|
Korea (South)11232 Posts
Today Riot offered a final statement regarding the spectateFaker controversy. Below you can find he TL;DR:
Here’s the TL;DR: We believe the in-game spectator experience for ranked games is a critical part of the LoL gameplay experience, and we have no interest in seeing it crippled. Where things become problematic is when a spectator mode for a player (pro or otherwise) is consistently streamed against their wish, and in a way that is harmful. Having looked into the SpectateFaker case we’ve established two major things. 1) That the DMCA issued by Azubu did not have a legal standing as we, not Azubu, own the gameplay content, and 2) that Faker believes (and we agree) that this stream is harmful to him and to his brand. We’ll be honoring Faker’s request and pursuing a takedown of the stream.
Personally, it’s pretty clear that I should have handled communications around this better. My intent was to jump to the defense of a player (Faker) who was being singled out and streamed against his will. I’m very sensitive to the topic of bullying. It’s a sobering lesson to me that in discussing concerns about it, I may have came across as the bully myself.
This individual case has brought up a lot of issues that go beyond Faker - or even beyond pro players. It has the power to affect all of us who create and spectate LoL gameplay through the client. We feel the weight of that responsibility, which is why we took some time to really debate this and doublecheck our assumptions before coming back with a thought out response.
I wanted to take some time to talk a little about our core philosophies around how we’ve approached this issue, what we got wrong in our first steps and what approach we’ll be taking moving forward.
you can read the whole announcement on the offical Riot page.
|
I doubt Faker actually cares. Most likely Azubu going to SKT complaining and SKT just saying Faker saying its "harmful" or telling him to say it.
|
a little distasteful he still trys to make it about bullying but idk, it's the right move for riot to make, but they treat us like idiots if they are going to say it isn't to protect a business partner.
|
It makes no difference what Faker personally thinks, he represents SKT.
|
Korea (South)11232 Posts
On February 28 2015 07:57 Slusher wrote:
a little distasteful he still trys to make it about bullying but idk, it's the right move for riot to make, but they treat us like idiots if they are going to say it isn't to protect a business partner.
The bullying part is what I don't understand too but agree with the decision.
|
The full statement says that streaming people without consent is fine as long as you hide the usernames. So spectatefaker will just become spectatekorea without changing who it spectates, just viewers 'won't know'. following a random person in each faker game rather than just faker.
+ Show Spoiler +There are examples of this kind of spectator mode streaming that don’t carry the same bite. To give just one, SaltyTeemo is a stream that often targets low elo players and streams their gameplay from spectator mode, but the intent here feels completely different. The stream removes usernames and doesn’t specifically target individual players over and over. This isn’t a calculated harassment of one specific player, it’s a compilation of gameplay that’s entertaining and non-malicious towards individuals.
|
On February 28 2015 08:00 PrinceXizor wrote:The full statement says that streaming people without consent is fine as long as you hide the usernames. So spectatefaker will just become spectatekorea without changing who it spectates, just viewers 'won't know'. following a random person in each faker game rather than just faker. + Show Spoiler +There are examples of this kind of spectator mode streaming that don’t carry the same bite. To give just one, SaltyTeemo is a stream that often targets low elo players and streams their gameplay from spectator mode, but the intent here feels completely different. The stream removes usernames and doesn’t specifically target individual players over and over. This isn’t a calculated harassment of one specific player, it’s a compilation of gameplay that’s entertaining and non-malicious towards individuals.
