|
On April 03 2012 04:06 imCookies wrote:
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.
That wouldn't fall under fair use as outlined by DMCA, most video games have very lenient policies to encourage people to use their content as they don't have anything to gain from trying to profit off videos of their game themselves - it's a totally different concept.
On April 03 2012 04:06 dUTtrOACh wrote:
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.
Streaming the music is distribution (how do you think it gets to your computer?), it doesn't matter if the source material was bootleg or not.
|
So, I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet (if they have I'm sorry, I skimmed the thread), but yes, the streaming sites can and will take down some streamers for copyrighted content. Recently, a Tribes: Ascend streamer, AnarchyAO, had his stream taken down for 24 hours as a result of playing copyrighted music (iirc it was the song from Space Jam). However, I don't know if the really popular streamers such as SC2 and LoL streams would get taken down for such a thing, as so far it appears they haven't.
|
On April 02 2012 20:00 Rannasha wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 17:15 nalgene wrote:
Does anyone stream the audio as lossless and use lossless to begin with...? All of them just use 256 or 320... so they aren't making a reproduction of the material... Just because you're not making a bit-for-bit copy of the source material doesn't mean you're not reproducing it. You can drone on about minute technical details like (re)compressing the audio changing it and such, but that's never ever going to hold up in court. Fact is that you're broadcasting someone elses work for commercial purposes (either your own or Twitch's) without permission. Copyright holders can act on that. They haven't so far (except for very high profile streamers perhaps), because the loss of goodwill and required effort don't outweigh the benefits.
Since when does inferred common sense have any place in a courtroom? Plenty of cases have been weighed in favor of those who focus only on those minute differences. It's why guilty people get away free and innocent people pay the price - it's not about common sense it's about which lawyer can navigate through technicalities better.
|
On April 03 2012 10:35 Zdrastochye wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 20:00 Rannasha wrote:On April 02 2012 17:15 nalgene wrote:
Does anyone stream the audio as lossless and use lossless to begin with...? All of them just use 256 or 320... so they aren't making a reproduction of the material... Just because you're not making a bit-for-bit copy of the source material doesn't mean you're not reproducing it. You can drone on about minute technical details like (re)compressing the audio changing it and such, but that's never ever going to hold up in court. Fact is that you're broadcasting someone elses work for commercial purposes (either your own or Twitch's) without permission. Copyright holders can act on that. They haven't so far (except for very high profile streamers perhaps), because the loss of goodwill and required effort don't outweigh the benefits. Since when does inferred common sense have any place in a courtroom? Plenty of cases have been weighed in favor of those who focus only on those minute differences. It's why guilty people get away free and innocent people pay the price - it's not about common sense it's about which lawyer can navigate through technicalities better.
People with absolutely no clue about the law or the court systems need to stop giving legal advice on this thread.
|
On April 03 2012 14:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 10:35 Zdrastochye wrote:On April 02 2012 20:00 Rannasha wrote:On April 02 2012 17:15 nalgene wrote:
Does anyone stream the audio as lossless and use lossless to begin with...? All of them just use 256 or 320... so they aren't making a reproduction of the material... Just because you're not making a bit-for-bit copy of the source material doesn't mean you're not reproducing it. You can drone on about minute technical details like (re)compressing the audio changing it and such, but that's never ever going to hold up in court. Fact is that you're broadcasting someone elses work for commercial purposes (either your own or Twitch's) without permission. Copyright holders can act on that. They haven't so far (except for very high profile streamers perhaps), because the loss of goodwill and required effort don't outweigh the benefits. Since when does inferred common sense have any place in a courtroom? Plenty of cases have been weighed in favor of those who focus only on those minute differences. It's why guilty people get away free and innocent people pay the price - it's not about common sense it's about which lawyer can navigate through technicalities better. People with absolutely no clue about the law or the court systems need to stop giving legal advice on this thread.
he's right though, law is technicality. few cases are actually argued on the merits, most of it is argued on procedural missteps or loopholes. And in several cases both sides have a valid legal stance, using precedent.
|
I think its time for more freedoms including freedoms to play music in a stream as some background !
