Poll: Copyrighted music on SC2 streams. Community poll..
Just keep the things the way they are. Nobody cares (660)
85%
Streamers should just leave the stream without music and let the viewer decide. (52)
7%
I don't care about the issue, It's not important at all. (40)
5%
Streamers should share playlist links with the audience but NOT directly stream it (29)
4%
781 total votes
Your vote: Copyrighted music on SC2 streams. Community poll..
(Vote): Just keep the things the way they are. Nobody cares (Vote): Streamers should share playlist links with the audience but NOT directly stream it (Vote): Streamers should just leave the stream without music and let the viewer decide. (Vote): I don't care about the issue, It's not important at all.
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)
I've got a YouTube channel myself. Whenever you post a video with some relatively known music in it, YouTube instantly flags it as "Copyrighted" content and warns the poster about possible implications of posting music that's not owned by him and requires the user to be careful with such content threatening with removing the content in case it's claimed by the owner.
I'm a huge Starcraft 2 stream consumer. I watch streams of players like Grubby, Stephano, White-ra, Bling, Kas etc. How is it possible that they constantly stream pretty known music on their streams? What kind of policy does Twitch.tv promotes when it comes to copyrighted content?
I'm really curious to find out the answer since it seems that there's a lot of sensibility now out there regarding copyrighted content (with recent shut down of multiple download services that were providing copyrighted content to the public).
Summing up: is there any kind of control about copyrighted content by Twitch.tv/Justin.tv when it comes to streamers?
EDIT: After some research done on my part and thanks to several posters in this thread (Excalibur as a special mention) the conclusion is that streamers ARE NOT allowed to play copyrighted music on the background.
Copyrighted music If you play music (especially recorded music), or you are recording music (includes all formats) that is not public domain you are using music under copyright and you need a license to do so!.
Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). (Twitch.tv is part of it) Quote:To its most basic form, what this means is, if you choose to show content that you do not have legal distribution rights to, the copyright holder can request for the content to be removed. Note “distribution rights” in that statement. Just because you own a DVD of a movie, doesn’t mean you automatically have the right to show (distribute) it across the Internet.
Ramifications What are the implications of this? Well, as stated by many in this thread, Starcraft 2 streams are relatively small piece of pie therefore content owners probably haven't put their eye here yet. But no doubt, copyrighted material is a serious issue and shouldn't be neglected as it's an important problem nowadays (needless to explain why).
As far as I know, a lot of streamers use pandora or some other internet radio. There's not really a difference between using it yourself or listening to someone use it. As for anything else, I'm not sure. I know Day9 stopped playing music on his stream except for bands that specifically allowed him to.
Basic answer: It's probably fair use, but unless you want to spend tens-of-thousands of dollars and five years in court, you'll nod and agree with the Lawyer that sends you a complaint letter.
(By allowed, I mean the players that use Grooveshark and such. If they're broadcasting their own personal music collection, that's a huge no-no)
On February 13 2012 09:55 SolidMoose wrote: As far as I know, a lot of streamers use pandora or some other internet radio. There's not really a difference between using it yourself or listening to someone use it. As for anything else, I'm not sure. I know Day9 stopped playing music on his stream except for bands that specifically allowed him to.
You're right, the streamers use online services to play the music. However this only fact doesn't allow them to use that music for their own benefit (earning money) as far as i know. Correct me if I'm wrong.
On February 13 2012 09:55 SolidMoose wrote: As far as I know, a lot of streamers use pandora or some other internet radio. There's not really a difference between using it yourself or listening to someone use it. As for anything else, I'm not sure. I know Day9 stopped playing music on his stream except for bands that specifically allowed him to.
There is a difference. Using it yourself means you get enough adds to support the service. Streaming it to thousands mean that artist get less than 1/1000 of what they would earn if everyone listened to their own Pandora. If you think this a problem or not is up to you. Most likely people wouldn't be listening to their music, and I know Destiny has exposed a lot of people to new music, same with a lot of other streamers. This is obviously beneficial for all parties involved.
Actually, correction to what I said above. It's not allowed, period, because Pandora and Groovesharks expressly prohibit commercial usage and broadcasting.
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.
If you are profiting from the use of someone else's music without their permission and/or compensation then it's copyright infringement. The streamers get paid through commercials so technically they or twitch could get sued/cease and desist order. As to why companies don't act on it yet, I think eventually they will they might just be slow on catching on.
It is not legal in any way shape or form. Whether you use your own MP3's or Pandora/Grooveshark makes no difference at all. Using Grooveshark gives you a license for you to listen to it, not for you to broadcast it to hundreds of viewers.
Only reason we haven't had lawyars up our ass is because we are a small fish to fry but that won't last.Edit: According to FXOBoss the lawyers are starting to wake up. They'll likely go after Twitch and Own3d instead of individual users though.
TLDR: Only run music you have permission to run or if you don't then don't stream said music.
I doubt it will be happening much longer. Most of the people that have realized this like Day9 have already stopped playing copyrighted stuff, I know I even made it a rule for ESV TV only SC music (as our broadcast license allows that).
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.
It is very much not legal in most countries, but as others have explained it is such a small issue (especially bearing in mind the music is often not a prominent feature of the stream and very much in the background over speech or game sounds) that it has not really come up yet in any major capacity. It very well might however, playing from Grooveshark/Spotify DOES NOT make you immune, you don't have broadcast rights when you sign up to that service, it's for personal use and there are blatant licensing issues at play.
It's a good idea to try and use royalty free music or music you have permission to use on your stream just to be safe.
if the copyright holder requests you remove their content ( music, video whatever ) then you have to remove it. if u do not comply then i suspect Justin.tv will do it for you.
it is up to the copyright holder to notify the broadcaster.
most of these channels make such small amounts of cash that no one cares.
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.
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.
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 10:16 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.
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 10:11 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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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 10:11 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.
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.
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.
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 11:42 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.
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
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
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.
I am sure streamers could cut some kind of deal with them if this became a way to stream with music, and music in your VODs no less, without the knowledge that eventually it would all get pulled down by the cops.
On February 13 2012 12:36 Hemling wrote: people got their nose too far into lawbooks to see that its great advertisement for the artists
So is the radio but guess what, they have to pay royalties anyway.
Would strongly suggest that those without legal knowledge stick to the moral/ethical part of the discussion and don't venture into an area where they could potentially misinform streamers (not aimed at you, just in general)
In the UK, there is a central body that is responsible for music licensing (www.prsformusic.com) - and they provide licenses for businesses that would like to play music that can be heard by the public (even specifically for online). Bars, clubs etc are all licensed by the PRS - but even private businesses need licensing if they want to play music even in their office. I know as we have to buy a license for use in a software development environment.
I can't speak directly for US laws, but I presume the system is similar the world over.
The most likely situation would be twitch, own3d etc negotiating a license directly with those national bodies. Likely some countries wouldn't be able to receive certain streams (where they couldn't obtain a valid license), and it would suck some money out of the revenues of these companies (and presumably at the detriment of the streamer too).
Who knows, this deal might already be in place - does anyone have any concrete evidence of any streamer being sued so far? Licensing seems like the sort of thing you'd consider when running these sort of sites, hopefully!
Ultimately though, in answer to the OP, if they have no license it's illegal.
Yes, it's clearly illegal and wrong. Twitch doesn't really enforce it because they haven't been taken to court yet, but when they inevitably are they'll start.
It's the same thing that happened with Youtube, except YT is huge so they were able to establish a royalty program.
This isn't directly related the the OP's question, but it involves copyrighted music. How did NASL2 get all that music for their intros? Did they pay any licensing fees, or did they simply illegally play it? I know MLG has said multiple times they won't play copyrighted music due the the huge fees that they would have to pay to do so legally.
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.
I am sure streamers could cut some kind of deal with them if this became a way to stream with music, and music in your VODs no less, without the knowledge that eventually it would all get pulled down by the cops.
I doubt that. With record labels sueing Grooveshark (Source) it makes me think that they are not going to make a deal with Twitch/Own3d while they at the same time sue Grooveshark. (Who I believe are paying them).
As to paying for rights: I just realized that if you want to stream music you'll want to either get permission of bands to run their music. (Possibly with obscure bands, with anything sort of mainstream you can forget about that) or buy permission to either Royalty Free music or to triple A music.
Royalty Free music will be a hell of a lot cheaper but you'll be stuck with obscure music. Triple A music obviously gives you the music you want but will cost you a fortune.
On February 13 2012 12:42 Clank wrote: This isn't directly related the the OP's question, but it involves copyrighted music. How did NASL2 get all that music for their intros? Did they pay any licensing fees, or did they simply illegally play it? I know MLG has said multiple times they won't play copyrighted music due the the huge fees that they would have to pay to do so legally.
Obviously I have no insider information but I am going to guess that NASL paid them. They are too big to just wing it and hope that they will not be found.
Assuming they did pay for it I do feel that they do misspend their money as I can think of a lot of things that should be more important then intro tunes for players.
I don't really understand this anyway. I'd much rather all the streams had nothing but game sounds on, so I can play whatever music I want. I watch the streams to see SC, not to listen to someone else's music tastes.
soon only fan made music can be heard, or computer tracks or not so mainstream music. The result will be we are less exposed to main stream music and less interesting in it, at the end they will sell less then before, but they can be happy, they don't lose as much to pirates anymore haha. To be honest, i bought most of my cds after i listened to one or two songs somewhere that i liked. Music anywhere on the net won't stop hooked fans to buy it, same as blocked music won't stop it from being pirated. So imo they lose alot by trying to remove their music from the world. If you have no idea it exists, you won't buy it.
But one thing is true, you should not make money with things other people have made. So playing music is fine, unless you make commercials to gain money. Playing a game is also fine in my eyes, as its something you use to create something. But the music industry doesn't even care if people don't make money with it, i think they went a bit delusional on their way. I don't really mind though with the mainstream crap being blocked everywhere, you find real gems way more easily. So let them cut into their own flesh. But that shouldn't mean you are free to use their stuff to buff up things to make money. In the end i would say constant music stream kinda attracts more people ... so you could argue about that. But music during breaktime where nothing happens is okay imo (when commercials aren't run that is).
On February 13 2012 10:07 Wroshe wrote: It is not legal in any way shape or form. Whether you use your own MP3's or Pandora/Grooveshark makes no difference at all. Using Grooveshark gives you a license for you to listen to it, not for you to broadcast it to hundreds of viewers.
Only reason we haven't had lawyars up our ass is because we are a small fish to fry but that won't last.Edit: According to FXOBoss the lawyers are starting to wake up. They'll likely go after Twitch and Own3d instead of individual users though.
TLDR: Only run music you have permission to run or if you don't then don't stream said music.
Yep. Much like open-mic scenes, the music industry targets bars and coffee shops that don't pay ASCAP or BMI while allowing performers to cover songs. They likely won't fine the musician/streamer. They will go after the space (bar/Twitch, etc.) that allows it.
On February 13 2012 12:53 sitromit wrote: I don't really understand this anyway. I'd much rather all the streams had nothing but game sounds on, so I can play whatever music I want. I watch the streams to see SC, not to listen to someone else's music tastes.
I completly agree with that. I prefer to watch a commentated stream as that's just a lot more educational but if that's not possible (for whatever reason) I prefer game sounds (without game music) over non-game music. I'll play the music I like instead of your K-Pop, Trance or Rap.
copyright is not about protection, it's about milking more $. it has been this way, and always will be. and it's a shame that is has gone that far in my opinion.
I know it won't end like this, but honestly it's probably a good thing for most artists. Imagine if Pearl Jam came out and said they were big fans of inControl and didn't mind him streaming their music as more people are getting exposed to it. I don't think they're really losing any money by having it streamed, nobody goes to a stream to hear the music but a lot of people myself included have probably bought music or became a fan because it was being streamed.
The only problem I can see is somebody starting a twitch.tv radio station to try and get away without having to pay any royalties but in it's current format I see it as nothing but beneficial for record labels.
On February 13 2012 13:04 Filter wrote: I know it won't end like this, but honestly it's probably a good thing for most artists. Imagine if Pearl Jam came out and said they were big fans of inControl and didn't mind him streaming their music as more people are getting exposed to it. I don't think they're really losing any money by having it streamed, nobody goes to a stream to hear the music but a lot of people myself included have probably bought music or became a fan because it was being streamed.
The only problem I can see is somebody starting a twitch.tv radio station to try and get away without having to pay any royalties but in it's current format I see it as nothing but beneficial for record labels.
What's good for the artist has little to do with copyright law.
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 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...
On February 13 2012 12:42 Clank wrote: This isn't directly related the the OP's question, but it involves copyrighted music. How did NASL2 get all that music for their intros? Did they pay any licensing fees, or did they simply illegally play it? I know MLG has said multiple times they won't play copyrighted music due the the huge fees that they would have to pay to do so legally.
NASL get all their music from Temp0 and some ents company if memory serves. Getting cheap, good music is easy if you have the right contacts and its not from a major label. However if you wanted to use Foo Fighters, you would probably have to pay their label a butt ton of money for the privilege, unless they own their own masters, in which case you could go to them directly.
Music copyright is pretty simple, you can either get permission directly from the owner (usually a label for major artists) or you can go to a company like grooveshark who can do you a deal or finally you can go to PRS (or the equivalent in your country) and pay a license directly.
Some music falls under public use but its not very much. Technically every time you hear someone being sung Happy Birthday in a public place the people can be sued as someone owns the copyright (it was Michael Jackson at one point). Every 75 years the copyright for a song becomes available and anyone who has the right knowledge and money can buy it, if you have serious money, like Michael Jackson, you can buy the entire Beatles songbook (which MJ did) and then make fuck tonnes in royalties for work that isn't even yours.