So it'll be the same thing except everyone will pretend not to know yet know?
|
On February 28 2015 08:00 PrinceXizor wrote:The full statement says that streaming people without consent is fine as long as you hide the usernames. So spectatefaker will just become spectatekorea without changing who it spectates, just viewers 'won't know'. following a random person in each faker game rather than just faker. + Show Spoiler +There are examples of this kind of spectator mode streaming that don’t carry the same bite. To give just one, SaltyTeemo is a stream that often targets low elo players and streams their gameplay from spectator mode, but the intent here feels completely different. The stream removes usernames and doesn’t specifically target individual players over and over. This isn’t a calculated harassment of one specific player, it’s a compilation of gameplay that’s entertaining and non-malicious towards individuals.
lol the game will show faker's name when faker kill someone, whats the difference. Now Riot is bending their rules like last year, they do w/e they want.
|
On February 28 2015 08:00 PrinceXizor wrote:The full statement says that streaming people without consent is fine as long as you hide the usernames. So spectatefaker will just become spectatekorea without changing who it spectates, just viewers 'won't know'. following a random person in each faker game rather than just faker. + Show Spoiler +There are examples of this kind of spectator mode streaming that don’t carry the same bite. To give just one, SaltyTeemo is a stream that often targets low elo players and streams their gameplay from spectator mode, but the intent here feels completely different. The stream removes usernames and doesn’t specifically target individual players over and over. This isn’t a calculated harassment of one specific player, it’s a compilation of gameplay that’s entertaining and non-malicious towards individuals.
You're making a deliberately misleading reading of this to be asinine
The spirit of the ruling is that streaming Faker is detrimental to his brand/SKT's brand/Azubu's business, but streaming spectated games in general is not.
I also don't understand why people are upset and acting like they're entitled to the Faker stream. Riot has been explicit about how they own all League-derived content yet they still allow plenty of even LCS-derivative content to proliferate on YT, while OGN doesn't let anyone else translate or recap their content.
http://www.vanityfair.fr/culture/livre/articles/generation-wuss-by-bret-easton-ellis/15837
|
So you are saying that no one can stream any game faker is in? even if the camera is following someone else? even if its your stream of your game and faker is in it?
they don't specify the line, except to give an example that a stream that does something similar but removes names is okay. So using fakers MMR as a basis, you could just stream top level korean games around fakers MMR whenever faker plays and its okay or not okay? I'm not deliberately misreading anything. i'm talking about the grey area they don't mention specifically. you can't "target" faker. but you can target fakers MMR games at times that faker is streaming.
Streaming "high Challenger Korean solo queue" at times faker is playing. with the names off so no ones name is mentioned and no 'brand' being used.
i don't see how an article about some dude whining about other people whining is relevant at all. Oh its Ellis, yeah still not relevant.
|
On February 28 2015 09:40 PrinceXizor wrote:
I'm not deliberately misreading anything.
On February 28 2015 08:00 PrinceXizor wrote:
The full statement says that streaming people without consent is fine as long as you hide the usernames.
There are examples of this kind of spectator mode streaming that don’t carry the same bite. To give just one, SaltyTeemo is a stream that often targets low elo players and streams their gameplay from spectator mode, but the intent here feels completely different. The stream removes usernames and doesn’t specifically target individual players over and over. This isn’t a calculated harassment of one specific player, it’s a compilation of gameplay that’s entertaining and non-malicious towards individuals.
That's not what the full statement says at all.
The full statement says that Riot holds all rights to terminante broadcasts but will evaluated takedown requests to balance the needs of the individual's branding (or I guess it could be harassment someone consistently streams PlayerX's games with a laugh track playing) vs the benefit and enjoyment everyone else gets out of it.
They probably have some arcane legal definition drawn up about "where the line is" or maybe the line is that no one is allowed to stream Riot content but they just choose not to enforce it when it is benign. And the determiner of that is Riot Games because they own the content and they own the game and no one is entitled to anything.
|
On February 28 2015 09:40 PrinceXizor wrote:
So you are saying that no one can stream any game faker is in? even if the camera is following someone else? even if its your stream of your game and faker is in it?
they don't specify the line, except to give an example that a stream that does something similar but removes names is okay. So using fakers MMR as a basis, you could just stream top level korean games around fakers MMR whenever faker plays and its okay or not okay? I'm not deliberately misreading anything. i'm talking about the grey area they don't mention specifically. you can't "target" faker. but you can target fakers MMR games at times that faker is streaming.