Its time for another tea-party and this time we should throw lawyers and financial vampires into the sea at Boston 
Yeah and sometimes laws are shit and need to be altered or removed.
|
On April 03 2012 15:00 polysciguy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 14:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 03 2012 10:35 Zdrastochye wrote:On April 02 2012 20:00 Rannasha wrote:On April 02 2012 17:15 nalgene wrote:
Does anyone stream the audio as lossless and use lossless to begin with...? All of them just use 256 or 320... so they aren't making a reproduction of the material... Just because you're not making a bit-for-bit copy of the source material doesn't mean you're not reproducing it. You can drone on about minute technical details like (re)compressing the audio changing it and such, but that's never ever going to hold up in court. Fact is that you're broadcasting someone elses work for commercial purposes (either your own or Twitch's) without permission. Copyright holders can act on that. They haven't so far (except for very high profile streamers perhaps), because the loss of goodwill and required effort don't outweigh the benefits. Since when does inferred common sense have any place in a courtroom? Plenty of cases have been weighed in favor of those who focus only on those minute differences. It's why guilty people get away free and innocent people pay the price - it's not about common sense it's about which lawyer can navigate through technicalities better. People with absolutely no clue about the law or the court systems need to stop giving legal advice on this thread. he's right though, law is technicality. few cases are actually argued on the merits, most of it is argued on procedural missteps or loopholes. And in several cases both sides have a valid legal stance, using precedent.
1) Arguing the validity of evidence is the only thing you can do. That is arguing the merits of the case. That's the nature of prosecution and defence, or plaintiff and defendant. The accuser presents evidence, the defender says why that evidence is not applicable.
2) Procedure is in place to prevent tampering with evidence. If the procedure was not followed to a high degree, there is no way it should be admissible in a court room.
3) "Loopholes" is a way of complaining about decisions you don't like. The Law is designed to be extremely specific, and if it's not, then there was a failure during the creation of that law. If it's ambiguous, then once again, a failure in the creation. The law cannot, and will not, be defined what random people "feel" is right. You cannot be found guilty of something that is not covered by the law, or something that is explicitly exempted by the law.
4) Criminal law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Copyright infringement is civil. That means you only need to prove it is more likely that you are right. That means that a "glove not fitting" scenario is absolutely impossible in civil suits.
5) Multiple cases have already made it absolutely clear that some bullshit about "audio shifting" does not hold up in court.
|
So I've seen a lot of talk in this thread about how in some way someone streaming music while they play a game is hurting some artist struggling to make a living. I feel like this needs to be grounded in a little more reality, because a lot of this is pushed via the labels claiming piracy as the culprit. While piracy may contribute to some loss in sales I think the bigger picture is that piracy has far less effect then people trying to police it would lead you to believe. So some simple facts...
- There is absolutely 100% no way any streaming service could afford to pay for every possible song some random person may play. If at any point in time copyright holders started to put pressure on streaming services, the likely scenario would be...
Streaming services buy the rights to cheap (bad elevator music) and or list free use music selections for streamers, and that would be all that's allowed to be played. Don't believe me, look at YouTube as a perfect example, and YouTube is making quite a bit more money then any streaming service.
- Debut album sales, and physical sales of music, along with overall album sales are down for many good reasons that have nothing to do with piracy.
a. More and more people are listening to their music in only digital formats, thus removing the need for a physical copy of the music.
b. More and more often debut artists are terrible, many of times it's the music industry throwing someone out there trying to capitalize on a music fad. So people are less willing to blow money even digitally on an unproven artist.
c. Why buy an entire album, when now thanks to the digital age you can spend 2 dollars on iTunes, get the 2 songs you want and not the other 12 that are terrible.
d. With everything being digital, in regards to debut albums...many of times the songs have been on the internet for free before they got added to a debut album. Which will of course hurt sales...and by free I don't mean through piracy. I mean someone created song X, put it up for free, it got popular they got signed, song got put in the debut album. Everyone already got it from the artist for free and doesn't need to buy it.
a and c in my opinion being the largest reasons you see sales going down, especially considering it's extremely rare an entire album is worth listening to. The only difference is in today's digital age you don't have to buy all 15 songs on a disc to listen to the 2 you feel like hearing.
