Music copyright issue. Are streamers immune to it? - Page 6

On February 13 2012 10:16 stork4ever wrote:
The real question is: how will this affect kpop on the koreans and huk's stream???!!!!!

A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
So boiling it down, there are the four variables.
A. Number of vehicles
B. Probable rate of failure
C. Average out-of-court settlement
X. Cutoff number for a recall

Following the narrator's math, X<A*B*C or Recall<Vehicles*Probability*Settlement

Sounds terrible and mathematical right? If a business does this, we should boycott their clearly unethical behavior, right? Well, legally, this is not only ethical, but legal and expected behavior from any person.

Welcome, to the wonderful world of negligence law. In particular, the formula the narrator describes is a rephrased version of the "Calculus of Negligence" or Hand Test. Now, lawyer's typically aren't good at math, so leave it to them to make a very basic Algebraic formula "Calculus." Here there are three variables:

B. Burden of taking Precaution
P. Probability
L. Loss

Applied, this formula comes out as B<P*L or Burden<Probability*Loss.

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.

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.

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?

On February 13 2012 18:10 tdt wrote:

Sure the artists care. Artists would be starving artists (like most are) if the labels didnt spend millions on them in production advertizing and promotion to make them popular. They may break even on that end after paying back the label, but the millions made from concerts would be no shows without the label in the first place. If labels can't make money due to piracy they stop sponsoring artists and nothing will be made so they do care. Many artists have sued to protect thier works most notably Metallica.

And the labels care as you note to get a return on their investments, since most are busts they go after their used content with vigilance and I don't blame them.

On February 13 2012 18:28 Rannasha wrote:


That depends on the license under which the music was distributed. Music may be available for free from the artists website, without the license granting you permission to redistribute it. You can imagine the artist wanting to promote their upcoming tour by luring people to the website for free downloads of their songs. In this case, streaming the music would not be okay.

Additionally, some music is provided for free for non-commercial use. If you stream with ads, you make money. The contribution of the music to your income is most likely very small, but it can be argued that the music you stream adds to the quality of your product and as such is being used for commercial purposes.

So "free to download" and "free to stream" need not be the same thing.

On February 13 2012 18:40 bluQ wrote:

Which is still not a valid argument considering that the users consum behavior and demands are changing.
If a market is changing you can try to enforce your ideals to it. That doesn't mean it will succeed, believe it or not, in the very end the customer is still king.
Music companies and the filmindustry are now trying to ask the judicative for help because they realized they can't do it by themselves. Those who normally herpderp around and crying out for "free-market economy".

@OnTopic, it is the same with streaming Blizzard content. In their license agreement you can clearly read that you are NOT allowed to stream ANY content of Blizzard if you earn money with it. Which means: you eitehr need an agreement outside of that with Blizzard or they just tolerate you but are able to just shut you down. Same is happening with streaming music on streams. Its a matter of toleration and earning money with it or not. Legally; not legal, as sad as it is.

On February 13 2012 18:40 bluQ wrote:


@OnTopic, it is the same with streaming Blizzard content. In their license agreement you can clearly read that you are NOT allowed to stream ANY content of Blizzard if you earn money with it. Which means: you eitehr need an agreement outside of that with Blizzard or they just tolerate you but are able to just shut you down. Same is happening with streaming music on streams. Its a matter of toleration and earning money with it or not. Legally; not legal, as sad as it is.

On February 13 2012 18:50 tdt wrote:

I haven't seen artists do well on their own to any degree with this new media/internet freebies. There are some sites with tons of free music made by very good artists and they go nowhere without label participation. People vastly underestimate the value labels create and the market they create.

Free market does not mean property rights are not protected. I can't just go rob your house in a free market.
IP, patents and copyrights have always had some force of law behind them at least in the West which is very free market.

On February 13 2012 18:50 TBO wrote:


Blizzard has a Video Policy allowing it: http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/legal/videopolicy.html

The Fundamental Rule

First and foremost, note that except as specifically provided herein, Blizzard Entertainment requires that the use of Blizzard Content must be limited to non-commercial purposes.

On February 13 2012 19:04 skeldark wrote:
i wonder why the guys who block half of the youtube videos (gema) in germany, did not try to take down all the streaming sites yet.
Im not kidding, if they notice this, they will try it.

On February 13 2012 19:05 bluQ wrote:

It (would) only affect german streamers and even then it is on an english site. GEMA should "protect" copyrights within germany. GEMA couldn't just block twitch.tv for germans

On February 13 2012 19:09 skeldark wrote:


Wrong. They dont care where the streamer comes from.
They forced several american radio sites to block germans out.
Youtube is not a german company. Groveshark was taken down by them 1 month ago.
They have the license for this music in germany, so they would win even on american court.

Difficult by streaming sites tho. The question is can they sue twitch or do they have to sue the single streamer.
I dont know but i know this guys would try both.

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.

The Fundamental Rule

First and foremost, note that except as specifically provided herein, Blizzard Entertainment requires that the use of Blizzard Content must be limited to non-commercial purposes.

On February 13 2012 19:58 Ryndika wrote:

Where is the line between fair usage then? Imo this is still fair use, I think...?
e: Also is it nationbased if you can stream music or not? Like if I'm from Finland and stream with rammstein on background, do I get suddenly call from somewhere and I have to pay fines?

e2: Where the heck can you ever find information for these copyrighted legality issues?


Does this mean that you can't have ads on your stream?

On February 13 2012 19:58 Ryndika wrote:

Does this mean that you can't have ads on your stream?

On February 13 2012 20:36 Buzerio wrote:


no, It means you cant charge people to watch the content.

On February 13 2012 11:39 Catatonic wrote:
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