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 10:12 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 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...
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.
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 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.
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
What are you going to do? Sue the guy that makes 10 cents a commercial? LOL, your lawyer will charge more a day than most stramers make in a week.
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.
Same deal here.
The only way I can see it happening is if they group together (I've forgotten the term because I'm a) dumb and b) it's early) and sue twitch instead. Leaving it in the hands of Twitch and Own3d to remove streamers themselves rather than the lawyers going after specific streamers.
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.
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 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.
Sure they are. That's why its CEOs make hundreds of millions and they make dozens of millionaires every year. Free Vods is teh way to go, just ask some SC2 promoters.
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?
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 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.
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.
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 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?
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.
Exactly. Look up under which licence it is provided to you and you will know. If you can't find any licence I guess it doesn't hurt too much to use it (and obviously if no were is explicitly said you are not allowed to stream it ). And non-commercial use of free to download stuff is generally not a problem. Which can help you further more to prevent any harm to give credit to the author of the free stuff. (showing what u are playing atm etc.etc.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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 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.
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.
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.
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.
I never said there shouldn't be a company managing the artists. I only talked about how the market is changing which is a fact. If you won't deal with this fact correctly (they tried to enforce their ideas to a changing market and didnt succeded) you will probably fail hard and lose a lot of earnings (allready happening). So to protect their precious annual earnings they ask the state for help. It is not like "piracy" of music is a new thing. My parents "pirated" music.
@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.
And the "Fundamental Rule" is a quote out of the licence agreement:
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.
Edit: And yea they exclude some things from this rule but it is still just a toleration and only by this declaring and "partner program" stuff tolerated. If certain artists/labels would state such things it would be the same. Doesn't change that generally its not legal.
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. They dont care for the country the streamer comes from. This guys would sue a little kid in afrika if he streams music to germany and dont pay for it.
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.
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 19:04 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.
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
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 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.
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
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.
Sure if twitch takes more actions in the way of protecting copyright it could be the case like on youtube. But then it wouldn't just change things for us(germans). But yea technical possible.
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.
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?
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.
Does this mean that you can't have ads on your stream?
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.
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?
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.
Does this mean that you can't have ads on your stream?
thats the crazy thing. I think you have to study law and than specialise on international copywrite to answer this question good ....
but the chances are: 99% nothing will happen, 0.99% you get a mail one day that tell you to stop streaming music and 0.01% that you have to pay 20euro and 0.0000001 % that they use your as an example and send you to guantanamo^^
I'm sure eventually the record labels will notice, it's a little bit under their radar right now I imagine. The biggest offenders are the VODs which contain hours and hours of recorded music just sitting there.
Does this mean that you can't have ads on your stream?
no, It means you cant charge people to watch the content.
Unless you get written approval from Blizzard most likely.
As for streaming music, as it is a public facing outlet any forms of music that is under a single use license or similar will not be allowed. Unless the streamer has a public license (unlikely, they cost a LOT!).
Expect our days to be numbered - I know of the case of French café's being targeted for playing music to their customers and being made to buy these extortionate licenses.
A real case would be the big 4 (or is it 5?) talking to Twitch and doing a deal where they get a certain percentage of profits, to be determined due to continue infringements from us, the streamers. Which is rubbish, and shows the bullshit of the music industry but hey ... that would be good to me.
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
Yea, that is wrong. Usually when you do not know something it is best to say nothing.
As for streaming or broadcasting copyrighted audio content, it is illegal almost everywhere as has already been stated numerous times. Maybe when e-sports grows into a larger scene this will become more of an issue, but for the time being I dont think it will be.
btw i once asked an artist if i could upload his songs he gave me a signed paper (letter) i could do that still i got in trouble with the label and it took a long time to prove that i was right .... so be careful
i can see were your coming from, personally for me if i watch a stream and they guys commentating listen to that. if he is playing music depending on witch kinda i eaither listen to that or just put my own up so really does not bother me mutch but yes i would love to see if you can actully stream music leagaly...
it's prob illegal but bottom line is they arent really making money off of it. copyrighted music in youtube vids help enhance the vid/makes it attractive. streamers use it for (mostly) personal listening
It's illegal almost in every country. Using streaming service website does not give you the right to stream it to an audience, for profit or free-of-charge. You can diffuse music depending on your licence, there's alot of CC licences that allows you to do that but the default copyright licence used by majors and labels does not permit it under any circonstances, and I don't think fair use would work in this case because of the video-streaming revenue that gets the emiter.
Apart from that, let's face it: It's bad for the music streaming service too (ie Grooveshark or Spotify) which will get in its number 1 guy (the streamer) over a 5K audience. In this type of cases I don't see another solution than a contract between Grooveshark for example and Twitch/Justin. You can argue that the primary content streamed by twitch is not music, and that this audience probably wouldn't have listen to this music this particular time. And you're right. But fact is this audience IS listening to the music, at this particular time.
It's pretty complex and the main problem is: it's goddam expensive to stream music legally (appart from "open" music obviously). For now considering the size of the phenomenon (microscopic), it's not really an issue. But it might be necessary to adress it before the copyright maximalists get their noses here and spoil our fun ...
Well that was my 2cts.
PS: Fun fact, in France, they almost shut down a streaming website that had all the old animes/cartoons and soaps because it wasnt paying any fee. They asked for 60KE a year... which the website did'nt even make.
Music companies are idiots if they think music on streams is reducing the number sales they are getting. Heck, there is a TL thread on what music the pro gamers like to listen to, because streaming exposes often unknown music tracks for people. Look in the Idra fanclub and every page, there is a guy asking which music Idra is playing and what it is called. Tbh, the entire music industry needs to wake up and move through the times.
Well I totally agree with that. And I don't even think they're aware of this type of phenomenon. They can continue sinking money suing people for all I care. But in the midtime, the music streaming service gets screwed... :S And I feel that it would be necessary for Twitch to adress the issue, even if it's slightly off topic here
Could be an embed or something, on the side, showing the music currently played and getting capting numbers of the audience watching the stream, hell I don't know but...
As said before, DMCA requires that the copyright holder inform/complain to the person of their infringement (or a regulatory body like in youtube examples).
uhm, ye. Using someones music that is copyrighted without permission = illegal.
Simple. Wether they`ll get caught or anything will change, maybe if the streaming industry gets bigger, dunno. Alot of them jsut let some RNB or techno radio with remix only and amateur DJs running though, that`s alot safer than having metalllica f.e banging in the backgroun.
How are you avoiding these copyright issues in big streams? I had my Age of Empires 2 stream online with over 1300 users and they removed my stream in the middle of streaming without further notice. This is what I got as an answer:
"Dear Justin.tv Broadcaster:
The content you streamed and archived on Justin.tv at http://www.justin.tv/dreaivisaoc was the subject of a takedown notice we received from vobile (WARNER BROS) pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). This organization has asserted that it owns this content and that you streamed that content on Justin.tv without permission to do so. As a result we have cleared the offending archives, highlights, and episodes from your account and given you a 24 hour restriction from broadcasting.
If you believe your content has been taken down in error, please so inform us. In order to comply with the DMCA, your counternotification must include:
(A) your physical or electronic signature;
(B) an identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled;
(C) a statement under penalty of perjury that you have a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled;
(D) your name, address, and telephone number; and
(E) a statement that you consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which you reside, or if you live outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which Justin.tv may be found, and that you will accept service of process from the organization or an agent of the organization.
As stated in our Terms of Service, repeated incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your Justin.tv registration and prohibit you from streaming and archiving material on Justin.tv in the future. To prevent us from having to take these steps, please delete from Justin.tv any material you have streamed or uploaded and to which you do not own the necessary rights, and refrain from streaming or uploading additional material that infringes the copyrights of others. For more information about Justin.tv's copyright policy, please read the Terms of Service located at http://www.justin.tv/user/terms_of_service.
Sincerely,
Justin.tv Staff"
"We are contacting you as the person responsible for the Justin.tv channel at http://www.justin.tv/dreaivisaoc/b/313470491. Justin.tv’s filtering system has identified on your channel content that the owner of that content has not authorized for upload to or streaming on Justin.tv. Your channel has been disabled and your user account has been terminated. If you believe that this identification of content is in error, please so inform us. Sincerely, Justin.tv Inc."
My stream is removed entirely and they aren't properly answering my question that where and what I had in my stream which was copyrighted?!? I assume it was music, but what music?
How go big streamers avoid this kind of situation? My stream doesn't make money, I don't stream to play music, I stream to play Age of Empires 2. I am adding content with the music!
As an ASCAP member I can assure you that streaming copyrighted content such as music even if it's using Pandora or another streaming service is not allowed. The only reason people get away with it now is that most of the major labels have not identified live streams as a major issue yet. In time they will crack down. Streamers technically need to pay royalties for each song that plays. Regardless of anyone's personal feelings that is the law.
Most streamers will just eventually receive a complaint notice and the temporary shut-off of their stream in the future but those that continue to stream copyrighted material may become liable for lawsuits. This is particularly important for streamers with large audiences and archived content. If the label's choose to it is within their rights to sue for quite a bit of money (they will win 100% of the time) for each song played ever over the course of your streaming history. The larger the audience the more expensive it gets.
It very easily could reach $100,000 or more for the more popular streamers. This is not intended to intimidate people but just to inform so that they may limit their personal liability.
Just be careful and if you continue to do so at least you know the risks you are taking. I hope you can afford it.
Well pay fees that allow you to play copyrighted music on your stream/broadcast (which most often aren't cheap), thats the only way to avoid a situation like that or off course just dont play copyrighted music.
Well I think you answered your own question in your OP. The DMCA does not prevent you from using their copyrighted material. It allows them to request it be removed. In the case of a stream there is no real way to do that because it is live and played very randomly. I suppose they could ask that the song not be played if they went around listening to every streamer and figure out who plays there song. But that would take countless hours and is very unrealistic, besides the fact that it is probably good in the sense that their song gets advertised without the person streaming reaping benefits they could have gotten (like YouTube does.)
Instead of a warning, my stream was just removed. I tried to explain that I am adding content to the music, so it's not copyrighted material, but their answer is same to all my e-mails:
"Greetings,
When content is removed from the site due to DMCA takedown requests it is because we have gotten contact by the copyright holders and they have specifically requested that the content be taken down, due to them physically witnessing that their material had been infringed upon.
As far as our guidelines, you can find them here: http://www.justin.tv/user/dmca. If you have an account or see a channel that has been suspended due to copyright infringements, understand what we cannot restore accounts who have been banned in this method, unless it actually was a false takedown.
Regards, Justin.tv Staff"
They wont even tell me, that what the material was. So other streamers, be really careful what you stream! They can remove your stream just by someones request and the evidence that it's ok must come from you instead of them having the responsibility to show that you are doing wrong.
need to get some original beats or ones that aren't protected by copy right. OCremix music is all royalty free and you can listen to that np if you're worried about it. I prefer no music on stream
couldn't people just listen to pandora or other internet radio? not sure how that would be illegal if you are just listening to something others can
It shouldn't matter. If I operate a business, and I happen to play CDs that I own on my sound system during business hours and customers happen to be present, the fact that I make money during the playing of music does not make me liable for anything. Streaming falls under the same logic.
Same thing could be said of me if I was a pizza delivery driver. If I drive past a incredibly crowded downtown area, and I have my windows down, and my CDs blasting, I'm supposed to be held to copyright issues because I'm making money? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
On April 01 2012 10:22 emc wrote: couldn't people just listen to pandora or other internet radio? not sure how that would be illegal if you are just listening to something others can
nope you cant, you dont have the rights to do so. you can listen to it, but you cant expose it to others.
On April 01 2012 10:22 emc wrote: need to get some original beats or ones that aren't protected by copy right. OCremix music is all royalty free and you can listen to that np if you're worried about it. I prefer no music on stream
couldn't people just listen to pandora or other internet radio? not sure how that would be illegal if you are just listening to something others can
Pandora and such make money off people going to their website and gettings ads, so thats why that option is not allowed either because if you got 5 k viewers thats 4999 people not getting ads from pandoras music.
Havn´t read every single page but it is possible to set up your stream so the audience only get game sound while yourself get both game sound and music? I would imagine that most streamers listens to music while playing for their own enjoyment anyway and not for the audience.
On April 01 2012 10:33 DaCruise wrote: Havn´t read every single page but it is possible to set up your stream so the audience only get game sound while yourself get both game sound and music? I would imagine that most streamers listens to music while playing for their own enjoyment anyway and not for the audience.
On April 01 2012 10:28 divito wrote: It shouldn't matter. If I operate a business, and I happen to play CDs that I own on my sound system during business hours and customers happen to be present, the fact that I make money during the playing of music does not make me liable for anything. Streaming falls under the same logic.
Same thing could be said of me if I was a pizza delivery driver. If I drive past a incredibly crowded downtown area, and I have my windows down, and my CDs blasting, I'm supposed to be held to copyright issues because I'm making money?
Uhmm dont know if i understand you point correctly but your not allowed to play your bought cd's to customers, you need a license for that.
It absolutely amazes me that 95% of the posters on this thread have absolutely no clue what is illegal under copyright law, yet every one of you would still be liable for thousands of dollars if someone took the time and money to sue you.
Bottom line, if you're playing music that isn't explicitly public domain or creative commons while doing any sort of commercial work, you'd better have a license, or you're probably breaking the law.
