|
On February 13 2012 10:12 Spieltor wrote:
the music they;re broadcasting is of low quality and mixed with game sounds, therefore it has no fidelity and as such can be considered as not breaching copyright due to it being completely inferior and unusable for other applications.
This is completely false and would never hold up if it ever came to court. Streaming copyrighted content is not legal, period. The only reason people still do it is because there is almost no rebuttal on streamers yet because as much as we hate to hear it, streaming and sc2 in general, are very small fish. Which, if given enough time, copyright enforcement WILL come after eventually.
|
On February 13 2012 10:16 stork4ever wrote:
The real question is: how will this affect kpop on the koreans and huk's stream???!!!!!
Same as every other music on every other stream. Unless they have permission from the authors (which I highly doubt) it isn't legal. It is however legal for HuK to link his Grooveshark Playlist to his viewers and have everyone tune in.
|
On February 13 2012 10:17 Wroshe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 10:16 stork4ever wrote:
The real question is: how will this affect kpop on the koreans and huk's stream???!!!!! Same as every other music on every other stream. Unless they have permission from the authors (which I highly doubt) it isn't legal. It is however legal for HuK to link his Grooveshark Playlist to his viewers and have everyone tune in.
I think this will be the best approach for streamer to take. I am pretty sure that viewers won't mind if they really appreciate the music.
|
On February 13 2012 10:11 Lord_J wrote:
They're not immune to it. For that matter, everyone watching the stream is arguably liable under U.S. law. Also, if they view a copyrighted website, such as teamliquid.net while streaming, they are potentially infringing that copyright as well, as are all their viewers.
I wish them good luck with arguing that. Whether the guy I'm watching has a valid license is nigh-on impossible for me to figure out and depending on what streaming service I am using (Own3d is Austrian) they might not even be based in the United States.
On February 13 2012 10:12 Spieltor wrote:
the music they;re broadcasting is of low quality and mixed with game sounds, therefore it has no fidelity and as such can be considered as not breaching copyright due to it being completely inferior and unusable for other applications.
That's false and you will be laughed out of the court.
|
Not sure RIAA etc has influence over twitch yet. I'm sure the time is coming. But honestly it's pretty hard to enforce - even idra and stephano reach maybe 10000 people on their best best days. Most popular streamers get a couple thousand, most regular streamers get a few hundred or less... not to mention that the audio in the vod is mixed with game sounds and even commentary/keyboarding.. Pretty flimsy case in court IMO.
Copyright reform needs to happen though. The industry just can't run this way anymore, claiming they own the "information" and anyone who reproduces it for free is "stealing" and anyone who plays it without permission is "infringing". Do you think UKF Dubstep is mad about all the traffic Idra sent them? Of course not, it was free publicity for them. If only the larger record labels could see the new way for the new industry instead of trying to use their lawyers to try to force the old way for the old industry.
|
It's not allowed, It's never been allowed, though tbh the feds have other things to do than sue streamers. I'm in law school looking to go into IP litigation >.>
|
On February 13 2012 10:26 Badfatpanda wrote:
It's not allowed, It's never been allowed, though tbh the feds have other things to do than sue streamers. I'm in law school looking to go into IP litigation >.>
Yes, the Feds would rather take Twitch and other streaming websites down entirely.
|
I have original beats that I make for a living and would like to offer streamers some copyright free beats if they are worried about this.
|
The biggest organizations like dreamhack probably pay royalties or whatever deals they make.
It feels somewhat safe to guess that in most cases streamers having music on works like free advertizing and is good for the music industry. But that doesn't make it legal or even that the so called music industry is ok with it.
In an ideal world the music industry would try to profit from things like streamers which could mean that using background music would be free or free up to a certain amount of profit for streamers making money on their streams with some fee after that or whatever.
