|
On February 13 2012 13:34 Corran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 12:40 Drmooose wrote:
So is there a way to broadcast in game sounds and not the background music?
Tyler does it. He often streams and has it so the viewers dont hear his music. So it is possible. Not sure if it requires a 2nd sound card or something though...
Usually a USB headset acts as its own soundcard so you can just set your streaming program to only take the sound from your main card. Now the issue with that is that you won't be able to hear the game sounds, so then you need VAC (Virtual Audio Cables) to plum the game sounds in to your headset.
You can go the other way too, have game sounds direct to headset and music playing on main soundcard. Have xsplit only pick up the headset sound and then plum the music in to your headset with VAC.
|
On February 13 2012 13:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:
The artists don't give a crap about music piracy and illegal streaming because they see almost no music sales in the first place, because all the labels abuse their accounting practices and contract terms to avoid paying anyone a dime.
It's the labels that care, because that's where they're milking all their profits from.
Pls don't talk like you actually know what you are talking about. Artists get paid very well, the problem is that record labels often put clauses in to the contracts that force new artists to pay back a % (and sometimes the entirety) of the money spent developing the artist, promotion campaigns and live shows. All in all, you have to sell a lot of records/downloads before you start to see the money as an artist. This is what is known as risk avoidance, it costs a lot of money to take an artist from a nobody to a star.
Big artists like Foo Fighters, Areosmith et al, all make very good money from record sales but where they really make their money, as do all performers is by playing live. Tours are where the money is, you release an album so you can tour and make lots and lots of money off it
|
there is no difference between you listening to the music yourself and listening to someone else listen to the music...i dont understand why people view this as wrong.
|
On February 13 2012 13:41 Jerdin wrote:
there is no difference between you listening to the music yourself and listening to someone else listen to the music...i dont understand why people view this as wrong.
Newsflash: there is a big difference. You listening to my Grooveshark through my stream means that Grooveshark only pays the artist for me listening and not for you.
|
On February 13 2012 13:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:
The artists don't give a crap about music piracy and illegal streaming because they see almost no music sales in the first place, because all the labels abuse their accounting practices and contract terms to avoid paying anyone a dime.
It's the labels that care, because that's where they're milking all their profits from.
This is pretty short sighted. Sure artists get paid very little in royalties, possibly none at all, but if the lable didn't see any sales they wouldn't have had the money to hire the artists in the first place, and if the music doesn't sell well as a result of piracy, the label has no reason to keep those artists on for any further creations.
If the label didn't help artists at all, artists would never sign with them.
|
On February 13 2012 10:17 Resilient wrote: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. 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.
It may not be legal, however, its also possible they dont care. if the copyright owner doesnt care, its for all intents and purposes legal
My solution is, keep streaming with music, because its legal as long as they let you do it.
Then, if the owner of the copyrighted material requests you stop, you stop.
The fact is it is not legal for the copyright owner to get mad at you for BROADCASTING anything before they told you to stop. because JUST BECAUSE something is copyright doesnt mean you knew they didnt want you to do it, so you have legal rights in this regard.
if they tell you to stop broadcasting their stuff, then you stop. at that point broadcasting their stuff becomes totally illegal.
but before that point, they havnt said anything yet, so how the hell are you to know that they dont want you to do it?
legally, its pretty much a toss up in court. The copyright owner cant get mad at you just cuz you were streaming some stuff that you thought maybe they wouldnt care that you were streaming. because many times the copyright owner doesnt care, and theres no problem
also to continue on this subject for anyone interested
currently its accepted that downloading music illegally is against the law,
however many constitutional lawyers have actually looked at those laws and said hey, wait up, this is actually unconstitutional because if you steal a CD, you stole a CD, and if you burn a CD and sell it your making a proffit off someones music, however if someone just downloads a CD that doesnt matter because no one was using that music to make money
some constitutional lawyers are coming out and fighting copyright cases by saying when you have the copyright to something you have the right to be the only one allowed to do business and make sales and make profits with that material. so if someone does business with your songs and sells them illegally, you can sue them.
