understand why the game's ambient music would be included. That makes streaming pretty much any game untenable unless you are the sort that prefers to play gamess in dead silence... or to Kevin MacLeod's jazz.
I can only see this as stupidity on twitch's part for taking a service that includes game music. If twitch's basic assumption is that game companies are okay with their games being streamed/saved, the same assumption should be made about their music.
It's not exactly the fault of Twitch if a game developer says it's fine to stream their game video but it's not fine to stream their game audio. Also it wouldn't make much sense to use a content id system and then pick one that doesn't check for everything, I don't think being "a little safe" from copyright claims will cut it.
They developers don't say that. At least they were proven not to have in several cases.
Well someone signed the music up for that service, probably some publisher that gets paid to do so by the developers. Maybe the devs didn't think about what they signed up for, maybe the publisher just did so on his own or whatever, but somehow the music ended up in this content database, and I'm pretty sure these companies don't just add random music without being contracted to do so.
No, Valve for example writes their own music and say it's free to use. Crypt of the Necrodancer, another mentioned source, writes their own music and they have no publisher and never claimed anything. It's a game made by just a few people, they know what they did. Unless a random person can do it, that's false.
Surely they can then sue the content id system? I would think faking to be (representing) a copyright holder can't be legal, can it?
On August 07 2014 22:50 FFW_Rude wrote: So... Dailymotion or Azubu TV ? i'm starting to wonder...
Also i sued my neighboor. He put the sound of his computer too loud and i could hear music through the wall ! He didn't have a licence to broadcast.
I am not an expert on copyright law, but I am pretty sure it needs to be your music and he needs to be making money off of it. Unless he is running some weird DJ system where he charges to play the music for your entire block from the roof of his house, I think he is pretty safe from liability.
I don't make money on twitch vods... So... why would i be muted ?
You know that on youtube i got banned because i used copyright music on a CS video ? Yeah... it was my band.... Why oh why would i be muted because i have vods with music inside... I don't make money, i'm not hurting the music industry.
it's stupid when nintendo forbid to broadcast their game. It's equally stupid to do that for music...
The issue isn't the broadcast, its the recording of music and making unauthorized copies. The problem for Twitch is that they are making copies of music they A) Don't own and B) don't have a license to record. Due to that, the record labels for sue them for failing to delete or police their VoD system to avoid making unauthorized copies of music Twitch does not own. The same would be true if I live broadcast a movie over twitch.
I have said it before, copy right law in the US is a "protect it or lose it" system. You can't camp a copyright, you must actively defend it if people are using it without your approval. And the way copy right law works right now, the "gate keep" or owner of the system that is allowing the copyright violation can be held liable for not policing their system. That is why both Youtube and Twitch have put a system like this in place. And it will happen for any other streaming service that wants to operate in the US.
They are also making images of something they don't own, and don't seem to give a fuck about that. They even basically charge for acess to material copyrighted by another company. They are not simply deleting copyrighted content, they are deleting material under free use, material from people that own the rights and material that was given permission specifically for that purpose.
You can't pretend this kind of behavior is fine and makes even a minimal amount of sense.
It makes total sense if someone is attempting to sue you, and if the video game companies were going to do that, they would have a long time ago. Also, they are not copying the code of the game, just an image of it being played.
This is the stuff people have to deal with when you have open broadcast platforms where people can make money. Also, it is far more effective to flag everything and then sort through the claims that were done in error. Don't think that was their master plan, but it is generally better to be overly safe than not. The claims will get sorted out after the fact.
Mario, Goron, etc. are copyrighted characters. They are used by several channels, you can even pay money to have acess to it and use it yourself. That one is certainly without consent. The images from a game are also under copyright, it's not only the code.
They don't take down only material that has a claim, they take down material the developers themselfs said they should not have taken down and is free to use. If you think they intentionally wanted to mute every VOD that had videogame music (since all of them have copyrighted music in one way or another), and then sort it out, you must be insane. They clearly think some are fine, some aren't, but have absolutelly no criteria on how that works.
Yes, but Video game publishers don't care that much(well Nintendo might, but that has yet to be seen). The rest of the stuff might might be a mistake or just a really overly zealous system they put in place due to the threat of a lawsuit. You don't put a system like this in place because you want to, you do it because you are forced to.
On August 08 2014 01:59 Pr0wler wrote: And as predicted, Twitch became one boring place. Just a question, what stops me from playing Beethoven, Mozart or Wagner ? Their music is not copyrighted. Can we have one new "High class" Twitch ? I know that the individual performances are copyrighted, but how do you actually prove who played it without some sort of investigation ?
If they think the material is copyrighted they can flag it, they don't need to investigate it or prove it in any way. It's an automated service, so if the music is part of the list (or similar enough to it), your content should be muted. Probally not the case for classical music.
On August 08 2014 02:05 Broodwurst wrote:
On August 08 2014 01:21 Conti wrote:
On August 08 2014 01:10 Falling wrote: Prepare to have Twitch filled entirely with Kevin MacLeod for background music. I don't understand why the game's ambient music would be included. That makes streaming pretty much any game untenable unless you are the sort that prefers to play gamess in dead silence... or to Kevin MacLeod's jazz.
I can only see this as stupidity on twitch's part for taking a service that includes game music. If twitch's basic assumption is that game companies are okay with their games being streamed/saved, the same assumption should be made about their music.
It's not exactly the fault of Twitch if a game developer says it's fine to stream their game video but it's not fine to stream their game audio. Also it wouldn't make much sense to use a content id system and then pick one that doesn't check for everything, I don't think being "a little safe" from copyright claims will cut it.
They developers don't say that. At least they were proven not to have in several cases.
Well someone signed the music up for that service, probably some publisher that gets paid to do so by the developers. Maybe the devs didn't think about what they signed up for, maybe the publisher just did so on his own or whatever, but somehow the music ended up in this content database, and I'm pretty sure these companies don't just add random music without being contracted to do so.
No, Valve for example writes their own music and say it's free to use. Crypt of the Necrodancer, another mentioned source, writes their own music and they have no publisher and never claimed anything. It's a game made by just a few people, they know what they did. Unless a random person can do it, that's false.
Surely they can then sue the content id system? I would think faking to be (representing) a copyright holder can't be legal, can it?
Noone really knows how it works I think. I doubt someone pretended to be representing the company and asked the material to be flagged. They just flag a lot of stuff they shouldn't, and that's more of an issue between Twitch/YouTube and the channel than the developers and Twitch/YT
On August 07 2014 22:50 FFW_Rude wrote: So... Dailymotion or Azubu TV ? i'm starting to wonder...
Also i sued my neighboor. He put the sound of his computer too loud and i could hear music through the wall ! He didn't have a licence to broadcast.
I am not an expert on copyright law, but I am pretty sure it needs to be your music and he needs to be making money off of it. Unless he is running some weird DJ system where he charges to play the music for your entire block from the roof of his house, I think he is pretty safe from liability.
I don't make money on twitch vods... So... why would i be muted ?
You know that on youtube i got banned because i used copyright music on a CS video ? Yeah... it was my band.... Why oh why would i be muted because i have vods with music inside... I don't make money, i'm not hurting the music industry.
it's stupid when nintendo forbid to broadcast their game. It's equally stupid to do that for music...
The issue isn't the broadcast, its the recording of music and making unauthorized copies. The problem for Twitch is that they are making copies of music they A) Don't own and B) don't have a license to record. Due to that, the record labels for sue them for failing to delete or police their VoD system to avoid making unauthorized copies of music Twitch does not own. The same would be true if I live broadcast a movie over twitch.
I have said it before, copy right law in the US is a "protect it or lose it" system. You can't camp a copyright, you must actively defend it if people are using it without your approval. And the way copy right law works right now, the "gate keep" or owner of the system that is allowing the copyright violation can be held liable for not policing their system. That is why both Youtube and Twitch have put a system like this in place. And it will happen for any other streaming service that wants to operate in the US.
They are also making images of something they don't own, and don't seem to give a fuck about that. They even basically charge for acess to material copyrighted by another company. They are not simply deleting copyrighted content, they are deleting material under free use, material from people that own the rights and material that was given permission specifically for that purpose.
You can't pretend this kind of behavior is fine and makes even a minimal amount of sense.
It makes total sense if someone is attempting to sue you, and if the video game companies were going to do that, they would have a long time ago. Also, they are not copying the code of the game, just an image of it being played.
This is the stuff people have to deal with when you have open broadcast platforms where people can make money. Also, it is far more effective to flag everything and then sort through the claims that were done in error. Don't think that was their master plan, but it is generally better to be overly safe than not. The claims will get sorted out after the fact.
Mario, Goron, etc. are copyrighted characters. They are used by several channels, you can even pay money to have acess to it and use it yourself. That one is certainly without consent. The images from a game are also under copyright, it's not only the code.
They don't take down only material that has a claim, they take down material the developers themselfs said they should not have taken down and is free to use. If you think they intentionally wanted to mute every VOD that had videogame music (since all of them have copyrighted music in one way or another), and then sort it out, you must be insane. They clearly think some are fine, some aren't, but have absolutelly no criteria on how that works.
Yes, but Video game publishers don't care that much(well Nintendo might, but that has yet to be seen). The rest of the stuff might might be a mistake or just a really overly zealous system they put in place due to the threat of a lawsuit. You don't put a system like this in place because you want to, you do it because you are forced to.
That's just like, your opinion man.
There's no evidence Twitch was forced to use this service. There are several degrees or content protection. You can be more zealous, you can be almost crazy paranoid, you can be far more relaxed. Games with extreme DRM have received a ton of shit for ages, and they were not forced to do it. Other systems of DRM have been praised as revolutionary. This is one case of DRM being done in a terrible fashion.
On August 08 2014 01:59 Pr0wler wrote: And as predicted, Twitch became one boring place. Just a question, what stops me from playing Beethoven, Mozart or Wagner ? Their music is not copyrighted. Can we have one new "High class" Twitch ? I know that the individual performances are copyrighted, but how do you actually prove who played it without some sort of investigation ?
If they think the material is copyrighted they can flag it, they don't need to investigate it or prove it in any way. It's an automated service, so if the music is part of the list (or similar enough to it), your content should be muted. Probally not the case for classical music.
On August 08 2014 02:05 Broodwurst wrote:
On August 08 2014 01:21 Conti wrote:
On August 08 2014 01:10 Falling wrote: Prepare to have Twitch filled entirely with Kevin MacLeod for background music. I don't understand why the game's ambient music would be included. That makes streaming pretty much any game untenable unless you are the sort that prefers to play gamess in dead silence... or to Kevin MacLeod's jazz.
I can only see this as stupidity on twitch's part for taking a service that includes game music. If twitch's basic assumption is that game companies are okay with their games being streamed/saved, the same assumption should be made about their music.
It's not exactly the fault of Twitch if a game developer says it's fine to stream their game video but it's not fine to stream their game audio. Also it wouldn't make much sense to use a content id system and then pick one that doesn't check for everything, I don't think being "a little safe" from copyright claims will cut it.
They developers don't say that. At least they were proven not to have in several cases.
Well someone signed the music up for that service, probably some publisher that gets paid to do so by the developers. Maybe the devs didn't think about what they signed up for, maybe the publisher just did so on his own or whatever, but somehow the music ended up in this content database, and I'm pretty sure these companies don't just add random music without being contracted to do so.
No, Valve for example writes their own music and say it's free to use. Crypt of the Necrodancer, another mentioned source, writes their own music and they have no publisher and never claimed anything. It's a game made by just a few people, they know what they did. Unless a random person can do it, that's false.
Surely they can then sue the content id system? I would think faking to be (representing) a copyright holder can't be legal, can it?
Likely no, because they would need to show they were materially harmed in some way and they are a bunch of steps removed from issues(cause it was not their stream). Also Twitch can claim it was an error made in good faith. As long as they try to correct the problem, it likely won't even be worth bringing the case.
On August 08 2014 02:21 SKC wrote:
That's just like, your opinion man.
There's no evidence Twitch was forced to use this service. There are several degrees or content protection. You can be more zealous, you can be almost crazy paranoid, you can be far more relaxed. Games with extreme DRM have received a ton of shit for ages, and they were not forced to do it. Other systems of DRM have been praised as revolutionary. This is one case of DRM being done in a terrible fashion.
YouTube did not add content ID because they wanted to. It was because movie studios and Record labels were going to sue the fuck out of them. It's well documented that record labels and movie studios were up their ass about copy right violations. And the law says that the "gate keeper" can be held liable can what happens on their service(due to court rulings on the subject). This didn't come out of no-where and its very similar to how google runs youtube.
On August 08 2014 01:59 Pr0wler wrote: And as predicted, Twitch became one boring place. Just a question, what stops me from playing Beethoven, Mozart or Wagner ? Their music is not copyrighted. Can we have one new "High class" Twitch ? I know that the individual performances are copyrighted, but how do you actually prove who played it without some sort of investigation ?
If they think the material is copyrighted they can flag it, they don't need to investigate it or prove it in any way. It's an automated service, so if the music is part of the list (or similar enough to it), your content should be muted. Probally not the case for classical music.
On August 08 2014 02:05 Broodwurst wrote:
On August 08 2014 01:21 Conti wrote:
On August 08 2014 01:10 Falling wrote: Prepare to have Twitch filled entirely with Kevin MacLeod for background music. I don't understand why the game's ambient music would be included. That makes streaming pretty much any game untenable unless you are the sort that prefers to play gamess in dead silence... or to Kevin MacLeod's jazz.
I can only see this as stupidity on twitch's part for taking a service that includes game music. If twitch's basic assumption is that game companies are okay with their games being streamed/saved, the same assumption should be made about their music.
It's not exactly the fault of Twitch if a game developer says it's fine to stream their game video but it's not fine to stream their game audio. Also it wouldn't make much sense to use a content id system and then pick one that doesn't check for everything, I don't think being "a little safe" from copyright claims will cut it.
They developers don't say that. At least they were proven not to have in several cases.
Well someone signed the music up for that service, probably some publisher that gets paid to do so by the developers. Maybe the devs didn't think about what they signed up for, maybe the publisher just did so on his own or whatever, but somehow the music ended up in this content database, and I'm pretty sure these companies don't just add random music without being contracted to do so.
No, Valve for example writes their own music and say it's free to use. Crypt of the Necrodancer, another mentioned source, writes their own music and they have no publisher and never claimed anything. It's a game made by just a few people, they know what they did. Unless a random person can do it, that's false.
Surely they can then sue the content id system? I would think faking to be (representing) a copyright holder can't be legal, can it?
Likely no, because they would need to show they were materially harmed in some way and they are a bunch of steps removed from issues(cause it was not their stream). Also Twitch can claim it was an error made in good faith. As long as they try to correct the problem, it likely won't even be worth bringing the case.
I'm not talking about Twitch but in this case Audible Magic. If they have music in their database that they were never contracted to watch out for, how does that work? They would break copyright (using someone elses work without permission) and do so commercially. Interesting stuff imo.
On August 08 2014 01:59 Pr0wler wrote: And as predicted, Twitch became one boring place. Just a question, what stops me from playing Beethoven, Mozart or Wagner ? Their music is not copyrighted. Can we have one new "High class" Twitch ? I know that the individual performances are copyrighted, but how do you actually prove who played it without some sort of investigation ?
If they think the material is copyrighted they can flag it, they don't need to investigate it or prove it in any way. It's an automated service, so if the music is part of the list (or similar enough to it), your content should be muted. Probally not the case for classical music.
On August 08 2014 02:05 Broodwurst wrote:
On August 08 2014 01:21 Conti wrote:
On August 08 2014 01:10 Falling wrote: Prepare to have Twitch filled entirely with Kevin MacLeod for background music. I don't understand why the game's ambient music would be included. That makes streaming pretty much any game untenable unless you are the sort that prefers to play gamess in dead silence... or to Kevin MacLeod's jazz.
I can only see this as stupidity on twitch's part for taking a service that includes game music. If twitch's basic assumption is that game companies are okay with their games being streamed/saved, the same assumption should be made about their music.
It's not exactly the fault of Twitch if a game developer says it's fine to stream their game video but it's not fine to stream their game audio. Also it wouldn't make much sense to use a content id system and then pick one that doesn't check for everything, I don't think being "a little safe" from copyright claims will cut it.
They developers don't say that. At least they were proven not to have in several cases.
Well someone signed the music up for that service, probably some publisher that gets paid to do so by the developers. Maybe the devs didn't think about what they signed up for, maybe the publisher just did so on his own or whatever, but somehow the music ended up in this content database, and I'm pretty sure these companies don't just add random music without being contracted to do so.
No, Valve for example writes their own music and say it's free to use. Crypt of the Necrodancer, another mentioned source, writes their own music and they have no publisher and never claimed anything. It's a game made by just a few people, they know what they did. Unless a random person can do it, that's false.
Surely they can then sue the content id system? I would think faking to be (representing) a copyright holder can't be legal, can it?
Likely no, because they would need to show they were materially harmed in some way and they are a bunch of steps removed from issues(cause it was not their stream). Also Twitch can claim it was an error made in good faith. As long as they try to correct the problem, it likely won't even be worth bringing the case.
I'm not talking about Twitch but in this case Audible Magic. If they have music in their database that they were never contracted to watch out for, how does that work? They would break copyright (using someone elses work without permission) and do so commercially. Interesting stuff imo.
Its likely just an error and the music was thought to be another song or the system malfunctioned.
So what happens if you stream while listening to a game's OST? Let's say I want to stream Hearthstone while listening to FF9's OST. It'll still be flagged automatically, right?
Not sure how SE approaches that kind of stuff, but I can't imagine them going out of their way about it - nor any game developer.
On August 08 2014 01:59 Pr0wler wrote: And as predicted, Twitch became one boring place. Just a question, what stops me from playing Beethoven, Mozart or Wagner ? Their music is not copyrighted. Can we have one new "High class" Twitch ? I know that the individual performances are copyrighted, but how do you actually prove who played it without some sort of investigation ?
If they think the material is copyrighted they can flag it, they don't need to investigate it or prove it in any way. It's an automated service, so if the music is part of the list (or similar enough to it), your content should be muted. Probally not the case for classical music.
On August 08 2014 02:05 Broodwurst wrote:
On August 08 2014 01:21 Conti wrote:
On August 08 2014 01:10 Falling wrote: Prepare to have Twitch filled entirely with Kevin MacLeod for background music. I don't understand why the game's ambient music would be included. That makes streaming pretty much any game untenable unless you are the sort that prefers to play gamess in dead silence... or to Kevin MacLeod's jazz.
I can only see this as stupidity on twitch's part for taking a service that includes game music. If twitch's basic assumption is that game companies are okay with their games being streamed/saved, the same assumption should be made about their music.
It's not exactly the fault of Twitch if a game developer says it's fine to stream their game video but it's not fine to stream their game audio. Also it wouldn't make much sense to use a content id system and then pick one that doesn't check for everything, I don't think being "a little safe" from copyright claims will cut it.
They developers don't say that. At least they were proven not to have in several cases.
Well someone signed the music up for that service, probably some publisher that gets paid to do so by the developers. Maybe the devs didn't think about what they signed up for, maybe the publisher just did so on his own or whatever, but somehow the music ended up in this content database, and I'm pretty sure these companies don't just add random music without being contracted to do so.
No, Valve for example writes their own music and say it's free to use. Crypt of the Necrodancer, another mentioned source, writes their own music and they have no publisher and never claimed anything. It's a game made by just a few people, they know what they did. Unless a random person can do it, that's false.
Surely they can then sue the content id system? I would think faking to be (representing) a copyright holder can't be legal, can it?
Likely no, because they would need to show they were materially harmed in some way and they are a bunch of steps removed from issues(cause it was not their stream). Also Twitch can claim it was an error made in good faith. As long as they try to correct the problem, it likely won't even be worth bringing the case.
There's no evidence Twitch was forced to use this service. There are several degrees or content protection. You can be more zealous, you can be almost crazy paranoid, you can be far more relaxed. Games with extreme DRM have received a ton of shit for ages, and they were not forced to do it. Other systems of DRM have been praised as revolutionary. This is one case of DRM being done in a terrible fashion.
YouTube did not add content ID because they wanted to. It was because movie studios and Record labels were going to sue the fuck out of them. It's well documented that record labels and movie studios were up their ass about copy right violations. And the law says that the "gate keeper" can be held liable can what happens on their service(due to court rulings on the subject). This didn't come out of no-where and its very similar to how google runs youtube.