It doesn't really make sense for someone to be upset if a streamers using their music since it's basically free advertising... But I guess as long as its the artists or labels property you can't really do anything if they don't want you to use their music. They could argue that their music is bringing in viewers therefore money. As well they might not want certain people representing their music, i.e. loud-mouths, racists, or anyone with political objectives. I know many musicians prefer to keep their music as neutral as possible. I mean how much would it suck if suddenly one of your songs is suddenly associated with a skin head (assuming your against that kind of thing...o_O)
On April 01 2012 10:28 divito wrote: It shouldn't matter. If I operate a business, and I happen to play CDs that I own on my sound system during business hours and customers happen to be present, the fact that I make money during the playing of music does not make me liable for anything. Streaming falls under the same logic.
That's infringing on copyright. "Streaming falls under the same logic" indeed.
Same thing could be said of me if I was a pizza delivery driver. If I drive past a incredibly crowded downtown area, and I have my windows down, and my CDs blasting, I'm supposed to be held to copyright issues because I'm making money? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
Entirely depends on if someone can argue to a judge that you're playing the music to attract customers. See Ice Cream trucks and their jingles.
On April 01 2012 10:36 TheSir wrote: Uhmm dont know if i understand you point correctly but your not allowed to play your bought cd's to customers, you need a license for that.
True in the US; can't speak to other locations though. Small businesses are only exempt from playing radio and television programs in the vicinity of customers. Live performances and CDs/tapes still require a license. If you want to know what constitutes a small business, I can post the numbers.
On April 01 2012 10:43 WolfintheSheep wrote: That's infringing on copyright. "Streaming falls under the same logic" indeed.
In the US, it does, yes. (To elaborate, I'm under the impression that in Canada, it's not the case, or at least hasn't fully been explored by the copyright movement and the courts. A friend of mine was taken to court in 2010 over his music playing in his leased space where he does graphic design and other consulting. He won, though I'd have to see if I can grab a copy of the judgement. From what I remember, it was just a small claim too.)
On April 01 2012 10:43 WolfintheSheep wrote: Entirely depends on if someone can argue to a judge that you're playing the music to attract customers. See Ice Cream trucks and their jingles.
You're making the argument that a pizza delivery driver's music is a means of attracting customers to the pizza establishment for which they work?
If this is true and it is really illegal (I remember a big deal was made about this exact issue about a year ago or something), what is the difference between a streamer and a DJ in terms of legal leeway?
I'm sure the same thing could apply to twitch.tv as is applied to bars and venues w/ music. Basically they pay a "blanket" licensing fee to ASCAP or BMI (copyright organizations that collect royalties from various media outlets) that allows them to broadcast copy written material. A small part of these licensing fees go to artists as royalty. I believe in radio, the fee is per song, while venues and bars pay a higher rate and are basically free to play whatever they want without worrying about copyright issues.
On April 01 2012 10:47 Najda wrote: If this is true and it is really illegal (I remember a big deal was made about this exact issue about a year ago or something), what is the difference between a streamer and a DJ in terms of legal leeway?
An official license that they pay for.
On April 01 2012 10:48 Hipsv wrote: Wouldn't a simple way around this to be streaming and playing a radio station instead of a playlist?
Not unless you find a radio station that has license to broadcast to every country in the world.
I don't know if this counts in Starcraft, but I used to watch a lot of Rock Band/Guitar Hero vids. Obviously this is known copyrighted music being published in video, but there was some sort of rule that if the music was disrupted by something(such as drumming on the Rock Band drum kit) it would be allowed, so that the music wasn't sounding like "originally". I guess it could be like this as well in SC2 that as long as you can hear the SC2 game sounds over the music it could be allowed. I'm not entirely sure who decides this however.
On April 01 2012 10:36 TheSir wrote: Uhmm dont know if i understand you point correctly but your not allowed to play your bought cd's to customers, you need a license for that.
True in the US; can't speak to other locations though. Small businesses are only exempt from playing radio and television programs in the vicinity of customers. Live performances and CDs/tapes still require a license. If you want to know what constitutes a small business, I can post the numbers.
Well in most country's in Europe it's the same, except even small businesses have to pay for everything. A friend of mine owns a small diner which he runs by himself and he needs to pay fees to have a radio or tv in his diner. As long as your customers can see/hear the radio/tv you need to pay fees, doesn't matter how big your business is.
On April 01 2012 10:50 Rockztar wrote: I don't know if this counts in Starcraft, but I used to watch a lot of Rock Band/Guitar Hero vids. Obviously this is known copyrighted music being published in video, but there was some sort of rule that if the music was disrupted by something(such as drumming on the Rock Band drum kit) it would be allowed, so that the music wasn't sounding like "originally". I guess it could be like this as well in SC2 that as long as you can hear the SC2 game sounds over the music it could be allowed. I'm not entirely sure who decides this however.
...that rule does not exist. It sounds like something a highschool kid made up.
Rock Band and Guitar Hero videos are also copyright infringing, they're just overlooked. Unless the videogame licenses actually allow 3rd party broadcasting, but that's extremely doubtful.
On April 01 2012 10:52 TheSir wrote: Well in most country's in Europe it's the same, except even small businesses have to pay for everything. A friend of mine owns a small diner which he runs by himself and he needs to pay fees to have a radio or tv in his diner. As long as your customers can see/hear the radio/tv you need to pay fees, doesn't matter how big your business is.
On April 01 2012 10:48 Hipsv wrote: Wouldn't a simple way around this to be streaming and playing a radio station instead of a playlist?
Thats also illegal, a radio station pays fees that allows them broadcasting it so how should it be legal that you re-broadcast it? That just doesn't make any sense.
Your not allowed to expose copyrighted material unless you have a license, the source doesn't matter.
On April 01 2012 10:50 Rockztar wrote: I don't know if this counts in Starcraft, but I used to watch a lot of Rock Band/Guitar Hero vids. Obviously this is known copyrighted music being published in video, but there was some sort of rule that if the music was disrupted by something(such as drumming on the Rock Band drum kit) it would be allowed, so that the music wasn't sounding like "originally". I guess it could be like this as well in SC2 that as long as you can hear the SC2 game sounds over the music it could be allowed. I'm not entirely sure who decides this however.
...that rule does not exist. It sounds like something a highschool kid made up.
Rock Band and Guitar Hero videos are also copyright infringing, they're just overlooked. Unless the videogame licenses actually allow 3rd party broadcasting, but that's extremely doubtful.
I think I know what your talking about but I think it has something to do with altering the original material... kind of like how you're allowed to remix songs. Not sure though I'm no expert
They'd be stupid to take it down, as it's almost certainly to the benefit of the artists (and thus themselves). Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped them before. So I think we can expect this to be done fairly soon.
I think we're all ignoring it and praying that nobody cares. I am curious what NASL season 2 finals did because they used almost all copywritten material. Specifically with the player intros.
On April 01 2012 11:04 Maxd11 wrote: It's illegal but nobody cares and as it's been put before "the record companies have bigger fish to fry".
I heard the same thing 10 years ago when people started showing vid's and songs on their blogs, no one would care.. well look what happened to that. It's just a matter of time before a organization is tipped about gamers who stream with copyrighted music and then they and twitch/owned/justin etc etc have a big problem.
If i was twitch/owned etc i wouldn't even allow my users to stream copyrighted material unless they have a license, they could get in to pretty big problems.
If there's one thing we can learn from YouTube it's that if you add a note on your stream that says "I don't own any of this music, no copyright infringement intended" then you are free from all liability and exempt from the law.
On April 01 2012 11:04 Maxd11 wrote: It's illegal but nobody cares and as it's been put before "the record companies have bigger fish to fry".
I heard the same thing 10 years ago when people started showing vid's and songs on their blogs, no one would care.. well look what happened to that. It's just a matter of time before a organization is tipped about gamers who stream with copyrighted music and then they and twitch/owned/justin etc etc have a big problem.
If i was twitch/owned etc i wouldn't even allow my users to stream copyrighted material unless they have a license, they could get in to pretty big problems.
So if you were a business, you would rather have fewer users by alienating people and making them go to competing services, and you would want to hire more people for content review to comply with the DMCA when nobody is on your ass about it yet?
On April 01 2012 11:04 Maxd11 wrote: It's illegal but nobody cares and as it's been put before "the record companies have bigger fish to fry".
I heard the same thing 10 years ago when people started showing vid's and songs on their blogs, no one would care.. well look what happened to that. It's just a matter of time before a organization is tipped about gamers who stream with copyrighted music and then they and twitch/owned/justin etc etc have a big problem.
If i was twitch/owned etc i wouldn't even allow my users to stream copyrighted material unless they have a license, they could get in to pretty big problems.
So if you were a business, you would rather have fewer users by alienating people and making them go to competing services, and you would want to hire more people for content review to comply with the DMCA when nobody is on your ass about it yet?
I have a small business and i instantly kick customers who perform illegal activities, i couldn't care less if they go to other competing businesses cause when you screw up you can say good bye to everything you own. You want to risk that for a few customers? I'm not even gonna take the chance in times like this and everyone will get their turn sooner or later, thats a given fact.
If you were a big company, would you rather invest in a few more employees or for example in a system that checks the content or take the chance with the possibility of a very very bad headline in the news which basically destroys you and your company? Not that hard to make that choice.
A funny example is Rapidshare, a few years ago everyone called them idiots and they lost a lot of customers by enforcing the rules, deleting customers/content etc but now they are laughing their asses off cause they are one of the few filesharing companies who are not a big target and dont get very bad publicity.
Well, let's be realistic. Which copyright holders are actually going to complain to video game streamers? More often than not it's helping the copyright holders get their music heard.
On April 01 2012 12:08 ki11z0ne wrote: you can play pandora on your computer what wrong hearing it from someone els computer?
Not all countries have access to Pandora (just as an example).
It's stupid how it works, but right now I don't feel like it's a problem, and it doesn't cost the artists any money in my opinion, if it ever starts becoming a problem that's when something can start being done about it.
On April 01 2012 12:12 Gentso wrote: Well, let's be realistic. Which copyright holders are actually going to complain to video game streamers? More often than not it's helping the copyright holders get their music heard.
Well you can say that about everything, sharing for example a movie or tv trailer on youtube is only extra promotion but i can guarantee you that 99 out of 100 times it's blocked after a couple of hours/days and you need to delete it. And thats promotional content.....
If it's true what you say then why do radio stations need have a license? It's only good promotion right? There are a lot of streams from gamers who have a lot more viewers then for example many online radio stations and trust me when organizations like BMI, ASCAP etc find out about it they will act for sure, it's just a matter of time and as we can see in this topic, some already found it.
Thinking that it doesn't matter and nothing will be done about it, is unrealistic as hell and shows that you have no experience and no clue about this at all.
On April 01 2012 12:08 ki11z0ne wrote: you can play pandora on your computer what wrong hearing it from someone els computer?
Not all countries have access to Pandora (just as an example).
It's stupid how it works, but right now I don't feel like it's a problem, and it doesn't cost the artists any money in my opinion, if it ever starts becoming a problem that's when something can start being done about it.
or just read the terms:
-You can't use Pandora to steal music or other content, and you have to listen to it through pandora.com or on a device officially supported by Pandora.
-You agree that you will not: 3.3 make the Pandora Services available over a network (other than Pandora's network) where it could be used by others;
etc etc etc, same rules as all companies like Pandora have, thats standard.
Great! I just made 0 dollars from justin.tv. ON ALL THE TWITCH VODS & STREAMS played this a month! THX I WILL ALMOST AFFORD A FUCKING BREAD THIS MONTH! MMMM! DELICOUS!! I WILL SURVIVE ANOTHER MONTH!!! MMMM! THX JUSTIN!!!!!!!!
Support Esports, don't kill Esports, but FUUUUUCK THE music artists IN THE FUCKING ASS!!!!!
I think it is wrong for streamers to use music that isn't theirs to make money, and i think it is just a matter of time until it is considered stealing. Until then i will enjoy the amazing play from all the streamers!!
fortunately most counties don't have the ridiculous laws that the USA does regarding copyrights and IP, which means it's unlikely that any user found guilty of supposed infringement will receive any more consequences than simply having their account banned. unless you're some sort of pirate mogul, don't expect to be extradited.
it's not stealing at all and anyone who thinks it is is a fool and committing a logical fallacy of assumption re future sales.
I was thinking you could use Pandora in the background since your viewers hear the ads too. But then I realized that Pandora would be losing money then if someone paid for Pandora since ads would no longer play.
So, I guess if I want to use Pandora while streaming, I have to split the audio somehow so only I can hear it (as previously stated in this thread).
I honestly don't like it but I'd rather be safe now than sorry later.
I honestly hate copyright laws in general. AS Anonymous said, intelligence and information should not count as property. Once information is out in the public, anyone who wants can recreate it, and there are no physical boundaries stopping one, but these laws. The media manufacturing giants fail to create a free usable distribution platform, so it is their fault, and copyright laws are just an excuse.
I don't see how anyone should care since they aren't really making money off the music. No one tunes into hear the music iNcontrol is playing they tune in to see him play SC2
On April 01 2012 12:52 GhostLink wrote: I honestly hate copyright laws in general. AS Anonymous said, intelligence and information should not count as property. Once information is out in the public, anyone who wants can recreate it, and there are no physical boundaries stopping one, but these laws. The media manufacturing giants fail to create a free usable distribution platform, so it is their fault, and copyright laws are just an excuse.
well if intelligence is free for everyone, why give mine to someone who didn't earn/work/create/deserve it? Altruism is overrated
On April 01 2012 12:44 Shiori wrote: fortunately most counties don't have the ridiculous laws that the USA does regarding copyrights and IP, which means it's unlikely that any user found guilty of supposed infringement will receive any more consequences than simply having their account banned. unless you're some sort of pirate mogul, don't expect to be extradited.
it's not stealing at all and anyone who thinks it is is a fool and committing a logical fallacy of assumption re future sales.