but the constitutional lawyers are saying that even downloading illegal music may actually not be against the law because technically if there was no business being done and no proffit earned by any party, then there was no breach of copyright law
so both sides of the issue may have a point. and the truth is, as far as broadcasting is concerned, id say just do it until asked to stop, because the way things are going downloading copyrighted music may actually turn out to be legal, then that means probably broadcasting it is as well, so just do it until asked to stop
|
Here is what I dont understand.. If i have a party with 100 people over and i charge 5 bucks a head.. then I play music on my computer with pandora is that copywrite infringement? I am asking because this is in the same boat. If i have 1 or 2 friends watching me play sc2 at my home.. while i have pandora going on then its the same thing as if I am streaming with music on. MAYBE someone can explain that to me? wrong or not I am using a internet servers that ANYONE can use.. and when I BUY my own CDs you cant tell me how to listen to my CDs because if we are arguing over this I could be a Driver for my job .. so I am making money while I drive and have my music blasting so others can hear it right? then I am now against the law because of Copywrites the way some people are explaining it... There are to many Grey areas here...
|
On February 13 2012 13:41 Jerdin wrote:
there is no difference between you listening to the music yourself and listening to someone else listen to the music...i dont understand why people view this as wrong.
Its wrong because with that logic you reduce it to its ok for there to be exactly one sale and have that one guy share it with millions of other people. The artist then only sees one dollar dispite it being a smash hit. You might as well argue that music should be avilible for free however you want it over the internet and have the artists make money on concerts, but in that world there would be no advertising from the labels that make thier money from record sales and licence fees and thus it would be harder to fill the seats at the various concerts. There would certainly still be music, but I don't think the true rockstars could exist anymore and without that the dream is a lot less lucrative, so you see less aspiring artists and the ones that are like that aren't quite as motivated to work hard at it.
It would be like the difference between korea and america in starcraft where in korea everyone has legitiment hopes to be one of the few to become hugely successful doing it, while in america even if you are the best you can't get more then a modest living and some internet stardom.
|
On February 13 2012 14:35 thepotatoman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 13:41 Jerdin wrote:
there is no difference between you listening to the music yourself and listening to someone else listen to the music...i dont understand why people view this as wrong. Its wrong because with that logic you reduce it to its ok for there to be exactly one sale and have that one guy share it with millions of other people. The artist then only sees one dollar dispite it being a smash hit. You might as well argue that music should be avilible for free however you want it over the internet and have the artists make money on concerts, but in that world there would be no advertising from the labels that make thier money from record sales and licence fees and thus it would be harder to fill the seats at the various concerts. There would certainly still be music, but I don't think the true rockstars could exist anymore and without that the dream is a lot less lucrative, so you see less aspiring artists and the ones that are like that aren't quite as motivated to work hard at it. It would be like the difference between korea and america in starcraft where in korea everyone has legitiment hopes to be one of the few to become hugely successful doing it, while in america even if you are the best you can't get more then a modest living and some internet stardom.
music stars will ALWAYS exist
music stars will always be a part of modern big city human culture,
in many ways, music stars were the first ever type of super celebrity to exist in modern culture (stuff like the Beatles, super mega music stars im talking about)
as of now, music mega stars will ALWAYS exist, so even if everyone quit making music tomorrow, music stars would rise the next day because new people will make new music and if theres no stars SOMEONE is going to end up getting most of the spotlight and be the new set of stars
so im just correcting that one part of your argument.
as for music sales and the morality of downloading music is concerned, all that pretty much is different from person to person on how each person views what the right way to treat it should be
|
it is illegal but no one is going to do anything about it cause it is good for the artists, unless for some specific reasons, they won't do anything about it.
only big labels could do something, but these small artists? don't think so...
|
On February 13 2012 14:34 SeizeTheDay wrote:
Here is what I dont understand.. If i have a party with 100 people over and i charge 5 bucks a head.. then I play music on my computer with pandora is that copywrite infringement? I am asking because this is in the same boat. If i have 1 or 2 friends watching me play sc2 at my home.. while i have pandora going on then its the same thing as if I am streaming with music on. MAYBE someone can explain that to me? wrong or not I am using a internet servers that ANYONE can use.. and when I BUY my own CDs you cant tell me how to listen to my CDs because if we are arguing over this I could be a Driver for my job .. so I am making money while I drive and have my music blasting so others can hear it right? then I am now against the law because of Copywrites the way some people are explaining it... There are to many Grey areas here...
If you are really curious you can do some searches for "Public Performance" on this pdf right here in the lawbook itself: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf
To perform or display a work “publicly” means—
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place
where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family
and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the
work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device
or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the per-
formance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the
same time or at different times.
(C) Notwithstanding the grant of an exclusive or nonexclusive license
of the right of public performance under section 106(6), an interactive
service may not publicly perform a sound recording unless a license has
been granted for the public performance of any copyrighted musical work
contained in the sound recording: Provided, That such license to publicly
perform the copyrighted musical work may be granted either by a per-
forming rights society representing the copyright owner or by the copy-
right owner.
