EPTOn March 01 2015 06:04 ricecake wrote:
Why would they say that? This isn't about Azubu. This is about player protection.
Why would they say that? This isn't about Azubu. This is about player protection.
Protection from what?
Riot's official statement regarding SpectateFaker - Page 3
| Forum Index > LoL General |
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
Protection from what? | ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
From affecting and/or endangering their livelihood; streaming deals are enormously important for teams and players. It is a huge problem for Faker, by extension SKT, and by extension Azubu, if he can't provide the value that he is getting paid for. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On March 01 2015 18:08 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: From affecting and/or endangering their livelihood; streaming deals are enormously important for teams and players. It is a huge problem for Faker, by extension SKT, and by extension Azubu, if he can't provide the value that he is getting paid for. Legitimate points, but I'm pretty sure this guy means protection from something less defined and incoherent like bullying and creepy factors. | ||
|
Zess
Adun Toridas!9144 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
ricecake
152 Posts
Legitimate points, but I'm pretty sure this guy means protection from something less defined and incoherent like bullying and creepy factors. No, as mentioned explicitly in the article, SpectateFaker dilutes Faker's brand. His brand and his gameplay are his two best assets. SpectateFaker is a competing stream which is using both of those. Not sure why you think the first amendment applies here... | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
Dakure
United States513 Posts
On March 02 2015 04:51 cLutZ wrote: Because if, as you say, faker is a celebrity, then his ingame activities are newsworthy. Just like George Clooney getting off a plane. Well, George Clooney getting on a plane would be similar to Faker getting on a plane. Spectating Faker and streaming those games is more like following Clooney around while he's filming a movie, recording the scenes yourself, and posting it on YouTube. | ||
|
eieio
United States14512 Posts
On March 01 2015 04:26 TheYango wrote: 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. I found Tryndamere's tweets on the issue absolutely bizarre. For the most part I think Riot is in the right here and that ESEX's line "Is it really so wrong for me to stream all of someone’s games without their consent to tens of thousands of people on a rival streaming platform?" is a pretty good summary of the situation. But what in the world was Tryndamere thinking? My understanding is that in any situation with potential legal issues anyone at a company, no less the founder, shouldn't comment without a lawyer's approval. So the idea of saying anything off the cuff, regardless of what he ended up saying, is already really dumb. The fact that he ended up saying some blatantly incorrect things and insulted SLL was just icing, and seems to be what turned Reddit on Riot. I don't think "Tryndamere called SLL a bully so now he's gonna try to keep the stream up despite Faker's request to take it down" is remotely valid or a reasonable way of thinking, but it's exactly what I read many times in the various SpectateFaker threads. Anyway glad to have this wrapped up, I'm still bewildered that it became such a huge issue but that's Reddit and the internet these days I guess. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On March 02 2015 05:57 Dakure wrote: Well, George Clooney getting on a plane would be similar to Faker getting on a plane. Spectating Faker and streaming those games is more like following Clooney around while he's filming a movie, recording the scenes yourself, and posting it on YouTube. And TMZ would do that, and there is nothing that could be done about it, if they weren't excluded using private property rights. | ||
|
eieio
United States14512 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
But yes, because TMZ does it its "ok" is a perfectly good legal justification in America and in California (in particular). | ||
|
eieio
United States14512 Posts
What TMZ does is shitty. Similarly, making a SpectateFaker stream without Faker's permission and streaming it on a competing website and not taking the stream down when Faker expresses that he doesn't like it is shitty. So Riot is going forward trying to take the stream down because it's shitty. Much like an actor/their agent/their studio might try to shut TMZ out. Like I don't understand what the argument here is. Just because SpectateFaker is legal doesn't make it ok. Just because something could be called 'harassment' and still be legal doesn't make it ok. Acting to prevent those things is completely fine. | ||
|
ricecake
152 Posts
The "leg" Riot stands on is the fact that they own the game and all derivative content. They could take down any stream, perma-ban any player, or have any Youtube videos removed just because they felt like it. Riot holds all the cards here legally. You can't argue that. There are no "free speech" rights; just like any of my posts on TL can be removed without violating my first amendment rights. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On March 02 2015 12:24 ricecake wrote: I agree with eieio, celebrity gossip and paparazzi should your moral baseline. Riot feels similarly, it seems. The "leg" Riot stands on is the fact that they own the game and all derivative content. They could take down any stream, perma-ban any player, or have any Youtube videos removed just because they felt like it. Riot holds all the cards here legally. You can't argue that. There are no "free speech" rights; just like any of my posts on TL can be removed without violating my first amendment rights. What I am saying is that no they couldn't. If you did a Sportscenter-like show on KR Soloqueue and ripped clips from the spectator client they could not take that down. | ||
JBright
Vancouver14381 Posts
| ||
|
eieio
United States14512 Posts
On March 02 2015 12:29 cLutZ wrote: What I am saying is that no they couldn't. If you did a Sportscenter-like show on KR Soloqueue and ripped clips from the spectator client they could not take that down. separate from the fact that, as JBright says, SpectateFaker isn't remotely similar to a Sportscenter-like show on KR Soloqueue, my understanding is that Riot absolutely could take that down. They can take down just about whatever they feel like. Just like OGN takes down all sorts of shit involving their content. I'm not sure where you get the idea that Riot couldn't take down your hypothetical show since, again, they really hold all the cards here. The fact that there are so many highlight videos on youtube and whatnot isn't proof that Riot can't take down that sort of content, it's evidence that Riot approves of that content and so they allow it to stay up. If that stance changed, or someone was uploading Faker vods to youtube and Faker wanted them taken down or something, you'd likely see the same takedown requests for those videos. Legality hasn't been a question outside of Azubu's invalid DMCA. The question is whether Riot pursuing a takedown of the stream is reasonable/justified. In my view while Tryndamere managed to bungle the situation beyond belief, Riot is absolutely in the right trying to take down a stream that restreams Faker's games against his consent. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
Regarding spectatefaker specifically, its true that that is not a first amendment fair use, so riot can take it down. The rest of the relevant discussion is about how Tryndamere is dishonest about his true motives and has toed the line of libel. And how Riot hasn't established any legal or interpretive rules that would reasonably inform people of what to do in the future. | ||
|
red_
United States8474 Posts
On March 02 2015 13:46 cLutZ wrote: With my specific show, the first amendment would render those takedown notices illegal. Regarding spectatefaker specifically, its true that that is not a first amendment fair use, so riot can take it down. The rest of the relevant discussion is about how Tryndamere is dishonest about his true motives and has toed the line of libel. And how Riot hasn't established any legal or interpretive rules that would reasonably inform people of what to do in the future. How would a show that gathered all of its content using the property of Riot games fall under first amendment rights? I'm legitimately interested right now, because that sounds crazy. SpectateFaker uses Riot's property to record Riot's video game(you playing it doesn't mean you created the content), not a camera recording real life. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
| ||