Streaming "high Challenger Korean solo queue" at times faker is playing. with the names off so no ones name is mentioned and no 'brand' being used.
i don't see how an article about some dude whining about other people whining is relevant at all. Oh its Ellis, yeah still not relevant.
The entire thing is only talking about spectator mode anyway. Streaming games you're in is a very different topic to streaming spectator mode.
|
Now i think YOU xes are the one deliberately misreading what i'm saying. At any extreme end of MMR eventually the perpetual top/bottom players will repeat that does not mean you are targeting him, you are just streaming at times looking for games at a high MMR. no one is talking about being entitled to anything, so bitching about that seems senseless and you can leave that out. But streaming high elo korean games with a cutoff around fakers level (using him as a standard for high level) i don't think thats against these rules. I'm not suggesting riot is over-stepping or anything. but if there wasn't pressure from kespa this wouldn't have ever been a thing. and its not as if azubu has ever had a good image anyway.
If azubu can't get people to use their service despite faker's own stream having better content, thats a problem with azubu and not spectatefaker though. and even seeing the spectator client as competition should be a sign about the quality of that product. If there wasn't money exchanging hands from azubu to kespa and SKT, this would just be a thing that never came up.
what i'm saying is im interested in the line. i want to see streams, because clearly there is a market for it, probe that grey area and find the line.
On February 28 2015 10:03 Ansibled wrote:
The entire thing is only talking about spectator mode anyway. Streaming games you're in is a very different topic to streaming spectator mode.
That seems intuitive. but legally, there isn't a difference right? streamers don't own the gameplay element of their stream, riot does. and unless you are faker's stream, streaming fakers gameplay element (not owned by you) would be hurting his brand. and ability to sell his stream to azubu.
|
Korea (South)11232 Posts
On February 28 2015 10:08 PrinceXizor wrote:Now i think YOU xes are the one deliberately misreading what i'm saying. At any extreme end of MMR eventually the perpetual top/bottom players will repeat that does not mean you are targeting him, you are just streaming at times looking for games at a high MMR. no one is talking about being entitled to anything, so bitching about that seems senseless and you can leave that out. But streaming high elo korean games with a cutoff around fakers level (using him as a standard for high level) i don't think thats against these rules. I'm not suggesting riot is over-stepping or anything. but if there wasn't pressure from kespa this wouldn't have ever been a thing. and its not as if azubu has ever had a good image anyway. If azubu can't get people to use their service despite faker's own stream having better content, thats a problem with azubu and not spectatefaker though. and even seeing the spectator client as competition should be a sign about the quality of that product. If there wasn't money exchanging hands from azubu to kespa and SKT, this would just be a thing that never came up. what i'm saying is im interested in the line. i want to see streams, because clearly there is a market for it, probe that grey area and find the line. Show nested quote +On February 28 2015 10:03 Ansibled wrote:
The entire thing is only talking about spectator mode anyway. Streaming games you're in is a very different topic to streaming spectator mode. That seems intuitive. but legally, there isn't a difference right? streamers don't own the gameplay element of their stream, riot does. and unless you are faker's stream, streaming fakers gameplay element (not owned by you) would be hurting his brand. and ability to sell his stream to azubu.
If people would use what they have on their shoulders it should be pretty easy to find a line. Are you a professional streamer who has a contract with streaming platform B but your brand is advertise on streaming platform A. Platform B buys for your brand exclusivity if B cant get that B wont pay money in the future.
B says that they have exclusivity, does DCMA etc.
Now Riot looked at this and sees that there is a stream clearly advertising the product (its name) on competitor plattform if Azubu doesnt renew sponsorship deal all KeSPA will suffer under it. Just because a few people are too lazy, too dumb to read the official streaming schedule from KeSPA or are too lazy to use the spectate feature by themself.
