|
On April 02 2012 19:47 Vapaach wrote:
Complaining about how your stream got shut down and some others didn't is like complaining that you got caught from stealing from a shop but someone you know didn't. Well, at least in the eyes of the law that is.
When it becomes impossible to enforce a law across the board, its enforcement becomes selective. Selective enforcement is a notorious method of using laws to serve private interests. Pointing out that the law was brought down on one target but not another is a very good way of showing whether that law was intended to protect society or protect a few special interest groups.
|
On April 02 2012 20:40 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 19:47 Vapaach wrote:
Complaining about how your stream got shut down and some others didn't is like complaining that you got caught from stealing from a shop but someone you know didn't. Well, at least in the eyes of the law that is.
When it becomes impossible to enforce a law across the board, its enforcement becomes selective. Selective enforcement is a notorious method of using laws to serve private interests. Pointing out that the law was brought down on one target but not another is a very good way of showing whether that law was intended to protect society or protect a few special interest groups.
No, if it is impossible to enforce a law across the board, it simply is possible to get away with breaking it.
This doesn't automatically lead to selective enforcement. You are jumping to conclusions.
|
I've been studying Copyright Law for the UK and hopefully can enlighten you all a little.
A person or company who owns the copyright for a sound recording owns an exclusive bundle of rights. These include the right to copy, lend, hire, play in public etc.(Look at the back of a CD cover if you still have one). These can be sold or licensed as individual rights or as the entire bundle.
If another plays this copyrighted material in public then they have infringed the copyright of the owner. S20 of the Copyright and Patents Act 1988 prohibits the playing in public of copyrighted material without licence. This is a primary infringement and the infringer is strictly liable.
There are defences to primary infringement as below, but a streamer would not qualify IMHO.
Permitted Acts under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
Permitted acts include use of a work for:
Research or private study.
Criticism, review or reporting of current events provided it is fair dealing.
Incidental inclusion.
Things done for the purposes of instruction or examination.
Anthologies for educational use.
Copying by libraries and archives.
Anything done for the purposes of parliamentary or judicial proceedings.
Copying of material open to public inspection or on an official register.
There is also an offence of authorising infringement. A good example is a library with a photocopier. If a organisation supplies the copyright material (books) and means to copy (photocopier) and the medium on which the copy is made (paper) then they could be liable for authorising infringement for any primary infringement that is done using their equipment. The library must disclaim any liability by informing the users of its facilities that they can only do so for the reasons above, and that not doing so can lead to a primary infringement.
Though the streaming site doesn't supply the music it does supply the means to present the copyrighted music to the public could still be liable for this offence, so i would imagine they would inform new members of their site of any potential copyright pitfalls.
If for instance you own a Bar in the UK and want to play music. You can pay a liscence to an organisation. They will then distribute this as royalties to their members (copyright holders) and you have liscence to play the music in public.
Copyright infringment is a civil offence, and with all civil offences its enforcement boils down to the damage done and whether it is worth suing the offender. In most cases the answer is no with regards to the streamers. They have no money and they also give some artists valuable air time they would not usually get.
This is just a brief outline of the law in the UK and infringment is more complicated than this however I hope it helps!
|
Yeah, very complicated to uphold. A simple solution is for Twitch to pay the license akin to a bar.
I know technically DJ's have to apply for a license to play their own music despite a bar's license here in the UK, but it's a not very well upheld law seeing as how that is double licensing.
If you want free music to use and support a fellow SC2 players career just go here  http://soundcloud.com/eastmanmusic
|
I'm just so tired of all this 
When will people realize that when their shit gets spread they will make more money eventually. When people try to quantify certain numbers they refuse to consider situations that might not be quantifiable at this moment, so the comparissions they make to see how much they "loose" are almost always off.
This is a general issue in many organisations.
|
On April 03 2012 00:22 Kyuki wrote:I'm just so tired of all this When will people realize that when their shit gets spread they will make more money eventually. When people try to quantify certain numbers they refuse to consider situations that might not be quantifiable at this moment, so the comparissions they make to see how much they "loose" are almost always off. This is a general issue in many organisations.
You are right.
Even more, the copyright/troll patent industry in general must stop. It was good for the past centuries.
Regarding our own usages, it is not needed / what we want now.
|
^^ The problem is the people who are suiing for the money aren't making money from exposure, not many people are buying "catalog" songs, so they start to get greedy and get their money from other sources.
All the dying major labels need to somehow transition into the new reality and are having trouble with it.
|
I have no idea if it´s legal, but the safest way would be using internet radio I guess.
|
Most streamers use things like grooveshark and pandora anyhow to avoid that
|
On April 03 2012 01:15 MooMooMugi wrote:
Most streamers use things like grooveshark and pandora anyhow to avoid that
That doesn't avoid anything, you're breaking the license agreement by re-streaming off those services.
|
On April 03 2012 01:26 godulous wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 01:15 MooMooMugi wrote:
Most streamers use things like grooveshark and pandora anyhow to avoid that That doesn't avoid anything, you're breaking the license agreement by re-streaming off those services.
