|
On April 01 2012 13:16 Ghost.573 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2012 10:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 01 2012 10:50 Rockztar wrote:
I don't know if this counts in Starcraft, but I used to watch a lot of Rock Band/Guitar Hero vids. Obviously this is known copyrighted music being published in video, but there was some sort of rule that if the music was disrupted by something(such as drumming on the Rock Band drum kit) it would be allowed, so that the music wasn't sounding like "originally". I guess it could be like this as well in SC2 that as long as you can hear the SC2 game sounds over the music it could be allowed. I'm not entirely sure who decides this however. ...that rule does not exist. It sounds like something a highschool kid made up. Rock Band and Guitar Hero videos are also copyright infringing, they're just overlooked. Unless the videogame licenses actually allow 3rd party broadcasting, but that's extremely doubtful. No its true lmao... thats why on youtube people slightly slow down or speed up a song. Its not the original and thus the artist does not own it.
Uh...no, it's not. Even if slowing down a song to 0.999 of it's original speed actually makes it a new song, Copyright includes the creation of Derivative works.
If you can't play a song (with your own singer and band) without getting a license and explicit permission, you sure as hell can't add a keyboard tapping and pretend that what you're doing is legal.
Stop making up rules that don't exist. Ignorance of the law will not protect you from the consequences.
|
If anybody needs legal advice for music industry stuff, I would be more than willing to help!
|
On April 01 2012 14:58 iAmiAnC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2012 13:52 Stropheum wrote:
Streamers make significantly less ad revenue for streaming copyrighted music. That's why destiny stopped playing anything with a copyright a few months back. So no, they're not immune. source?
Baseless claim, he got DMCA'd a few times though which is much more likely the cause.
|
On April 01 2012 13:04 GhostLink wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2012 12:55 askTeivospy wrote:On April 01 2012 12:52 GhostLink wrote:
I honestly hate copyright laws in general. AS Anonymous said, intelligence and information should not count as property. Once information is out in the public, anyone who wants can recreate it, and there are no physical boundaries stopping one, but these laws. The media manufacturing giants fail to create a free usable distribution platform, so it is their fault, and copyright laws are just an excuse. well if intelligence is free for everyone, why give mine to someone who didn't earn/work/create/deserve it? Altruism is overrated I mean this is why we resisted SOPA/PIPA in the first place, come on guys!
Uh, no it´s not...
|
Probably been posted but.
Technically: If a copyright holder of some music you are playing asked for your stream to be shut off for playing their music. Twitch, ownd, or whoever would have to turn the stream off.
Reality: Thus far the copyright police have not been as active about it in regards to background music on live streams 'yet'. That doesn't mean they'll continue to not police it forever, just that so far they haven't.
Ways around it???? Debatable, there is lots of arguments about what is actually a clear cut violation and what is not. If you disputed a claim because you were listening to music and a company saw it and launched a complaint. There is the possibility they'd back down rather then spend money to fight with you over it when they have bigger fish to fry. There is also the possibility they wouldn't.
|
On April 01 2012 18:32 Nerski wrote:
Probably been posted but.
Technically: If a copyright holder of some music you are playing asked for your stream to be shut off for playing their music. Twitch, ownd, or whoever would have to turn the stream off.
Reality: Thus far the copyright police have not been as active about it in regards to background music on live streams 'yet'. That doesn't mean they'll continue to not police it forever, just that so far they haven't.
Ways around it???? Debatable, there is lots of arguments about what is actually a clear cut violation and what is not. If you disputed a claim because you were listening to music and a company saw it and launched a complaint. There is the possibility they'd back down rather then spend money to fight with you over it when they have bigger fish to fry. There is also the possibility they wouldn't.
"Ways around it???? Debatable"
Yes, lets discuss fucking other businesses/sports/arts over.
"there is lots of arguments about what is actually a clear cut violation and what is not."
Yes... playing copyrighted music without paying, is it really that bad?? hm? not paying the artists or lables? Probably just fine, they don't need money like the rest of us, they eat on magic bread & milk. No problem.
"There is the possibility they'd back down rather then spend money to fight with you over it when they have bigger fish to fry."
Indeed, so lets just fuck people over. Because they don't have the manpower/money to fight against us. So we can continue raping people until we get noticed.
"There is also the possibility they wouldn't."
Yup, so lets just continue rapeing people until somebody notice us doing it, then we will stop... ofc, we didn't really think it was wrong all along.
|
On April 01 2012 18:50 RoyAlex wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2012 18:32 Nerski wrote:
Probably been posted but.
Technically: If a copyright holder of some music you are playing asked for your stream to be shut off for playing their music. Twitch, ownd, or whoever would have to turn the stream off.