Nobody! fucking NOBODY cares about the people who would not buy or listen(on a legit radio/steam that actually pays money to a administrator copyrights organisations(sry i don't know what it's called, just whatever the equivalent to www.tono.no would be to Norway)) to that track/song anyway no matter what, but... people care about the ones that maybe would consider buying that track/song. ! -_- !
On April 01 2012 12:52 GhostLink wrote: I honestly hate copyright laws in general. AS Anonymous said, intelligence and information should not count as property. Once information is out in the public, anyone who wants can recreate it, and there are no physical boundaries stopping one, but these laws. The media manufacturing giants fail to create a free usable distribution platform, so it is their fault, and copyright laws are just an excuse.
well if intelligence is free for everyone, why give mine to someone who didn't earn/work/create/deserve it? Altruism is overrated
They could sell their original records, that would make a TON of money. So it's not altruism. But once that is out in the public, they shouldn't be any laws preventing users from recreating, sharing, and broadcasting it. Companies should take that as free advertising for their content.
I mean this is why we resisted SOPA/PIPA in the first place, come on guys!
On April 01 2012 12:55 RmoteCntrld wrote: I don't see how anyone should care since they aren't really making money off the music. No one tunes into hear the music iNcontrol is playing they tune in to see him play SC2
Ofc nobody cares if they are not involved......... -.-. Probaby true, so streamers should stop streaming Copyright music. Everyone who steams copyright music should be banned from Twitch.tv after getting warnings.
The problem is that many players just listen to music on instinct... Its not giving it away, its how they play and its what they are used to hearing while playing. If twitch starts pulling streams due to music playing in the background they will lose many of their streamers or the streams will just be silent.
Overall it would be pathetic of them to do any such thing because its not like the streamers are making money off of the music. They make money from the advertisements that they play and honestly companies should be happy. If a big player listens to a certain artist a lot, than many people will hear it and possibly buy the music themselves.
On April 01 2012 12:55 RmoteCntrld wrote: I don't see how anyone should care since they aren't really making money off the music. No one tunes into hear the music iNcontrol is playing they tune in to see him play SC2
Ofc nobody cares if they are not involved......... -.-. Probaby true, so streamers should stop streaming Copyright music. Everyone who steams copyright music should be banned from Twitch.tv after getting warnings.
Get over it. Would you rather just hear a silent stream? I mean seriously, its not hurting anybody and there should be nothing done about it unless the music companies raise an alarm. I for one would never watch a stream if it was just silent while they were playing.
On April 01 2012 11:04 Maxd11 wrote: It's illegal but nobody cares and as it's been put before "the record companies have bigger fish to fry".
I heard the same thing 10 years ago when people started showing vid's and songs on their blogs, no one would care.. well look what happened to that. It's just a matter of time before a organization is tipped about gamers who stream with copyrighted music and then they and twitch/owned/justin etc etc have a big problem.
If i was twitch/owned etc i wouldn't even allow my users to stream copyrighted material unless they have a license, they could get in to pretty big problems.
Then i guess that means that every sc2 stream has to be shut down. I mean SC2 itself is copyrighted material. Im willing to bet that very few have the rights to stream it either. So if music is shut down than individual streams would have to be shut down as well
On April 01 2012 10:50 Rockztar wrote: I don't know if this counts in Starcraft, but I used to watch a lot of Rock Band/Guitar Hero vids. Obviously this is known copyrighted music being published in video, but there was some sort of rule that if the music was disrupted by something(such as drumming on the Rock Band drum kit) it would be allowed, so that the music wasn't sounding like "originally". I guess it could be like this as well in SC2 that as long as you can hear the SC2 game sounds over the music it could be allowed. I'm not entirely sure who decides this however.
...that rule does not exist. It sounds like something a highschool kid made up.
Rock Band and Guitar Hero videos are also copyright infringing, they're just overlooked. Unless the videogame licenses actually allow 3rd party broadcasting, but that's extremely doubtful.
No its true lmao... thats why on youtube people slightly slow down or speed up a song. Its not the original and thus the artist does not own it.
On April 01 2012 12:52 GhostLink wrote: I honestly hate copyright laws in general. AS Anonymous said, intelligence and information should not count as property. Once information is out in the public, anyone who wants can recreate it, and there are no physical boundaries stopping one, but these laws. The media manufacturing giants fail to create a free usable distribution platform, so it is their fault, and copyright laws are just an excuse.
Physical boundaries stopping one... You clearly don't understand the digital world. The laws should involve, understand & pay attention to the digital world. Just because something is "out" in the digital world, it should not just be free to everyone to rape it into whatever/how they want.
There are several free usable distribution platform(like radio), but until Twitch.tv start paying royalties to the Artists they are an illegal way of distributing copyrighted music.
Music artist most clearly needs to be supported if Twitch want to streamers to play copyrighted music live on stream. The money of ads (or ANY MADE MONEY!! streaming involved copyrighted music) should not only go to the broadcaster or Justin.tv/Twitch.tv but to ALL THE PARTIES INVOLED !!! : Broadcaster, Twitch.tv & Music artists/lables.
On April 01 2012 12:52 GhostLink wrote: I honestly hate copyright laws in general. AS Anonymous said, intelligence and information should not count as property. Once information is out in the public, anyone who wants can recreate it, and there are no physical boundaries stopping one, but these laws. The media manufacturing giants fail to create a free usable distribution platform, so it is their fault, and copyright laws are just an excuse.
You clearly have no idea how copyright laws work. They protect a certain expression of an idea not the idea itself. You're thinking about patents and there's a reason why it's a lot harder to get one.
On April 01 2012 11:29 TBone- wrote: I think we're all ignoring it and praying that nobody cares. I am curious what NASL season 2 finals did because they used almost all copywritten material. Specifically with the player intros.
They paid the fees to be licensed. JP said so on SOTG and said those fees are why you won't be seeing something like that at an MLG.
On April 01 2012 11:29 TBone- wrote: I think we're all ignoring it and praying that nobody cares. I am curious what NASL season 2 finals did because they used almost all copywritten material. Specifically with the player intros.
They paid the fees to be licensed. JP said so on SOTG and said those fees are why you won't be seeing something like that at an MLG.
Hm, yes that is an interesting question. Im going to guess Dreamhack payed those rights, but I imagine (and only imagine/guess) those rights would be more expensive in America (home of Hollywood & Copyright) than in any other country, especially Sweden or any other Scandinavian country.
On April 01 2012 11:29 TBone- wrote: I think we're all ignoring it and praying that nobody cares. I am curious what NASL season 2 finals did because they used almost all copywritten material. Specifically with the player intros.
They paid the fees to be licensed. JP said so on SOTG and said those fees are why you won't be seeing something like that at an MLG.
Hm, yes that is an interesting question. Im going to guess Dreamhack payed those rights, but I imagine (and only imagine/guess) those rights would be more expensive in America (home of Hollywood & Copyright) than in any other country, especially Sweden or any other Scandinavian country.
It should be the same to be honest. Copyright arises automatically upon creation of the work and is worldwide while patents have to be registered individually in every region to get protection. So I don't think copyright would have regional differences.
Copyright also started in UK iirc, google Statute of Anne.
On April 01 2012 11:29 TBone- wrote: I think we're all ignoring it and praying that nobody cares. I am curious what NASL season 2 finals did because they used almost all copywritten material. Specifically with the player intros.
They paid the fees to be licensed. JP said so on SOTG and said those fees are why you won't be seeing something like that at an MLG.
Hm, yes that is an interesting question. Im going to guess Dreamhack payed those rights, but I imagine (and only imagine/guess) those rights would be more expensive in America (home of Hollywood & Copyright) than in any other country, especially Sweden or any other Scandinavian country.
It should be the same to be honest. Copyright arises automatically upon creation of the work and is worldwide while patents have to be registered individually in every region to get protection. So I don't think copyright would have regional differences.
Copyright also started in UK iirc, google Statute of Anne.
Oh okey, i just presumed that America might have different standards than the rest of the world, and other contries have different prices/standards. I know that I get instant Copyright on whatever I create & is worldwide. It never occurred to me to research the different standards bit (since it's not really my job) but I think I will just to get a better picture of the big thing. =)
Streamers make significantly less ad revenue for streaming copyrighted music. That's why destiny stopped playing anything with a copyright a few months back. So no, they're not immune.
well copyright laws also depend on the countries in question as well. various countries have different copyright laws on the same type of media, for example the US has a author life+70 years copyright on all materials after 1978, any copyright prior to 1923 is expired and must be renewed by the author/creator. from 1923-1977 its a 95 year copyright from publication date, 28 years if the copyright was not renewed. Whereas the UK for audio recordings, is 70 years after release or if unreleased, 70 years after making.
On April 01 2012 13:52 Stropheum wrote: Streamers make significantly less ad revenue for streaming copyrighted music. That's why destiny stopped playing anything with a copyright a few months back. So no, they're not immune.
On April 01 2012 10:50 Rockztar wrote: I don't know if this counts in Starcraft, but I used to watch a lot of Rock Band/Guitar Hero vids. Obviously this is known copyrighted music being published in video, but there was some sort of rule that if the music was disrupted by something(such as drumming on the Rock Band drum kit) it would be allowed, so that the music wasn't sounding like "originally". I guess it could be like this as well in SC2 that as long as you can hear the SC2 game sounds over the music it could be allowed. I'm not entirely sure who decides this however.
...that rule does not exist. It sounds like something a highschool kid made up.
Rock Band and Guitar Hero videos are also copyright infringing, they're just overlooked. Unless the videogame licenses actually allow 3rd party broadcasting, but that's extremely doubtful.
No its true lmao... thats why on youtube people slightly slow down or speed up a song. Its not the original and thus the artist does not own it.
Uh...no, it's not. Even if slowing down a song to 0.999 of it's original speed actually makes it a new song, Copyright includes the creation of Derivative works.
If you can't play a song (with your own singer and band) without getting a license and explicit permission, you sure as hell can't add a keyboard tapping and pretend that what you're doing is legal.
Stop making up rules that don't exist. Ignorance of the law will not protect you from the consequences.
On April 01 2012 13:52 Stropheum wrote: Streamers make significantly less ad revenue for streaming copyrighted music. That's why destiny stopped playing anything with a copyright a few months back. So no, they're not immune.
source?
Baseless claim, he got DMCA'd a few times though which is much more likely the cause.
On April 01 2012 12:52 GhostLink wrote: I honestly hate copyright laws in general. AS Anonymous said, intelligence and information should not count as property. Once information is out in the public, anyone who wants can recreate it, and there are no physical boundaries stopping one, but these laws. The media manufacturing giants fail to create a free usable distribution platform, so it is their fault, and copyright laws are just an excuse.
well if intelligence is free for everyone, why give mine to someone who didn't earn/work/create/deserve it? Altruism is overrated
I mean this is why we resisted SOPA/PIPA in the first place, come on guys!
Technically: If a copyright holder of some music you are playing asked for your stream to be shut off for playing their music. Twitch, ownd, or whoever would have to turn the stream off.
Reality: Thus far the copyright police have not been as active about it in regards to background music on live streams 'yet'. That doesn't mean they'll continue to not police it forever, just that so far they haven't.
Ways around it???? Debatable, there is lots of arguments about what is actually a clear cut violation and what is not. If you disputed a claim because you were listening to music and a company saw it and launched a complaint. There is the possibility they'd back down rather then spend money to fight with you over it when they have bigger fish to fry. There is also the possibility they wouldn't.
On April 01 2012 18:32 Nerski wrote: Probably been posted but.
Technically: If a copyright holder of some music you are playing asked for your stream to be shut off for playing their music. Twitch, ownd, or whoever would have to turn the stream off.
Reality: Thus far the copyright police have not been as active about it in regards to background music on live streams 'yet'. That doesn't mean they'll continue to not police it forever, just that so far they haven't.
Ways around it???? Debatable, there is lots of arguments about what is actually a clear cut violation and what is not. If you disputed a claim because you were listening to music and a company saw it and launched a complaint. There is the possibility they'd back down rather then spend money to fight with you over it when they have bigger fish to fry. There is also the possibility they wouldn't.
"Ways around it???? Debatable" Yes, lets discuss fucking other businesses/sports/arts over.
"there is lots of arguments about what is actually a clear cut violation and what is not." Yes... playing copyrighted music without paying, is it really that bad?? hm? not paying the artists or lables? Probably just fine, they don't need money like the rest of us, they eat on magic bread & milk. No problem.
"There is the possibility they'd back down rather then spend money to fight with you over it when they have bigger fish to fry." Indeed, so lets just fuck people over. Because they don't have the manpower/money to fight against us. So we can continue raping people until we get noticed.
"There is also the possibility they wouldn't." Yup, so lets just continue rapeing people until somebody notice us doing it, then we will stop... ofc, we didn't really think it was wrong all along.
On April 01 2012 18:32 Nerski wrote: Probably been posted but.
Technically: If a copyright holder of some music you are playing asked for your stream to be shut off for playing their music. Twitch, ownd, or whoever would have to turn the stream off.
Reality: Thus far the copyright police have not been as active about it in regards to background music on live streams 'yet'. That doesn't mean they'll continue to not police it forever, just that so far they haven't.
Ways around it???? Debatable, there is lots of arguments about what is actually a clear cut violation and what is not. If you disputed a claim because you were listening to music and a company saw it and launched a complaint. There is the possibility they'd back down rather then spend money to fight with you over it when they have bigger fish to fry. There is also the possibility they wouldn't.
"Ways around it???? Debatable" Yes, lets discuss fucking other businesses/sports/arts over.
"there is lots of arguments about what is actually a clear cut violation and what is not." Yes... playing copyrighted music without paying, is it really that bad?? hm? not paying the artists or lables? Probably just fine, they don't need money like the rest of us, they eat on magic bread & milk. No problem.