Yep, they are licensed on a per listener basis. Streaming to 5k people although there really is only one listener being tracked. Along with the streaming service only getting 1 ad hit while you get 5k ad hits.
Do you think streamers would like it if someone simply restreamed their broadcast? Maybe someone should do that and see how long they will last until they get upset about it.
|
On April 03 2012 01:26 godulous wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 01:15 MooMooMugi wrote:
Most streamers use things like grooveshark and pandora anyhow to avoid that That doesn't avoid anything, you're breaking the license agreement by re-streaming off those services.
That is true. However, it is likely not worth the time of the record lable file an complaint or injunction to stop the streamer. In the case of SC2 streamers who only listen to the music while they practice, they likely do not care or see it as free exposure to new listeners. It would be very different if SotG opened up with the licenced music they did not pay to use in that way. However, it does not fall under fair use if the streamer is making money from streaming. Even then, Twitch is broadcasting the restream of the music and they make money off of ads. But once again, I doubt it is worth the record label's time to take legal action.
The other thing that people need to understand is that the licence holders are not going to give formal approval for a streamer to use their music. By doing so, they weaken their ability to bring a claim later if they somehow object to the way the music is being used. This is how law works and there are times when it is better to not respond at all. By doing nothing, they lose nothing.
|
I think that streams where players talk over the music is fine, but when it's just the music that's probably pushing it a bit
|
to be honest i don't really think it's that big of a deal, nor should we really care if some think it is.
the digital rights industry is easily one of the most corrupt organizations in america. they aren't in it to protect the rights of musicians. they're in it to make a fat profit. they charge an arm and a leg to get their stupid little sticker of approval, and only intervene when its in their interest to do so.
yes, playing music on their streams is illegal. the better question is who cares.
|
On April 03 2012 00:02 Gupporium_Boerus wrote:
...
Permitted Acts under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
Permitted acts include use of a work for:
...
Incidental inclusion.
...
Interesting post. What does incidental inclusion mean?
|
On April 03 2012 00:18 GeNeSiDe wrote:Yeah, very complicated to uphold. A simple solution is for Twitch to pay the license akin to a bar. I know technically DJ's have to apply for a license to play their own music despite a bar's license here in the UK, but it's a not very well upheld law seeing as how that is double licensing. If you want free music to use and support a fellow SC2 players career just go here http://soundcloud.com/eastmanmusic
except that twitch is us based and falls under DMCA, not UK law. As long as twitch removes content at the request of the holder of the copyright, under DMCA, they are not liable for any infringement.
|
On April 03 2012 02:12 polysciguy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 00:18 GeNeSiDe wrote:Yeah, very complicated to uphold. A simple solution is for Twitch to pay the license akin to a bar. I know technically DJ's have to apply for a license to play their own music despite a bar's license here in the UK, but it's a not very well upheld law seeing as how that is double licensing. If you want free music to use and support a fellow SC2 players career just go here http://soundcloud.com/eastmanmusic except that twitch is us based and falls under DMCA, not UK law. As long as twitch removes content at the request of the holder of the copyright, under DMCA, they are not liable for any infringement.
This. What we should be arguing for is the nullification of any and all supposed "IP protection" laws for something a little more nuanced and less vague.
|
you should also consider the fair use policy that is implemented into the media sharing environment.
i have a very small youtube channel but i am still allowed to upload videos of gameplay.
fair use (if i remember correctly) allows the person to upload/broadcast copyrighted material with the implication that they will put their own review, content, or commentary as well (why game commentators can upload youtube vids of games and get paid) in a sense they are giving us some of themselves (in them using the game and talking, playing, etc) and therefore if may not be an issue after all.
correct me if im wrong, i am just making an observation.
|
The question is whether viewers are tuning in for the Starcraft 2 or the music. I feel they aren't watching these streams solely for access to copyrighted music, and since there is no file-sharing going on the holders of these copyrights are simply being self-entitled cunts. The person is streaming all sounds and video playing on their computer. There is no intent to distribute these copyrighted materials to the best of my knowledge and if the claim is copyright infringement by the streamer then it should be for illegal possession of these copyrighted materials, and not for playing these illegal/bootlegged MP3s on their stream. It's like the "copyright police" screwing people over for driving around with their windows down while listening to copyrighted materials. It's just stupid and abusive.
|
On April 03 2012 01:48 netherh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 00:02 Gupporium_Boerus wrote:
...
Permitted Acts under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
Permitted acts include use of a work for:
...
Incidental inclusion.
...
Interesting post. What does incidental inclusion mean?
For example, if you're walking around with a camera and happen to walk by an area that has a radio playing, the music in the background is completely incidental.
Essentially, as long as there was absolutely no intention for the copyrighted material to be in your content, then you have a fair use claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