Reality: Thus far the copyright police have not been as active about it in regards to background music on live streams 'yet'. That doesn't mean they'll continue to not police it forever, just that so far they haven't.
Ways around it???? Debatable, there is lots of arguments about what is actually a clear cut violation and what is not. If you disputed a claim because you were listening to music and a company saw it and launched a complaint. There is the possibility they'd back down rather then spend money to fight with you over it when they have bigger fish to fry. There is also the possibility they wouldn't. "Ways around it???? Debatable" Yes, lets discuss fucking other businesses/sports/arts over. "there is lots of arguments about what is actually a clear cut violation and what is not." Yes... playing copyrighted music without paying, is it really that bad?? hm? not paying the artists or lables? Probably just fine, they don't need money like the rest of us, they eat on magic bread & milk. No problem. "There is the possibility they'd back down rather then spend money to fight with you over it when they have bigger fish to fry." Indeed, so lets just fuck people over. Because they don't have the manpower/money to fight against us. So we can continue raping people until we get noticed. "There is also the possibility they wouldn't." Yup, so lets just continue rapeing people until somebody notice us doing it, then we will stop... ofc, we didn't really think it was wrong all along.
Now now calm down, there are various reasons that companies don't go for the direct end user such as bad press and how little there is to gain (although it might seem ironically contradictory to numbers of "lost sales" they pull out of their asses everytime they try to lobby for something).
Recently they seem to be trying to go after intermediaries like file sharing sites and ISPs (much more to gain), which they're probably focusing a lot on which doesnt give them much resources to go after every individual user.
|
It functions as radio, to advertise music. I wonder how many people have bought albums due to music they first heard through a stream.
|
The poll's missing an option. There's quite a bit of good Creative Commons -licensed music available online and people could play that too. They'd have to give playlist links to comply with the terms of most of those licenses though.
Don't really care so much, but I'm pretty sure this won't go unchecked by the music industry forever. They've just not yet become aware of this.
|
On April 01 2012 18:56 Soleron wrote:
It functions as radio, to advertise music. I wonder how many people have bought albums due to music they first heard through a stream.
No it does not. Radio pays money to have the rights to play/broadcast the songs they play. Twitch.tv does not.
Now, after that is said, yes it does funcion as some kind of advertisement... as in nobody knows the artist name or the tracks name of what being played, or even how to get it. Brilliant, just magnificent advertising!
|
On April 01 2012 18:59 nighcol wrote:
The poll's missing an option. There's quite a bit of good Creative Commons -licensed music available online and people could play that too. They'd have to give playlist links to comply with the terms of most of those licenses though.
Don't really care so much, but I'm pretty sure this won't go unchecked by the music industry forever. They've just not yet become aware of this.
The bare minimum of a CC license generally requires acknowledgement of the creator. Doubt streamers would bother with the effort. Would be funny to see how streamers become part time DJ's doing intros to each song though.
|
Streaming blizzard content in itself is probably ground for copyright infringement, no? Fortunately it's not really worth going after, and the notion of individual streamers paying royalties for music is completely unrealistic.
On April 01 2012 19:03 RoyAlex wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2012 18:56 Soleron wrote:
It functions as radio, to advertise music. I wonder how many people have bought albums due to music they first heard through a stream.
No it does not. Radio pays money to have the rights to play/broadcast the songs they play. Twitch.tv does not. Now, after that is said, yes it does funcion as some kind of advertisement... as in nobody knows the artist name or the tracks name of what being played, or even how to get it. Brilliant, just magnificent advertising!
I've discovered plenty of music all thanks to sc2 streams. 
|
On April 01 2012 19:04 S_SienZ wrote:
The bare minimum of a CC license generally requires acknowledgement of the creator. Doubt streamers would bother with the effort. Would be funny to see how streamers become part time DJ's doing intros to each song though.
Yeah, which was why I said they would have to make playlists available. My interpretation is that it would be enough and they wouldn't need to actually announce the song. You could even have a bot posting them automatically into the chat if a playlist isn't enough. (or if it really, really has to be embedded in the video, it's completely doable but I doubt that...)
I suspect this this will eventually be solved by some sort of a licensing deal where twitch/0wned pay for the streamers to be able to play whatever they want though.
|
On April 01 2012 18:54 S_SienZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2012 18:50 RoyAlex wrote:On April 01 2012 18:32 Nerski wrote:
Probably been posted but.
Technically: If a copyright holder of some music you are playing asked for your stream to be shut off for playing their music. Twitch, ownd, or whoever would have to turn the stream off.
Reality: Thus far the copyright police have not been as active about it in regards to background music on live streams 'yet'. That doesn't mean they'll continue to not police it forever, just that so far they haven't.