The expansion from flagging content from major music producers to flag anything that sounds remotelly like music is the biggest issue. You weren't in their meetings, you do not know what YouTube had to do, you can't pretend you know they were forced to use a system that consistenly flags things incorrectly instead of something else.
Twitch is also a diferent beast than YouTube. YouTube is a lot more about putting out your own content. Twitch is about streaming somoeone else's content. Flagging everything copyrighted in a medium specifically meant to stream copyrighted content is simply dumb. You may as well remove the VOD's system, it's obvious every video has copyrighted material, that's what their site is all about. Just because record labels went after YouTube that doesn't mean game developers went after Twitch. Pirate YouTube videos are bad for music labels. Twitch is good for video game developers. It seems fairly clear that if they had the same meetings, the game developers would not require such extreme measures as the record labels did.
That would mean they were not forced into doing it. They chose to do it because it was easier than actually reaching a middle term and working out a better solution with video game developers. I believe no developer even forced out their hand, and they could have kept the old system in place.
On August 08 2014 02:39 Spaylz wrote: So what happens if you stream while listening to a game's OST? Let's say I want to stream Hearthstone while listening to FF9's OST. It'll still be flagged automatically, right?
On August 08 2014 02:39 Spaylz wrote: So what happens if you stream while listening to a game's OST? Let's say I want to stream Hearthstone while listening to FF9's OST. It'll still be flagged automatically, right?
Not sure how SE approaches that kind of stuff, but I can't imagine them going out of their way about it - nor any game developer.
On August 08 2014 01:59 Pr0wler wrote: And as predicted, Twitch became one boring place. Just a question, what stops me from playing Beethoven, Mozart or Wagner ? Their music is not copyrighted. Can we have one new "High class" Twitch ? I know that the individual performances are copyrighted, but how do you actually prove who played it without some sort of investigation ?
If they think the material is copyrighted they can flag it, they don't need to investigate it or prove it in any way. It's an automated service, so if the music is part of the list (or similar enough to it), your content should be muted. Probally not the case for classical music.
On August 08 2014 02:05 Broodwurst wrote:
On August 08 2014 01:21 Conti wrote:
On August 08 2014 01:10 Falling wrote: Prepare to have Twitch filled entirely with Kevin MacLeod for background music. I don't understand why the game's ambient music would be included. That makes streaming pretty much any game untenable unless you are the sort that prefers to play gamess in dead silence... or to Kevin MacLeod's jazz.
I can only see this as stupidity on twitch's part for taking a service that includes game music. If twitch's basic assumption is that game companies are okay with their games being streamed/saved, the same assumption should be made about their music.
It's not exactly the fault of Twitch if a game developer says it's fine to stream their game video but it's not fine to stream their game audio. Also it wouldn't make much sense to use a content id system and then pick one that doesn't check for everything, I don't think being "a little safe" from copyright claims will cut it.
They developers don't say that. At least they were proven not to have in several cases.
Well someone signed the music up for that service, probably some publisher that gets paid to do so by the developers. Maybe the devs didn't think about what they signed up for, maybe the publisher just did so on his own or whatever, but somehow the music ended up in this content database, and I'm pretty sure these companies don't just add random music without being contracted to do so.
No, Valve for example writes their own music and say it's free to use. Crypt of the Necrodancer, another mentioned source, writes their own music and they have no publisher and never claimed anything. It's a game made by just a few people, they know what they did. Unless a random person can do it, that's false.
Surely they can then sue the content id system? I would think faking to be (representing) a copyright holder can't be legal, can it?
Likely no, because they would need to show they were materially harmed in some way and they are a bunch of steps removed from issues(cause it was not their stream). Also Twitch can claim it was an error made in good faith. As long as they try to correct the problem, it likely won't even be worth bringing the case.
On August 08 2014 02:21 SKC wrote:
That's just like, your opinion man.
There's no evidence Twitch was forced to use this service. There are several degrees or content protection. You can be more zealous, you can be almost crazy paranoid, you can be far more relaxed. Games with extreme DRM have received a ton of shit for ages, and they were not forced to do it. Other systems of DRM have been praised as revolutionary. This is one case of DRM being done in a terrible fashion.
YouTube did not add content ID because they wanted to. It was because movie studios and Record labels were going to sue the fuck out of them. It's well documented that record labels and movie studios were up their ass about copy right violations. And the law says that the "gate keeper" can be held liable can what happens on their service(due to court rulings on the subject). This didn't come out of no-where and its very similar to how google runs youtube.
The expansion for flagging content from major music producers to flag anything that sounds remotelly like music is the biggest issue. You weren't in their meetings, you do not know what YouTube had to do, you can't pretend you know they were forced to use a system that consistenly flags things incorrectly instead of something else.
Twitch is also a diferent beast than YouTube. YouTube is a lot more about putting out your own content. Twitch is about streaming somoeone else's content. Flagging everything copyrighted in a medium specifically meant to stream copyrighted content is simply dumb. You may as well remove the VOD's system, it's obvious every video has copyrighted material, that's what their site is all about. Just because record labels went after YouTube that doesn't mean game developers went after Twitch. Pirate YouTube videos are bad for music labels. Twitch is good for video game developers. It seems fairly clear that if they had the same meetings, the game developers would not require such extreme measures as the record labels did.
That would mean they were not forced into doing it. They chose to do it because it was easier than actually reaching a middle term and working out a better solution with video game developers. I believe no developer even forced out their hand, and they could have kept the old system in place.
When did I say that Game developers went after Twitch? The in game music thing is likely them just telling everyone "Hey, this system can't tell where the music is coming from, so it just scans music." That will likely get fixed as time goes on, since youtube is able to do let's plays.
And no, I was not in the room at the youtube meetings. But the creation of content ID in youtube was well reported by numerous video game and news media. It is not difficult to be knowledgeable on why the system was created.
On August 08 2014 01:59 Pr0wler wrote: And as predicted, Twitch became one boring place. Just a question, what stops me from playing Beethoven, Mozart or Wagner ? Their music is not copyrighted. Can we have one new "High class" Twitch ? I know that the individual performances are copyrighted, but how do you actually prove who played it without some sort of investigation ?
If they think the material is copyrighted they can flag it, they don't need to investigate it or prove it in any way. It's an automated service, so if the music is part of the list (or similar enough to it), your content should be muted. Probally not the case for classical music.
On August 08 2014 02:05 Broodwurst wrote:
On August 08 2014 01:21 Conti wrote:
On August 08 2014 01:10 Falling wrote: Prepare to have Twitch filled entirely with Kevin MacLeod for background music. I don't understand why the game's ambient music would be included. That makes streaming pretty much any game untenable unless you are the sort that prefers to play gamess in dead silence... or to Kevin MacLeod's jazz.
I can only see this as stupidity on twitch's part for taking a service that includes game music. If twitch's basic assumption is that game companies are okay with their games being streamed/saved, the same assumption should be made about their music.
It's not exactly the fault of Twitch if a game developer says it's fine to stream their game video but it's not fine to stream their game audio. Also it wouldn't make much sense to use a content id system and then pick one that doesn't check for everything, I don't think being "a little safe" from copyright claims will cut it.
They developers don't say that. At least they were proven not to have in several cases.
Well someone signed the music up for that service, probably some publisher that gets paid to do so by the developers. Maybe the devs didn't think about what they signed up for, maybe the publisher just did so on his own or whatever, but somehow the music ended up in this content database, and I'm pretty sure these companies don't just add random music without being contracted to do so.
No, Valve for example writes their own music and say it's free to use. Crypt of the Necrodancer, another mentioned source, writes their own music and they have no publisher and never claimed anything. It's a game made by just a few people, they know what they did. Unless a random person can do it, that's false.
Surely they can then sue the content id system? I would think faking to be (representing) a copyright holder can't be legal, can it?
Likely no, because they would need to show they were materially harmed in some way and they are a bunch of steps removed from issues(cause it was not their stream). Also Twitch can claim it was an error made in good faith. As long as they try to correct the problem, it likely won't even be worth bringing the case.
On August 08 2014 02:21 SKC wrote:
That's just like, your opinion man.
There's no evidence Twitch was forced to use this service. There are several degrees or content protection. You can be more zealous, you can be almost crazy paranoid, you can be far more relaxed. Games with extreme DRM have received a ton of shit for ages, and they were not forced to do it. Other systems of DRM have been praised as revolutionary. This is one case of DRM being done in a terrible fashion.
YouTube did not add content ID because they wanted to. It was because movie studios and Record labels were going to sue the fuck out of them. It's well documented that record labels and movie studios were up their ass about copy right violations. And the law says that the "gate keeper" can be held liable can what happens on their service(due to court rulings on the subject). This didn't come out of no-where and its very similar to how google runs youtube.
The expansion for flagging content from major music producers to flag anything that sounds remotelly like music is the biggest issue. You weren't in their meetings, you do not know what YouTube had to do, you can't pretend you know they were forced to use a system that consistenly flags things incorrectly instead of something else.
Twitch is also a diferent beast than YouTube. YouTube is a lot more about putting out your own content. Twitch is about streaming somoeone else's content. Flagging everything copyrighted in a medium specifically meant to stream copyrighted content is simply dumb. You may as well remove the VOD's system, it's obvious every video has copyrighted material, that's what their site is all about. Just because record labels went after YouTube that doesn't mean game developers went after Twitch. Pirate YouTube videos are bad for music labels. Twitch is good for video game developers. It seems fairly clear that if they had the same meetings, the game developers would not require such extreme measures as the record labels did.
That would mean they were not forced into doing it. They chose to do it because it was easier than actually reaching a middle term and working out a better solution with video game developers. I believe no developer even forced out their hand, and they could have kept the old system in place.
When did I say that Game developers went after Twitch? The in game music thing is likely them just telling everyone "Hey, this system can't tell where the music is coming from, so it just scans music." That will likely get fixed as time goes on, since youtube is able to do let's plays.
And no, I was not in the room at the youtube meetings. But the creation of content ID in youtube was well reported by numerous video game and news media. It is not difficult to be knowledgeable on why the system was created.
Why would Twitch be literally forced to change their system if noone went after them? Or do you think the record labels also went after Twitch?
You speak as if there were no alternatives. That is clearly not the case.
On August 08 2014 01:59 Pr0wler wrote: And as predicted, Twitch became one boring place. Just a question, what stops me from playing Beethoven, Mozart or Wagner ? Their music is not copyrighted. Can we have one new "High class" Twitch ? I know that the individual performances are copyrighted, but how do you actually prove who played it without some sort of investigation ?
If they think the material is copyrighted they can flag it, they don't need to investigate it or prove it in any way. It's an automated service, so if the music is part of the list (or similar enough to it), your content should be muted. Probally not the case for classical music.
On August 08 2014 02:05 Broodwurst wrote:
On August 08 2014 01:21 Conti wrote: [quote] I can only see this as stupidity on twitch's part for taking a service that includes game music. If twitch's basic assumption is that game companies are okay with their games being streamed/saved, the same assumption should be made about their music.
It's not exactly the fault of Twitch if a game developer says it's fine to stream their game video but it's not fine to stream their game audio. Also it wouldn't make much sense to use a content id system and then pick one that doesn't check for everything, I don't think being "a little safe" from copyright claims will cut it.
They developers don't say that. At least they were proven not to have in several cases.
Well someone signed the music up for that service, probably some publisher that gets paid to do so by the developers. Maybe the devs didn't think about what they signed up for, maybe the publisher just did so on his own or whatever, but somehow the music ended up in this content database, and I'm pretty sure these companies don't just add random music without being contracted to do so.
No, Valve for example writes their own music and say it's free to use. Crypt of the Necrodancer, another mentioned source, writes their own music and they have no publisher and never claimed anything. It's a game made by just a few people, they know what they did. Unless a random person can do it, that's false.
Surely they can then sue the content id system? I would think faking to be (representing) a copyright holder can't be legal, can it?
Likely no, because they would need to show they were materially harmed in some way and they are a bunch of steps removed from issues(cause it was not their stream). Also Twitch can claim it was an error made in good faith. As long as they try to correct the problem, it likely won't even be worth bringing the case.
On August 08 2014 02:21 SKC wrote:
That's just like, your opinion man.
There's no evidence Twitch was forced to use this service. There are several degrees or content protection. You can be more zealous, you can be almost crazy paranoid, you can be far more relaxed. Games with extreme DRM have received a ton of shit for ages, and they were not forced to do it. Other systems of DRM have been praised as revolutionary. This is one case of DRM being done in a terrible fashion.
YouTube did not add content ID because they wanted to. It was because movie studios and Record labels were going to sue the fuck out of them. It's well documented that record labels and movie studios were up their ass about copy right violations. And the law says that the "gate keeper" can be held liable can what happens on their service(due to court rulings on the subject). This didn't come out of no-where and its very similar to how google runs youtube.
The expansion for flagging content from major music producers to flag anything that sounds remotelly like music is the biggest issue. You weren't in their meetings, you do not know what YouTube had to do, you can't pretend you know they were forced to use a system that consistenly flags things incorrectly instead of something else.
Twitch is also a diferent beast than YouTube. YouTube is a lot more about putting out your own content. Twitch is about streaming somoeone else's content. Flagging everything copyrighted in a medium specifically meant to stream copyrighted content is simply dumb. You may as well remove the VOD's system, it's obvious every video has copyrighted material, that's what their site is all about. Just because record labels went after YouTube that doesn't mean game developers went after Twitch. Pirate YouTube videos are bad for music labels. Twitch is good for video game developers. It seems fairly clear that if they had the same meetings, the game developers would not require such extreme measures as the record labels did.
That would mean they were not forced into doing it. They chose to do it because it was easier than actually reaching a middle term and working out a better solution with video game developers. I believe no developer even forced out their hand, and they could have kept the old system in place.
When did I say that Game developers went after Twitch? The in game music thing is likely them just telling everyone "Hey, this system can't tell where the music is coming from, so it just scans music." That will likely get fixed as time goes on, since youtube is able to do let's plays.
And no, I was not in the room at the youtube meetings. But the creation of content ID in youtube was well reported by numerous video game and news media. It is not difficult to be knowledgeable on why the system was created.
Why would Twitch be literally forced to change their system if noone went after them? Or do you think the record labels also went after Twitch?
You speak as if there were no alternatives. That is clearly not the case.
Yes, they clearly are very concerned about violating copyright for music, since that is what the whole system revolves around. I am 99% sure they have been contacted by a record label or they have received cease and desist letters from them. You don't do this stuff for no reason, its because one or a number of record labels is threatening to sue you.
"Game companies have the public stance (and private stance directly with Twitch) that they allow anyone to stream their games. See http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1egayn/lets_build_a_list_of_game_studios_that_allow/ for example. This isn't a fair use argument, it's a generally available license that you're taking advantage of. Broadcasting unlicensed music in the background is not fair use either, and there is no generally available license. Therefore this is not something that we want our broadcasters to accept liability for (nor do we want to accept liability for it either). They're completely different cases, and the logic is different in each."
And the subject of stuff being flagged incorrectly:
"regard to 2 hour chunks: Our research prior to launching the feature indicated that almost no highlights were longer than 2 hours, and we were concerned about abuse of the tool. It's clear that we underestimated the demand and need for a solution here, and fortunately we have 3 weeks to figure one out. Expect changes here soon. It has disproportionately large impact on certain communities (speedrunning most obviously) and we're very concerned about making sure that every community on Twitch has a good experience.
W/ regard to content id: Hey Cosmo, I understand your feelings here. We have absolutely no intention of flagging songs due to original in-game music. If that's happening (and it appears it is), it's a problem and we will investigate and try to fix it. W/ regards to your last question, why Twitch: Because we care about you and your viewers, and we want every broadcaster on Twitch to be protected from potential liability. No matter how remote you might feel the issue is, we aren't willing to run the risk someone's life gets ruined over this. PS: I don't think your VODs are being flagged right now, but I realize that doesn't help anyone else getting caught in the crossfire."
On August 08 2014 01:59 Pr0wler wrote: And as predicted, Twitch became one boring place. Just a question, what stops me from playing Beethoven, Mozart or Wagner ? Their music is not copyrighted. Can we have one new "High class" Twitch ? I know that the individual performances are copyrighted, but how do you actually prove who played it without some sort of investigation ?
If they think the material is copyrighted they can flag it, they don't need to investigate it or prove it in any way. It's an automated service, so if the music is part of the list (or similar enough to it), your content should be muted. Probally not the case for classical music.
On August 08 2014 02:05 Broodwurst wrote: [quote]
It's not exactly the fault of Twitch if a game developer says it's fine to stream their game video but it's not fine to stream their game audio. Also it wouldn't make much sense to use a content id system and then pick one that doesn't check for everything, I don't think being "a little safe" from copyright claims will cut it.
They developers don't say that. At least they were proven not to have in several cases.
Well someone signed the music up for that service, probably some publisher that gets paid to do so by the developers. Maybe the devs didn't think about what they signed up for, maybe the publisher just did so on his own or whatever, but somehow the music ended up in this content database, and I'm pretty sure these companies don't just add random music without being contracted to do so.
No, Valve for example writes their own music and say it's free to use. Crypt of the Necrodancer, another mentioned source, writes their own music and they have no publisher and never claimed anything. It's a game made by just a few people, they know what they did. Unless a random person can do it, that's false.
Surely they can then sue the content id system? I would think faking to be (representing) a copyright holder can't be legal, can it?
Likely no, because they would need to show they were materially harmed in some way and they are a bunch of steps removed from issues(cause it was not their stream). Also Twitch can claim it was an error made in good faith. As long as they try to correct the problem, it likely won't even be worth bringing the case.
On August 08 2014 02:21 SKC wrote:
That's just like, your opinion man.
There's no evidence Twitch was forced to use this service. There are several degrees or content protection. You can be more zealous, you can be almost crazy paranoid, you can be far more relaxed. Games with extreme DRM have received a ton of shit for ages, and they were not forced to do it. Other systems of DRM have been praised as revolutionary. This is one case of DRM being done in a terrible fashion.
YouTube did not add content ID because they wanted to. It was because movie studios and Record labels were going to sue the fuck out of them. It's well documented that record labels and movie studios were up their ass about copy right violations. And the law says that the "gate keeper" can be held liable can what happens on their service(due to court rulings on the subject). This didn't come out of no-where and its very similar to how google runs youtube.
The expansion for flagging content from major music producers to flag anything that sounds remotelly like music is the biggest issue. You weren't in their meetings, you do not know what YouTube had to do, you can't pretend you know they were forced to use a system that consistenly flags things incorrectly instead of something else.
Twitch is also a diferent beast than YouTube. YouTube is a lot more about putting out your own content. Twitch is about streaming somoeone else's content. Flagging everything copyrighted in a medium specifically meant to stream copyrighted content is simply dumb. You may as well remove the VOD's system, it's obvious every video has copyrighted material, that's what their site is all about. Just because record labels went after YouTube that doesn't mean game developers went after Twitch. Pirate YouTube videos are bad for music labels. Twitch is good for video game developers. It seems fairly clear that if they had the same meetings, the game developers would not require such extreme measures as the record labels did.
That would mean they were not forced into doing it. They chose to do it because it was easier than actually reaching a middle term and working out a better solution with video game developers. I believe no developer even forced out their hand, and they could have kept the old system in place.
When did I say that Game developers went after Twitch? The in game music thing is likely them just telling everyone "Hey, this system can't tell where the music is coming from, so it just scans music." That will likely get fixed as time goes on, since youtube is able to do let's plays.
And no, I was not in the room at the youtube meetings. But the creation of content ID in youtube was well reported by numerous video game and news media. It is not difficult to be knowledgeable on why the system was created.
Why would Twitch be literally forced to change their system if noone went after them? Or do you think the record labels also went after Twitch?
You speak as if there were no alternatives. That is clearly not the case.
Yes, they clearly are very concerned about violating copyright for music, since that is what the whole system revolves around. I am 99% sure they have been contacted by a record label or they have received cease and desist letters from them. You don't do this stuff for no reason, its because one or a number of record labels is threatening to sue you.
The CEO is specifically saying they didn't want to flag content for game music, which is happening all the freaking time, which tells they were using a terrible system they were not forced to use, copyrighted or not, and the issue was mostly streamers using their own music. They want to change that.
It's obvious it's a bad system, it's obvious a game streaming content cannot expect to flag ingame music as not legal content. He said the developers are fine with it. Do you still think they were "forced" to use the current system and there was no alternative?