But it seems like today the music industry is so big and so extremely complex that it's hard to create new models. And the industry doesn't seem to want systems for areas where they don't have any regardless if it would be profitable or not, since they always appear against basically everything.
|
Its kind of a sketchy topic. I really don't think the actual broadcasting it would be the illegal part. I think its when people record their broadcasts or go to upload those broadcasts because then technically you are distributing copyrighted content. THIS could be really illegal. If you do not record or upload your broadcasts then its kind of hard for anyone to sue anyone over material that cannot be listened to again after one time. For evidence sake if someone really wanted to sue you and you didn't record any broadcasts aka VODs with the music on then someone would literally have to sit down and record your broadcast and argue that in some way you are distributing the music illegal with game sounds and your voice talking about Sc2 on top of it.
I CAN see it being really illegal and possibly worth sueing someone over (based on how big of a fish aka streamer you are) though if you are playing minute clips during breaks where there is no other sound and just the music playing.
|
On February 13 2012 10:22 Wroshe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 10:11 Lord_J wrote:
They're not immune to it. For that matter, everyone watching the stream is arguably liable under U.S. law. Also, if they view a copyrighted website, such as teamliquid.net while streaming, they are potentially infringing that copyright as well, as are all their viewers. I wish them good luck with arguing that. Whether the guy I'm watching has a valid license is nigh-on impossible for me to figure out and depending on what streaming service I am using (Own3d is Austrian) they might not even be based in the United States. Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 10:12 Spieltor wrote:
the music they;re broadcasting is of low quality and mixed with game sounds, therefore it has no fidelity and as such can be considered as not breaching copyright due to it being completely inferior and unusable for other applications. That's false and you will be laughed out of the court.
its the same reason audio streaming sites get to stream music to you and not get shut down.. herp.
|
Not legal it's copyright infringement but my generation waits until we get a letter before recognizing that. 
|
A lot of misinformation in this thread. Unless they have personal permission from the copyright holders it is an infrengment of copyright and thus breaking the law. It doesn't matter if its low quality, it doesn't matter if its not being used for profit, it doesn't matter if you are putting sound or video over it, and it doesn't matter if its a stream or a download.
The thing is I don't think RIAA is too worried about streams right now. Its not really like the streamers would pay for the broadcast rights if that was thier ownly choice, and the watchers aren't going to not buy songs/records if they hear it on the stream because they can easily replay that song at any time for themselves in any reasonable fassion. In fact it probably is a very good source of advertisment. Its basically the entire theory behind pandora and last.fm. Meanwhile there are tons of torrent and youtube type of sites to worry about where music is easily obtained in the best form most people need so they are plenty distracted by that.
I like to use video game music from other games instead. Its still copyright infringement, but no one seems to try at all to protect copyright of video game music in any form. Add it to the non care of streamers and you are really safe.
|
While you could sue for copyright infringement, any copyright holder who does probably won't win. There are number of things you need to prove in court to get the copyright enforced, one of which is that the person using it is using to derive a financial benefit, <i>usually at the expense of the copyright holder</i>, though it doesn't necessarily have to be.
More to the point, you can compare streamers playing music to bars and restaurants playing music. Bars and restaurants play music over the radio all the time but are never sued, partially because the music is only arguably used to make money - at a bar music is used to improve atmosphere and attract customers, not really any different from the way streamers do it. There is no competition between bars/streamers and copyright holders in music. In fact, it's even arguable, though it's not a very strong argument, that the exposure is good for the copyright holder; people who are in a different market from music (gamers and bar patrons, for example) are getting cross-market exposure to a product they aren't seeking out, making it potentially advantageous to the copyright holder that their music is being played.
tl;dr: technically streamers playing music borders on copyright infringement, but streamers have no money anyway and copyright holders gain nothing by suing them.
|
On February 13 2012 10:58 Vindicate wrote:
While you could sue for copyright infringement, any copyright holder who does probably won't win. There are number of things you need to prove in court to get the copyright enforced, one of which is that the person using it is using to derive a financial benefit.
Not true. See Jammie Thomas-Rasset.
|
On February 13 2012 10:07 SarkON wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 10:04 Resilient wrote:
There is absolutely nothing legal about it. The only reason streamers are getting away with it is because broadcasting video games with music is very small fish compared to the other wars copyright infringement law enforcement is fighting at the moment.