I don't want to do this to scare you away from doing things that likely isn't going to get you in trouble, but copyright law interests me, and I'm just trying to give the facts. I'm not a lawyer nor do I wan't to be so if you want to get even deeper and more accurate you would read all of the exceptions detailed and all of court decisions that define things like "normal circle of social acquaintances".
|
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 copyrighted content 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.
And honestly I think that's the best choice, not just because of the potential legal implications, but everyone has a different taste in music, so having just the game sound lets you have your own soundtrack.
|
Maybe it's time that TeamLiquid draft up a common pool of loyalty-free music and artists that provide explicit broadcast permissions to esports.
|
On February 13 2012 14:40 roymarthyup wrote:
music stars will ALWAYS exist
music stars will always be a part of modern big city human culture,
in many ways, music stars were the first ever type of super celebrity to exist in modern culture (stuff like the Beatles, super mega music stars im talking about)
as of now, music mega stars will ALWAYS exist, so even if everyone quit making music tomorrow, music stars would rise the next day because new people will make new music and if theres no stars SOMEONE is going to end up getting most of the spotlight and be the new set of stars
so im just correcting that one part of your argument.
as for music sales and the morality of downloading music is concerned, all that pretty much is different from person to person on how each person views what the right way to treat it should be
I agree, just like starcraft players exist in america, but the more lucridive the reward, the bigger the potential talent pool and the larger the effort and thus things bump up to the next level.
I mean surely there will be less money and less advertising overall in the music industry if no one ever paid for any sort of licence. Word of mouth and concerts can only get you so far or else no one would ever sign with a label and labels wouldn't spend so much on thier various forms of advertisments.
|
On February 13 2012 15:04 CrazyF1r3f0x 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 copyrighted content 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. And honestly I think that's the best choice, not just because of the potential legal implications, but everyone has a different taste in music, so having just the game sound lets you have your own soundtrack.
I wish twitchtv could work out a way to legally play music through the stream, where you could enable/disable it and the streamer could hear it either way in full quality.
|
This is pretty much the height of ridiculousness as far as copyright law goes. Streaming music can only be good for the artists, and yet the RIAA is dumb enough to think it's a good idea to shut down all of it and try to get the popular streamers to pay for it. In return for chump change, the artists that the RIAA supposedly represents will get magnitudes less exposure.
The music industry as a whole is so short-sighted.
|
Quick question: If the music you stream is distributed by the artists for free, it's technically not copyright infringing, right?
|
On February 13 2012 09:52 SarkON wrote:
Greetings TL community.
I've been kind of wondering for a while now: what about copyrighted music on all the professional SC2 players and tournaments streams? (such as HomeStory cup)
Copyright laws vary by country. In the USA, at least, all re-streaming is a violation of copyright in some way. If you buy an mp3 off Amazon.com or itunes, you don't have the right to restream it to an audience, even for non-commercial use (the line on this is fuzzy; you're obviously allowed to play it for your "friends", but random people on the Internet may or may not be "friends"). Similarly the TOS for Pandora or Spotify does not grant the listener the right to restream. Grooveshark is a little different but my guess is restreaming is also not licensed.
In practice, it's not clear anyone cares. Technically any restaurant that plays music from an ipod or the radio is violating copyright. But record labels don't go after random bars or restaurants. Certainly if you're not making money on streaming your SC2 stream, it's unlikely that the RIAA would come after you. But is at least possible, and perhaps more likely if you're running commercials.
|
On February 13 2012 15:29 Keltanokka wrote:
Quick question: If the music you stream is distributed by the artists for free, it's technically not copyright infringing, right? Even if it is, if the artist distributes it for free then it's fine, they won't care. Stop when they start charging though.
|
On February 13 2012 15:28 Sway.746 wrote:
This is pretty much the height of ridiculousness as far as copyright law goes. Streaming music can only be good for the artists, and yet the RIAA is dumb enough to think it's a good idea to shut down all of it and try to get the popular streamers to pay for it. In return for chump change, the artists that the RIAA supposedly represents will get magnitudes less exposure.
The music industry as a whole is so short-sighted.
holy crap, thats a good way of putting it
in actuality, having the streamers stream music not only helps the artist, but it ALSO increases the popularity of the music meaning it will definitely generate more money for the music company as well
in fact, the music company is hurting their own profits by trying to shut down streaming music on game streams......
i think once the music companies start realizing this, hopefully by having people on their executive boards that arent stupid, they will actually encourage streamers to stream music because if the streamer picks THEIR music to stream, it increases their popularity and their sells
so in reality, the music company should be happy that the streamer picked their music instead of someone elses music to promote
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