"There is the possibility they'd back down rather then spend money to fight with you over it when they have bigger fish to fry." Indeed, so lets just fuck people over. Because they don't have the manpower/money to fight against us. So we can continue raping people until we get noticed.
"There is also the possibility they wouldn't." Yup, so lets just continue rapeing people until somebody notice us doing it, then we will stop... ofc, we didn't really think it was wrong all along.
Now now calm down, there are various reasons that companies don't go for the direct end user such as bad press and how little there is to gain (although it might seem ironically contradictory to numbers of "lost sales" they pull out of their asses everytime they try to lobby for something).
Recently they seem to be trying to go after intermediaries like file sharing sites and ISPs (much more to gain), which they're probably focusing a lot on which doesnt give them much resources to go after every individual user.
The poll's missing an option. There's quite a bit of good Creative Commons -licensed music available online and people could play that too. They'd have to give playlist links to comply with the terms of most of those licenses though.
Don't really care so much, but I'm pretty sure this won't go unchecked by the music industry forever. They've just not yet become aware of this.
On April 01 2012 18:56 Soleron wrote: It functions as radio, to advertise music. I wonder how many people have bought albums due to music they first heard through a stream.
No it does not. Radio pays money to have the rights to play/broadcast the songs they play. Twitch.tv does not.
Now, after that is said, yes it does funcion as some kind of advertisement... as in nobody knows the artist name or the tracks name of what being played, or even how to get it. Brilliant, just magnificent advertising!
On April 01 2012 18:59 nighcol wrote: The poll's missing an option. There's quite a bit of good Creative Commons -licensed music available online and people could play that too. They'd have to give playlist links to comply with the terms of most of those licenses though.
Don't really care so much, but I'm pretty sure this won't go unchecked by the music industry forever. They've just not yet become aware of this.
The bare minimum of a CC license generally requires acknowledgement of the creator. Doubt streamers would bother with the effort. Would be funny to see how streamers become part time DJ's doing intros to each song though.
Streaming blizzard content in itself is probably ground for copyright infringement, no? Fortunately it's not really worth going after, and the notion of individual streamers paying royalties for music is completely unrealistic.
On April 01 2012 18:56 Soleron wrote: It functions as radio, to advertise music. I wonder how many people have bought albums due to music they first heard through a stream.
No it does not. Radio pays money to have the rights to play/broadcast the songs they play. Twitch.tv does not.
Now, after that is said, yes it does funcion as some kind of advertisement... as in nobody knows the artist name or the tracks name of what being played, or even how to get it. Brilliant, just magnificent advertising!
I've discovered plenty of music all thanks to sc2 streams.
On April 01 2012 19:04 S_SienZ wrote: The bare minimum of a CC license generally requires acknowledgement of the creator. Doubt streamers would bother with the effort. Would be funny to see how streamers become part time DJ's doing intros to each song though.
Yeah, which was why I said they would have to make playlists available. My interpretation is that it would be enough and they wouldn't need to actually announce the song. You could even have a bot posting them automatically into the chat if a playlist isn't enough. (or if it really, really has to be embedded in the video, it's completely doable but I doubt that...)
I suspect this this will eventually be solved by some sort of a licensing deal where twitch/0wned pay for the streamers to be able to play whatever they want though.
On April 01 2012 18:32 Nerski wrote: Probably been posted but.
Technically: If a copyright holder of some music you are playing asked for your stream to be shut off for playing their music. Twitch, ownd, or whoever would have to turn the stream off.
Reality: Thus far the copyright police have not been as active about it in regards to background music on live streams 'yet'. That doesn't mean they'll continue to not police it forever, just that so far they haven't.
Ways around it???? Debatable, there is lots of arguments about what is actually a clear cut violation and what is not. If you disputed a claim because you were listening to music and a company saw it and launched a complaint. There is the possibility they'd back down rather then spend money to fight with you over it when they have bigger fish to fry. There is also the possibility they wouldn't.
"Ways around it???? Debatable" Yes, lets discuss fucking other businesses/sports/arts over.
"there is lots of arguments about what is actually a clear cut violation and what is not." Yes... playing copyrighted music without paying, is it really that bad?? hm? not paying the artists or lables? Probably just fine, they don't need money like the rest of us, they eat on magic bread & milk. No problem.
"There is the possibility they'd back down rather then spend money to fight with you over it when they have bigger fish to fry." Indeed, so lets just fuck people over. Because they don't have the manpower/money to fight against us. So we can continue raping people until we get noticed.
"There is also the possibility they wouldn't." Yup, so lets just continue rapeing people until somebody notice us doing it, then we will stop... ofc, we didn't really think it was wrong all along.
Now now calm down, there are various reasons that companies don't go for the direct end user such as bad press and how little there is to gain (although it might seem ironically contradictory to numbers of "lost sales" they pull out of their asses everytime they try to lobby for something).
Recently they seem to be trying to go after intermediaries like file sharing sites and ISPs (much more to gain), which they're probably focusing a lot on which doesnt give them much resources to go after every individual user.
What? Sure they get bad press from going after end users, and they would rather go after file sharing sites. And nobody cares about the sales that would never happen, but people care about the sales that might have happend. The record companies are just exaterating, just like everyone else would/does.
But does that matter? Not paying for copyrighted music is wrong! That's all there is too it. Twitch.tv should set up some form of business plan that can sustain every party. Not just themselfs (obviously), and the broadcaster (clealy they need to satisfy their own service users, so they will use the service) but also third parties like music, picture, video artists etc.
And the third parties get so forgotten because nobody cares about bob the music artist, only nada the progamer and twitch the supporing Esports company.
The benefits of copyright law to the actual artist are very debatable though.
Imagine if you were an upcoming new artist, with nothing close to a loyal following who would confidently pick up your next EP. You're gonna need as much exposure as you get. Plus, artists generally get a very small share of record sales. They make most of their money off concerts, personal endorsements etc.
One of the strongest anti-copyright arguments esp in the music industry is that it is merely a way for record label companies to stay relevant in an age where they are no longer as necessary to the production and distribution of music in the digital age.
I don't care about that and I prefer streamers to stream without music, so I can use my own music, because the chance I would like theirs is pretty little. Example, Incontrol listens to terrible, terrible music for me, but he commentates sometimes, so, I either have to put up with this, or not listen him at all. Both cases aren't optimal for me.
And the third parties get so forgotten because nobody cares about bob the music artist, only nada the progamer and twitch the supporing Esports company.
you are right... everytime i am forced to hear a lady gaga song I take a deep breath and mourn her for having to live in utter poverty
Tbh most of the time I hate the music on streams. So you actually want me to pay for music i dont want to hear? I just want to see NaDa the Progamer. I dont care about Bob the Artist because i dont like his music at all. But im forced to hear it if i want to hear the commentary.
And the third parties get so forgotten because nobody cares about bob the music artist, only nada the progamer and twitch the supporing Esports company.
you are right... everytime i am forced to hear a lady gaga song I take a deep breath and mourn her for having to live in utter poverty
Tbh most of the time I hate the music on streams. So you actually want me to pay for music i dont want to hear? I just want to see NaDa the Progamer. I dont care about Bob the Artist because i dont like his music at all. But im forced to hear it if i want to hear the commentary.
You don't need to pay anything, but Twitch.tv does, if they want streamers to also stream music. And again we are not talking about Gaga, but Bob. One of artists that does not belong in the top 1% which recives an ridiculous amount of money, but rather lives in the middle range and actually will severely notice if the paycheck don't come in this month.
But does that matter? Not paying for copyrighted music is wrong! That's all there is too it. Twitch.tv should set up some form of business plan that can sustain every party. Not just themselfs (obviously), and the broadcaster (clealy they need to satisfy their own service users, so they will use the service) but also third parties like music, picture, video artists etc.
There's so much more to it than "it's just wrong!". Copyright is not a concept that is so morally obvious even if the industries relying on it really do all they can to make everyone to think they are no different to property rights. But what the streamers are doing is (currently) illegal and certainly will have to find a make this work with the current law if the viewership keeps growing.
If you guys get your content blocked because of copyright violation, just post on your blog the company/discography, and the song and never play anything from them on stream again until they change policy. Not only their music won't be publicized and heard by thousands of people because of your stream, but you'll put out in the open their bad policy.
Just don't be quiet and accept it. Back when people weren't interconnected companies could do whatever bad service they wanted because the bad words spread very slowly or not at all because good publicity by media would silence it. These days a single post on a blog can get a lot of attention, and this kind of power to spread the word the user has is something companies have to take in consideration if they don't want the internet to form a negative opinion about them and ruin their image.
On April 01 2012 20:48 KrsOne wrote: Is no one in the music industry for the love of it? I for one would be happy to know people were enjoying my music.
It's the record label who sue (normally), not the artist.
On April 01 2012 19:09 hifriend wrote: Streaming blizzard content in itself is probably ground for copyright infringement, no? Fortunately it's not really worth going after, and the notion of individual streamers paying royalties for music is completely unrealistic.
On April 01 2012 20:48 KrsOne wrote: Is no one in the music industry for the love of it? I for one would be happy to know people were enjoying my music.
I enjoy your music. I still pop in the Keep Right cd you gave me at a concert for free, that was awesome. Thank you.
On April 01 2012 20:48 KrsOne wrote: Is no one in the music industry for the love of it? I for one would be happy to know people were enjoying my music.
I enjoy your music. I still pop in the Keep Right cd you gave me at a concert for free, that was awesome. Thank you.
It's copyright infringement but I don't think anyone would care because it is certainly not the focal point of any of the streams and they are not profiting from the music. This sort has thing has been going on since way before the internet existed
And the third parties get so forgotten because nobody cares about bob the music artist, only nada the progamer and twitch the supporing Esports company.
you are right... everytime i am forced to hear a lady gaga song I take a deep breath and mourn her for having to live in utter poverty
Tbh most of the time I hate the music on streams. So you actually want me to pay for music i dont want to hear? I just want to see NaDa the Progamer. I dont care about Bob the Artist because i dont like his music at all. But im forced to hear it if i want to hear the commentary.
You don't need to pay anything, but Twitch.tv does, if they want streamers to also stream music. And again we are not talking about Gaga, but Bob. One of artists that does not belong in the top 1% which recives an ridiculous amount of money, but rather lives in the middle range and actually will severely notice if the paycheck don't come in this month.
There are no licenses that allow your users to stream copyrighted material. Each streamer who wants to stream copyrighted music needs a license of his own, Twitch cant do anything about that.
On April 01 2012 21:03 LJ wrote: It's copyright infringement but I don't think anyone would care because it is certainly not the focal point of any of the streams and they are not profiting from the music. This sort has thing has been going on since way before the internet existed
They removed my stream yesterday entirely without further notice. It's kind of scary that they can actually remove a stream just by request and the burden of proof that I wasn't playing copyrighted material is on the streamer. I would have to send signed letters to U.S if I believe that my stream was taken down by error. Not to mention that they don't tell me that what the copyrighted material was. I have no possibility to defend myself here before they remove the stream. I lost all my followers and views, not to mention the VOD's.
On April 01 2012 21:03 LJ wrote: It's copyright infringement but I don't think anyone would care because it is certainly not the focal point of any of the streams and they are not profiting from the music. This sort has thing has been going on since way before the internet existed
They removed my stream yesterday entirely without further notice. It's kind of scary that they can actually remove a stream just by request and the burden of proof that I wasn't playing copyrighted material is on the streamer. I would have to send signed letters to U.S if I believe that my stream was taken down by error. Not to mention that they don't tell me that what the copyrighted material was. I have no possibility to defend myself here before they remove the stream. I lost all my followers and views, not to mention the VOD's.
On April 01 2012 21:03 LJ wrote: It's copyright infringement but I don't think anyone would care because it is certainly not the focal point of any of the streams and they are not profiting from the music. This sort has thing has been going on since way before the internet existed
They removed my stream yesterday entirely without further notice. It's kind of scary that they can actually remove a stream just by request and the burden of proof that I wasn't playing copyrighted material is on the streamer. I would have to send signed letters to U.S if I believe that my stream was taken down by error. Not to mention that they don't tell me that what the copyrighted material was. I have no possibility to defend myself here before they remove the stream. I lost all my followers and views, not to mention the VOD's.
What service, Twitch, own3d? Were you streaming music full volume all the time or just some music in the background while doing commentary? What type of music were you listening to, big names? Infact, do we even know its music related - rather than streaming Age of Empires related? I know Blizzard have very generous rules when it comes to streaming their games, and even generating revenue from them. Youtube, JustinTV etc. partnership schemes are specifically mentioned in their policy (as being OK) which is pretty considerate of them.
I'm also curious what it said in the message informing you that your stream had been removed, can you share any details? Thanks
Personally I listen to music while I play and when I'm streaming its audible (but heavily turned down) with commentary being about 3x louder than the music. I guess thats no good either. I don't really want to splash out on a program like VAC just to prevent my music being picked up on stream, does any1 have some unobtrusive alternatives (free)? I see plenty of big streamers just blasting out music 24/7 /w no commentary to thousands of viewers on a regular basis, is it just pot luck do we think?
It's completely against copyright laws and any stream streaming copyrighted music could be taken out at any second. The only saving grace at the moment is that they are not worth going after from the label's point of view. The fuck they care, if Catz is singing their songs online. They rather focus on catching that guy who uploads a terabyte a month (or nowadays, ISPS that allow it).
This is bound to change at some point, if esports keeps growing though. Even now individual player's streams are getting 10 000 viewers and up at times. It is also a fact that playing nice music helps keep those viewers, which translates into cash. I think it's clear that players are profiting from this without paying royalties. The problem is that the licensing system for music is fucking idiotic and expensive, thus compromising and making a deal with a certain band (a la Day9) is the way to go, albeit limiting.