"Game companies have the public stance (and private stance directly with Twitch) that they allow anyone to stream their games. See http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1egayn/lets_build_a_list_of_game_studios_that_allow/ for example. This isn't a fair use argument, it's a generally available license that you're taking advantage of. Broadcasting unlicensed music in the background is not fair use either, and there is no generally available license. Therefore this is not something that we want our broadcasters to accept liability for (nor do we want to accept liability for it either). They're completely different cases, and the logic is different in each."
And the subject of stuff being flagged incorrectly:
"regard to 2 hour chunks: Our research prior to launching the feature indicated that almost no highlights were longer than 2 hours, and we were concerned about abuse of the tool. It's clear that we underestimated the demand and need for a solution here, and fortunately we have 3 weeks to figure one out. Expect changes here soon. It has disproportionately large impact on certain communities (speedrunning most obviously) and we're very concerned about making sure that every community on Twitch has a good experience.
W/ regard to content id: Hey Cosmo, I understand your feelings here. We have absolutely no intention of flagging songs due to original in-game music. If that's happening (and it appears it is), it's a problem and we will investigate and try to fix it. W/ regards to your last question, why Twitch: Because we care about you and your viewers, and we want every broadcaster on Twitch to be protected from potential liability. No matter how remote you might feel the issue is, we aren't willing to run the risk someone's life gets ruined over this. PS: I don't think your VODs are being flagged right now, but I realize that doesn't help anyone else getting caught in the crossfire."
Screenshot of the reddit post, instead of wall of text.
On August 08 2014 02:05 SKC wrote: [quote] If they think the material is copyrighted they can flag it, they don't need to investigate it or prove it in any way. It's an automated service, so if the music is part of the list (or similar enough to it), your content should be muted. Probally not the case for classical music. [quote] They developers don't say that. At least they were proven not to have in several cases.
Well someone signed the music up for that service, probably some publisher that gets paid to do so by the developers. Maybe the devs didn't think about what they signed up for, maybe the publisher just did so on his own or whatever, but somehow the music ended up in this content database, and I'm pretty sure these companies don't just add random music without being contracted to do so.
No, Valve for example writes their own music and say it's free to use. Crypt of the Necrodancer, another mentioned source, writes their own music and they have no publisher and never claimed anything. It's a game made by just a few people, they know what they did. Unless a random person can do it, that's false.
Surely they can then sue the content id system? I would think faking to be (representing) a copyright holder can't be legal, can it?
Likely no, because they would need to show they were materially harmed in some way and they are a bunch of steps removed from issues(cause it was not their stream). Also Twitch can claim it was an error made in good faith. As long as they try to correct the problem, it likely won't even be worth bringing the case.
On August 08 2014 02:21 SKC wrote:
That's just like, your opinion man.
There's no evidence Twitch was forced to use this service. There are several degrees or content protection. You can be more zealous, you can be almost crazy paranoid, you can be far more relaxed. Games with extreme DRM have received a ton of shit for ages, and they were not forced to do it. Other systems of DRM have been praised as revolutionary. This is one case of DRM being done in a terrible fashion.
YouTube did not add content ID because they wanted to. It was because movie studios and Record labels were going to sue the fuck out of them. It's well documented that record labels and movie studios were up their ass about copy right violations. And the law says that the "gate keeper" can be held liable can what happens on their service(due to court rulings on the subject). This didn't come out of no-where and its very similar to how google runs youtube.
The expansion for flagging content from major music producers to flag anything that sounds remotelly like music is the biggest issue. You weren't in their meetings, you do not know what YouTube had to do, you can't pretend you know they were forced to use a system that consistenly flags things incorrectly instead of something else.
Twitch is also a diferent beast than YouTube. YouTube is a lot more about putting out your own content. Twitch is about streaming somoeone else's content. Flagging everything copyrighted in a medium specifically meant to stream copyrighted content is simply dumb. You may as well remove the VOD's system, it's obvious every video has copyrighted material, that's what their site is all about. Just because record labels went after YouTube that doesn't mean game developers went after Twitch. Pirate YouTube videos are bad for music labels. Twitch is good for video game developers. It seems fairly clear that if they had the same meetings, the game developers would not require such extreme measures as the record labels did.
That would mean they were not forced into doing it. They chose to do it because it was easier than actually reaching a middle term and working out a better solution with video game developers. I believe no developer even forced out their hand, and they could have kept the old system in place.
When did I say that Game developers went after Twitch? The in game music thing is likely them just telling everyone "Hey, this system can't tell where the music is coming from, so it just scans music." That will likely get fixed as time goes on, since youtube is able to do let's plays.
And no, I was not in the room at the youtube meetings. But the creation of content ID in youtube was well reported by numerous video game and news media. It is not difficult to be knowledgeable on why the system was created.
Why would Twitch be literally forced to change their system if noone went after them? Or do you think the record labels also went after Twitch?
You speak as if there were no alternatives. That is clearly not the case.
Yes, they clearly are very concerned about violating copyright for music, since that is what the whole system revolves around. I am 99% sure they have been contacted by a record label or they have received cease and desist letters from them. You don't do this stuff for no reason, its because one or a number of record labels is threatening to sue you.
The CEO is specifically saying they didn't want to flag content for game music, which is happening all the freaking time, which tells they were using a terrible system they were not forced to use, copyrighted or not, and the issue was mostly streamers using their own music. They want to change that.
It's obvious it's a bad system, it's obvious a game streaming content cannot expect to flag ingame music as not legal content. He said the developers are fine with it. Do you still think they were "forced" to use the current system and there was no alternative?
Yes or they were going to roll it out but were pressed for time. The fact that he talks about liability in the AMA for both users and themselves makes me think they were very concerned about it. That or the people who make this said "Look, when you turn it on, its going to fuck up no matter what, so just do it and deal with the heat." People who make websites always say you won't be able to find the problems with the site until you launch it and let people use it. It could be the same thing for this system.
I think it is much easier to accept that they meant well and didn't want shit to fuck up, but it happens. Its not like its the end of the world or something they can't fix. Really, its just something people can freak out on reddit about for a while.
If you want to twist this into a story that they were forced into doing a terrible job out of it because they didn't have time/resources, be my guest, but that doesn't change what everyone was saying.
It's a terrible system. People were dreading the YouTube content ID software in Twitch for months, a lot of people talk about how it's so annoying to submit game content to YouTube because it gets flagged all the time for retarded stuff. People are skeptical about it because YouTube never changed.
They say they want to create a better system that doesn't flag for ingame music, who knows if that is possible. We will see. But I think it's laughlable the idea that they were forced into implementing a terrible system that doesn't work properly. This is not something that happens overnight. People screw up, sometimes launches are terrible, but that doesn't mean it's necessary. They could have done a much better job out of it. Hell, it identified crowd noises as copyrighted content. The current system is absolutelly useless.
On August 08 2014 03:23 Conti wrote: Oh man. Reddit. "Hey, let's all downvote the actual responses so they'll be hidden! That'll show them and is sure going to be helpful to everyone!"
Reddit is great like that. Its why I just click on the guy profile and read his most recent posts.
On August 08 2014 03:23 MoneyHypeMike wrote:
Updated to include context
Love the honesty. More companies need to just say, "Sorry, were human and fucked up. We will fix it."
On August 08 2014 03:17 SKC wrote: If you want to twist this into a story that they were forced into doing a terrible job out of it because they didn't have time/resources, be my guest, but that doesn't change what everyone was saying.
It's a terrible system. People were dreading the YouTube content ID software in Twitch for months, a lot of people talk about how it's so annoying to submit game content to YouTube because it gets flagged all the time for retarded stuff. People are skeptical about it because YouTube never changed.
They say they want to create a better system that doesn't flag for ingame music, who knows if that is possible. We will see. But I think it's laughlable the idea that they were forced into implementing a terrible system that doesn't work properly. This is not something that happens overnight. People screw up, sometimes launches are terrible, but that doesn't mean it's necessary. They could have done a much better job out of it. Hell, it identified crowd noises as copyrighted content. The current system is absolutelly useless.
Okay, I'm just going to point out the difference between you and Plansix.
What happened: Twitch screwed up, the implementation was hastily added and so suddenly added leading to massive amounts of easily preventable false positives.
There are two possible reasons why this would occur.
1) Twitch Fucked up. It wanted to implement something so they did it suddenly and poorly. It saw youtubes content filtering system and was like "this thing is great, I bet our users would like this feature too"
2) Twitch was under external pressure to implement a system to deal with rights management. Twitch is 'voluntarily' trying to protect rights
I don't believe in case #1, twitch is known for carefully testing and rolling things out slowly, sometimes way to slowly. (European servers, partners, alternative advertising measures, blocking twitch if you have adblock on)
There are a lot of things that suggest case #2. That something forced twitch to quickly implement a system to show they were respecting rights.
Why are these false positives happening?: Twitch outsourced their filtering to Audible Magic who probably has 0 experience in dealing with video game music and has horribly irrelevant content IDs. By outsourcing their filtering they are protecting themselves from legal action if their filtering is to lenient.
Why are they muted in 30 minute chunks?: Considering the amount of VODs twitch has, going through the entirety of the VOD database is an enormous effort and would take a large amount of time. This implies that twitch was under a lot of pressure to get it done fast.
The biggest issue is everyone was saying flagging videogame music on a videogame game website is pants on retarded and some people were saying it made sense, copyright and all that, they were probally forced to do it. They weren't, they don't want to do it, and they may or may not improve the system to make it better than YouTube and stop flaggin irrelevant stuff like crowd noises or music that is supposed to be there.
It's not about some developers giving consent, some allowing the music and it being flagged incorrectly, etc. If it's ingame original music, it needs to be safe.
Few people (or noone) was defending the use of out of game music.
On August 08 2014 03:35 SKC wrote: The biggest issue is everyone was saying flagging videogame music on a videogame game website is pants on retarded and some people were saying it made sense, copyright and all that, they were probally forced to do it. They weren't, they don't want to do it, and they may or may not improve the system to make it better than YouTube and stop flaggin irrelevant stuff like crowd noises or music that is supposed to be there.
Few people (or noone) was defending the use of out of game music.
No one is saying they were forced to flag in game music. Even the CEO said they don't want to do it, but it happened. And its not all games, just some. Its clearly an error that will be sorted out. How many thousands of hours of twitch Vods are there out there? Of course there are going to be a number of false positives and clearly the system needs work.
You confuse defending with being understanding. Some of us are not going directly to "This is fucking retarted, twitch are all idiots" and just saying the launch could have gone better, but no big deal.
On August 08 2014 03:35 SKC wrote: The biggest issue is everyone was saying flagging videogame music on a videogame game website is pants on retarded and some people were saying it made sense, copyright and all that, they were probally forced to do it. They weren't, they don't want to do it, and they may or may not improve the system to make it better than YouTube and stop flaggin irrelevant stuff like crowd noises or music that is supposed to be there.
Of course it's retarded. I don't think we need to explain to twitch why flagging videogame sound and muting it is a horrible idea. Twitch is not that stupid.
What people forget are that companies do things for a reason, not because they get tax exemptions when they lose money. The false positives come because they outsourced their flagging to an outside company and twitch didn't filter the enormous amount of flags well enough.
There are many ways in which an independent twitch could have rolled this out. It could have only affected partners (or non-partners). It could have only affected the largest streams and vods. They could have spent much more time to check what was flagged.
This was pure panic.
Few people (or noone) was defending the use of out of game music.
Go back a few pages or look on reddit, lots of people think they should be able to stream music too.
Honestly, if they really, genuinely keep this issue to VODs only, twitch will continue being a monopoly in video game streaming. No VODs anymore sucks, but it's definitely not the end of the world. People like speedrunners will just upload their stuff to youtube instead. People like SC2 streamers will simply not have any VODs anymore. Tournaments will upload the videos to whatever website they have.
People are up in arms about this because there is the possibility that the contentID thing will be turned on for live streaming, too. Twitch denies that it ever will, but who's to trust a CEO in these days?
On August 08 2014 03:41 c0ldfusion wrote: So uh, hitbox.tv?
Will somehow be magically immune to copyright claims? Skynet is coming to every service is some way, shape or form.
Edit: LOL, they are owned3d??? Thats awesome. Hope people don't like getting paid.
Well if they're owned3d at least they won't be US based right?
I don't know, I just did some reading on Reddit. Apparently the CFO of owned3d heads up hitbox.tv now. Something something about how it was the CEO of owned3d who mismanaged the finances before the CFO came along.
On August 08 2014 03:41 c0ldfusion wrote: So uh, hitbox.tv?
Will somehow be magically immune to copyright claims? Skynet is coming to every service is some way, shape or form.
Edit: LOL, they are owned3d??? Thats awesome. Hope people don't like getting paid.
Well if they're owned3d at least they won't be US based right?
I don't know, I just did some reading on Reddit. Apparently the CFO of owned3d heads up hitbox.tv now. Something something about how it was the CEO of owned3d who mismanaged the finances before the CFO came along.
Maybe mismanagement happened but own3d was not profitable. Still own3d told a lot of streamers (notably destiny) to switch from Twitch to own3d because they would pay them more. own3d couldn't sell enough adds and investors realized that own3d would never be profitable so they declared bankruptcy.
Honestly I don't actually think Twitch is profitable. There isn't a big variety of ads. In addition there was a 1 billion valuation of twitch, which is pretty low for a start up company that grew so fast and has a massive userbase as well as proven revenue streams.
On August 08 2014 03:17 SKC wrote:[..] Why are they muted in 30 minute chunks?: Considering the amount of VODs twitch has, going through the entirety of the VOD database is an enormous effort and would take a large amount of time. This implies that twitch was under a lot of pressure to get it done fast.[...]
They need to do 30 minute chunks since a broadcast is saved internally as many 30 minute long FLVs. There is no other way currently but they wish to optimize / change this in the future.
Directly from the AMA
The 30 minute block size is a limitation of the current system and something we hope to fix.
On August 08 2014 04:44 c0ldfusion wrote: I really like seeing all the communities, us, Dota, League, FGC, speed runners, united in this.
Unite to complaint about VoDs we weren't really watching breaking? I mean, the crowd noise issue was fixed already, so it sounds like most of the problems are being dealt with very quickly. This isn't really as big of a deal as people are making it out to be.
On August 08 2014 04:44 c0ldfusion wrote: I really like seeing all the communities, us, Dota, League, FGC, speed runners, united in this.
Unite to complaint about VoDs we weren't really watching breaking? I mean, the crowd noise issue was fixed already, so it sounds like most of the problems are being dealt with very quickly. This isn't really as big of a deal as people are making it out to be.
But people love dat drama.
You keep saying that but you didn't have an answer when I said ~70% of my twitch usage was VODs.
Or how we will get to watch 100s of older tournaments now? SC2, DOTA, LoL, CSGO, MTG, etc etc. Stream marathons? Gone. Speedrun events? Gone.
On August 08 2014 04:44 c0ldfusion wrote: I really like seeing all the communities, us, Dota, League, FGC, speed runners, united in this.
Unite to complaint about VoDs we weren't really watching breaking? I mean, the crowd noise issue was fixed already, so it sounds like most of the problems are being dealt with very quickly. This isn't really as big of a deal as people are making it out to be.
But people love dat drama.
You keep saying that but you didn't have an answer when I said ~70% of my twitch usage was VODs.
Or how we will get to watch 100s of older tournaments now? SC2, DOTA, LoL, CSGO, MTG, etc etc. Stream marathons? Gone. Speedrun events? Gone.
Usually the Speedrun events and major tournaments post their videos on Youtube. So you are able to watch them, it's going to be the random streams where they just play games with no highlights in the session.
On August 08 2014 04:44 c0ldfusion wrote: I really like seeing all the communities, us, Dota, League, FGC, speed runners, united in this.
Unite to complaint about VoDs we weren't really watching breaking? I mean, the crowd noise issue was fixed already, so it sounds like most of the problems are being dealt with very quickly. This isn't really as big of a deal as people are making it out to be.
But people love dat drama.
You keep saying that but you didn't have an answer when I said ~70% of my twitch usage was VODs.
Or how we will get to watch 100s of older tournaments now? SC2, DOTA, LoL, CSGO, MTG, etc etc. Stream marathons? Gone. Speedrun events? Gone.
That is sad, but from twitch's point of view its a pure business decision and that storage was likely costing them a lot with little return. And as long as the stuff was flagged as a highlight, it won't be deleted. The new two our limit is only on new stuff. The process of deleting hasn't even started yet, so people have time to flag their stuff. The only way you will miss out of things is if the people who recorded the broadcast don't flag it as a highlight in the next three weeks.
I would rather companies provide services they can afford, rather than give us the moon and then go out of business one day and we lose everything.
I sort of agree with TB on this one and folks should have seen this coming. Unlimited VOD storage was not going go happen forever and the same with being able to place licensed music. It will happen to every service no matter who they are, because its how copyright works. People are going to have to pick what they want to keep, rather than just save everything like pack rats.
And all the other streaming services are kinda trash or shady. Hitbox might be ok, but I don't trust the folks from Owned until they have proven they can pay people.
I don't really know/care about the Owned CEO controversy, but tech-wise hitbox is miles ahead of the old Owned and quite a bit ahead of twitch, worldwide server coverage notwithstanding (although they said on their blog that they do have a worldwide network set up).
It'd be a shame if it turned out to be the same person's moneygrabbing scheme all over again.
On August 08 2014 06:17 chiflutz wrote: I don't really know/care about the Owned CEO controversy, but tech-wise hitbox is miles ahead of the old Owned and quite a bit ahead of twitch, worldwide server coverage notwithstanding (although they said on their blog that they do have a worldwide network set up).
It'd be a shame if it turned out to be the same person's moneygrabbing scheme all over again.
Apparently it's the guy who took over as CEO of Own3d after all the crap had started going wrong, and was trying to sort it out, and not the guy who started Own3d and made everything go tits up. Apparently. Unsourced (Reddit).
I'm more concerned about the VoD change. Makes sense and it will remove a lot of stress on the servers but I hope there aren't a bunch of classic tournaments etc lost forever because they forgot/were unable to get the VoDs chopped up.
The music industry had long since had my sympathies since they started paying these companies to implement scorched earth automated flagging etc. I'm not against flagging as a concept, but this implementation is horrible.
On August 08 2014 04:44 c0ldfusion wrote: I really like seeing all the communities, us, Dota, League, FGC, speed runners, united in this.
Unite to complaint about VoDs we weren't really watching breaking? I mean, the crowd noise issue was fixed already, so it sounds like most of the problems are being dealt with very quickly. This isn't really as big of a deal as people are making it out to be.
But people love dat drama.
You keep saying that but you didn't have an answer when I said ~70% of my twitch usage was VODs.
Or how we will get to watch 100s of older tournaments now? SC2, DOTA, LoL, CSGO, MTG, etc etc. Stream marathons? Gone. Speedrun events? Gone.
That is sad, but from twitch's point of view its a pure business decision and that storage was likely costing them a lot with little return. And as long as the stuff was flagged as a highlight, it won't be deleted. The new two our limit is only on new stuff. The process of deleting hasn't even started yet, so people have time to flag their stuff. The only way you will miss out of things is if the people who recorded the broadcast don't flag it as a highlight in the next three weeks.
I would rather companies provide services they can afford, rather than give us the moon and then go out of business one day and we lose everything.
Them not properly monetizing vods really, really doesn't seem like a reason to remove them. An advertisement plays at the beginning of every stream or vod, and I think you grossly underestimate how much of twitch's use came through VoDs. I personally probably spend 30% of my time on twitch watching VoDs.
If I had to put my future-predicting pants on, I'd expect a great google merger that allows you to have your twitch, youtube, google+ and everything associated with google all linked under a single profile. So VoDs won't be "gone", just the "highlight" button will change to "highlight to youtube" or something similar.
A streamer I follow has a pretty good attitude towards all of this, though. "Give twitch a week. If it's still awful, or if it's worse in a week, let's start looking for alternatives. To get so fired up about a couple obvious mistakes seems both premature and immature"
This was my favorite comment from the AMA. The person asking the question was such a troll through the whole thing and this sort of comeback is awesome.
On August 08 2014 06:17 chiflutz wrote: I don't really know/care about the Owned CEO controversy, but tech-wise hitbox is miles ahead of the old Owned and quite a bit ahead of twitch, worldwide server coverage notwithstanding (although they said on their blog that they do have a worldwide network set up).
It'd be a shame if it turned out to be the same person's moneygrabbing scheme all over again.