=> Riot protects its professional players and the only thing it "takes away" is the automatic process of fakers games streamed. You can still access them over op.gg
btw.welcome to the real world where sponsorship deals matter
|
Welcome to the real world, kids.
|
Bottom line, spectate bronze 5 streams are still gucci. Seriously does anyone want the MRiYE stream? AD Katarina god from bronze 5?
|
Richard Lewis' response on Reddit to Tryndamere:
For the most part you just looked absolutely clueless to what the discussion was actually about.
The fact so much of this ruling focuses on "harassment" doesn't really show that you've grasped the real issue still. Constant appeals to people's emotions - framed as "how would you feel if" - are ultimately childish, which at least shows an awareness of the audience you primarily cater to.
The things people wanted clarity on are missing from this statement, unless they were so deeply embedded in the emotional nonsense that my brain blocked it out. Namely, I see these things as:
1) How will you be able to justify and explain issuing a copyright notice to one party saying they can't stream gameplay of a specific individual while simultaneously adopting the stance that it's OK to stream your own and the gameplay of other individuals as long as it isn't "targeted?"
2) What actually constitutes "fair use" by your own definitions?
3) What is going to happen regarding opt-outs, if anything? We need to know the specifics of what happens if someone doesn't want to be featured in a stream at all, let alone if they play with popular streamers who have tens of thousands of viewers.
4) Where do we draw the line on what constitutes harm? Even by Riot standards these definitions are incredibly vague.
Ultimately for all the rhetoric and requests for empathy we have ended up with a situation where Riot can and will pursue takedowns of streams they deem to be "harmful" on a case to case basis. This is incredibly vague and should be worrying for people who may walk this line. Even if Riot were egalitarian and ethical in their approach to matters of business, this system will invariably throw up inconsistencies and leave you open to claims of bias. In reality I am sure the verbiage in this post is done deliberately to give you that leeway.
Also, you have framed this ruling in a way that makes it look about protecting individual rights, which it might to some degree, rather than protecting the rights of your professional players and business partners, which is ultimately the bigger concern to you. There's no need for such smoke and mirrors. We all get it. The needs to placate those parties are far greater than the needs to placate people that have no leverage.
I think many of us would also like to know how you will act against business / broadcasting partners that issue erroneous DMCA takedowns against your self-proclaimed "valued" community members in future.
As for the apology about lessons learned I don't think you realised exactly how ridiculous you came across, not only in your lack of understanding of the mechanics of streaming - one of major contributors to your game's popularity - but also to what genuinely constitutes harassing behaviour. You shouldn't just be apologising to the person you slandered with your comments but also the many people who have endured such harrowing experiences that you've basically equated to being the same as being spectated while playing a game.
Long and the short of it, this needed to be about copyright, not sermonising about feelings. Therefore you're still guilty of trying to leverage people's emotions to deflect the fact that some people will consider what you're doing to be wrong and that it is at odds with your "community friendly" image. You can't have your cake and eat it. You want to act like a parental figure while presenting the guise of being an equal and a friend. It doesn't work like that and on a matter of this importance - we're talking about an e-sports landmark here - you should simply be honest about having to bite the bullet of making an unpopular decision because it's good for business.
and he wonders why Riot never invites him to their parties lel
|
idk I think the last paragraph mirrors my feelings
|
I mean its true. no one is denying riot has the legal right to do this, but they always try to manipulate public opinion in their favor. because perception is so important to them and their business. The fact that azubu had to go crying to business partners to go crying to someone with legal authority in order to shut down the stream should speak about their willingness to improve their service and product. The azubu streams with fakers face, reactions and music were less popular than a bot streaming the spectator client of fakers games. More content was shunned because azubu is such a bad service. Thats really the problem with spectatefaker, it exposed just how bad azubus service is. and they did not want it.
just saying, we're doing this for business and because its monetarily the best decision, i mean some people may not like it, but its at least honest.
|
So, Trick2G doesnt do spectates anymore and has to implement a system where people sign to agree being spectated on stream with commentary.
Kind of lame what this whole Kespa complaint brought with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