I will continue streaming for sure. But this is a huge injustice and the reaction from Twitch.tv is way over the top considering what I have done ( apparently playing copyrighted music in a stream hence a copyright infringement claim from Warner Bros ).
All my questions have been answered with this e-mail:
Greetings,
When content is removed from the site due to DMCA takedown requests it is because we have gotten contact by the copyright holders and they have specifically requested that the content be taken down, due to them physically witnessing that their material had been infringed upon.
As far as our guidelines, you can find them here: http://www.justin.tv/user/dmca. If you have an account or see a channel that has been suspended due to copyright infringements, understand what we cannot restore accounts who have been banned in this method, unless it actually was a false takedown.
On April 01 2012 21:03 LJ wrote: It's copyright infringement but I don't think anyone would care because it is certainly not the focal point of any of the streams and they are not profiting from the music. This sort has thing has been going on since way before the internet existed
They removed my stream yesterday entirely without further notice. It's kind of scary that they can actually remove a stream just by request and the burden of proof that I wasn't playing copyrighted material is on the streamer. I would have to send signed letters to U.S if I believe that my stream was taken down by error. Not to mention that they don't tell me that what the copyrighted material was. I have no possibility to defend myself here before they remove the stream. I lost all my followers and views, not to mention the VOD's.
No more AOE? T_T
It's not scary, it's the law. They have to do that when they receive a valid takedown request and it was probably genuine otherwise they wouldn't have done it. And they told you why your channel was taken down (request by WB) so you should know if you showed/played copyrighted content from them or not. If you didn't then send a letter, if you did then you cant complain at all.
Completely understandable that the VODs are not recoverable, since the audio component would constitute a copy of the copyrighted work, hence an infringement. Your case seems to be pretty straightforward tbh. People just have much lower expectations due to the laziness of certain copyright holders.
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.
Wasn't the point of fx SOPA, PIPA and all that to hit copyrighted stuff such as streams? I thought the streamers would be able to argue that they are listening to it themselves rather than actually broadcasting it. Similar to that I know if you are fx. in technical support and listening to music, the caller, even if he hears the music, you aren't broadcasting it and hence don't require to pay royalties.
So with that in mind, have there been examples of the bigger streamers having their channel suspended for 24 hours due to a DMCA claim? Kas blasts out top 40 music (/w no commentary) from a radio station every time he plays, CatZ and IdrA also spring to mind. It seems a bit strange to me for a ~100k total view channel to fall foul of this after streaming for a few weeks when 10000 people listen to IdrA streaming out music on a regular basis (even some more mainstream stuff lately!). Nearly every Korean streamer is playing current Korean pop music 24/7 when they stream too.
Also to reiterate my previous question can any1 recommend some ways for preventing the music you're listening to from being streamed? Outside of having to pay for Virutal Audio Cable which I'm not really prepared to do right now. There are issues such as the picture and sound (ingame sound etc.) being out of sync and so on...
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.
Wasn't the point of fx SOPA, PIPA and all that to hit copyrighted stuff such as streams? I thought the streamers would be able to argue that they are listening to it themselves rather than actually broadcasting it. Similar to that I know if you are fx. in technical support and listening to music, the caller, even if he hears the music, you aren't broadcasting it and hence don't require to pay royalties.
That argument won't hold as it is possible for the streamer to listen to music while only making game sounds broadcasted to the audience.
On April 01 2012 21:48 S_SienZ wrote: That argument won't hold as it is possible for the streamer to listen to music while only making game sounds broadcasted to the audience.
Not very easily possible from my time spent looking into it...
On April 01 2012 21:40 iAmiAnC wrote: So with that in mind, have there been examples of the bigger streamers having their channel suspended for 24 hours due to a DMCA claim? Kas blasts out top 40 music (/w no commentary) from a radio station every time he plays, CatZ and IdrA also spring to mind. It seems a bit strange to me for a ~100k total view channel to fall foul of this after streaming for a few weeks when 10000 people listen to IdrA streaming out music on a regular basis (even some more mainstream stuff lately!). Nearly every Korean streamer is playing current Korean pop music 24/7 when they stream too.
To be frank, luck.
The current system is based on the copyright holder giving Twitch a take down notice. They obviously don't consider gaming streams to be worth constant monitoring.
On April 01 2012 21:48 S_SienZ wrote: That argument won't hold as it is possible for the streamer to listen to music while only making game sounds broadcasted to the audience.
Not very easily possible from my time spent looking into it...
Well that's not of much relevance to the copyright holder isn't it?
Not to sound harsh, but personally I wouldn't risk it, since the whole music component is in no way even essential to the streaming process, I don't see any court not finding an infringement or finding infringements of this sort to fall under fair use defence.
Today's copyright laws are completely bonkers. I uploaded a mix onto Soundcloud and and they had this "how to know if you are uploading copyrighted material kind of thing.
Basically you had to have writting the lyrics, played the music, not borrowed anything from anyone (so basically no sampling) and you could not be signed to any record under which you produced the music. So technically even the artist is breaking the law if they upload their own music. And the list just went on and on...
My point is, just enjoy what we've got right now. It's basically a luck game where you may or may not be punished for doing what you are doing. It goes from case to case with no real pattern or logic but if you go directly to the law you can pretty much get to anyone you want.
On April 01 2012 21:40 iAmiAnC wrote: So with that in mind, have there been examples of the bigger streamers having their channel suspended for 24 hours due to a DMCA claim? Kas blasts out top 40 music (/w no commentary) from a radio station every time he plays, CatZ and IdrA also spring to mind. It seems a bit strange to me for a ~100k total view channel to fall foul of this after streaming for a few weeks when 10000 people listen to IdrA streaming out music on a regular basis (even some more mainstream stuff lately!). Nearly every Korean streamer is playing current Korean pop music 24/7 when they stream too.
Also to reiterate my previous question can any1 recommend some ways for preventing the music you're listening to from being streamed? Outside of having to pay for Virutal Audio Cable which I'm not really prepared to do right now. There are issues such as the picture and sound (ingame sound etc.) being out of sync and so on...
buy a second soundcard, virtual soundcards are crap.
On April 01 2012 21:48 S_SienZ wrote: That argument won't hold as it is possible for the streamer to listen to music while only making game sounds broadcasted to the audience.
Not very easily possible from my time spent looking into it...
Well that's not of much relevance to the copyright holder isn't it?
Not to sound harsh, but personally I wouldn't risk it, since the whole music component is in no way even essential to the streaming process, I don't see any court not finding an infringement or finding infringements of this sort to fall under fair use defence.
The point is though, it doesn't really seem possible to listen to music in the computer while streaming. If we assume it indeed isn't possible, then you are arguing the same case as saying to the tech guy "you just simply shouldn't listen to music while answering calls", which doesn't hold, just like I'd assume it doesn't hold to say the same thing to a streamer. If at some point, the music is the focal point of your stream however(such as you go to the bathroom without putting on a replay or something similar), a different situation has arisen, that in the least would be a lot easier to argue was a copyright infringement.
On April 01 2012 22:04 TheSir wrote: buy a second soundcard, virtual soundcards are crap.
Buy VAC, buy a second soundcard etc. etc.
Its a stupidly involved process featuring splashing a bunch of cash and/or the use of multiple programs like VAC, Audio Repeater and the end result is often out of sync visual/audio on your stream. I already bought the music now I need a $50 program or superfluous sound card to listen to it while streaming? I guess the best option is to use an mp3 player or sit there in silence. Or perhaps to just not give a damn.
It seems very unfortunate that the AoE stream ran into issues considering other big streamers have been doing equally flagrant copyright infringement to 20x the viewers for many months. I wonder if Kas streaming the music from internet radio is of any significance? I'm guessing it isn't and they just have to hear the music on the stream, regardless of the source? He's been very lucky in that case, listening to top40 radio stations 24/7.
On April 01 2012 21:48 S_SienZ wrote: That argument won't hold as it is possible for the streamer to listen to music while only making game sounds broadcasted to the audience.
Not very easily possible from my time spent looking into it...
Well that's not of much relevance to the copyright holder isn't it?
Not to sound harsh, but personally I wouldn't risk it, since the whole music component is in no way even essential to the streaming process, I don't see any court not finding an infringement or finding infringements of this sort to fall under fair use defence.
The point is though, it doesn't really seem possible to listen to music in the computer while streaming. If we assume it indeed isn't possible, then you are arguing the same case as saying to the tech guy "you just simply shouldn't listen to music while answering calls", which doesn't hold, just like I'd assume it doesn't hold to say the same thing to a streamer. If at some point, the music is the focal point of your stream however(such as you go to the bathroom without putting on a replay or something similar), a different situation has arisen, that in the least would be a lot easier to argue was a copyright infringement.
Actually if any claimant could establish that it constituted unauthorised communication of a substantial part of the work then they could say that to the tech support guy. Reasons why no one would / could do that:
1. Tech support calls are 1 to 1, a lot less severe and harder to detect compared to a public stream.
2. In the case of listening to music via speakers and answering the call via a phone and not PC, there's analogue drop-off, which is absent in cyberspace. Reason why copyright is now a mess post-digitisation is that everything transmitted by nature is a perfect copy.
Whether or not the music is the focal point has never been even considered as far as I can remember, because frankly any defence lawyer would tell you it's a bad idea.
On April 01 2012 21:48 S_SienZ wrote: That argument won't hold as it is possible for the streamer to listen to music while only making game sounds broadcasted to the audience.
Not very easily possible from my time spent looking into it...
Well that's not of much relevance to the copyright holder isn't it?
Not to sound harsh, but personally I wouldn't risk it, since the whole music component is in no way even essential to the streaming process, I don't see any court not finding an infringement or finding infringements of this sort to fall under fair use defence.
The point is though, it doesn't really seem possible to listen to music in the computer while streaming. If we assume it indeed isn't possible, then you are arguing the same case as saying to the tech guy "you just simply shouldn't listen to music while answering calls", which doesn't hold, just like I'd assume it doesn't hold to say the same thing to a streamer. If at some point, the music is the focal point of your stream however(such as you go to the bathroom without putting on a replay or something similar), a different situation has arisen, that in the least would be a lot easier to argue was a copyright infringement.
S_SienZ is right, it doesn't matter if it's possible or not, it's illegal if you dont have the rights and btw sure it's possible to listen to music on a computer while streaming without streaming the music. All these excuses people make up dont make any sense. It's illegal to expose music if your not allowed to do so, simple as that.
Lol @op, it's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of law, and how fast someone will notice it/care to demand from streamers to stop using their music. Pointless thread, you can say whatever you want and it doesn't change anything.
Well, my current favourite stream just got shut down due to a DMCA notice, presumably due to playing copyrighted music. So they do care about streamers and you can be shut down, and why not even sued, for playing your music on stream.
On April 01 2012 21:27 DreaIVIS wrote: I will continue streaming for sure. But this is a huge injustice and the reaction from Twitch.tv is way over the top considering what I have done ( apparently playing copyrighted music in a stream hence a copyright infringement claim from Warner Bros ).
Don't blame Twitch. It's what they're required to do by the DMCA. If they didn't, the entire site could be sued and shutdown.
I assume that they are required to stop the broadcasting of copyrighted material. I believe that this can be done with a warning first, temporary ban after that and naturally removing the content with copyrighted materila, not a straight out removing of your stream without a warning. The mistake was made by me, I don't blame Twitch.tv about that, I carry my responsibility, but I feel that it's a huge injustice that they are removing stream without a warning and thousands of high profile players are streaming copyrighted material all the time. If you can't be egual to all, then don't enforce stuff like this.
Not being funny but all this copyright stuff ONLY HARMS consumers.
You can argue for it all you like (just like people argued for prohibition) or you can look at all the impartial evidence that shows the harm it actually does in all industries.
But at the end of the day any consumer actually putting arguments forward to protect these things is a fucking idiot that likes cutting off his own toes just to have a feeling of smugness. It is one thing to discuss things in theory it is another to discuss them publicaly.
They will do EVERYTHING they can to make more money, their opponents (consumers) should be doing the same - thats how the legal system works and that is how they are choosing to stop people getting media through their desired channels rather than legitamise and profit from them.
Lets us get one thing straight ... the actual content creators are the ones who deserve money. However they are blocked from creating their own mechanisms once they are signed with one of these agencies / middle men.
On April 02 2012 00:18 DreaIVIS wrote: I assume that they are required to stop the broadcasting of copyrighted material. I believe that this can be done with a warning first, temporary ban after that and naturally removing the content with copyrighted materila, not a straight out removing of your stream without a warning. The mistake was made by me, I don't blame Twitch.tv about that, I carry my responsibility, but I feel that it's a huge injustice that they are removing stream without a warning and thousands of high profile players are streaming copyrighted material all the time. If you can't be egual to all, then don't enforce stuff like this.
You shouldn't look to anyone expect yourself, it doesn't matter what other streamers do. And it's not huge injustice that they removed your content without a warning, you should have known that it could happen and they are required to do so when requested.
can i just say that OP is totally irresponsible for posting this.
What kind of effect do you want this post to have?
Do you want all streams to stop using music if it is illegal?
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN.
THINK FFS
If i worked at twitch / owned and read this and was in a position of responsibility then my hand would probably be forced. As an issue i had turned a blind eye to is now in my face and legally i have to take action or be negligent / liable.
Its like working somewhere and people rolling in 10 mins late. You have a choice, do you ask you boss if its allowed or do you just follow suit?
If you ask the question you really are being a dick who doesn't get how the world works and you will have a big problem making friends there.