Ways around it???? Debatable, there is lots of arguments about what is actually a clear cut violation and what is not. If you disputed a claim because you were listening to music and a company saw it and launched a complaint. There is the possibility they'd back down rather then spend money to fight with you over it when they have bigger fish to fry. There is also the possibility they wouldn't. "Ways around it???? Debatable" Yes, lets discuss fucking other businesses/sports/arts over. "there is lots of arguments about what is actually a clear cut violation and what is not." Yes... playing copyrighted music without paying, is it really that bad?? hm? not paying the artists or lables? Probably just fine, they don't need money like the rest of us, they eat on magic bread & milk. No problem. "There is the possibility they'd back down rather then spend money to fight with you over it when they have bigger fish to fry." Indeed, so lets just fuck people over. Because they don't have the manpower/money to fight against us. So we can continue raping people until we get noticed. "There is also the possibility they wouldn't." Yup, so lets just continue rapeing people until somebody notice us doing it, then we will stop... ofc, we didn't really think it was wrong all along. Now now calm down, there are various reasons that companies don't go for the direct end user such as bad press and how little there is to gain (although it might seem ironically contradictory to numbers of "lost sales" they pull out of their asses everytime they try to lobby for something). Recently they seem to be trying to go after intermediaries like file sharing sites and ISPs (much more to gain), which they're probably focusing a lot on which doesnt give them much resources to go after every individual user.
What? Sure they get bad press from going after end users, and they would rather go after file sharing sites. And nobody cares about the sales that would never happen, but people care about the sales that might have happend. The record companies are just exaterating, just like everyone else would/does.
But does that matter? Not paying for copyrighted music is wrong! That's all there is too it. Twitch.tv should set up some form of business plan that can sustain every party. Not just themselfs (obviously), and the broadcaster (clealy they need to satisfy their own service users, so they will use the service) but also third parties like music, picture, video artists etc.
And the third parties get so forgotten because nobody cares about bob the music artist, only nada the progamer and twitch the supporing Esports company.
|
The world would stop turning if laws were followed to the letter.
|
The benefits of copyright law to the actual artist are very debatable though.
Imagine if you were an upcoming new artist, with nothing close to a loyal following who would confidently pick up your next EP. You're gonna need as much exposure as you get. Plus, artists generally get a very small share of record sales. They make most of their money off concerts, personal endorsements etc.
One of the strongest anti-copyright arguments esp in the music industry is that it is merely a way for record label companies to stay relevant in an age where they are no longer as necessary to the production and distribution of music in the digital age.
|
I don't care about that and I prefer streamers to stream without music, so I can use my own music, because the chance I would like theirs is pretty little. Example, Incontrol listens to terrible, terrible music for me, but he commentates sometimes, so, I either have to put up with this, or not listen him at all. Both cases aren't optimal for me.
|
And the third parties get so forgotten because nobody cares about bob the music artist, only nada the progamer and twitch the supporing Esports company.
you are right... everytime i am forced to hear a lady gaga song I take a deep breath and mourn her for having to live in utter poverty
Tbh most of the time I hate the music on streams. So you actually want me to pay for music i dont want to hear?
I just want to see NaDa the Progamer. I dont care about Bob the Artist because i dont like his music at all. But im forced to hear it if i want to hear the commentary.
|
On April 01 2012 19:35 Charon1979 wrote:Show nested quote +And the third parties get so forgotten because nobody cares about bob the music artist, only nada the progamer and twitch the supporing Esports company. you are right... everytime i am forced to hear a lady gaga song I take a deep breath and mourn her for having to live in utter poverty Tbh most of the time I hate the music on streams. So you actually want me to pay for music i dont want to hear? I just want to see NaDa the Progamer. I dont care about Bob the Artist because i dont like his music at all. But im forced to hear it if i want to hear the commentary.
You don't need to pay anything, but Twitch.tv does, if they want streamers to also stream music.
And again we are not talking about Gaga, but Bob. One of artists that does not belong in the top 1% which recives an ridiculous amount of money, but rather lives in the middle range and actually will severely notice if the paycheck don't come in this month.
|
On April 01 2012 19:17 RoyAlex wrote:
But does that matter? Not paying for copyrighted music is wrong! That's all there is too it. Twitch.tv should set up some form of business plan that can sustain every party. Not just themselfs (obviously), and the broadcaster (clealy they need to satisfy their own service users, so they will use the service) but also third parties like music, picture, video artists etc.
There's so much more to it than "it's just wrong!". Copyright is not a concept that is so morally obvious even if the industries relying on it really do all they can to make everyone to think they are no different to property rights. But what the streamers are doing is (currently) illegal and certainly will have to find a make this work with the current law if the viewership keeps growing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