Apparently it's the guy who took over as CEO of Own3d after all the crap had started going wrong, and was trying to sort it out, and not the guy who started Own3d and made everything go tits up. Apparently. Unsourced (Reddit).
The failure of Own3d was not due to one person. There were no allegations of embezzlement. It was because own3d used amazon web services to host their content which was too expensive to do what they want to. They couldn't even make a streaming model where they don't pay content providers work, let alone one like twitch.
Hitbox supposedly 'learned from own3d's mistakes' about keeping their costs down. It's run by the same people http://blog.hitbox.tv/an-introduction-to-our-management/ and making the same mistakes (using amazon) http://whois.domaintools.com/hitbox.tv. They might give excuses like "We are in the growing stage, we will switch later", yet they should know how hard it is to make a streaming model work.
Removes time cap on highlights Appeal button on VoDs More soon(tm)
Both are good changes. It make is so people can save important broadcasts, while others will be deleted after a 60 days(for partners). Its basically an auto delete program to assure people are not stock piling VODs. And an appeal buttons, which is more than google has.
Also, hitbox TV runs like trash. I get the whole "count culture" thing, but the UI pure poop and it doesn't run any better than Twitch.
Removes time cap on highlights Appeal button on VoDs More soon(tm)
Both are good changes. It make is so people can save important broadcasts, while others will be deleted after a 60 days(for partners). Its basically an auto delete program to assure people are not stock piling VODs. And an appeal buttons, which is more than google has.
Also, hitbox TV runs like trash. I get the whole "count culture" thing, but the UI pure poop and it doesn't run any better than Twitch.
Hadn't been on hitbox till a few days ago. The UI looked fine to me, it does some things better and does some things worse. But my ISP is fucking with twitch for me and throttling, they don't do that with hitbox (yet). Not saying they're going to take over the world, that they have a business model that works, or that they can even actually pay streamers. But on its own it seems to be a competent product, certainly way the fuck better than own3d ever was, and I don't have to use a proxy to get around the throttling bullshit which is nice.
It seems strange that a lot of this stuff never makes the news. Yes google seems buying any company that has high potential so they can make profits or try to control the world.
Removes time cap on highlights Appeal button on VoDs More soon(tm)
Both are good changes. It make is so people can save important broadcasts, while others will be deleted after a 60 days(for partners). Its basically an auto delete program to assure people are not stock piling VODs. And an appeal buttons, which is more than google has.
Also, hitbox TV runs like trash. I get the whole "count culture" thing, but the UI pure poop and it doesn't run any better than Twitch.
I've been using twitch for years but after trying out hitbox yesterday I can safely say it does not run "run like trash" at all. I was able to up my resolution to 1080p at 60fps without any stream lag for my viewers (albeit someone on the mobile platform having some difficulty). Most noticeably though the lack of any significant stream/chat delay means streamers can interact with the chat with <3 seconds delay, making for a much better experience IMO.
Sure, hitbox might not be ready to take on any major tournaments or big-name streamers, but for anyone averaging less than 500 concurrent viewers I can imagine that hitbox could be a legitimate alternative.
On August 08 2014 22:06 LastManProductions wrote: Is anybody surprised that twitch just suddenly started doing this content-id right after they were bought by google?
IF they were bought by Google. Theres still no real confirmation whatsoever.
On August 08 2014 22:06 LastManProductions wrote: Is anybody surprised that twitch just suddenly started doing this content-id right after they were bought by google?
Twitch hasn't been bought yet, nothing is confirmed
Removes time cap on highlights Appeal button on VoDs More soon(tm)
Both are good changes. It make is so people can save important broadcasts, while others will be deleted after a 60 days(for partners). Its basically an auto delete program to assure people are not stock piling VODs. And an appeal buttons, which is more than google has.
Also, hitbox TV runs like trash. I get the whole "count culture" thing, but the UI pure poop and it doesn't run any better than Twitch.
I've been using twitch for years but after trying out hitbox yesterday I can safely say it does not run "run like trash" at all. I was able to up my resolution to 1080p at 60fps without any stream lag for my viewers (albeit someone on the mobile platform having some difficulty). Most noticeably though the lack of any significant stream/chat delay means streamers can interact with the chat with <3 seconds delay, making for a much better experience IMO.
Sure, hitbox might not be ready to take on any major tournaments or big-name streamers, but for anyone averaging less than 500 concurrent viewers I can imagine that hitbox could be a legitimate alternative.
Of course hitbox runs great. It uses amazon as it host and will have to pay an unsustainable amount of money. Heck anyone can make a great streaming service, that isn't the hard part. The hard part is making more money than you spend
Everyone keeps on yelling "we need more competition", which is the opposite. This is a classic example of economy of scale. It's prohibitively expensive for small streaming services to deliver content. We need to support the twitch monopoly so they can build their backbone and market leverage.
On August 08 2014 22:06 LastManProductions wrote: Is anybody surprised that twitch just suddenly started doing this content-id right after they were bought by google?
Twitch hasn't been bought yet, nothing is confirmed
Removes time cap on highlights Appeal button on VoDs More soon(tm)
Both are good changes. It make is so people can save important broadcasts, while others will be deleted after a 60 days(for partners). Its basically an auto delete program to assure people are not stock piling VODs. And an appeal buttons, which is more than google has.
Also, hitbox TV runs like trash. I get the whole "count culture" thing, but the UI pure poop and it doesn't run any better than Twitch.
I've been using twitch for years but after trying out hitbox yesterday I can safely say it does not run "run like trash" at all. I was able to up my resolution to 1080p at 60fps without any stream lag for my viewers (albeit someone on the mobile platform having some difficulty). Most noticeably though the lack of any significant stream/chat delay means streamers can interact with the chat with <3 seconds delay, making for a much better experience IMO.
Sure, hitbox might not be ready to take on any major tournaments or big-name streamers, but for anyone averaging less than 500 concurrent viewers I can imagine that hitbox could be a legitimate alternative.
Of course hitbox runs great. It uses amazon as it host and will have to pay an unsustainable amount of money. Heck anyone can make a great streaming service, that isn't the hard part. The hard part is making more money than you spend
Everyone keeps on yelling "we need more competition", which is the opposite. This is a classic example of economy of scale. It's prohibitively expensive for small streaming services to deliver content. We need to support the twitch monopoly so they can build their backbone and market leverage.
Supporting the twitch monopoly does not inherently make it more efficient. Even if they have the ability to leverage economies of scale it doesn't mean their leadership or vision is mature enough to actually succeed with it. Having Google on board is going to help but they aren't immune to making mistakes either (a lot of their entrepreneurial endeavors have been failures). Sure, it's not realistic to imagine hitbox taking anywhere near the amount of traffic that Twitch garners and still making a profit, but who's to say they can't partner with larger services/companies like Amazon down the line.
Also, cloud services have been getting cheaper each year so maybe what's unsustainable now will be profitable in a few years time (http://blog.dshr.org/2012/02/cloud-storage-pricing-history.html). Of course this is all just speculation but I don't think it's completely crazy to think that an oligopoly might form with regards to internet streaming, perhaps segmented based on traffic or stream-type (i.e. twitch for large tournaments/premier streamers and other sites for smaller/casual streamers).
On August 08 2014 06:17 chiflutz wrote: I don't really know/care about the Owned CEO controversy, but tech-wise hitbox is miles ahead of the old Owned and quite a bit ahead of twitch, worldwide server coverage notwithstanding (although they said on their blog that they do have a worldwide network set up).
It'd be a shame if it turned out to be the same person's moneygrabbing scheme all over again.
Apparently it's the guy who took over as CEO of Own3d after all the crap had started going wrong, and was trying to sort it out, and not the guy who started Own3d and made everything go tits up. Apparently. Unsourced (Reddit).
The only thing your whois is showing is that their web servers are likely on Amazon. But who cares about that? What matters is their streaming servers, and from a quick glance they're streaming from Edgecast, not from Amazon:
$ whois 68.232.32.221 NetName: EDGECAST-NETBLK-04 OrgName: EdgeCast Networks, Inc.
Now, I'm not claiming that Edgecast is cheap - as a third-party CDN they're probably charging Hitbox much more than what Twitch has to pay to stream on their own infrastructure - but the fact is that no, they don't seem to be streaming from Amazon.
His point is that they are renting server space, which is what killed Own3d in the end. Twitch owns their servers and does not rent, which it one of they ways they are successful at what they are doing. I don't know how much it cuts into their bottom line, but the problem with rent is that scaling up gets very expensive very quickly.
On August 08 2014 22:06 LastManProductions wrote: Is anybody surprised that twitch just suddenly started doing this content-id right after they were bought by google?
Twitch hasn't been bought yet, nothing is confirmed
Removes time cap on highlights Appeal button on VoDs More soon(tm)
Both are good changes. It make is so people can save important broadcasts, while others will be deleted after a 60 days(for partners). Its basically an auto delete program to assure people are not stock piling VODs. And an appeal buttons, which is more than google has.
Also, hitbox TV runs like trash. I get the whole "count culture" thing, but the UI pure poop and it doesn't run any better than Twitch.
I've been using twitch for years but after trying out hitbox yesterday I can safely say it does not run "run like trash" at all. I was able to up my resolution to 1080p at 60fps without any stream lag for my viewers (albeit someone on the mobile platform having some difficulty). Most noticeably though the lack of any significant stream/chat delay means streamers can interact with the chat with <3 seconds delay, making for a much better experience IMO.
Sure, hitbox might not be ready to take on any major tournaments or big-name streamers, but for anyone averaging less than 500 concurrent viewers I can imagine that hitbox could be a legitimate alternative.
Of course hitbox runs great. It uses amazon as it host and will have to pay an unsustainable amount of money. Heck anyone can make a great streaming service, that isn't the hard part. The hard part is making more money than you spend
Everyone keeps on yelling "we need more competition", which is the opposite. This is a classic example of economy of scale. It's prohibitively expensive for small streaming services to deliver content. We need to support the twitch monopoly so they can build their backbone and market leverage.
Supporting the twitch monopoly does not inherently make it more efficient. Even if they have the ability to leverage economies of scale it doesn't mean their leadership or vision is mature enough to actually succeed with it. Having Google on board is going to help but they aren't immune to making mistakes either (a lot of their entrepreneurial endeavors have been failures). Sure, it's not realistic to imagine hitbox taking anywhere near the amount of traffic that Twitch garners and still making a profit, but who's to say they can't partner with larger services/companies like Amazon down the line.
Also, cloud services have been getting cheaper each year so maybe what's unsustainable now will be profitable in a few years time (http://blog.dshr.org/2012/02/cloud-storage-pricing-history.html). Of course this is all just speculation but I don't think it's completely crazy to think that an oligopoly might form with regards to internet streaming, perhaps segmented based on traffic or stream-type (i.e. twitch for large tournaments/premier streamers and other sites for smaller/casual streamers).
So instead of twitch we are going to hedge our hopes on a startup that relies on future technology that has not been developed (and they won't personally develop) to make their business feasible? Or find partnerships with companies that Twitch was unable to find? That is completely unrealistic.
Certainly if hosting becomes cheap enough twitch will have a huge amount of competitors, however that hasn't happened, video CDN pricing is stable http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2012/09/cdn-pricing-stable-survey-data-shows-pricing-down-15-this-year.html, if you try to stream a tournament through cloud storage you won't make it to the end before getting data capped. A more major concern is that if net neutrality is thrown out the window, that may not happen for a very long period of time. Considering how internet companies spend so little on lobbying it would not be a surprise.
Yes we can imagine in the future everyone will have fiber and content will be so cheap that we can download a car. The future proliferation of open source streaming software and code will allow streamers will be able to stream at their own individual websites and all ad revenue will go to them. Twitch will be nothing but a google search for these personal streaming websites.
But until we have a technological revolution, only a monopoly will allow streaming to be sustainable. VC money doesn't last forever.
On August 08 2014 06:17 chiflutz wrote: I don't really know/care about the Owned CEO controversy, but tech-wise hitbox is miles ahead of the old Owned and quite a bit ahead of twitch, worldwide server coverage notwithstanding (although they said on their blog that they do have a worldwide network set up).
It'd be a shame if it turned out to be the same person's moneygrabbing scheme all over again.
Apparently it's the guy who took over as CEO of Own3d after all the crap had started going wrong, and was trying to sort it out, and not the guy who started Own3d and made everything go tits up. Apparently. Unsourced (Reddit).
The only thing your whois is showing is that their web servers are likely on Amazon. But who cares about that? What matters is their streaming servers, and from a quick glance they're streaming from Edgecast, not from Amazon:
$ whois 68.232.32.221 NetName: EDGECAST-NETBLK-04 OrgName: EdgeCast Networks, Inc.
Now, I'm not claiming that Edgecast is cheap - as a third-party CDN they're probably charging Hitbox much more than what Twitch has to pay to stream on their own infrastructure - but the fact is that no, they don't seem to be streaming from Amazon.
Some of the anti-hitbox posts are hilariously shameless.
Going from 1 end of the spectrum ("hitbox runs like shit! it's terrible!") to the other ("well of course it runs amazingly, it's renting servers; clearly that is not sustainable and we need twitch to have a monopoly to encourage competition OBVIOUSLY!") within 1 page.
On August 08 2014 23:19 Kurr wrote: Some of the anti-hitbox posts are hilariously shameless.
Going from 1 end of the spectrum ("hitbox runs like shit! it's terrible!") to the other ("well of course it runs amazingly, it's renting servers; clearly that is not sustainable and we need twitch to have a monopoly to encourage competition OBVIOUSLY!") within 1 page.
On August 08 2014 06:17 chiflutz wrote: I don't really know/care about the Owned CEO controversy, but tech-wise hitbox is miles ahead of the old Owned and quite a bit ahead of twitch, worldwide server coverage notwithstanding (although they said on their blog that they do have a worldwide network set up).
It'd be a shame if it turned out to be the same person's moneygrabbing scheme all over again.
Apparently it's the guy who took over as CEO of Own3d after all the crap had started going wrong, and was trying to sort it out, and not the guy who started Own3d and made everything go tits up. Apparently. Unsourced (Reddit).
The only thing your whois is showing is that their web servers are likely on Amazon. But who cares about that? What matters is their streaming servers, and from a quick glance they're streaming from Edgecast, not from Amazon:
$ whois 68.232.32.221 NetName: EDGECAST-NETBLK-04 OrgName: EdgeCast Networks, Inc.
Now, I'm not claiming that Edgecast is cheap - as a third-party CDN they're probably charging Hitbox much more than what Twitch has to pay to stream on their own infrastructure - but the fact is that no, they don't seem to be streaming from Amazon.
Edgecast's pricing is not public. Your link is from a competing CDN who has every reason in the world to make Edgecast look bad. If that wasn't enough to discredit it, the page hasn't been updated in 4 years, and the quote is for a 25TB commit which may be very different from Hitbox's commit.
On August 08 2014 06:17 chiflutz wrote: I don't really know/care about the Owned CEO controversy, but tech-wise hitbox is miles ahead of the old Owned and quite a bit ahead of twitch, worldwide server coverage notwithstanding (although they said on their blog that they do have a worldwide network set up).
It'd be a shame if it turned out to be the same person's moneygrabbing scheme all over again.
Apparently it's the guy who took over as CEO of Own3d after all the crap had started going wrong, and was trying to sort it out, and not the guy who started Own3d and made everything go tits up. Apparently. Unsourced (Reddit).
The only thing your whois is showing is that their web servers are likely on Amazon. But who cares about that? What matters is their streaming servers, and from a quick glance they're streaming from Edgecast, not from Amazon:
$ whois 68.232.32.221 NetName: EDGECAST-NETBLK-04 OrgName: EdgeCast Networks, Inc.
Now, I'm not claiming that Edgecast is cheap - as a third-party CDN they're probably charging Hitbox much more than what Twitch has to pay to stream on their own infrastructure - but the fact is that no, they don't seem to be streaming from Amazon.
Edgecast's pricing is not public. Your link is from a competing CDN who has every reason in the world to make Edgecast look bad. If that wasn't enough to discredit it, the page hasn't been updated in 4 years, and the quote is for a 25TB commit which may be very different from Hitbox's commit.
And do you have any substantial reasoning to believe that Edgecast would provide cheap hosting?
Yes my data point is 4 years old, however even in 2010 those prices are instantly high and video CDN pricing hasn't changed very much as a whole.
Lets face it, hitbox will not and will never in the near future be profitable, or make enough revenue to pay streamers.
I tried yesterday night to get a dailymotion streaming channel and from what i get you can only stream if you have a partnership with them. Youtube is the same thing as twitch cause they flag audio too on videos.
Lets face it, hitbox will not and will never in the near future be profitable, or make enough revenue to pay streamers.
Unless it has backing from another source.
And people saying that this is Google forced, Twitch was stating these things for over a year. They just are now implementing a system (even one that is different from the one YouTube currently uses).
On August 08 2014 06:17 chiflutz wrote: I don't really know/care about the Owned CEO controversy, but tech-wise hitbox is miles ahead of the old Owned and quite a bit ahead of twitch, worldwide server coverage notwithstanding (although they said on their blog that they do have a worldwide network set up).
It'd be a shame if it turned out to be the same person's moneygrabbing scheme all over again.
Apparently it's the guy who took over as CEO of Own3d after all the crap had started going wrong, and was trying to sort it out, and not the guy who started Own3d and made everything go tits up. Apparently. Unsourced (Reddit).
The only thing your whois is showing is that their web servers are likely on Amazon. But who cares about that? What matters is their streaming servers, and from a quick glance they're streaming from Edgecast, not from Amazon:
$ whois 68.232.32.221 NetName: EDGECAST-NETBLK-04 OrgName: EdgeCast Networks, Inc.
Now, I'm not claiming that Edgecast is cheap - as a third-party CDN they're probably charging Hitbox much more than what Twitch has to pay to stream on their own infrastructure - but the fact is that no, they don't seem to be streaming from Amazon.
Edgecast's pricing is not public. Your link is from a competing CDN who has every reason in the world to make Edgecast look bad. If that wasn't enough to discredit it, the page hasn't been updated in 4 years, and the quote is for a 25TB commit which may be very different from Hitbox's commit.
And do you have any substantial reasoning to believe that Edgecast would provide cheap hosting?
Yes my data point is 4 years old, however even in 2010 those prices are instantly high and video CDN pricing hasn't changed very much as a whole.
Lets face it, hitbox will not and will never in the near future be profitable, or make enough revenue to pay streamers.
Then why don't you simply say that Hitbox are streaming from a third-party CDN, which according to the average industry pricing is likely to cost them at least $0.03 per GB? Just accept that you don't have any harder evidence than that. You have a valid point, so don't ruin it by claiming they stream from Amazon (factually false) and then pulling up a bullshit pricing page for Edgecast.
I actually share your opinion that bandwidth costs are going to be a very serious issue and that Twitch has a significant advantage in this regard.
On August 08 2014 06:17 chiflutz wrote: I don't really know/care about the Owned CEO controversy, but tech-wise hitbox is miles ahead of the old Owned and quite a bit ahead of twitch, worldwide server coverage notwithstanding (although they said on their blog that they do have a worldwide network set up).
It'd be a shame if it turned out to be the same person's moneygrabbing scheme all over again.
Apparently it's the guy who took over as CEO of Own3d after all the crap had started going wrong, and was trying to sort it out, and not the guy who started Own3d and made everything go tits up. Apparently. Unsourced (Reddit).
The only thing your whois is showing is that their web servers are likely on Amazon. But who cares about that? What matters is their streaming servers, and from a quick glance they're streaming from Edgecast, not from Amazon:
$ whois 68.232.32.221 NetName: EDGECAST-NETBLK-04 OrgName: EdgeCast Networks, Inc.
Now, I'm not claiming that Edgecast is cheap - as a third-party CDN they're probably charging Hitbox much more than what Twitch has to pay to stream on their own infrastructure - but the fact is that no, they don't seem to be streaming from Amazon.
Edgecast's pricing is not public. Your link is from a competing CDN who has every reason in the world to make Edgecast look bad. If that wasn't enough to discredit it, the page hasn't been updated in 4 years, and the quote is for a 25TB commit which may be very different from Hitbox's commit.
And do you have any substantial reasoning to believe that Edgecast would provide cheap hosting?
Yes my data point is 4 years old, however even in 2010 those prices are instantly high and video CDN pricing hasn't changed very much as a whole.
