|
On February 13 2012 11:04 emythrel wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 10:07 SarkON wrote: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.
I read something like this as well. ESL is paying GEMA royalties (the one you have to pay in Germany), and since Take (and HSC) are part of the ESL network they're included and are allowed to stream copyrighted (licensed under GEMA) music.
|
On February 13 2012 10:53 Spieltor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 10:22 Wroshe wrote: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. its the same reason audio streaming sites get to stream music to you and not get shut down.. herp.
Are you serious? Do you not understand how a licensing deal works?
Those streaming sites get to stream music because they pay a percentage to the labels.
|
I really like how Imba.tv showcases their streamed music. Often times, the host will give a shoutout to a lesser known band/artist who made a sick song/remix. I have found a lot of new music that way, not only from Imba.tv but I support their methods of streaming music.
|
I would think some artists would want to you feature their music tbh.
|
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.
Bars and restaurants which play music pay very hefty licence fees to be able to play the music which they do. If you ever go to bars which don't play music, you will often notice the drinks are significantly cheaper, and that is often down to the music fees, a great example is the Weatherspoons chain in the UK, no music and crazy cheap drinks.
I would suggest that now that streamers are making decent money, music rights holder will start demanding licence fees for playing music.
|
I didn't even think about music copyright issues with streaming until I read this topic. Though I don't think any legal action will result of this. Tracking down the songs that every stream is playing is quite difficult, because unlike youtube were it's so to speak "written in stone" when you post the video, the streams keep going. There is stream history, but they logs are typically massive and very long in duration.
|
Lol, this is a a hammer that will come down, it's just a question of when.
It's possible the streaming sites strike a licensing deal but it's far more likely they just ban the practice, and everyone will either stop playing music or switch to royalty free music.
|
There is no difference between a user stream and any other form of internet radio.
Internet radios have had a per-song-per-listener fee imposed on them not too long ago. Unfortunately internet activists were not as successful with that back then as they were with SOPA. If you want to get an idea of the cost involved, just go to somafm.com and see what kind of numbers they are asking for donations for each months.
Streamers not only owe that fee per listener, they also infringe on the license of whatever service they use to source the music I imagine.
EDIT: I guess the bill doesn't pass but there are royalty fees due non the less http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Radio_Equality_Act
I read something like this as well. ESL is paying GEMA royalties (the one you have to pay in Germany), and since Take (and HSC) are part of the ESL network they're included and are allowed to stream copyrighted (licensed under GEMA) music.
This is very likely correct.
|
Pretty sure Twitch shut Destiny's stream down on their site which is why he switched to Own3d could be wrong but im pretty sure thats what happened lol
|
Is it not true, that if they use a radio source they could bypass it that way? Streaming online radio can't be illegal can it since that isn't even your main content, and if ANYTHING its growing awareness for your product.
|
On February 13 2012 11:23 IFgogogosu wrote:
I would think some artists would want to you feature their music tbh.
Most do.
Unfortunately most artists don't own their music.
|
On February 13 2012 11:42 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Is it not true, that if they use a radio source they could bypass it that way? Streaming online radio can't be illegal can it since that isn't even your main content, and if ANYTHING its growing awareness for your product.
You basically become and online radio station yourself, which does not come royalty free.
|
|
|
This is teamliquid... Everyone knows everything.
Wasn't there a corresponding post by owner of Twitch TV discussing flatrates/progressive rates becasue everyone was switching to ow3nd?
|
On February 13 2012 11:42 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Is it not true, that if they use a radio source they could bypass it that way? Streaming online radio can't be illegal can it since that isn't even your main content, and if ANYTHING its growing awareness for your product.
No. Pandora, Grooveshark and all those other sites have a "do not rebroadcast" clause in their ToS.
|
|
|
I honestly don't see a problem with playing music on a stream. If anything it helps the band or artist reach a broader audience and I hope nothing negative comes of it. Lately I have become a fan of electronic music, which I never would have listened to without Day9 or some other streamers playing it.
|
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.
This is false. Or at least, attempting to prosecute someone watching a stream would be a new theory of liability under the Mill Act, as far as I know.
As for "viewing a copyrighted website", this is so terribly horribly wrong and retarded. Viewing a website, which is open to the public, is only infringement in the most inane interpretation of the act. Viewing a book... sure that's infringement (though likely fair use as long as it's only a page or so, viewed for a minute or two). Reproducing a website's content as one's own? Sure, that's infringement. Reading the same website, which has the same ads, on a stream? No. Just... no.
Also, the way to solve the problems people have been talking about, which is admittedly annoying, is basically to have a http://turntable.fm/ that the players link people to on their stream, and say "this is what I'm listening to." Really dumb, but it would accomplish the same thing.
|
|
|
You might be able to do that you won't like the price tag. I'll be highly surprised if it isn't a lot more expensive then your ad revenue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