- Does any of this mean piracy is ok, or good? No of course it doesn't, if you enjoy an artists music you should go and buy the few songs you like off iTunes or whatever, then when they come to your town pony up to see them live.
To the point of the topic after that is said...
Does a guy playing a video game streaming music contribute to lost sales and piracy?
I think the answer would be a resounding no, because not one person turned on that stream to listen to whatever random music selection the streamer was going to listen to in the first place. Does that mean if you like their music it may make the stream more enjoyable for you...sure. Would you still watch if they played something you were not as fond of 'probably. So preventing them from listening to music would not serve any purpose.
Is random struggling artist X going to be hurt by someone listening to them while they stream?
Highly doubt it, if anything they will probably benefit because if the streamer is someone who gets thousands of views...people just may like this person and never have heard them otherwise. Then turn around and go out and buy the artists music. Why else do you think a lot of the 'indy' artists actually promote sharing their music? It's because it's the best way to get their name out and eventually get signed to make 'the big bucks'.
What if anything needs to be done about streamers listening to music over their stream?
In my opinion nothing needs to be done...nobody is streaming a 'radio station' if they were they would get turned off and ban by the services. Unless of course they had permission and had paid to do so in the first place. There is absolutely no way you are going to prove with any conclusive data that someone doing something not related to music while streaming music is hurting an artist.
|
So, say your in your car, and you listen to music that you bought. But then you offer to drive your friends to the airport, for a small fee of 10 dollars. Should you be allowed to distribute copyrighted music to your friends? you might just break the law by playing music to your friends, that they are not entitled to.
|
I think streamers should only play music that they know they are allowed to play (creative commons or some other free distribute license, paid license, or a permission from the artist).
I'm all for loosening copyright laws concerning private use, but playing music on an internet stream is not private use. Public use should always happen only with the consent of the copyright owner.
This is quite interesting topic, and I've been wondering the same as the OP ever since I saw streaming becoming popular. Interesting to see how this develops.
|
On April 03 2012 19:06 KenZo- wrote:
So, say your in your car, and you listen to music that you bought. But then you offer to drive your friends to the airport, for a small fee of 10 dollars. Should you be allowed to distribute copyrighted music to your friends? you might just break the law by playing music to your friends, that they are not entitled to.
Bad comparison. The radio channel has paid all relevant licensing fees for the type of broadcast that they do, including it being played in a taxi. The streamer did not. With Grooveshark or similar service, you have a license for personal use only, not for distribution.
|
On April 03 2012 19:39 Rannasha wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 19:06 KenZo- wrote:
So, say your in your car, and you listen to music that you bought. But then you offer to drive your friends to the airport, for a small fee of 10 dollars. Should you be allowed to distribute copyrighted music to your friends? you might just break the law by playing music to your friends, that they are not entitled to. Bad comparison. The radio channel has paid all relevant licensing fees for the type of broadcast that they do, including it being played in a taxi. The streamer did not. With Grooveshark or similar service, you have a license for personal use only, not for distribution.
Depends in what country you are, seeing your from The Netherlands then your right, but in a lot of country's (UK, Ireland, Italy, Belgium etc) taxi's need to pay a fee to turn on radio, dont know about US though but it's a matter of time other country's will follow, and it should be required cause why would taxi drivers be allowed to play music for free to their customers but any other business is not?
A diner has to pay for exposing music to their customers, a barber has to pay, even freaking daycare's need to pay so why not taxi drivers?
|
Like others mentioned, if sc2 streamers have music on it's most likely good for the music industry. It's probably one of the best types of advertising per listener/viewer they can get, and they don't even have to pay for it.
However, it's not legal in most countries for sure, which brings up the question if they would silently "approve" by not doing anything about it. According to this thread at least some labels don't approve, it might be stupid but businesses never act perfectly optimal and the music industry isn't exactly known for having good business strategies.