On April 02 2012 00:51 MrTortoise wrote: can i just say that OP is totally irresponsible for posting this.
What kind of effect do you want this post to have?
Do you want all streams to stop using music if it is illegal?
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN.
THINK FFS
If i worked at twitch / owned and read this and was in a position of responsibility then my hand would probably be forced. As an issue i had turned a blind eye to is now in my face and legally i have to take action or be negligent / liable.
Nope.
Twitch doesn't have any obligation until a copyright holder gives notice about which specific user is committing infringement of a work they hold. Mere general assertions that infringements are happening within their system will not suffice.
It's funny to watch some people criticizing from Ivory Tower without actually looking at the arguments. Most constitutions mention that everyone should be treated fair in front of the law. Which means that you shouldn't for example in police work punish one person if you see ten people doing the same thing, but you can't punish them at that point.
And I should have known that they can remove my stream entirely without a warning from playing a one song? Give me a break. The more you write it gives just an impression of a troll with the ultimatum's little bit of truth mixed in.
On February 13 2012 10:12 SarkON wrote: Well well, I think soon we might see soundless streams in this case Which is good, because I'm all in favor of copyright protection.
On April 02 2012 00:51 MrTortoise wrote: can i just say that OP is totally irresponsible for posting this.
What kind of effect do you want this post to have?
Do you want all streams to stop using music if it is illegal?
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN.
THINK FFS
If i worked at twitch / owned and read this and was in a position of responsibility then my hand would probably be forced. As an issue i had turned a blind eye to is now in my face and legally i have to take action or be negligent / liable.
Nope.
Twitch doesn't have any obligation until a copyright holder gives notice about which specific user is committing infringement of a work they hold. Mere general assertions that infringements are happening within their system will not suffice.
Are you a lawyer? Because if you are not then you really shouldn't be dispensing legal advice. You have no idea what legal cases will happen over the next few months that can totally change how things are interpreted. What was legally obvious in 1998 (which was privacy of users is paramount and was the reason why a lot of file sharing worked, copies of games etc were legally ok) has been totally re imagined in the last 2 years. The DCMA is clearly the next target, assuming your sane assumptions will hold up in the coming months is really optimistic.
What you have in this thread are examples of people who are infringing and people asking if they are infringing. THAT is not mere general allegation.
or look at it this way then ... why give copyright holders yet another handle for a bot to grab hold of? People like Twitch and Own3d will of gotten a lot of advice and will probably be getting a lot more.
There are loads of reasons why what i said is true. People need to think more about what they are asking and posting in public.
It isn't 1998 anymore - all i am saying is think. Besides in a years time the DCMA may be interpreted in a very different way.
On April 02 2012 00:55 DreaIVIS wrote: Which means that you shouldn't for example in police work punish one person if you see ten people doing the same thing, but you can't punish them at that point.
Shows just how much you know about how IP law works.
First of all, police are almost never involved.
Copyright law gives the creator optional but not mandatory protection. If rights holder sees A and B both infringing but decides to only make a claim against B, tough shit for B. Such is life.
I apologize if this was said before since I don't feel like reading through nearly 14 full pages of posts:
I think it shouldn't matter. I know that streams are actually a really good way to advertise music, and a lot of my friends have gotten music specifically BECAUSE they saw it on a stream. I mean, unlike YouTube, it's much more difficult to use the stream to go back and listen to a song that you want to.
On April 02 2012 00:51 MrTortoise wrote: can i just say that OP is totally irresponsible for posting this.
What kind of effect do you want this post to have?
Do you want all streams to stop using music if it is illegal?
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN.
THINK FFS
If i worked at twitch / owned and read this and was in a position of responsibility then my hand would probably be forced. As an issue i had turned a blind eye to is now in my face and legally i have to take action or be negligent / liable.
Nope.
Twitch doesn't have any obligation until a copyright holder gives notice about which specific user is committing infringement of a work they hold. Mere general assertions that infringements are happening within their system will not suffice.
Are you a lawyer? Because if you are not then you really shouldn't be dispensing legal advice. You have no idea what legal cases will happen over the next few months that can totally change how things are interpreted. What was legally obvious in 1998 (which was privacy of users is paramount and was the reason why a lot of file sharing worked, copies of games etc were legally ok) has been totally re imagined in the last 2 years. The DCMA is clearly the next target, assuming your sane assumptions will hold up in the coming months is really optimistic.
or look at it this way then ... why give copyright holders yet another handle for a bot to grab hold of?
There are loads of reasons why what i said is true. People need to think more about what they are asking and posting in public.
It isn't 1998 anymore - all i am saying is think. Besides in a years time the DCMA may be interpreted in a very different way.
Dude, we're discussing this on a public forum. None of us ( I presume ) are affiliated with Twitch in any way, so how could this amount to even legal advice? It's a statement of the law as it is, which is fact. Your entire argument is reliant on the speculation of the possibilities in cases that have NEVER HAPPENED YET. When it happens and actually is worth something as legal authority, then we'll talk about it.
On April 02 2012 01:06 Cycle wrote: I apologize if this was said before since I don't feel like reading through nearly 14 full pages of posts:
I think it shouldn't matter. I know that streams are actually a really good way to advertise music, and a lot of my friends have gotten music specifically BECAUSE they saw it on a stream. I mean, unlike YouTube, it's much more difficult to use the stream to go back and listen to a song that you want to.
yes this is true for me also. But that is also true of software i have downloaded and then bought later. Sadly that doesn't matter when lawyers are involved. The good news is that it means that music by greedy bastards stops getting played everywhere wheras music by the newcomers in the last 5 years who had the sense not to sign with the big companies and used more open agreements will be highly publicised and hopefully those artists will become highly successful and rich as a result.
Sadly we do not yet live in that world. Blame your parents.
On April 02 2012 00:51 MrTortoise wrote: can i just say that OP is totally irresponsible for posting this.
What kind of effect do you want this post to have?
Do you want all streams to stop using music if it is illegal?
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN.
THINK FFS
If i worked at twitch / owned and read this and was in a position of responsibility then my hand would probably be forced. As an issue i had turned a blind eye to is now in my face and legally i have to take action or be negligent / liable.
Nope.
Twitch doesn't have any obligation until a copyright holder gives notice about which specific user is committing infringement of a work they hold. Mere general assertions that infringements are happening within their system will not suffice.
Are you a lawyer? Because if you are not then you really shouldn't be dispensing legal advice. You have no idea what legal cases will happen over the next few months that can totally change how things are interpreted. What was legally obvious in 1998 (which was privacy of users is paramount and was the reason why a lot of file sharing worked, copies of games etc were legally ok) has been totally re imagined in the last 2 years. The DCMA is clearly the next target, assuming your sane assumptions will hold up in the coming months is really optimistic.
or look at it this way then ... why give copyright holders yet another handle for a bot to grab hold of?
There are loads of reasons why what i said is true. People need to think more about what they are asking and posting in public.
It isn't 1998 anymore - all i am saying is think. Besides in a years time the DCMA may be interpreted in a very different way.
Dude, we're discussing this on a public forum. None of us ( I presume ) are affiliated with Twitch in any way, so how could this amount to even legal advice? It's a statement of the law as it is, which is fact. Your entire argument is reliant on the speculation of the possibilities in cases that have NEVER HAPPENED YET. When it happens and actually is worth something as legal authority, then we'll talk about it.
Tell that to any of the file sharing sites that have been shut down and shut themselves down for safety. But yeah i over react to things like this because a lot of people are very naive and self assured.
Its not paranoia when all evidence points to them actively hunting.
On April 02 2012 00:55 DreaIVIS wrote: It's funny to watch some people criticizing from Ivory Tower without actually looking at the arguments. Most constitutions mention that everyone should be treated fair in front of the law. Which means that you shouldn't for example in police work punish one person if you see ten people doing the same thing, but you can't punish them at that point.
And I should have known that they can remove my stream entirely without a warning from playing a one song? Give me a break. The more you write it gives just an impression of a troll with the ultimatum's little bit of truth mixed in.
Well if you read their terms you would have known that they can remove your stream and before you use a service, you should read the terms. So again you should have known and it's probably not one song that is the issue.
Even your example about police work is totally wrong cause you dont know if, in your case WB (lets call it WB cause i dont know which organization does this stuff for WB) have seen other streams. Maybe a 1000 other streamers have received the same thing after a request from WB, you dont know. Maybe WB hasn't seen other streams? Again you dont know.
It's the same thing when police gives a person a ticket for speeding, but a day later at same the time and place/road there is no police around and you dont get a ticket even your also driving too fast. You think you should get a ticket as well then when you find out some other guy got a ticket for speeding as the same road? No of course not, thats not how it works.
Stop blaming other people for your own mistake dude. You took a risk and you were unlucky that your streaming provider got a complaint about you, and thats it.
On April 02 2012 00:51 MrTortoise wrote: can i just say that OP is totally irresponsible for posting this.
What kind of effect do you want this post to have?
Do you want all streams to stop using music if it is illegal?
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN.
THINK FFS
If i worked at twitch / owned and read this and was in a position of responsibility then my hand would probably be forced. As an issue i had turned a blind eye to is now in my face and legally i have to take action or be negligent / liable.
Nope.
Twitch doesn't have any obligation until a copyright holder gives notice about which specific user is committing infringement of a work they hold. Mere general assertions that infringements are happening within their system will not suffice.
Are you a lawyer? Because if you are not then you really shouldn't be dispensing legal advice. You have no idea what legal cases will happen over the next few months that can totally change how things are interpreted. What was legally obvious in 1998 (which was privacy of users is paramount and was the reason why a lot of file sharing worked, copies of games etc were legally ok) has been totally re imagined in the last 2 years. The DCMA is clearly the next target, assuming your sane assumptions will hold up in the coming months is really optimistic.
or look at it this way then ... why give copyright holders yet another handle for a bot to grab hold of?
There are loads of reasons why what i said is true. People need to think more about what they are asking and posting in public.
It isn't 1998 anymore - all i am saying is think. Besides in a years time the DCMA may be interpreted in a very different way.
Dude, we're discussing this on a public forum. None of us ( I presume ) are affiliated with Twitch in any way, so how could this amount to even legal advice? It's a statement of the law as it is, which is fact. Your entire argument is reliant on the speculation of the possibilities in cases that have NEVER HAPPENED YET. When it happens and actually is worth something as legal authority, then we'll talk about it.
Tell that to any of the file sharing sites that have been shut down and shut themselves down for safety. But yeah i over react to things like this because a lot of people are very naive and self assured.
Its not paranoia when all evidence points to them actively hunting.
They shut themselves down coz of what happened to MegaUpload, not some random thread on the netz lol.
Do I think lobbyists in general are money faced and batshit crazy? Of course. But I don't see how unnecessary music in a gaming stream could possibly be allowed as fair use. It's just too straightforward a case.
EDIT to address something you edited in:
What you have in this thread are examples of people who are infringing and people asking if they are infringing. THAT is not mere general allegation.
It doesn't work that way. The rights holders have to be the ones to bring it up.
On April 01 2012 10:50 Rockztar wrote: I don't know if this counts in Starcraft, but I used to watch a lot of Rock Band/Guitar Hero vids. Obviously this is known copyrighted music being published in video, but there was some sort of rule that if the music was disrupted by something(such as drumming on the Rock Band drum kit) it would be allowed, so that the music wasn't sounding like "originally". I guess it could be like this as well in SC2 that as long as you can hear the SC2 game sounds over the music it could be allowed. I'm not entirely sure who decides this however.
...that rule does not exist. It sounds like something a highschool kid made up.
Rock Band and Guitar Hero videos are also copyright infringing, they're just overlooked. Unless the videogame licenses actually allow 3rd party broadcasting, but that's extremely doubtful.
No its true lmao... thats why on youtube people slightly slow down or speed up a song. Its not the original and thus the artist does not own it.
Uh...no, it's not. Even if slowing down a song to 0.999 of it's original speed actually makes it a new song, Copyright includes the creation of Derivative works.
If you can't play a song (with your own singer and band) without getting a license and explicit permission, you sure as hell can't add a keyboard tapping and pretend that what you're doing is legal.
Stop making up rules that don't exist. Ignorance of the law will not protect you from the consequences.
I didn't state that it was a rule. Was being very clear on that I wasn't entirely sure how it worked, but fact is I saw a lot of Rock Band vids, where the publisher would write he had been told to change this or this in order for Youtube to allow the video. That is all I'm saying, you don't have to act so condescending, was just trying to contribute to a way to get around any copyright issues there may be with streaming music.
It more or less comes back down to the idea that you should be able to record yourself utilizing your own property and show that recording to other people, because the copyrighted material which is supposedly being infringed upon constitutes a mere incidental piece of the entire composite which is your broadcast. Unfortunately, the DMCA holds that people aren't even allowed to make a face on camera without someone getting uppity about it.
Yeah, I know the legalese puts it much more delicately than that, but so long as you actually own the music to begin with, and so long as you don't sell the music, you should be allowed to broadcast it. If the recording companies don't like it (and they don't) tough shit. That's the way the world is gonna go sooner or later, anyway.
On April 02 2012 04:08 Shiori wrote: Yeah, I know the legalese puts it much more delicately than that, but so long as you actually own the music to begin with, and so long as you don't sell the music, you should be allowed to broadcast it. If the recording companies don't like it (and they don't) tough shit. That's the way the world is gonna go sooner or later, anyway.
When you broadcast music then you are selling it, maybe not in a direct way but you entertain/attract your audience/customers with it. Or do you really think radio stations and for example clubs/bars should be able to play copyrighted music for free cause well their are not selling the music.....
Lets have all the benefits without paying for anything... right, never gonna happen.
