they are being way too soft on this guy. he's not a content producer just disrupting the property rights of actual content producer in riot's little market.
(yes i know riot owns the thing but property rights here mean ability to exclusively offer something within the riot made market)
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
this is hilarious. actual owner of the game having to defend itself against redditors who think a restreamer is justice and opportunistic 'journalist' trying to get some clicks.
My whole thing is that it was targeted towards a specific person consistently. Besides from what I have heard the guy was using some third party script to track down the games Faker was playing in. I think Riot should just ban the use of such scripts so people can't specifically use spectate mode to watch them play and avoid their streams or w/e. Riot did handle the whole thing badly though, the president was pretty unprofessional about it and should not have jumped the gun so soon and so hard. Would have saved him from making a fool of himself.
On February 28 2015 11:28 BrownBear wrote: 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
this is hilarious. actual owner of the game having to defend itself against redditors who think a restreamer is justice and opportunistic 'journalist' trying to get some clicks.
What does that even mean? How is posting a Reddit comment trying to get clicks and as far as I know The Daily Dot doesn't pay per click anyway so I doubt he cares.
Are people just plain not reading the article? I know it's not hip to do so anymore.
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.
Systematically streaming spectator mode of each of Faker’s games (rather than a few sporadically) on a rival platform understandably lessens the value of his partnership with Azubu...
To give just one, SaltyTeemo ... 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.
(Emphasis mine.)
This is different from SaltyTeemo, Trick Specs, or the featured games list. You can stream spectator mode to your hearts content. But you can't run an automated stream focused on one player, unless that player is okay with it.
Question: When you sign a streaming contract with one of these sites, (twitch, azubu, etc.) what are you specifically signing the rights to? The ability to earn revenue entirely off your namesake?
Azubu filed a DMCA takedown on The SpectateFaker stream because they felt it violated their intellectual property rights regarding their ownership of faker's sole rights to stream. As a lawyer explained in a dailydot article linked below, Azubu of course does not own League of Legends which invalidates their complaint. This is where I am confused; Did Azubu file a complaint about the rights to stream with faker's namesake or his gameplay? (obviously everyone is implying that it was his gameplay, which would obviously make their claim false. ) Now it becomes even less clear to me, if Azubu filed the complaint regarding using his namesake, would the complaint not be valid?
In the article the lawyer Bryce Bates mentions something about the specifics of streaming contracts-
The only likely conflict between SpectateFaker’s actions and Azubu’s rights is the use of the name Faker. Azubu undoubtedly was granted personality rights to use Faker’s name in connection with his stream, and SpectateFaker is using that name to promote his stream. That being said, it wouldn’t make sense for Azubu to have exclusive rights to use the name Faker—if it did, Faker’s named couldn’t be used in connection with any other promotions, competitions, etc. Azubu is far more likely to have exclusive rights to use of Faker’s name with respect to each individual streaming session. Those rights aren’t impacted by SpectateFaker.
This is where I get a bit lost. What is the explicit differentiation between using faker streaming his gameplay under his contract which gives him rights to his individual streaming session, and spectatefaker or any other channel streaming using his namesake to stream?
More to the point. Shouldn't this conversation be more focused on streaming contracts rather than riot? Riot really has the right to do anything they want regarding individuals streaming their game anyway.
On February 28 2015 12:40 PrinceXizor wrote: 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.
please stop posting false stuff. Spectatefaker wasnt more popular than the real stream.
I am just glad that they are not doing anything to the spectator mode. I would have been so mad if spectator mode was affected because some people are too stupid to use op.gg and need someone to stream it for them.
On February 28 2015 11:28 BrownBear wrote: 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
this is hilarious. actual owner of the game having to defend itself against redditors who think a restreamer is justice and opportunistic 'journalist' trying to get some clicks.
What does that even mean? How is posting a Reddit comment trying to get clicks and as far as I know The Daily Dot doesn't pay per click anyway so I doubt he cares.
uh why do you think i was referring to his reddit postings? he and a few others were drumming up controversy and outrage over a nonissue.
On February 28 2015 12:40 PrinceXizor wrote: 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.
From my perspective this was the right thing to do and they explained why. It may very well have been best for business too, but frankly I don't the relationship with Azubu played a role here in the slightest. It isn't uncommon that the right thing to do is best for business. I don't care about the well-being of Azubu, but I just can't fathom why people think it is ethically acceptable to use someone's name to promote a product (whether it makes money or not is irrelevant).
I don't get what the fuzz is about... A company made a deal for the rights of a player's sstream. Someone else started streaming games of said player without his consent. The company complains... Riot stands with the company instead of the random guy streaming Faker's games without permission. I don't understand what needs to be discussed here...
On February 28 2015 12:40 PrinceXizor wrote: 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.
From my perspective this was the right thing to do and they explained why. It may very well have been best for business too, but frankly I don't the relationship with Azubu played a role here in the slightest. It isn't uncommon that the right thing to do is best for business. I don't care about the well-being of Azubu, but I just can't fathom why people think it is ethically acceptable to use someone's name to promote a product (whether it makes money or not is irrelevant).
I agree with this.
The one thing I will add that I feel Riot handled poorly was Tryndamere's personal approach to responding to these issues on Reddit prior to Riot's official response. I understand that he was well-intentioned, but in this case it probably only served to fan the flames, and probably caused quite a few people in the community to react to Riot's official response with more skepticism than if he had posted nothing at all leading up to the official announcement. More than anything, I feel this is in large part responsible for the negative feeling toward Riot's response. Had Rioters simply stayed away from the pitchforking till now, the response to this likely would have been much calmer.
On February 28 2015 12:40 PrinceXizor wrote: 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.
From my perspective this was the right thing to do and they explained why. It may very well have been best for business too, but frankly I don't the relationship with Azubu played a role here in the slightest. It isn't uncommon that the right thing to do is best for business. I don't care about the well-being of Azubu, but I just can't fathom why people think it is ethically acceptable to use someone's name to promote a product (whether it makes money or not is irrelevant).
I agree with this.
The one thing I will add that I feel Riot handled poorly was Tryndamere's personal approach to responding to these issues on Reddit prior to Riot's official response. I understand that he was well-intentioned, but in this case it probably only served to fan the flames, and probably caused quite a few people in the community to react to Riot's official response with more skepticism than if he had posted nothing at all leading up to the official announcement. More than anything, I feel this is in large part responsible for the negative feeling toward Riot's response. Had Rioters simply stayed away from the pitchforking till now, the response to this likely would have been much calmer.
yeah agree with that also that bullying phrase was weird.
"look guys, Azubu paid a lot of money to get exclusive rights to Faker and this stream is undermining that deal. In the interest of teams being able to acquire sponsors moving foreword we need to show that we are willing to protect the deals our teams make, so that they in turn can provide for their players."
the whole e-stalking, cyberbully buisness might as well just say
"hey, we don't think you guys are smart enough to get it, so we're going to lie to your face, deal with it."
it's insulting, not that that matters how I feel in the big picture, it's still the correct choice for them to cut the stream off. But I'm just annoyed as a customer/fan that they can't be real with me.
I'm just happy that Riot cleared up the DMCA issue and told Azubu that they had no right to issue that complaint. False DMCA complaints really bother me, especially since those who issue them rarely get called out for them, much less held legally accountable for them.
I'm still concerned that some people over on reddit thought that SpectateFaker was somehow fair use because he wasn't making any money off of it. Yes, that's one of the factors in the fair use test, but it's highly unlikely that the rest of the factors would cut in favor of the stream operator.
EPT