There are literally thousands of artists etc that would love to get some exposure through streamers and there are probably many labels that would want their music to be played on streams as well. Question is how often it's legally viable and how artists and labels could be made aware of it. To state the obvious, artists that are dying to get exposure can't get it from streamers if they don't know about the streamers and if the streamers don't know about the artists.
As for the legally viable part, I could try to bring it up with for example Robyn's label Konichiwa Records but odds are they have distribution contracts etc that makes it difficult. Especially since, as far as I know, there is no way for streamers to pick what countries the streams can be viewed from.
I'd be willing to put some time in for this if people are interested in getting "legal music" for streams by looking for artists etc that want free exposure but I can't spend 12 hours a day on it.
|
On April 03 2012 21:30 Akta wrote:
Like others mentioned, if sc2 streamers have music on it's most likely good for the music industry. It's probably one of the best types of advertising per listener/viewer they can get, and they don't even have to pay for it.
That or it's horrible advertisement and they don't want to portray their music as being listened to by "a bunch of nerds".
IT'S THEIR DECISION, NOT YOURS.
Are you going to not only tell people what's best for their product advertisements, but also advertise them?
Maybe I should start re-streaming entire feature-length films, because I believe word-of-mouth will help the movie's cause in selling more.
|
Hey guys, my channel recently got shutdown for 24 hours due to this "DMCA" violation. All I was doing was playing league of legends while listening to Pandora. Is pandora not allowed to be on while streaming? :/
|
On July 01 2012 07:04 smoothmaydie wrote:
Hey guys, my channel recently got shutdown for 24 hours due to this "DMCA" violation. All I was doing was playing league of legends while listening to Pandora. Is pandora not allowed to be on while streaming? :/
I was actually about to post a similar question. If Pandora/Grooveshark have the rights to be streaming this music, and you stream Pandora, it's essentially the same as your viewers listening to Pandora/Grooveshark, no? o_O I wonder how that works.
|
On July 01 2012 07:10 Pokebunny wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 07:04 smoothmaydie wrote:
Hey guys, my channel recently got shutdown for 24 hours due to this "DMCA" violation. All I was doing was playing league of legends while listening to Pandora. Is pandora not allowed to be on while streaming? :/ I was actually about to post a similar question. If Pandora/Grooveshark have the rights to be streaming this music, and you stream Pandora, it's essentially the same as your viewers listening to Pandora/Grooveshark, no? o_O I wonder how that works.
When I first started streaming, that's what my thought process went like. I'm assuming an artist that stumbled upon the stream heard a track that belonged to him/company, and filed a report. Or something a long the lines of that. I listen to a lot of underground/not as well known artists. I'm a little irritated because I can't contact twitch/justin.tv support because it won't even let me log onto my account while the 24h ban is on. I really hope it was just a misunderstanding. Bah.
Edit: I'm even more irritated because twitch.tv sent me an e-mail about the DMCA with two short 40 second clips from my broadcast which was the supposed violation, but when I go click play on the videos it won't let me view them because the channel is suspended for 24 hours. Talk about being trolled on a profesional scale.
|
Dominican Republic275 Posts
On July 01 2012 07:10 Pokebunny wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 07:04 smoothmaydie wrote:
Hey guys, my channel recently got shutdown for 24 hours due to this "DMCA" violation. All I was doing was playing league of legends while listening to Pandora. Is pandora not allowed to be on while streaming? :/ I was actually about to post a similar question. If Pandora/Grooveshark have the rights to be streaming this music, and you stream Pandora, it's essentially the same as your viewers listening to Pandora/Grooveshark, no? o_O I wonder how that works.
No, it is not the same. When you do that you enter the "broadcasting" territory. And the same way a bar would have to, you'd have to pay a "broadcasting" fee.
Simpler way to explain.
1 stream = 1 account on grooveshark playing. Thus the revenue for 1 listener
No music on the stream = X account on grooveshark playing; add revenue for X for Grooveshark and thus for the music company.
|
It's ridiculous how big music industry would be able to bully regular streamers because they don't have the money to spend on courts and lawyers, even though it's fair use and should be legal.
|
Dominican Republic275 Posts
Fair use is a very foggy territory and you often have to fight in court to actually know if you were under the protection of the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