Lets face it, hitbox will not and will never in the near future be profitable, or make enough revenue to pay streamers.
Then why don't you simply say that Hitbox are streaming from a third-party CDN, which according to the average industry pricing is likely to cost them at least $0.03 per GB? Just accept that you don't have any harder evidence than that. You have a valid point, so don't ruin it by claiming they stream from Amazon (factually false) and then pulling up a bullshit pricing page for Edgecast.
I actually share your opinion that bandwidth costs are going to be a very serious issue and that Twitch has a significant advantage in this regard.
On August 08 2014 06:17 chiflutz wrote: I don't really know/care about the Owned CEO controversy, but tech-wise hitbox is miles ahead of the old Owned and quite a bit ahead of twitch, worldwide server coverage notwithstanding (although they said on their blog that they do have a worldwide network set up).
It'd be a shame if it turned out to be the same person's moneygrabbing scheme all over again.
Apparently it's the guy who took over as CEO of Own3d after all the crap had started going wrong, and was trying to sort it out, and not the guy who started Own3d and made everything go tits up. Apparently. Unsourced (Reddit).
The only thing your whois is showing is that their web servers are likely on Amazon. But who cares about that? What matters is their streaming servers, and from a quick glance they're streaming from Edgecast, not from Amazon:
$ whois 68.232.32.221 NetName: EDGECAST-NETBLK-04 OrgName: EdgeCast Networks, Inc.
Now, I'm not claiming that Edgecast is cheap - as a third-party CDN they're probably charging Hitbox much more than what Twitch has to pay to stream on their own infrastructure - but the fact is that no, they don't seem to be streaming from Amazon.
Edgecast's pricing is not public. Your link is from a competing CDN who has every reason in the world to make Edgecast look bad. If that wasn't enough to discredit it, the page hasn't been updated in 4 years, and the quote is for a 25TB commit which may be very different from Hitbox's commit.
And do you have any substantial reasoning to believe that Edgecast would provide cheap hosting?
Yes my data point is 4 years old, however even in 2010 those prices are instantly high and video CDN pricing hasn't changed very much as a whole.
Lets face it, hitbox will not and will never in the near future be profitable, or make enough revenue to pay streamers.
Then why don't you simply say that Hitbox are streaming from a third-party CDN, which according to the average industry pricing is likely to cost them at least $0.03 per GB? Just accept that you don't have any harder evidence than that. You have a valid point, so don't ruin it by claiming they stream from Amazon (factually false) and then pulling up a bullshit pricing page for Edgecast.
I actually share your opinion that bandwidth costs are going to be a very serious issue and that Twitch has a significant advantage in this regard.
So what was the point of your posts?
Bringing back some honesty and accuracy to the discussion. I don't see how that's ever a bad thing.
On August 08 2014 23:19 Kurr wrote: Some of the anti-hitbox posts are hilariously shameless.
Going from 1 end of the spectrum ("hitbox runs like shit! it's terrible!") to the other ("well of course it runs amazingly, it's renting servers; clearly that is not sustainable and we need twitch to have a monopoly to encourage competition OBVIOUSLY!") within 1 page.
The person saying it runs amazing lives in Sweden. Pretty sure Hitbox's servers are in Russia.
Same issue as Twitch. Works well for North Americans, runs like shit for Europeans.
On August 08 2014 23:19 Kurr wrote: Some of the anti-hitbox posts are hilariously shameless.
Going from 1 end of the spectrum ("hitbox runs like shit! it's terrible!") to the other ("well of course it runs amazingly, it's renting servers; clearly that is not sustainable and we need twitch to have a monopoly to encourage competition OBVIOUSLY!") within 1 page.
The person saying it runs amazing lives in Sweden. Pretty sure Hitbox's servers are in Russia.
Same issue as Twitch. Works well for North Americans, runs like shit for Europeans.
Whoa, you're saying that the quality of the stream is directly related to the number of oceans/international boarders between you and the server? Madness. The UI ran like shit for me, but I am no where near russia. The stream was passable.
And of course renting servers is going to be an issue long term, that shit costs a lot, especially if you are going to be running it internationally(so you need servers in each region).
Well...... I have no idea if this has been posted in this thread yet but since the acquisition muting copyright media has moved over to twitch vods as well.... which we all thought it was going to be able to avoid...
youtube mutes these tracks in my video due to them being new releases from Japanese entertainment. They now mute a large majority of the Twitch VoD surround the music.
A very sad day for me and anyone else who listens to popular Kpop/Jpop/Anime music.. :l just so this is clear: You no longer make meaningful highlights of certain VoDs if you play copyright music while you're playing. This is due to the fact that the streamer's voice and all in game sounds will be VOID during the VoD. It makes the entertainment value very low, and in some instance, nonexistent. If you attempt to highlight a certain part for later it will not have its original sound.
I don't read the general discussion, instead of being a dick you could just kindly reply that it has already been posted. You could have done so if you read the first sentence of what I wrote.
I don't read the general discussion, instead of being a dick you could just kindly reply that it has already been posted. You could have done so if you read the first sentence of what I wrote.
Thanks, dude.
You literally missed like 3 days of drama, an AMA and all of twitter exploding about the change. A little sass might have been earned. Just a little.
I don't read the general discussion, instead of being a dick you could just kindly reply that it has already been posted. You could have done so if you read the first sentence of what I wrote.
Thanks, dude.
You literally missed like 3 days of drama, an AMA and all of twitter exploding about the change. A little sass might have been earned. Just a little.
Sorry, unlike some people I do not have enough time to post thousands of times and read each thread thoroughly as some individuals who joined in 2012 do.
If you really want to know I literally just arrived back from Japan on Tuesday. Hence why I do not know where or how far this discussion has gone; and moreover, I clearly just noted I do not read general discussion.
Nonetheless, you were useful for something, that being the vague information about there being an AMA. Maybe you might have earned a little more of a thank you. Just maybe.
It probably helps to acquaint youself with the topic first before deciding to bold and underline half your post. A little discretion goes a long way. Just maybe.
I don't read the general discussion, instead of being a dick you could just kindly reply that it has already been posted. You could have done so if you read the first sentence of what I wrote.
Thanks, dude.
You literally missed like 3 days of drama, an AMA and all of twitter exploding about the change. A little sass might have been earned. Just a little.
Sorry, unlike some people I do not have enough time to post thousands of times and read each thread thoroughly as some individuals who joined in 2012 do.
If you really want to know I literally just arrived back from Japan on Tuesday. Hence why I do not know where or how far this discussion has gone; and moreover, I clearly just noted I do not read general discussion.
Nonetheless, you were useful for something, that being the vague information about there being an AMA. Maybe you might have earned a little more of a thank you. Just maybe.
Broadcasting stuff that you don't have permission to use is a bad thing. There, some helpful advice.
I don't read the general discussion, instead of being a dick you could just kindly reply that it has already been posted. You could have done so if you read the first sentence of what I wrote.
Thanks, dude.
You literally missed like 3 days of drama, an AMA and all of twitter exploding about the change. A little sass might have been earned. Just a little.
Sorry, unlike some people I do not have enough time to post thousands of times and read each thread thoroughly as some individuals who joined in 2012 do.
If you really want to know I literally just arrived back from Japan on Tuesday. Hence why I do not know where or how far this discussion has gone; and moreover, I clearly just noted I do not read general discussion.
Nonetheless, you were useful for something, that being the vague information about there being an AMA. Maybe you might have earned a little more of a thank you. Just maybe.
There's a whole thread here. You could try reading it. If you don't read the thread then don't be surprised by that kind of reaction.
The CEO of Twitch just finished his Q&A on Twitch Weekly with DJWheat. VoD here: http://www.twitch.tv/twitch/b/555931791 (if not complete, check the past broadcasts soon)
On August 08 2014 23:19 Kurr wrote: Some of the anti-hitbox posts are hilariously shameless.
Going from 1 end of the spectrum ("hitbox runs like shit! it's terrible!") to the other ("well of course it runs amazingly, it's renting servers; clearly that is not sustainable and we need twitch to have a monopoly to encourage competition OBVIOUSLY!") within 1 page.
The person saying it runs amazing lives in Sweden. Pretty sure Hitbox's servers are in Russia.
Same issue as Twitch. Works well for North Americans, runs like shit for Europeans.
Whoa, you're saying that the quality of the stream is directly related to the number of oceans/international boarders between you and the server? Madness. The UI ran like shit for me, but I am no where near russia. The stream was passable
I'm in the US and it worked fine for me. Loaded instantly, was in clear HD, never buffered. Granted there were like 6 people watching but it worked well for me.
On August 18 2014 05:17 TanGeng wrote: New Twitch Audio System In a recent blog post, Twitch announced the introduction of a system where audio in VODs will be scanned in by an automated system that will then flag the audio in those VODs for copyright violated and entire 30 minute sections will be muted.
In light of the fact that Twitch was putting in place an automated system, there was bound to be false positives, cases of fair use, and false claims. A quick search through Valve's own VODs came up with a quick hit, leading to the following tweet:
Sure enough Twitch even managed to mute its own E3 VODs under the newly installed AudioMagic system. That was bound to happen and it demonstrates all of the dangers of an automated system, especially one that enforces the punishment first and then places the onus on the alleged violator to appeal the violation.
Inducement However, if Twitch as a streaming platform is to survive in the long run, they must make some effort to reign in copyright violation or the company becomes an easy legal target under the inducement rule of copyright protection jurisprudence. This inducement rule, a secondary violation of copyright and previously only part of patent infringement jurisprudence, found its way to copyright protection via the Supreme Court case, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. Vs.Grokster.
The opinion of the court delivered by Justice Souter essentially carried the inducement test from patent law into copyright protection.
The inducement test has two parts.
The technology must enable direct infringement.
The technology provider “actively and knowingly aid[s] and abet[s] another’s direct infringement”.
While the language seems innocent, creating any technology that is a primary enabler of direct copyright infringement and once you are notified of widespread copyright infringement, is enough to force that company to have to do something about it.
At this point, Google has known about the potential for direct infringement of copyright with Youtube. Both inducement rule as well as widespread direct infringement is clear to the company. Base on that knowledge, if Google does nothing about Twitch VODs, then Google will certainly become legally liable.
Intellectual Property While the quoted passage seems Orwellian
Starting today, Twitch will be implementing technology intended to help broadcasters avoid the storage of videos containing unauthorized third-party audio.
It is exactly the type of activity that Twitch must do in order to continue to provide service at all. Either this system comes in or TwitchTV disappears altogether. That is the current state of IP protection law and jurisprudence in the US and the world today, and it's just as bad in the patent law arena.
Yeah, i don't get it. The guys who run servers all over the world are best suited to run Twitch. Amazon does amazing stuff and I love their video service.
I like Amazon's online services, but their delivery's have been bad for six months. Sort of iffy on the "what-ifs" of this. I just wonder why Twitch wouldn't try to stand on it's own and build it's brand more.
On August 26 2014 03:17 Lucumo wrote: I hope they don't do this. Twitch isn't worth that much money, in my opinion.
It's worth what someone will pay for it.
To Amazon it's worth the value of the name, plus the infrastructure and the contracts with Microsoft and Sony.
You have to consider Twitch as a platform, not a game streaming service. Look at what Amazon has done recently: Made its own TV shows. Made its own devices.
Imagine if Amazon decides to start streaming sports (various motorsports, at least, already stream on Youtube). Basically re-opening Justin.tv but under the Twitch name (hilariously enough). That's some value already built onto the existing platform. They can use their music service and VOD services to augment what Twitch already has, and let people stream music/etc from their Amazon cloud etc.
Amazon.com Inc. AMZN +1.00% is gearing up to more directly challenge Google Inc. GOOGL -0.25% 's dominance of the online advertising market, developing its own software for placing ads online that could leverage its knowledge of millions of Web shoppers.
Amazon can do things that are more than just letting people keep streaming games.
On August 26 2014 03:21 Spektor wrote: I like Amazon's online services, but their delivery's have been bad for six months. Sort of iffy on the "what-ifs" of this. I just wonder why Twitch wouldn't try to stand on it's own and build it's brand more.
Because venture capitalists put money into Twitch and want a return. If you put in $20m and could get a nice fat return on that in a year, wouldn't you? $20m last September. $15m the September before and $7m before that into Justin.tv plus some other amounts. Total invested by venture capital: $42m, apparently. Now imagine it was worth 25x that. You're getting some big returns guaranteed. Better to sell now and secure those returns.
Amazon certainly hasn't been free of monopolistic bullying in the recent past, the whole incident with Hachette and trying to establish prices for content publishers makes me wonder if and how they will change the way twitch is monetized (especially regarding channel subscriptions).
On August 26 2014 03:21 Spektor wrote: I like Amazon's online services, but their delivery's have been bad for six months. Sort of iffy on the "what-ifs" of this. I just wonder why Twitch wouldn't try to stand on it's own and build it's brand more.
Twitch has always been running into serious infrastructure problems, and in order to build infrastructure you need capital. I doubt that twitch is very profitable (let alone if they are turning a profit in the first place) so they won't be able to fund any expansion on their own.
As far as i know, i cant buy almost anything amazon sells in my country, whereas google services are more/less global.
Also, as a company, although i have heard that their store is great, and their kindle readers are very good too, didn't amazon wasn't making any profit until recently?
On August 26 2014 03:17 Lucumo wrote: I hope they don't do this. Twitch isn't worth that much money, in my opinion.
It's worth what someone will pay for it.
To Amazon it's worth the value of the name, plus the infrastructure and the contracts with Microsoft and Sony.
You have to consider Twitch as a platform, not a game streaming service. Look at what Amazon has done recently: Made its own TV shows. Made its own devices.
Imagine if Amazon decides to start streaming sports (various motorsports, at least, already stream on Youtube). Basically re-opening Justin.tv but under the Twitch name (hilariously enough). That's some value already built onto the existing platform. They can use their music service and VOD services to augment what Twitch already has, and let people stream music/etc from their Amazon cloud etc.
Amazon.com Inc. AMZN +1.00% is gearing up to more directly challenge Google Inc. GOOGL -0.25% 's dominance of the online advertising market, developing its own software for placing ads online that could leverage its knowledge of millions of Web shoppers.
Amazon can do things that are more than just letting people keep streaming games.
...hence the "in my opinion".
Unless they perfectly integrate Twitch, I still don't see how it's working in their favor. Twitch may currently have the monopoly in the international market but that can change rather easily in this day and age. I would have bought something like Hitbox which is rapidly gaining viewers and molded it into something which fits Amazon the best. Popularity can be gained rather quickly. The contracts may be what's missing but I don't see how they couldn't get similar ones, considering they aren't competing with Microsoft and Sony in that regard.
On August 26 2014 03:17 Lucumo wrote: I hope they don't do this. Twitch isn't worth that much money, in my opinion.
It's worth what someone will pay for it.
To Amazon it's worth the value of the name, plus the infrastructure and the contracts with Microsoft and Sony.
You have to consider Twitch as a platform, not a game streaming service. Look at what Amazon has done recently: Made its own TV shows. Made its own devices.
Imagine if Amazon decides to start streaming sports (various motorsports, at least, already stream on Youtube). Basically re-opening Justin.tv but under the Twitch name (hilariously enough). That's some value already built onto the existing platform. They can use their music service and VOD services to augment what Twitch already has, and let people stream music/etc from their Amazon cloud etc.
Amazon.com Inc. AMZN +1.00% is gearing up to more directly challenge Google Inc. GOOGL -0.25% 's dominance of the online advertising market, developing its own software for placing ads online that could leverage its knowledge of millions of Web shoppers.
Amazon can do things that are more than just letting people keep streaming games.
...hence the "in my opinion".
Unless they perfectly integrate Twitch, I still don't see how it's working in their favor. Twitch may currently have the monopoly in the international market but that can change rather easily in this day and age. I would have bought something like Hitbox which is rapidly gaining viewers and molded it into something which fits Amazon the best. Popularity can be gained rather quickly. The contracts may be what's missing but I don't see how they couldn't get similar ones, considering they aren't competing with Microsoft and Sony in that regard.
Welcome to 2014. Everyone is flooded with cash, debt is cheap. Acquisitions and mergers have been made with even worse synergies.
On August 26 2014 03:17 Lucumo wrote: I hope they don't do this. Twitch isn't worth that much money, in my opinion.
It's worth what someone will pay for it.
To Amazon it's worth the value of the name, plus the infrastructure and the contracts with Microsoft and Sony.
You have to consider Twitch as a platform, not a game streaming service. Look at what Amazon has done recently: Made its own TV shows. Made its own devices.
Imagine if Amazon decides to start streaming sports (various motorsports, at least, already stream on Youtube). Basically re-opening Justin.tv but under the Twitch name (hilariously enough). That's some value already built onto the existing platform. They can use their music service and VOD services to augment what Twitch already has, and let people stream music/etc from their Amazon cloud etc.
Amazon.com Inc. AMZN +1.00% is gearing up to more directly challenge Google Inc. GOOGL -0.25% 's dominance of the online advertising market, developing its own software for placing ads online that could leverage its knowledge of millions of Web shoppers.
Amazon can do things that are more than just letting people keep streaming games.
...hence the "in my opinion".
Unless they perfectly integrate Twitch, I still don't see how it's working in their favor. Twitch may currently have the monopoly in the international market but that can change rather easily in this day and age. I would have bought something like Hitbox which is rapidly gaining viewers and molded it into something which fits Amazon the best. Popularity can be gained rather quickly. The contracts may be what's missing but I don't see how they couldn't get similar ones, considering they aren't competing with Microsoft and Sony in that regard.
They are paying for the user base that Twitch build up and the broadcasters that use their system. You don't buy a TV network for their broadcast antenna, you buy it for the shows people are watching.
On August 26 2014 03:17 Lucumo wrote: I hope they don't do this. Twitch isn't worth that much money, in my opinion.
It's worth what someone will pay for it.
To Amazon it's worth the value of the name, plus the infrastructure and the contracts with Microsoft and Sony.
You have to consider Twitch as a platform, not a game streaming service. Look at what Amazon has done recently: Made its own TV shows. Made its own devices.
Imagine if Amazon decides to start streaming sports (various motorsports, at least, already stream on Youtube). Basically re-opening Justin.tv but under the Twitch name (hilariously enough). That's some value already built onto the existing platform. They can use their music service and VOD services to augment what Twitch already has, and let people stream music/etc from their Amazon cloud etc.
Amazon.com Inc. AMZN +1.00% is gearing up to more directly challenge Google Inc. GOOGL -0.25% 's dominance of the online advertising market, developing its own software for placing ads online that could leverage its knowledge of millions of Web shoppers.
Amazon can do things that are more than just letting people keep streaming games.
...hence the "in my opinion".
Unless they perfectly integrate Twitch, I still don't see how it's working in their favor. Twitch may currently have the monopoly in the international market but that can change rather easily in this day and age. I would have bought something like Hitbox which is rapidly gaining viewers and molded it into something which fits Amazon the best. Popularity can be gained rather quickly. The contracts may be what's missing but I don't see how they couldn't get similar ones, considering they aren't competing with Microsoft and Sony in that regard.
Easily? In these days, it is next to impossible for a platform/services like twitch to lose its monopoly. If there's a service that everyone uses, then you have to pretty much convince everyone at the same time to switch, or no one will. As much as I like that twitch is getting some competition, that competition will die out again sooner or later.
On August 26 2014 03:58 [SXG]Phantom wrote: Amazon looks to be way way worse than google.
As far as i know, i cant buy almost anything amazon sells in my country, whereas google services are more/less global.
Also, as a company, although i have heard that their store is great, and their kindle readers are very good too, didn't amazon wasn't making any profit until recently?
I trust google way, way more than amazon.
Google Books is in 57 countries, music in 43, TV shows in 5, movies in more than I can be bothered to count (>57).
All depends on what you want from Google. Google's OWN products, e.g. maps etc, are available pretty much worldwide.
Equally, Amazon's OWN offerings, such as Amazon Web Services, are also available worldwide. Most of what restricts Amazon (and Google) is that the content is from third parties who don't necessarily own worldwide rights to what they are offering anyway. When the company has full control, e.g. Google Maps or AWS, they can offer it where they want.
Amazon Kindle is available in 170 countries, more than most non-Google offerings from Android. http://www.the-ebook-reader.com/kindle-international.html It's then up to the people who sell the books to offer them in the relevant location(s) for you, and if a publisher doesn't have worldwide rights, there's not much Amazon can do about it.