It won't last, and smart people (like Tyler) play their music but don't stream it, leaving the stream empty for you to play your own music instead. The last Home Story cup featured some pretty damn good music (Bob Marley, AC/DC among many others). And IMO they can't be considered "very small fish" since the streams peaked at around 60K viewers. So, there's no control at all, that's what you're saying? Don't get me wrong, I love watching streams with awesome music, I just fear for what might happen to them if this is in fact ilegal.
I imagine ESL has permission and pays royalties in some form because they use all kinds of music on all their shows and casts, a company as long standing as ESL is not stupid enough to have their company bankrupted over something some stupid. Take's channel is part of the ESL network and therefore would be covered by the same licensing deal.
The only reason why they haven't gone after streamers yet is probably because the music isn't the main focus of the broadcast, people don't tune in to listen to the music in other words. It won't last long tho. If i worked at twitch et al, I would be looking in to how much it would cost to pay royalties and allow streamers to play whatever they wish on stream, if its viable they could deduct a small amount from each partner's earnings to pay for it
|
Lord_J
Kenya1085 Posts
On February 13 2012 10:22 Wroshe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 10:11 Lord_J wrote:
They're not immune to it. For that matter, everyone watching the stream is arguably liable under U.S. law. Also, if they view a copyrighted website, such as teamliquid.net while streaming, they are potentially infringing that copyright as well, as are all their viewers. I wish them good luck with arguing that. Whether the guy I'm watching has a valid license is nigh-on impossible for me to figure out and depending on what streaming service I am using (Own3d is Austrian) they might not even be based in the United States.
Copyright infringement is strict liability in the U.S. It doesn't make any difference if it was completely accidental and you had no way of knowing the content was infringing, you're still liable (issues of jurisdiction and choice of law aside). I'm not one of those who thinks copyrights shouldn't exist, but when you look at the specifics, copyright law is very broken imo. It's basically impossible to do anything on the internet without potentially infringing someone's copyright.
|
United States12261 Posts
Streaming copyrighted music on your personal stream is not legal and violates copyright law. Furthermore, Twitch.tv has a very clear stance on the matter. For example, this forum thread: http://community.justin.tv/forums/archive/index.php/t-2116.html
It stipulates that the copyright holder must file a takedown notice, at which point Twitch will comply and notify you either with a warning to cease disseminating copyrighted material or that your channel is banned. The copyright holders thus far have just not gone after most streamers probably because the streams that have tens of viewers have such low public visibility.
|
On February 13 2012 11:04 emythrel wrote:
The only reason why they haven't gone after streamers yet is probably because the music isn't the main focus of the broadcast, people don't tune in to listen to the music in other words. It won't last long tho.
Eventually if SC2 keeps getting bigger and bigger they may take notice to the most popular streams, especially ones that stream things like the entirity of the latest soundtrack of some big artist. I doubt they would do anything to really hurt the streamers beside taking them down, but if they want to make sure thier backlog stays up like Day 9 might, they might consider changing things as far as the music they stream.
|
On February 13 2012 10:58 Vindicate wrote:
While you could sue for copyright infringement, any copyright holder who does probably won't win. There are number of things you need to prove in court to get the copyright enforced, one of which is that the person using it is using to derive a financial benefit, <i>usually at the expense of the copyright holder</i>, though it doesn't necessarily have to be.
More to the point, you can compare streamers playing music to bars and restaurants playing music. Bars and restaurants play music over the radio all the time but are never sued, partially because the music is only arguably used to make money - at a bar music is used to improve atmosphere and attract customers, not really any different from the way streamers do it. There is no competition between bars/streamers and copyright holders in music. In fact, it's even arguable, though it's not a very strong argument, that the exposure is good for the copyright holder; people who are in a different market from music (gamers and bar patrons, for example) are getting cross-market exposure to a product they aren't seeking out, making it potentially advantageous to the copyright holder that their music is being played.
tl;dr: technically streamers playing music borders on copyright infringement, but streamers have no money anyway and copyright holders gain nothing by suing them.
Not really. Often times it's not whose proving something but who can afford to prove something. Do these streamers have $200,000 to prove they are right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