When it comes to Twitch (or Youtube), the users create and upload the content, and on Youtube, for instance, there are region locks on who can watch a video. Sure, Youtube itself might work in your country, but not all videos will, because the person uploading has decided to add restrictions for whatever reason, and Google lets them.
There's more chance that nothing will change with Twitch under either Google or Amazon, because BOTH companies operate worldwide, and Twitch is a user-content driven service, so the restrictions would be added by the creator/streamer when they work with the worldwide service.
Letter from the CEO August 25, 2014 Dear Twitch Community, It’s almost unbelievable that slightly more than 3 years ago, Twitch didn’t exist. The moment we launched, we knew we had stumbled across something special. But what followed surprised us as much as anyone else, and the impact it’s had on both the community and us has been truly profound. Your talent, your passion, your dedication to gaming, your memes, your brilliance - these have made Twitch what it is today. Every day, we strive to live up to the standard set by you, the community. We want to create the very best place to share your gaming and life online, and that mission continues to guide us. Together with you, we’ve found new ways of connecting developers and publishers with their fans. We’ve created a whole new kind of career that lets people make a living sharing their love of games. We’ve brought billions of hours of entertainment, laughter, joy and the occasional ragequit. I think we can all call that a pretty good start. Today, I’m pleased to announce we’ve been acquired by Amazon. We chose Amazon because they believe in our community, they share our values and long-term vision, and they want to help us get there faster. We’re keeping most everything the same: our office, our employees, our brand, and most importantly our independence. But with Amazon’s support we’ll have the resources to bring you an even better Twitch. I personally want to thank you, each and every member of the Twitch community, for what you’ve created. Thank you for putting your faith in us. Thank you for sticking with us through growing pains and stumbles. Thank you for bringing your very best to us and sharing it with the world. Thank you, from a group of gamers who never dreamed they’d get to help shape the face of the industry that we love so much. It’s dangerous to go alone. On behalf of myself and everyone else at Twitch, thank you for coming with us. Emmett Shear, CEO
Letter from the CEO August 25, 2014 Dear Twitch Community, It’s almost unbelievable that slightly more than 3 years ago, Twitch didn’t exist. The moment we launched, we knew we had stumbled across something special. But what followed surprised us as much as anyone else, and the impact it’s had on both the community and us has been truly profound. Your talent, your passion, your dedication to gaming, your memes, your brilliance - these have made Twitch what it is today. Every day, we strive to live up to the standard set by you, the community. We want to create the very best place to share your gaming and life online, and that mission continues to guide us. Together with you, we’ve found new ways of connecting developers and publishers with their fans. We’ve created a whole new kind of career that lets people make a living sharing their love of games. We’ve brought billions of hours of entertainment, laughter, joy and the occasional ragequit. I think we can all call that a pretty good start. Today, I’m pleased to announce we’ve been acquired by Amazon. We chose Amazon because they believe in our community, they share our values and long-term vision, and they want to help us get there faster. We’re keeping most everything the same: our office, our employees, our brand, and most importantly our independence. But with Amazon’s support we’ll have the resources to bring you an even better Twitch. I personally want to thank you, each and every member of the Twitch community, for what you’ve created. Thank you for putting your faith in us. Thank you for sticking with us through growing pains and stumbles. Thank you for bringing your very best to us and sharing it with the world. Thank you, from a group of gamers who never dreamed they’d get to help shape the face of the industry that we love so much. It’s dangerous to go alone. On behalf of myself and everyone else at Twitch, thank you for coming with us. Emmett Shear, CEO
I thought it was going to be Google, but it doesn't matter. Amazon is just as good.
I don't understand what everyone had against Google though. They couldn't have been the worst company that's for sure. Microsoft would have been much worse.
I think Google would have been a better choice because they already have established technology in place (Youtube), but it doesn't matter. As long as it will improve the product across the globe.
On August 26 2014 05:13 Grettin wrote: Glad it wasn't google.
Amazon isn't much better if you're on the mega-corp paranoia train.
Maybe Elon Musk will buy HitBox
His concern was not about the mega-corp paranoia train, considering you a) missed the fact that he knows Amazon is buying it b) i'm 99.99% sure he knows Amazon is a mega-corp.
I don't know why he personally dislikes Google, but I also dislike them although I have no problem with Amazon. Google is a hypocritical company with a twisted worldview. For your information,they have also actively not just helped the NSA in their spying program but actively done the work of the CIA in several countries. Even though I disagree with Egypt/iran's oppressive governments, it certainly is not Google's role to do the dirty work of the CIA. A definite must read article on Google's dirty work: http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/5222
On August 26 2014 05:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Can't wait for them to remove the Android app and make it an Amazon ecosystem exclusive.
The problem with exclusivity is that it can sometimes kill a product.
Look at some of Sony's technology that was exclusive (MD players, BetaMax) that also failed. Keep in mind MD players and BetaMax was superior technology to CD players and VHS.
Being exclusive segregates you from large chunks of the audience, and that is something large corporations don't want.
fwiw, the iOS Twitch app sucks the last time I tried it.
On August 26 2014 05:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Can't wait for them to remove the Android app and make it an Amazon ecosystem exclusive.
Amazon has an android store because they know they can't make kindle standalone in world of iOS and Android. Maybe they'll pull the Twitch android app from the main google store and then put it on their own though
On August 26 2014 05:13 Grettin wrote: Glad it wasn't google.
Amazon isn't much better if you're on the mega-corp paranoia train.
Maybe Elon Musk will buy HitBox
His concern was not about the mega-corp paranoia train, considering you a) missed the fact that he knows Amazon is buying it b) i'm 99.99% sure he knows Amazon is a mega-corp.
I don't know why he personally dislikes Google, but I also dislike them although I have no problem with Amazon. Google is a hypocritical company with a twisted worldview. For your information,they have also actively not just helped the NSA in their spying program but actively done the work of the CIA in several countries. Even though I disagree with Egypt/iran's oppressive governments, it certainly is not Google's role to do the dirty work of the CIA. A definite must read article on Google's dirty work: http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/5222
Now about that "Do no Evil" motto..... yeah.
Google isn't exempt from corruption and deception, but that article isn't about them doing "dirty work". Its about one individual in the company doing it, not all of Google.
In fact, the top execs in Google outted the individual responsible for the "dirty work".
They can be hypocrites when it comes to the "Do no evil" motto, but this is not the best example of it.
On August 26 2014 05:13 Grettin wrote: Glad it wasn't google.
Amazon isn't much better if you're on the mega-corp paranoia train.
Maybe Elon Musk will buy HitBox
His concern was not about the mega-corp paranoia train, considering you a) missed the fact that he knows Amazon is buying it b) i'm 99.99% sure he knows Amazon is a mega-corp.
I don't know why he personally dislikes Google, but I also dislike them although I have no problem with Amazon. Google is a hypocritical company with a twisted worldview. For your information,they have also actively not just helped the NSA in their spying program but actively done the work of the CIA in several countries. Even though I disagree with Egypt/iran's oppressive governments, it certainly is not Google's role to do the dirty work of the CIA. A definite must read article on Google's dirty work: http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/5222
Now about that "Do no Evil" motto..... yeah.
amazon is just as bad but in a different dimension. they are "only" abusing their market position, commiting anti-competitive practices and poorly treating their workers
How will this affect Twitch.tv -> youtube.com ? I mean, will google continue to support twitch videos being uploaded to youtube.
I don't agree with people here, with this being the better choice than google. I think something amazing could've come out of some semi-fusion between youtube and twitch.
I mean, both companies have vast amount of resources, to the point where it doesn't matter which they've picked, but instead focusing on 'dedication'. What could amazon give twitch, that google couldn't ? Twitch is perfect as it is, all it needs, is exposure and I would have picked google to be the better company in that area.
Eitherway, Congrats. This is something I wouldn't have believed possible 5 years ago.
On August 26 2014 05:52 appletree wrote: How will this affect Twitch.tv -> youtube.com ? I mean, will google continue to support twitch videos being uploaded to youtube.
I don't agree with people here, with this being the better choice than google. I think something amazing could've come out of some semi-fusion between youtube and twitch.
I mean, both companies have vast amount of resources, to the point where it doesn't matter which they've picked, but instead focusing on 'dedication'. What could amazon give twitch, that google couldn't ? Twitch is perfect as it is, all it needs, is exposure and I would have picked google to be the better company in that area.
Eitherway, Congrats. This is something I wouldn't have believed possible 5 years ago.
Google could give Youtube all the features it needs to compete with Twitch if they wanted without buying Twitch. That's why it's a good thing.
If you had Youtube + Twitch, then what would or could compete with that? Nothing, so you would be beholden to Twitch/Youtube, and if you had a problem with it, well, suck a fat one, you don't have another choice.
If Twitch and Youtube are owned by different people, both have incentives to expand and develop, which means it's beneficial to consumers/users/streamers. Competition. It's good, remember? Did everyone forget this or something.
Holy shite huge and awesome news :D Wow, everyone was so wrong. It wasn't YouTube after all was AMAZON!! Wonder what they are doing though, wonder if they want to just use the streaming technology for the new Amazon Prime or just want to invest in the company. Will be interesting.
Letter says they are going to stay independent hmm.
On August 26 2014 05:50 vult wrote: Hmmm. Amazon seems like it might handle Twitch better than Google. Hopefully they won't make the mobile app Amazon-exclusive.
I highly doubt the app will be exclusive. As I said before, exclusivity can sometimes kill a product.
On August 26 2014 05:56 Pandemona wrote: Holy shite huge and awesome news :D Wow, everyone was so wrong. It wasn't YouTube after all was AMAZON!! Wonder what they are doing though, wonder if they want to just use the streaming technology for the new Amazon Prime or just want to invest in the company. Will be interesting.
Letter says they are going to stay independent hmm.
Judging from the blog post, it seems Amazon will keep their noses out, and provide financial/technological support.
On August 26 2014 05:05 Antoine wrote: Renamed now that it's official:
Letter from the CEO August 25, 2014 Dear Twitch Community, It’s almost unbelievable that slightly more than 3 years ago, Twitch didn’t exist. The moment we launched, we knew we had stumbled across something special. But what followed surprised us as much as anyone else, and the impact it’s had on both the community and us has been truly profound. Your talent, your passion, your dedication to gaming, your memes, your brilliance - these have made Twitch what it is today. Every day, we strive to live up to the standard set by you, the community. We want to create the very best place to share your gaming and life online, and that mission continues to guide us. Together with you, we’ve found new ways of connecting developers and publishers with their fans. We’ve created a whole new kind of career that lets people make a living sharing their love of games. We’ve brought billions of hours of entertainment, laughter, joy and the occasional ragequit. I think we can all call that a pretty good start. Today, I’m pleased to announce we’ve been acquired by Amazon. We chose Amazon because they believe in our community, they share our values and long-term vision, and they want to help us get there faster. We’re keeping most everything the same: our office, our employees, our brand, and most importantly our independence. But with Amazon’s support we’ll have the resources to bring you an even better Twitch. I personally want to thank you, each and every member of the Twitch community, for what you’ve created. Thank you for putting your faith in us. Thank you for sticking with us through growing pains and stumbles. Thank you for bringing your very best to us and sharing it with the world. Thank you, from a group of gamers who never dreamed they’d get to help shape the face of the industry that we love so much. It’s dangerous to go alone. On behalf of myself and everyone else at Twitch, thank you for coming with us. Emmett Shear, CEO
I prefer that to Google, which will try to change Twitch to align with all their other products.
Don't get me wrong, Google products are great, I just like Twitch the way it is now.
On August 26 2014 05:52 appletree wrote: How will this affect Twitch.tv -> youtube.com ? I mean, will google continue to support twitch videos being uploaded to youtube.
I don't agree with people here, with this being the better choice than google. I think something amazing could've come out of some semi-fusion between youtube and twitch.
I mean, both companies have vast amount of resources, to the point where it doesn't matter which they've picked, but instead focusing on 'dedication'. What could amazon give twitch, that google couldn't ? Twitch is perfect as it is, all it needs, is exposure and I would have picked google to be the better company in that area.
Eitherway, Congrats. This is something I wouldn't have believed possible 5 years ago.
Google could give Youtube all the features it needs to compete with Twitch if they wanted without buying Twitch. That's why it's a good thing.
If you had Youtube + Twitch, then what would or could compete with that? Nothing, so you would be beholden to Twitch/Youtube, and if you had a problem with it, well, suck a fat one, you don't have another choice.
If Twitch and Youtube are owned by different people, both have incentives to expand and develop, which means it's beneficial to consumers/users/streamers. Competition. It's good, remember? Did everyone forget this or something.
I agree the competition will be good, but with Youtube's infrastructure already established, great things could have been created with Youtube + Twitch.
Now we will wait and see what Google will do. My hunch is they will take their free stream service and amp it up. Maybe create an esports league with exclusive players.
On August 26 2014 05:52 appletree wrote: How will this affect Twitch.tv -> youtube.com ? I mean, will google continue to support twitch videos being uploaded to youtube.
I don't agree with people here, with this being the better choice than google. I think something amazing could've come out of some semi-fusion between youtube and twitch.
I mean, both companies have vast amount of resources, to the point where it doesn't matter which they've picked, but instead focusing on 'dedication'. What could amazon give twitch, that google couldn't ? Twitch is perfect as it is, all it needs, is exposure and I would have picked google to be the better company in that area.
Eitherway, Congrats. This is something I wouldn't have believed possible 5 years ago.
Google could give Youtube all the features it needs to compete with Twitch if they wanted without buying Twitch. That's why it's a good thing.
If you had Youtube + Twitch, then what would or could compete with that? Nothing, so you would be beholden to Twitch/Youtube, and if you had a problem with it, well, suck a fat one, you don't have another choice.
If Twitch and Youtube are owned by different people, both have incentives to expand and develop, which means it's beneficial to consumers/users/streamers. Competition. It's good, remember? Did everyone forget this or something.
I agree the competition will be good, but with Youtube's infrastructure already established, great things could have been created with Youtube + Twitch.
Now we will wait and see what Google will do. My hunch is they will take their free stream service and amp it up. Maybe create an esports league with exclusive players.
I do hope it turns into an arms race to see who can dump more money into E-sports to get their streaming up. I think other competitions will probably spring up. Thinking home brewed reality tv (potentially with established online personalities).
Amazon moved in to buy the online gathering place for video gamers after the startup’s deal with Google Inc. fell through, people with knowledge of the matter said. Amazon is paying $970 million in cash. Including retention-related payouts, the transaction is worth about $1.1 billion, said one of the people, who asked not to be identified because the talks are private.
The deal, the largest in Amazon’s 20-year history, gives the Web retailer an online forum of more than 55 million monthly active users, where people discuss games or watch other gamers as they play. Bezos, Amazon’s chief executive officer, has made video games a focus of a strategy to add more entertainment services. Just as the company is beefing up its TV programming available to Amazon Prime members, the company operates a game studio in Seattle and has been luring software developers to build more video-game titles for its Fire TV set-top box, Fire Phone and Kindle Fire tablets.
“Broadcasting and watching gameplay is a global phenomenon and Twitch has built a platform that brings together tens of millions of people who watch billions of minutes of games each month,” Bezos said in a statement.
Good pick up for Amazon (and pretty cheap, given current M&A trends). Amazon, as much as most don't realize, is one of the biggest players in the Web Hosting & Cloud Computing markets. Twitch has a good relationship with a whole lot of media companies and a fully-working web-broadcasting platform. Add the infrastructure of Amazon with Twitch's systems, and Twitch can be made to play for the "Live TV of the Internet". I wouldn't be surprised to see actual Sports show up on Twitch with this.
And, of course, great for the people at Twitch. They just got paid.
Amazon moved in to buy the online gathering place for video gamers after the startup’s deal with Google Inc. fell through, people with knowledge of the matter said. Amazon is paying $970 million in cash. Including retention-related payouts, the transaction is worth about $1.1 billion, said one of the people, who asked not to be identified because the talks are private.
The deal, the largest in Amazon’s 20-year history, gives the Web retailer an online forum of more than 55 million monthly active users, where people discuss games or watch other gamers as they play. Bezos, Amazon’s chief executive officer, has made video games a focus of a strategy to add more entertainment services. Just as the company is beefing up its TV programming available to Amazon Prime members, the company operates a game studio in Seattle and has been luring software developers to build more video-game titles for its Fire TV set-top box, Fire Phone and Kindle Fire tablets.
“Broadcasting and watching gameplay is a global phenomenon and Twitch has built a platform that brings together tens of millions of people who watch billions of minutes of games each month,” Bezos said in a statement.
It does seem like Google backed out for some reason. Well, we'll have to wait and see what happens to twitch...
Amazon moved in to buy the online gathering place for video gamers after the startup’s deal with Google Inc. fell through, people with knowledge of the matter said. Amazon is paying $970 million in cash. Including retention-related payouts, the transaction is worth about $1.1 billion, said one of the people, who asked not to be identified because the talks are private.
The deal, the largest in Amazon’s 20-year history, gives the Web retailer an online forum of more than 55 million monthly active users, where people discuss games or watch other gamers as they play. Bezos, Amazon’s chief executive officer, has made video games a focus of a strategy to add more entertainment services. Just as the company is beefing up its TV programming available to Amazon Prime members, the company operates a game studio in Seattle and has been luring software developers to build more video-game titles for its Fire TV set-top box, Fire Phone and Kindle Fire tablets.
“Broadcasting and watching gameplay is a global phenomenon and Twitch has built a platform that brings together tens of millions of people who watch billions of minutes of games each month,” Bezos said in a statement.
It does seem like Google backed out for some reason. Well, we'll have to wait and see what happens to twitch...
They probably said "And with Google+ inte-" before TheGunRun ran into the room, slapped them, and kicked them out of the building.
At least, that's how it went in my fantasy.
We'll have to see how hands off Amazon really winds up. I wouldn't be surprised for a little "Click here to buy X Game" things to pop up in the corner of streams.
This is fantastic news. Amazon's going to be great for Twitch, and Twitch will be great for Amazon. It'll probably also lead to Fire TV having the best Twitch integration of any system, which can make it an actual competitor. And more importantly, it wasn't Google, and that's good for everyone in this scenario.
I think Google are just using Amazon as a middleman. The whole approach reeks Google all over it. From the closing of JustinTV to the muting of copyright material. This is part of Amazons new middleman service.
Google are scared of being labelled as monopolizing a market, and the opposition of the takeover has not been positive.
On August 26 2014 09:48 ControlMonkey wrote: The muting of copyrighted music is about twitch limiting their liability. Any company in this space has to deal with it if they are going to be grow.
Sure, but only Google has been as aggressive about it, and it was the first thing done, even before the takeover was officially announced.
On August 26 2014 09:43 Dracolich70 wrote: I think Google are just using Amazon as a middleman. The whole approach reeks Google all over it. From the closing of JustinTV to the muting of copyright material. This is part of Amazons new middleman service.
Google are scared of being labelled as monopolizing a market, and the opposition of the takeover has not been positive.
The odd thing about Google being the buyer and Twitch doing all the copyright stuff is that Google already has all that technology. It doesn't make sense to force Twitch to do it BEFORE being acquired, it would just be a massive waste of resources.
On August 26 2014 09:43 Dracolich70 wrote: I think Google are just using Amazon as a middleman. The whole approach reeks Google all over it. From the closing of JustinTV to the muting of copyright material. This is part of Amazons new middleman service.
Google are scared of being labelled as monopolizing a market, and the opposition of the takeover has not been positive.
The odd thing about Google being the buyer and Twitch doing all the copyright stuff is that Google already has all that technology. It doesn't make sense to force Twitch to do it BEFORE being acquired, it would just be a massive waste of resources.
The muting is all part of Googles evolution technology of protecting copyright material, which was less than evolved on Youtube.
In a not very distant future all we use is being monitored.
On August 26 2014 09:43 Dracolich70 wrote: I think Google are just using Amazon as a middleman. The whole approach reeks Google all over it. From the closing of JustinTV to the muting of copyright material. This is part of Amazons new middleman service.
Google are scared of being labelled as monopolizing a market, and the opposition of the takeover has not been positive.
The odd thing about Google being the buyer and Twitch doing all the copyright stuff is that Google already has all that technology. It doesn't make sense to force Twitch to do it BEFORE being acquired, it would just be a massive waste of resources.
The muting is all part of Googles evolution technology of protecting copyright material, which was less than evolved on Youtube.
In a not very distant future all we use is being monitored.
Que up Twilight Zone music.
Does this mean Twitch and youtube wont work well together anymore?
On August 26 2014 09:43 Dracolich70 wrote: I think Google are just using Amazon as a middleman. The whole approach reeks Google all over it. From the closing of JustinTV to the muting of copyright material. This is part of Amazons new middleman service.
Google are scared of being labelled as monopolizing a market, and the opposition of the takeover has not been positive.
The odd thing about Google being the buyer and Twitch doing all the copyright stuff is that Google already has all that technology. It doesn't make sense to force Twitch to do it BEFORE being acquired, it would just be a massive waste of resources.
The muting is all part of Googles evolution technology of protecting copyright material, which was less than evolved on Youtube.
In a not very distant future all we use is being monitored.
Que up Twilight Zone music.
Does this mean Twitch and youtube wont work well together anymore?
I think they will work very well together, which is why Google bought Twitch using Amazon as a middleman.
You guys can believe what you want. I am too old to swallow all I am been spoonfed. In fact I believe very little of it.
On August 26 2014 09:43 Dracolich70 wrote: I think Google are just using Amazon as a middleman. The whole approach reeks Google all over it. From the closing of JustinTV to the muting of copyright material. This is part of Amazons new middleman service.
Google are scared of being labelled as monopolizing a market, and the opposition of the takeover has not been positive.
The odd thing about Google being the buyer and Twitch doing all the copyright stuff is that Google already has all that technology. It doesn't make sense to force Twitch to do it BEFORE being acquired, it would just be a massive waste of resources.
The muting is all part of Googles evolution technology of protecting copyright material, which was less than evolved on Youtube.
In a not very distant future all we use is being monitored.
Que up Twilight Zone music.
Does this mean Twitch and youtube wont work well together anymore?
I think they will work very well together, which is why Google bought Twitch using Amazon as a middleman.
And decided to use a completely different and market competing audio recognizing technology, that is worse than what they currently use with YouTube. Your theory makes perfect sense.
On August 26 2014 09:43 Dracolich70 wrote: I think Google are just using Amazon as a middleman. The whole approach reeks Google all over it. From the closing of JustinTV to the muting of copyright material. This is part of Amazons new middleman service.
Google are scared of being labelled as monopolizing a market, and the opposition of the takeover has not been positive.
The odd thing about Google being the buyer and Twitch doing all the copyright stuff is that Google already has all that technology. It doesn't make sense to force Twitch to do it BEFORE being acquired, it would just be a massive waste of resources.
The muting is all part of Googles evolution technology of protecting copyright material, which was less than evolved on Youtube.
In a not very distant future all we use is being monitored.
Que up Twilight Zone music.
Does this mean Twitch and youtube wont work well together anymore?
I think they will work very well together, which is why Google bought Twitch using Amazon as a middleman.
And decided to use a completely different and market competing audio recognizing technology, that is worse than what they currently use with YouTube. Your theory makes perfect sense.
On August 26 2014 09:43 Dracolich70 wrote: I think Google are just using Amazon as a middleman. The whole approach reeks Google all over it. From the closing of JustinTV to the muting of copyright material. This is part of Amazons new middleman service.
Google are scared of being labelled as monopolizing a market, and the opposition of the takeover has not been positive.
The odd thing about Google being the buyer and Twitch doing all the copyright stuff is that Google already has all that technology. It doesn't make sense to force Twitch to do it BEFORE being acquired, it would just be a massive waste of resources.
The muting is all part of Googles evolution technology of protecting copyright material, which was less than evolved on Youtube.
In a not very distant future all we use is being monitored.
Que up Twilight Zone music.
Does this mean Twitch and youtube wont work well together anymore?
I think they will work very well together, which is why Google bought Twitch using Amazon as a middleman.
You guys can believe what you want. I am too old to swallow all I am been spoonfed. In fact I believe very little of it.
Lol, Why would such a big company as Amazon let itself be used by Google? Especially considering they are rivals.
Meh, still really wanted Google to buy twitch if anyone, since they obviously have experience with these kinds of things. But if this makes Twitch streams finally watchable, then that's good
On August 26 2014 11:28 WindWolf wrote: Meh, still really wanted Google to buy twitch if anyone, since they obviously have experience with these kinds of things. But if this makes Twitch streams finally watchable, then that's good
Amazon has quite a lot of experience hosting servers.
On August 26 2014 11:28 WindWolf wrote: Meh, still really wanted Google to buy twitch if anyone, since they obviously have experience with these kinds of things. But if this makes Twitch streams finally watchable, then that's good
Amazon has quite a lot of experience hosting servers.
I kinda thought this myself, will Amazon help them with servers that would be nice.
On August 26 2014 09:43 Dracolich70 wrote: I think Google are just using Amazon as a middleman. The whole approach reeks Google all over it. From the closing of JustinTV to the muting of copyright material. This is part of Amazons new middleman service.
Google are scared of being labelled as monopolizing a market, and the opposition of the takeover has not been positive.
I have a spare tinfoil hat underneath my bed if you want it. I keep it there incase the man takes my first tinfoil hat. I will loan it to you because you apparently need it as much as I do.
Unless you are the man, and this is your plot to steal all my tinfoil hats!!!!!
Seriously though, Google isn't a shining example of an honest corporation (oxymoron?), but there is a reason why they have a loose monopoly on the Internet. You can't blame them for having a superior product.
On August 26 2014 11:28 WindWolf wrote: Meh, still really wanted Google to buy twitch if anyone, since they obviously have experience with these kinds of things. But if this makes Twitch streams finally watchable, then that's good
Google has a history of making Youtube terrible. Most Youtubers will tell you that if another video sharing website popped up that could give them a similar level of income but a better user experience/customer support and without the TERRIBLE 3rd Party Content matching system, they would leave in a heartbeat. Totalbiscuit frequently remarks how he wishes Youtube would "just let him do his job" instead of introducing things every few months that make it harder to do his job. Youtubers are only on youtube because it's the only serious game in town.
how does this even work? who owns twitch now? Amazon or Google? First they had a VOD ban, is the VOD going to be sold now? with portion of the revenue going towards the streamer?
Nice Much better than if Google got the deal. Let's hope the goal really is a long term vision. With a smooth development, no aggressive moves. Let's see in half a year.
Edit:
On August 26 2014 14:29 Advantageous wrote: how does this even work? who owns twitch now? Amazon or Google? First they had a VOD ban, is the VOD going to be sold now? with portion of the revenue going towards the streamer?
EDIT VOD-with-copyright-material-ban
I hope they press the issue at some point, and disallow streaming of games that do not provide the ability to legally stream performances (in license). At some point, game publishers would be better off to just allow it.
On August 26 2014 11:28 WindWolf wrote: Meh, still really wanted Google to buy twitch if anyone, since they obviously have experience with these kinds of things. But if this makes Twitch streams finally watchable, then that's good
Google has a history of making Youtube terrible. Most Youtubers will tell you that if another video sharing website popped up that could give them a similar level of income but a better user experience/customer support and without the TERRIBLE 3rd Party Content matching system, they would leave in a heartbeat. Totalbiscuit frequently remarks how he wishes Youtube would "just let him do his job" instead of introducing things every few months that make it harder to do his job. Youtubers are only on youtube because it's the only serious game in town.
But at least Google provides services that actually work and is watchable (Which wasn't the case for Twitch for me until very recently).
Oh, and try to ask an iOS user of Comixology what they think of them after being bought by Amazon
On August 26 2014 09:43 Dracolich70 wrote: I think Google are just using Amazon as a middleman. The whole approach reeks Google all over it. From the closing of JustinTV to the muting of copyright material. This is part of Amazons new middleman service.
Google are scared of being labelled as monopolizing a market, and the opposition of the takeover has not been positive.
The odd thing about Google being the buyer and Twitch doing all the copyright stuff is that Google already has all that technology. It doesn't make sense to force Twitch to do it BEFORE being acquired, it would just be a massive waste of resources.
The muting is all part of Googles evolution technology of protecting copyright material, which was less than evolved on Youtube.
In a not very distant future all we use is being monitored.
Que up Twilight Zone music.
Does this mean Twitch and youtube wont work well together anymore?
I think they will work very well together, which is why Google bought Twitch using Amazon as a middleman.
And decided to use a completely different and market competing audio recognizing technology, that is worse than what they currently use with YouTube. Your theory makes perfect sense.
I don't find it worse. No more false claims.
Oh it's worse. Muting 30 minute segments of VODs, and flagging videos that shouldn't have been flagged in the first place, that's pretty bad. But even if you completely disregard that fact, it still doesn't make any sense for Google to use a different audio recognition technology when they've already invested into one for youtube. That's a complete waste of money. Imagine you have a house with a front and back yard, and you already own one lawnmower. Why the hell would you go buy a second lawnmower when you can just use the same one for front and back?...
Let Google develop YT into a live streaming service if they would like to -- hell, even Hangouts has built in streaming option or whatever that is. I'm glad that in the end it got sold to another serious company but one which might have a fresh take on streaming.
On August 26 2014 17:00 nimdil wrote: Crap. Amazon is terrible corporation. I hate this news, really hoped for Google.
I don't know much about Amazon's terrible practices (they probably have some, I just haven't done the research), but Google has its own terrible practices. Youtube Content Creators really do not like a lot of Youtube's practices, policies, and lack of customer support. And are only at Youtube because it's the biggest place for Video Sharing, and thus, the only place to make as much money as they do.
Google buying Twitch would have been terrible. Youtube has a TERRIBLE reputation for the way it handles Youtube, and them owning Twitch would mean that they would probably carry over those terrible practices over to Twitch, AND eliminate the competition Twitch provides them. It's one of the few sites that could possibly incentivize Youtube to change its terrible practices, so it's overall better for the consumer that Twitch not to go to Google.
Keep in mind, probably the best thing Twitch has over Youtube is Customer Support. After Google took over Youtube, Google got rid of Youtube's entire Customer Support team that they used to have because they didn't want to pay them. There's no one to report to at Youtube that's responsible for getting your stuff fixed when YOUTUBE is at fault.
Twitch actually has a good reputation for good customer service with its users, and actually listening to feedback. Google really does not give a flying f*** because it has no serious competition in the video sharing market. Content ID's excessive false positives, Google Plus Integration, videos stuck in processing, constantly changing the page/channel layout, and more. NOBODY liked those changes, but Google made them permanent because they don't care about what the user thinks.
Even outside of content creators, me personally speaking as just a Youtube user, I shouldn't have to use 7 different Userscripts to get Youtube to work the way it should.
1. Makes it so that when I visit a user page, I go directly to their Videos Page. 2. In Search Results, it links the profile to their Videos Page instead of their Home Page. 3. When going to youtube.com, it will automatically redirect you to https://www.youtube.com/feed/subscriptions. It will also the change link in the logo to https://www.youtube.com/feed/subscriptions. This bypasses the dumb "What to Watch" page that also NOBODY LIKES, but Youtube forces you to go through to watch the videos you actually want to watch. F*** you Youtube, I'll decide for myself what I want to watch. 4. Playlist Remover. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/465218-youtube-auto-starting-vids-on-channels-video-page Nobody WANTS all the videos on a user's Video Page to be added to a playlist. Nobody wants the auto-play option to be turned on by default, forcing you to automatically load the next video. Again, with no way to turn it off as a default. 5. Automatically redirecting to Created Playlists instead of All Playlists. 6. One to automatically set the default size and quality of the player: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/460199-script-that-sets-youtube-default-size-and-quality For goodness sakes, just let users set their own Default size/qualities. I just want it to open in 720p or whatever is highest (sans 1080), and for it to open up in the bigger player size. Is that so much to ask? 7. Whitelist by Channel. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/460015-whitelist-by-youtube-channel-gm-script-updated I'll decide for myself whether I want to view the ads on that channel and whether that channel deserves it.
This is on top of all the elements I block with Adblock Plus like the Recommendations column on the right side.
Because you are mentioning the customer support: In my personal experience, Amazon has an excellent customer support! Fast, reliable and if you have product troubles there are little question asked! So in that area they are quite compatible!
On August 26 2014 17:39 Geisterkarle wrote: Because you are mentioning the customer support: In my personal experience, Amazon has an excellent customer support! Fast, reliable and if you have product troubles there are little question asked! So in that area they are quite compatible!
This so much. Amazon has sick customer orientation and tries to solve the problems rather than sit them out from my experience.
On August 26 2014 17:00 nimdil wrote: Crap. Amazon is terrible corporation. I hate this news, really hoped for Google.
I don't know much about Amazon's terrible practices (they probably have some, I just haven't done the research)
Amazon buying Comixology and then pissing of their iOS customers is one relatively recent example of something that they could have done better
I don't know what Comixology is, and I despise Apple, so that's why I probably haven't heard of that story.
*reads up on the issue*
Now that I have, I don't understand the problem. Amazon doesn't want to pay Apple, so they workaround it. Is buying comics from the Safari browser really that hard? The move gives more money to the content creator instead of the middle Man, and that Middle Man is Apple, so it looks doubly good from where I stand.
If anything, blame Apple for the unbelievably unreasonable 30% commission it takes for in-app purchases.
I don't like the whitelist aspect of what you're saying in that big post, if the channel you received got a view at all, it should deserve the ad-revenue.
On August 26 2014 18:14 Incognoto wrote: I don't like the whitelist aspect of what you're saying in that big post, if the channel you received got a view at all, it should deserve the ad-revenue.
Problem is, I'm already using Adblock Plus to block elements I already don't like about Youtube's interface. It's collateral damage, and really, I'm not going lose any sleep over not turning it off for a user or site I don't care about (yet) anyway. Disabling it for sites and users you know and trust is the best middle ground due to ad companies and some sites ****ing it up for people and sites who weren't abusing them.
For example, I think it's pretty clear I hate Youtube's management. The only time I will disable ABP for them is IF AND WHEN it benefits content creators. Meaning only when an in-video ad is involved, I don't care about the ads on the Youtube page or sidebars etc. They can deal with my adblocking until they fix their many problems (like actually getting a Customer Support team) and then I'll consider supporting Youtube management.
On August 26 2014 17:00 nimdil wrote: Crap. Amazon is terrible corporation. I hate this news, really hoped for Google.
I don't know much about Amazon's terrible practices (they probably have some, I just haven't done the research)
Amazon buying Comixology and then pissing of their iOS customers is one relatively recent example of something that they could have done better
I don't know what Comixology is, and I despise Apple, so that's why I probably haven't heard of that story.
*reads up on the issue*
Now that I have, I don't understand the problem. Amazon doesn't want to pay Apple, so they workaround it. Is buying comics from the Safari browser really that hard? The move gives more money to the content creator instead of the middle Man, and that Middle Man is Apple, so it looks doubly good from where I stand.
If anything, blame Apple for the unbelievably unreasonable 30% commission it takes for in-app purchases.
1) Comixology had IAP for iOS for quite a long time before all of that happened plus 2) The change happened just over a night. No warning no nothing, which does not make it very surprising that iOS customers are pissed of (I'm on Android, but I can certainly understand iOS users' frustration)
On August 26 2014 17:00 nimdil wrote: Crap. Amazon is terrible corporation. I hate this news, really hoped for Google.
I don't know much about Amazon's terrible practices (they probably have some, I just haven't done the research)
Amazon buying Comixology and then pissing of their iOS customers is one relatively recent example of something that they could have done better
I don't know what Comixology is, and I despise Apple, so that's why I probably haven't heard of that story.
*reads up on the issue*
Now that I have, I don't understand the problem. Amazon doesn't want to pay Apple, so they workaround it. Is buying comics from the Safari browser really that hard? The move gives more money to the content creator instead of the middle Man, and that Middle Man is Apple, so it looks doubly good from where I stand.
If anything, blame Apple for the unbelievably unreasonable 30% commission it takes for in-app purchases.
1) Comixology had IAP for iOS for quite a long time before all of that happened plus 2) The change happened just over a night. No warning no nothing, which does not make it very surprising that iOS customers are pissed of (I'm on Android, but I can certainly understand iOS users' frustration)
1. Yeah, and Amazon realized the 30% commission to Apple was BS, so they changed their model so that it gave them and the content creators more money. If I had the opportunity to not have to pay Apple 30% commission on money I earned, I would also do what I could to avoid paying them any money. 2. Okay, you got me there. Nobody likes it when sudden changes are made overnight without warning. The Twitch rolling out their new VOD program with Audible Magic is a prime example.
Amazon has excellent user experience however he is more then bully toward product providers. The way I see it, Twitch under Amazon may very well be delightful for users/viewers but turn into nightmare for streamers.
On August 26 2014 18:52 nimdil wrote: Amazon has excellent user experience however he is more then bully toward product providers. The way I see it, Twitch under Amazon may very well be delightful for users/viewers but turn into nightmare for streamers.
LiveStreaming is untested so far on Amazon (as far as I know), so we don't know either way about how it will go for streamers.
Meanwhile, yeah, Twitch would probably be okay for livestreaming under Google. But we already know how awful the Youtube experience is for Content Creators (outside of the amount and reliability of payments from Youtube) (and several annoyances for users), so it would have been very likely to be similar for Twitch under Google.
Google got rid of Youtube's Customer Support Team after taking them over, they probably would have done the same with Twitch.
On August 26 2014 19:04 Wombat_NI wrote: How do Google go about improving things for content creators for those that are familiar with this realm? Total Biscuit I summon thee.
If I were to guess some of his responses: 1. In case I haven't harped on about it enough, get a bloody Customer Support Team. 2. Announce your changes at least a good week before rolling them out. 3. Get a better Channel Page layout and stop constantly changing it and/or making it worse. 4. Tying it in with #1, use Content ID Matching as a TOOL. Have a PERSON review videos that are matched with Content ID and make sure that it is only de-monetized after a person has reviewed it. As it is, with Content ID indiscriminately flagging everything down with so many false positives, it goes well beyond what is necessary from the DMCA (TB has said this part multiple times). 5. Fix the many problems with processing videos (EVERY Youtuber has/is experiencing these problems). 6. Give a time frame and be more open about when and how 60FPS is being rolled out (TB's infamous for being one of those framerate guys. He even has a T-shirt and poster about it: http://shop.maker.tv/collections/total-biscuit/products/60-fps-teehttp://shop.maker.tv/collections/total-biscuit/products/60-fps-poster ). 7. Google Plus integration sucks. Fix the bloody comment system (TB would also mention this, as he's disabled the comments on all his videos, and uses his Subreddit as his comments page). 8. Have the balls to stand up for Fair Use (something he also mentions many times).
I do have a monetized channel, so I do have some experience with Youtube. I don't upload anything to it anymore because I lack the PC or equipment to create content of satisfactory quality. And at the moment, I'm not a managed partner of any MCN, and dealing with Content ID wasn't worth it to me when I was testing the waters. I may try again some day, my channel's clear of any strikes at the moment.
On August 26 2014 19:04 Wombat_NI wrote: How do Google go about improving things for content creators for those that are familiar with this realm? Total Biscuit I summon thee.
1. In case I haven't harped on about it enough, get a bloody Customer Support Team.
I've contacted Google customer support in the past (About an issue I had with my Google Drive) and the person was actually willing to help me explain what the situation was all about
On August 26 2014 19:04 Wombat_NI wrote: How do Google go about improving things for content creators for those that are familiar with this realm? Total Biscuit I summon thee.
1. In case I haven't harped on about it enough, get a bloody Customer Support Team.
I've contacted Google customer support in the past (About an issue I had with my Google Drive) and the person was actually willing to help me explain what the situation was all about
That's Google Drive. Google itself has Customer Support for a lot of their services. Their Nexus phones, etc. Have you ever tried contacting Google Customer Support about any Youtube issues you have as a user or content creator?
On August 26 2014 07:22 Zax19 wrote: It does seem like Google backed out for some reason. Well, we'll have to wait and see what happens to twitch...
One of the reasons I was able to find online was that Twitch and Google couldn't come to an agreement over how much Google would pay Twitch in restitution if the buying didn't get past the FTC over monopoly accusations. That's typically how these major buyouts work. If the FTC rules against the merger due to them stating that the reduced level of competition would be anti-consumer, the buying company (Google) pays a pre-agreed-on fee to the company they were attempting to buy (Twitch).
That and we also have what we can ascertain from the Twitch CEO's statement:
Letter from the CEO August 25, 2014 Dear Twitch Community, It’s almost unbelievable that slightly more than 3 years ago, Twitch didn’t exist. The moment we launched, we knew we had stumbled across something special. But what followed surprised us as much as anyone else, and the impact it’s had on both the community and us has been truly profound. Your talent, your passion, your dedication to gaming, your memes, your brilliance - these have made Twitch what it is today. Every day, we strive to live up to the standard set by you, the community. We want to create the very best place to share your gaming and life online, and that mission continues to guide us. Together with you, we’ve found new ways of connecting developers and publishers with their fans. We’ve created a whole new kind of career that lets people make a living sharing their love of games. We’ve brought billions of hours of entertainment, laughter, joy and the occasional ragequit. I think we can all call that a pretty good start. Today, I’m pleased to announce we’ve been acquired by Amazon. We chose Amazon because they believe in our community, they share our values and long-term vision, and they want to help us get there faster. We’re keeping most everything the same: our office, our employees, our brand, and most importantly our independence. But with Amazon’s support we’ll have the resources to bring you an even better Twitch. I personally want to thank you, each and every member of the Twitch community, for what you’ve created. Thank you for putting your faith in us. Thank you for sticking with us through growing pains and stumbles. Thank you for bringing your very best to us and sharing it with the world. Thank you, from a group of gamers who never dreamed they’d get to help shape the face of the industry that we love so much. It’s dangerous to go alone. On behalf of myself and everyone else at Twitch, thank you for coming with us. Emmett Shear, CEO
According to Shear, Amazon is giving them a lot of independence. It could imply that Google wanted come in and change a lot of stuff, and Twitch didn't want that.
On August 26 2014 19:04 Wombat_NI wrote: How do Google go about improving things for content creators for those that are familiar with this realm? Total Biscuit I summon thee.
1. In case I haven't harped on about it enough, get a bloody Customer Support Team.
I've contacted Google customer support in the past (About an issue I had with my Google Drive) and the person was actually willing to help me explain what the situation was all about
That's Google Drive. Google itself has Customer Support for a lot of their services. Their Nexus phones, etc. Have you ever tried contacting Google Customer Support about any Youtube issues you have as a user or content creator?.
No, I've never been needing to contacting Google about YouTube issues
On August 26 2014 19:04 Wombat_NI wrote: How do Google go about improving things for content creators for those that are familiar with this realm? Total Biscuit I summon thee.
1. In case I haven't harped on about it enough, get a bloody Customer Support Team.
I've contacted Google customer support in the past (About an issue I had with my Google Drive) and the person was actually willing to help me explain what the situation was all about
That's Google Drive. Google itself has Customer Support for a lot of their services. Their Nexus phones, etc. Have you ever tried contacting Google Customer Support about any Youtube issues you have as a user or content creator?.
No, I've never been needing to contacting Google about YouTube issues
Hint: It's because they don't have one for Youtube.
On August 26 2014 03:17 Lucumo wrote: I hope they don't do this. Twitch isn't worth that much money, in my opinion.
It's worth what someone will pay for it.
To Amazon it's worth the value of the name, plus the infrastructure and the contracts with Microsoft and Sony.
You have to consider Twitch as a platform, not a game streaming service. Look at what Amazon has done recently: Made its own TV shows. Made its own devices.
Imagine if Amazon decides to start streaming sports (various motorsports, at least, already stream on Youtube). Basically re-opening Justin.tv but under the Twitch name (hilariously enough). That's some value already built onto the existing platform. They can use their music service and VOD services to augment what Twitch already has, and let people stream music/etc from their Amazon cloud etc.
Amazon.com Inc. AMZN +1.00% is gearing up to more directly challenge Google Inc. GOOGL -0.25% 's dominance of the online advertising market, developing its own software for placing ads online that could leverage its knowledge of millions of Web shoppers.
Amazon can do things that are more than just letting people keep streaming games.
...hence the "in my opinion".
Unless they perfectly integrate Twitch, I still don't see how it's working in their favor. Twitch may currently have the monopoly in the international market but that can change rather easily in this day and age. I would have bought something like Hitbox which is rapidly gaining viewers and molded it into something which fits Amazon the best. Popularity can be gained rather quickly. The contracts may be what's missing but I don't see how they couldn't get similar ones, considering they aren't competing with Microsoft and Sony in that regard.
Easily? In these days, it is next to impossible for a platform/services like twitch to lose its monopoly. If there's a service that everyone uses, then you have to pretty much convince everyone at the same time to switch, or no one will. As much as I like that twitch is getting some competition, that competition will die out again sooner or later.
Other streaming platforms bled out before and lost their userbase to the next good service. Livestream.com-->Ustream-->Justin.tv. While Twitch has obviously more users than the services some years ago, if hitbox is the same with improvements, people will switch. Twitch fucked up and if hitbox had been out of beta yet, they would have profited a lot more. I think they also still lack a proper app which is important for a lot of people. If some important streamers switch, others will follow. It's as simple as that.
On August 26 2014 19:04 Wombat_NI wrote: How do Google go about improving things for content creators for those that are familiar with this realm? Total Biscuit I summon thee.
1. In case I haven't harped on about it enough, get a bloody Customer Support Team.
I've contacted Google customer support in the past (About an issue I had with my Google Drive) and the person was actually willing to help me explain what the situation was all about
That's Google Drive. Google itself has Customer Support for a lot of their services. Their Nexus phones, etc. Have you ever tried contacting Google Customer Support about any Youtube issues you have as a user or content creator?
On August 26 2014 07:22 Zax19 wrote: It does seem like Google backed out for some reason. Well, we'll have to wait and see what happens to twitch...
One of the reasons I was able to find online was that Twitch and Google couldn't come to an agreement over how much Google would pay Twitch in restitution if the buying didn't get past the FTC over monopoly accusations. That's typically how these major buyouts work. If the FTC rules against the merger due to them stating that the reduced level of competition would be anti-consumer, the buying company (Google) pays a pre-agreed-on fee to the company they were attempting to buy (Twitch).
That and we also have what we can ascertain from the Twitch CEO's statement:
Letter from the CEO August 25, 2014 Dear Twitch Community, It’s almost unbelievable that slightly more than 3 years ago, Twitch didn’t exist. The moment we launched, we knew we had stumbled across something special. But what followed surprised us as much as anyone else, and the impact it’s had on both the community and us has been truly profound. Your talent, your passion, your dedication to gaming, your memes, your brilliance - these have made Twitch what it is today. Every day, we strive to live up to the standard set by you, the community. We want to create the very best place to share your gaming and life online, and that mission continues to guide us. Together with you, we’ve found new ways of connecting developers and publishers with their fans. We’ve created a whole new kind of career that lets people make a living sharing their love of games. We’ve brought billions of hours of entertainment, laughter, joy and the occasional ragequit. I think we can all call that a pretty good start. Today, I’m pleased to announce we’ve been acquired by Amazon. We chose Amazon because they believe in our community, they share our values and long-term vision, and they want to help us get there faster. We’re keeping most everything the same: our office, our employees, our brand, and most importantly our independence. But with Amazon’s support we’ll have the resources to bring you an even better Twitch. I personally want to thank you, each and every member of the Twitch community, for what you’ve created. Thank you for putting your faith in us. Thank you for sticking with us through growing pains and stumbles. Thank you for bringing your very best to us and sharing it with the world. Thank you, from a group of gamers who never dreamed they’d get to help shape the face of the industry that we love so much. It’s dangerous to go alone. On behalf of myself and everyone else at Twitch, thank you for coming with us. Emmett Shear, CEO
According to Shear, Amazon is giving them a lot of independence. It could imply that Google wanted come in and change a lot of stuff, and Twitch didn't want that.
Apparently the reason the Google deal fell through is because there were worries about anti-trust issues and they couldn't agree on a compensation mechanism if the deal fell through, so... the deal fell through. I would assume that most of the people who have some control over Twitch, the VC partners who put in $42m dollars, wouldn't be that bothered about how Twitch was run after their exit.
While some reported that a deal between Twitch and Google was practically complete, Bessemer Ventures Partners’ Ethan Kurzweil, who led his firm’s investment in Twitch and sits on its board, denied that was the case. While Google was one of the first to approach the company about the deal, Kurzweil noted that there were other suitors involved after Twitch fielded the initial interest from the search giant. BVP led by Kurzweil and David Cowan explored other possibilities and hired notable Silicon Valley banker Frank Quattrone of Qatalyst Partners to open up acquisition talks with other companies.
“A lot of people were interested but Amazon offered the best deal,” said Kurzweil, who did not name the other interested parties.
There were 4 or 5 VC partners who invested a total of $42m in Twitch. Those are the guys who are basically getting their money back out of this deal, and they probably don't care that much about what happens now. They made their massive return (potentially more than 20x in less than 4 years, as they invested at different times), so they are probably happy whoever owns it now, they just want to make sure they got paid when a deal was made. Google wouldn't guarantee a payday if the deal fell through, so they went with Amazon where there should be no antitrust issues.
On August 26 2014 03:17 Lucumo wrote: I hope they don't do this. Twitch isn't worth that much money, in my opinion.
It's worth what someone will pay for it.
To Amazon it's worth the value of the name, plus the infrastructure and the contracts with Microsoft and Sony.
You have to consider Twitch as a platform, not a game streaming service. Look at what Amazon has done recently: Made its own TV shows. Made its own devices.
Imagine if Amazon decides to start streaming sports (various motorsports, at least, already stream on Youtube). Basically re-opening Justin.tv but under the Twitch name (hilariously enough). That's some value already built onto the existing platform. They can use their music service and VOD services to augment what Twitch already has, and let people stream music/etc from their Amazon cloud etc.
Amazon.com Inc. AMZN +1.00% is gearing up to more directly challenge Google Inc. GOOGL -0.25% 's dominance of the online advertising market, developing its own software for placing ads online that could leverage its knowledge of millions of Web shoppers.
Amazon can do things that are more than just letting people keep streaming games.
...hence the "in my opinion".
Unless they perfectly integrate Twitch, I still don't see how it's working in their favor. Twitch may currently have the monopoly in the international market but that can change rather easily in this day and age. I would have bought something like Hitbox which is rapidly gaining viewers and molded it into something which fits Amazon the best. Popularity can be gained rather quickly. The contracts may be what's missing but I don't see how they couldn't get similar ones, considering they aren't competing with Microsoft and Sony in that regard.
Easily? In these days, it is next to impossible for a platform/services like twitch to lose its monopoly. If there's a service that everyone uses, then you have to pretty much convince everyone at the same time to switch, or no one will. As much as I like that twitch is getting some competition, that competition will die out again sooner or later.
Other streaming platforms bled out before and lost their userbase to the next good service. Livestream.com-->Ustream-->Justin.tv. While Twitch has obviously more users than the services some years ago, if hitbox is the same with improvements, people will switch. Twitch fucked up and if hitbox had been out of beta yet, they would have profited a lot more. I think they also still lack a proper app which is important for a lot of people. If some important streamers switch, others will follow. It's as simple as that.
How has Twitch fucked up? Twitch has tremendous caster loyalty. Possibly it's because of how hands-on they've been in the entire process, or how much they've supported caster features. They aren't screwing over casters and more and more people continue to become partners with them (without turning the entire process into a clusterfuck).
On August 27 2014 10:20 Orcasgt24 wrote: So Amazon paid a billion dollars for a site that doesn't work :p
Some group named Lizard Squad is ddosing them and they are down
Yup. Welcome to the internet...
You would think a billion dollar internet based company would know how to protect themselves from that kind of common attack.
That's why even government, intelligence and other sites are never taken down by ddos efforts... Because it is so simple to defend against that shit... yeah... sure!
DDoS are unique that the requests that flood servers are often valid requests. It's not like they can just ban traffic from every source since there is a fraction that is legitimate traffic that is indistinguishable from the attack. The counter is usually to make sure your capacity is greater than the attacker's. Crank up some more (virtual) servers and deploy more load balancers, and that assumes your architecture can scale well. Even companies like Sony and Blizzard have a lot of trouble with this. About the only companies that can take a large DDoS well have large dedicated teams of sys-admins and developers that have tailored their own solution to the attack over months, which basically narrows it down to Google and Amazon (sorta) right now.
On August 27 2014 10:20 Orcasgt24 wrote: So Amazon paid a billion dollars for a site that doesn't work :p
Some group named Lizard Squad is ddosing them and they are down
Yup. Welcome to the internet...
You would think a billion dollar internet based company would know how to protect themselves from that kind of common attack.
That's why even government, intelligence and other sites are never taken down by ddos efforts... Because it is so simple to defend against that shit... yeah... sure!
It's very possible to mitigate the damage of them using security providers like Black Lotus or Prolexic.
As a side note. It is kind of weird that these huge companies aren't trying to invent ways to make sure they are immune to ddosing. Or maybe they are and have been unsuccessful.
On August 27 2014 10:20 Orcasgt24 wrote: So Amazon paid a billion dollars for a site that doesn't work :p
Some group named Lizard Squad is ddosing them and they are down
Yup. Welcome to the internet...
You would think a billion dollar internet based company would know how to protect themselves from that kind of common attack.
That's why even government, intelligence and other sites are never taken down by ddos efforts... Because it is so simple to defend against that shit... yeah... sure!
It's very possible to mitigate the damage of them using security providers like Black Lotus or Prolexic.
As a side note. It is kind of weird that these huge companies aren't trying to invent ways to make sure they are immune to ddosing. Or maybe they are and have been unsuccessful.
I am sure that they are trying to protect against it, but it requires a great deal of infrastructure to do so. Prolexic is owned by Akamai, so they have the capacity to dedicate a lot of servers and bandwidth to mitigate ddos.
I am no expert, but to completely solve the problem we might need to switch over to different network protocols, which is not a realistic option at the moment.
On August 27 2014 13:34 rebuffering wrote: lol is DDoS-ing get easier or what? These Lizard Squad ass holes have been fucking DDoS-ing everything in the passed week.
Anyone can DDOS, all you need to do is buy a botnet and figure out what to shoot. It's quite simple if you are willing to front the money and the risk of getting FBIed
EDIT: Heck you can DDOS any small site, just google LOIC and point it at something. It was used for the 4chan raids
I am not by any means encouraging you to preform illegal actions. This post is only for informational, satirical, and anecdotal purposes. Only a fool would take this information at face value and act on it.
On August 26 2014 17:00 nimdil wrote: Crap. Amazon is terrible corporation. I hate this news, really hoped for Google.
I don't know much about Amazon's terrible practices (they probably have some, I just haven't done the research)
Amazon buying Comixology and then pissing of their iOS customers is one relatively recent example of something that they could have done better
I don't know what Comixology is, and I despise Apple, so that's why I probably haven't heard of that story.
*reads up on the issue*
Now that I have, I don't understand the problem. Amazon doesn't want to pay Apple, so they workaround it. Is buying comics from the Safari browser really that hard? The move gives more money to the content creator instead of the middle Man, and that Middle Man is Apple, so it looks doubly good from where I stand.
If anything, blame Apple for the unbelievably unreasonable 30% commission it takes for in-app purchases.
1) Comixology had IAP for iOS for quite a long time before all of that happened plus 2) The change happened just over a night. No warning no nothing, which does not make it very surprising that iOS customers are pissed of (I'm on Android, but I can certainly understand iOS users' frustration)
2. Okay, you got me there. Nobody likes it when sudden changes are made overnight without warning. The Twitch rolling out their new VOD program with Audible Magic is a prime example.
Which is why I'm not all to happy about Amazon being the buyer. At first after the buying of Comixology, it looked like everything was going to carry on as things used to be and BAAM they just remove IAP for iOS like a thunder from a clear blue sky. Who knows what might happen to Twitch now.
ah I see, makes sense. Twitch stopped working and I wasn't sure if something was wrong on my end since it was fine earlier in the day lol. As to this news, not sure if I like it or not. Guess wait and see what Amazon brings to the table.
On August 27 2014 13:34 rebuffering wrote: lol is DDoS-ing get easier or what? These Lizard Squad ass holes have been fucking DDoS-ing everything in the passed week.
It probably is, but at the same time I've seen normal service/internet/other problem being blamed on ddos attacks a lot lately. It just seems like the go to excuse whenever something doesn't work and it's often not the case. But it does strengthen that perception.
I've seen a stream go down with the streamer saying essentially "it's just my internet" and then 10 minutes later it's a truth in chat that the stream got shut down by ddos.
On August 27 2014 13:34 rebuffering wrote: lol is DDoS-ing get easier or what? These Lizard Squad ass holes have been fucking DDoS-ing everything in the passed week.
It probably is, but at the same time I've seen normal service/internet/other problem being blamed on ddos attacks a lot lately. It just seems like the go to excuse whenever something doesn't work and it's often not the case. But it does strengthen that perception.
I've seen a stream go down with the streamer saying essentially "it's just my internet" and then 10 minutes later it's a truth in chat that the stream got shut down by ddos.
"DDoS" is actually somewhat rare, while standard "DoS" is more common. Simply flooding a connection from a small amount of computers (sometimes just with one computer) is incredibly easy to do and will knock down standard home equipment and non-maintained enterprise equipment. The kind of DDoS likely being deployed by Lizard Squad is relatively rare because it isn't free, even for the highly skilled.
And of course, everybody and their mom wants to seem like they know something so they jump on the DDoS bandwagon.
On August 27 2014 13:34 rebuffering wrote: lol is DDoS-ing get easier or what? These Lizard Squad ass holes have been fucking DDoS-ing everything in the passed week.
It probably is, but at the same time I've seen normal service/internet/other problem being blamed on ddos attacks a lot lately. It just seems like the go to excuse whenever something doesn't work and it's often not the case. But it does strengthen that perception.
I've seen a stream go down with the streamer saying essentially "it's just my internet" and then 10 minutes later it's a truth in chat that the stream got shut down by ddos.
"DDoS" is actually somewhat rare, while standard "DoS" is more common. Simply flooding a connection from a small amount of computers (sometimes just with one computer) is incredibly easy to do and will knock down standard home equipment and non-maintained enterprise equipment. The kind of DDoS likely being deployed by Lizard Squad is relatively rare because it isn't free, even for the highly skilled.
And of course, everybody and their mom wants to seem like they know something so they jump on the DDoS bandwagon.
It may not be free, but it is still really easy to pull off (DDoS that is). But yes you need to rent a botnet.
On August 27 2014 13:34 rebuffering wrote: lol is DDoS-ing get easier or what? These Lizard Squad ass holes have been fucking DDoS-ing everything in the passed week.
It probably is, but at the same time I've seen normal service/internet/other problem being blamed on ddos attacks a lot lately. It just seems like the go to excuse whenever something doesn't work and it's often not the case. But it does strengthen that perception.
I've seen a stream go down with the streamer saying essentially "it's just my internet" and then 10 minutes later it's a truth in chat that the stream got shut down by ddos.
"DDoS" is actually somewhat rare, while standard "DoS" is more common. Simply flooding a connection from a small amount of computers (sometimes just with one computer) is incredibly easy to do and will knock down standard home equipment and non-maintained enterprise equipment. The kind of DDoS likely being deployed by Lizard Squad is relatively rare because it isn't free, even for the highly skilled.
And of course, everybody and their mom wants to seem like they know something so they jump on the DDoS bandwagon.
It may not be free, but it is still really easy to pull off (DDoS that is). But yes you need to rent a botnet.
Never said it wasn't easy. It's really hard to create the botnet and it's a waste to use a botnet like that, which makes it expensive, but not hard.
On August 27 2014 13:34 rebuffering wrote: lol is DDoS-ing get easier or what? These Lizard Squad ass holes have been fucking DDoS-ing everything in the passed week.
It probably is, but at the same time I've seen normal service/internet/other problem being blamed on ddos attacks a lot lately. It just seems like the go to excuse whenever something doesn't work and it's often not the case. But it does strengthen that perception.
I've seen a stream go down with the streamer saying essentially "it's just my internet" and then 10 minutes later it's a truth in chat that the stream got shut down by ddos.
"DDoS" is actually somewhat rare, while standard "DoS" is more common.
For a while I'd forgotten about what the first "D" in "DDoS" stood for, and wondered why it was even there. Then I read this line and magically remembered that it means "distributed" (probably because I haven't seen people distinguish between them for a long time...)
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8SCb6QJ.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zO4aEZG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://store.cdn.gamesports.net/6000/6334.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i57.tinypic.com/15g47me.png)
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BuY4ts9IcAAm0Xj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/l5Xit3R.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/l9WxRCN.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JiRF1Kc.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5hzdOTz.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gktTD0p.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hpJIQIa.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8FQIE8H.jpg)