On April 01 2012 10:50 Rockztar wrote: I don't know if this counts in Starcraft, but I used to watch a lot of Rock Band/Guitar Hero vids. Obviously this is known copyrighted music being published in video, but there was some sort of rule that if the music was disrupted by something(such as drumming on the Rock Band drum kit) it would be allowed, so that the music wasn't sounding like "originally". I guess it could be like this as well in SC2 that as long as you can hear the SC2 game sounds over the music it could be allowed. I'm not entirely sure who decides this however.
...that rule does not exist. It sounds like something a highschool kid made up.
Rock Band and Guitar Hero videos are also copyright infringing, they're just overlooked. Unless the videogame licenses actually allow 3rd party broadcasting, but that's extremely doubtful.
No its true lmao... thats why on youtube people slightly slow down or speed up a song. Its not the original and thus the artist does not own it.
Uh...no, it's not. Even if slowing down a song to 0.999 of it's original speed actually makes it a new song, Copyright includes the creation of Derivative works.
If you can't play a song (with your own singer and band) without getting a license and explicit permission, you sure as hell can't add a keyboard tapping and pretend that what you're doing is legal.
Stop making up rules that don't exist. Ignorance of the law will not protect you from the consequences.
I didn't state that it was a rule. Was being very clear on that I wasn't entirely sure how it worked, but fact is I saw a lot of Rock Band vids, where the publisher would write he had been told to change this or this in order for Youtube to allow the video. That is all I'm saying, you don't have to act so condescending, was just trying to contribute to a way to get around any copyright issues there may be with streaming music.
It's just a way to get around the automatic detection algorithms that Youtube uses. It doesn't change anything legally.
On April 02 2012 00:51 MrTortoise wrote: can i just say that OP is totally irresponsible for posting this.
What kind of effect do you want this post to have?
Do you want all streams to stop using music if it is illegal?
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN.
THINK FFS
If i worked at twitch / owned and read this and was in a position of responsibility then my hand would probably be forced. As an issue i had turned a blind eye to is now in my face and legally i have to take action or be negligent / liable.
Nope.
Twitch doesn't have any obligation until a copyright holder gives notice about which specific user is committing infringement of a work they hold. Mere general assertions that infringements are happening within their system will not suffice.
Are you a lawyer? Because if you are not then you really shouldn't be dispensing legal advice. You have no idea what legal cases will happen over the next few months that can totally change how things are interpreted. What was legally obvious in 1998 (which was privacy of users is paramount and was the reason why a lot of file sharing worked, copies of games etc were legally ok) has been totally re imagined in the last 2 years. The DCMA is clearly the next target, assuming your sane assumptions will hold up in the coming months is really optimistic.
What you have in this thread are examples of people who are infringing and people asking if they are infringing. THAT is not mere general allegation.
or look at it this way then ... why give copyright holders yet another handle for a bot to grab hold of? People like Twitch and Own3d will of gotten a lot of advice and will probably be getting a lot more.
There are loads of reasons why what i said is true. People need to think more about what they are asking and posting in public.
It isn't 1998 anymore - all i am saying is think. Besides in a years time the DCMA may be interpreted in a very different way.
I could say the same to you. Are you a lawyer?
The DMCA provides Safe Harbour to any third person party as long as they are compliant with the takedown requests that are issued by the rightsholders. This is specific. It is also supported by Case Law, after the Viacom vs Youtube.
If I phoned up Twitch support and said "Ban Destiny, he's infringing!" they wouldn't do shit about it, because I'm not the rightsholder.
In another few years, completely different laws may be written. But as long as the DMCA is the current law, then posting on some random forum has absolutely no repercussions for the third party or for the streamer.
On April 02 2012 00:51 MrTortoise wrote: can i just say that OP is totally irresponsible for posting this.
What kind of effect do you want this post to have?
Do you want all streams to stop using music if it is illegal?
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN.
THINK FFS
If i worked at twitch / owned and read this and was in a position of responsibility then my hand would probably be forced. As an issue i had turned a blind eye to is now in my face and legally i have to take action or be negligent / liable.
Nope.
Twitch doesn't have any obligation until a copyright holder gives notice about which specific user is committing infringement of a work they hold. Mere general assertions that infringements are happening within their system will not suffice.
Are you a lawyer? Because if you are not then you really shouldn't be dispensing legal advice. You have no idea what legal cases will happen over the next few months that can totally change how things are interpreted. What was legally obvious in 1998 (which was privacy of users is paramount and was the reason why a lot of file sharing worked, copies of games etc were legally ok) has been totally re imagined in the last 2 years. The DCMA is clearly the next target, assuming your sane assumptions will hold up in the coming months is really optimistic.
What you have in this thread are examples of people who are infringing and people asking if they are infringing. THAT is not mere general allegation.
or look at it this way then ... why give copyright holders yet another handle for a bot to grab hold of? People like Twitch and Own3d will of gotten a lot of advice and will probably be getting a lot more.
There are loads of reasons why what i said is true. People need to think more about what they are asking and posting in public.
It isn't 1998 anymore - all i am saying is think. Besides in a years time the DCMA may be interpreted in a very different way.
I could say the same to you. Are you a lawyer?
The DMCA provides Safe Harbour to any third person party as long as they are compliant with the takedown requests that are issued by the rightsholders. This is specific. It is also supported by Case Law, after the Viacom vs Youtube.
If I phoned up Twitch support and said "Ban Destiny, he's infringing!" they wouldn't do shit about it, because I'm not the rightsholder.
In another few years, completely different laws may be written. But as long as the DMCA is the current law, then posting on some random forum has absolutely no repercussions for the third party or for the streamer.
and again, with what you are saying,....since people seem to have missed my earlier post, what country you are streaming in matters. DMCA is US law, streamers in UK aren't bound by it, twitch can base itself out of say, sweden, and not be bound by it.
On April 02 2012 04:08 Shiori wrote: Yeah, I know the legalese puts it much more delicately than that, but so long as you actually own the music to begin with, and so long as you don't sell the music, you should be allowed to broadcast it. If the recording companies don't like it (and they don't) tough shit. That's the way the world is gonna go sooner or later, anyway.
When you broadcast music then you are selling it, maybe not in a direct way but you entertain/attract your audience/customers with it. Or do you really think radio stations and for example clubs/bars should be able to play copyrighted music for free cause well their are not selling the music.....
Lets have all the benefits without paying for anything... right, never gonna happen.
On April 02 2012 00:51 MrTortoise wrote: can i just say that OP is totally irresponsible for posting this.
What kind of effect do you want this post to have?
Do you want all streams to stop using music if it is illegal?
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN.
THINK FFS
If i worked at twitch / owned and read this and was in a position of responsibility then my hand would probably be forced. As an issue i had turned a blind eye to is now in my face and legally i have to take action or be negligent / liable.
Nope.
Twitch doesn't have any obligation until a copyright holder gives notice about which specific user is committing infringement of a work they hold. Mere general assertions that infringements are happening within their system will not suffice.
Are you a lawyer? Because if you are not then you really shouldn't be dispensing legal advice. You have no idea what legal cases will happen over the next few months that can totally change how things are interpreted. What was legally obvious in 1998 (which was privacy of users is paramount and was the reason why a lot of file sharing worked, copies of games etc were legally ok) has been totally re imagined in the last 2 years. The DCMA is clearly the next target, assuming your sane assumptions will hold up in the coming months is really optimistic.
What you have in this thread are examples of people who are infringing and people asking if they are infringing. THAT is not mere general allegation.
or look at it this way then ... why give copyright holders yet another handle for a bot to grab hold of? People like Twitch and Own3d will of gotten a lot of advice and will probably be getting a lot more.
There are loads of reasons why what i said is true. People need to think more about what they are asking and posting in public.
It isn't 1998 anymore - all i am saying is think. Besides in a years time the DCMA may be interpreted in a very different way.
I could say the same to you. Are you a lawyer?
The DMCA provides Safe Harbour to any third person party as long as they are compliant with the takedown requests that are issued by the rightsholders. This is specific. It is also supported by Case Law, after the Viacom vs Youtube.
If I phoned up Twitch support and said "Ban Destiny, he's infringing!" they wouldn't do shit about it, because I'm not the rightsholder.
In another few years, completely different laws may be written. But as long as the DMCA is the current law, then posting on some random forum has absolutely no repercussions for the third party or for the streamer.
and again, with what you are saying,....since people seem to have missed my earlier post, what country you are streaming in matters. DMCA is US law, streamers in UK aren't bound by it, twitch can base itself out of say, sweden, and not be bound by it.
No. Country you're streaming from does not matter. What matters is the country that the Streaming website is based. And most of the mainstream ones are based in the US.
If they moved, then yes, the DMCA would not apply. But they haven't moved, and unless they do, they will remain under US jurisdiction.
On April 02 2012 00:51 MrTortoise wrote: can i just say that OP is totally irresponsible for posting this.
What kind of effect do you want this post to have?
Do you want all streams to stop using music if it is illegal?
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN.
THINK FFS
If i worked at twitch / owned and read this and was in a position of responsibility then my hand would probably be forced. As an issue i had turned a blind eye to is now in my face and legally i have to take action or be negligent / liable.
Nope.
Twitch doesn't have any obligation until a copyright holder gives notice about which specific user is committing infringement of a work they hold. Mere general assertions that infringements are happening within their system will not suffice.
Are you a lawyer? Because if you are not then you really shouldn't be dispensing legal advice. You have no idea what legal cases will happen over the next few months that can totally change how things are interpreted. What was legally obvious in 1998 (which was privacy of users is paramount and was the reason why a lot of file sharing worked, copies of games etc were legally ok) has been totally re imagined in the last 2 years. The DCMA is clearly the next target, assuming your sane assumptions will hold up in the coming months is really optimistic.
What you have in this thread are examples of people who are infringing and people asking if they are infringing. THAT is not mere general allegation.
or look at it this way then ... why give copyright holders yet another handle for a bot to grab hold of? People like Twitch and Own3d will of gotten a lot of advice and will probably be getting a lot more.
There are loads of reasons why what i said is true. People need to think more about what they are asking and posting in public.
It isn't 1998 anymore - all i am saying is think. Besides in a years time the DCMA may be interpreted in a very different way.
I could say the same to you. Are you a lawyer?
The DMCA provides Safe Harbour to any third person party as long as they are compliant with the takedown requests that are issued by the rightsholders. This is specific. It is also supported by Case Law, after the Viacom vs Youtube.
If I phoned up Twitch support and said "Ban Destiny, he's infringing!" they wouldn't do shit about it, because I'm not the rightsholder.
In another few years, completely different laws may be written. But as long as the DMCA is the current law, then posting on some random forum has absolutely no repercussions for the third party or for the streamer.
and again, with what you are saying,....since people seem to have missed my earlier post, what country you are streaming in matters. DMCA is US law, streamers in UK aren't bound by it, twitch can base itself out of say, sweden, and not be bound by it.
No. Country you're streaming from does not matter. What matters is the country that the Streaming website is based. And most of the mainstream ones are based in the US.
If they moved, then yes, the DMCA would not apply. But they haven't moved, and unless they do, they will remain under US jurisdiction.
assuming they brought suite against twitch, however they couldn't touch the actual streamers DMCA also protects the third party sites such as twitch, via the safe harbor provision, as long as they comply with certain standards such as removign the content, upon request by the holder of the copyright. so unless they notify twitch and twitch does nothing, twitch is pretty much immune from liability....though that may change via the Viacom vs Youtube case, should the supreme court decide to hear it.....
During past 6 months ive seen TL featured SC2 pros stream movies and TV shows that theyve torrented. Also seen them restream the korean gsl broadcast in 720p.
it has been established in this thread that sooner or later you will going to get DMCA'd if you stream using copyrighted music... be it fair or not.
important questions what have not been answered yet: Has a player actually gotten a license to use copyrighted music on their streams? Anybody has any idea what the costs exactly are and how to actually get one? Do you need multiple licenses for different music/labels?
On April 02 2012 13:44 rename wrote: it has been established in this thread that sooner or later you will going to get DMCA'd if you stream using copyrighted music... be it fair or not.
important questions what have not been answered yet: Has a player actually gotten a license to use copyrighted music on their streams? Anybody has any idea what the costs exactly are and how to actually get one? Do you need multiple licenses for different music/labels?
1) No player has a license.
2) They are very expensive (not proportional to the income you make while playing music), but getting one is usually as easy as contact the relevant music collection agency.
3) In the US, at least, there are three major organizations, all which have different members. Paying all three will generally cover all main-stream musicians, but not always.
Can't you merely compare this situation to Cinematic experiences as well?
Perhaps the fact that you can't video tape a film whilst in a theater and sell it as pirated material has a similar relation to how playing music on a stream to make money works... Don't get caught?
I figure as Esports gets larger (and is worth more money) that the legal world will begin to be involved.
You only need to ask yourself one question. One question.
Are you profiting from this stream. Yes or No. Just answer the question please, don't dodge. Dodging the question is the hallmark of a liar.
If you answered Yes, and you're streaming Taylor Swift(or ANY prominent music), you know as well as I do, that you weren't allowed to, and whoever manages her business WILL rightfully clamp down on you. No, you didn't get authorization from her. No, you didn't.
I don't care what streaming service you're using, or if it's just an mp3 on your hard drive. You cannot generate profits off of someone else's music without their express permission.
Contact some new up and coming musicians. Some no-names or people that no one's ever heard of. Play their music. It's win-win.
On April 02 2012 13:44 rename wrote: it has been established in this thread that sooner or later you will going to get DMCA'd if you stream using copyrighted music... be it fair or not.
important questions what have not been answered yet: Has a player actually gotten a license to use copyrighted music on their streams? Anybody has any idea what the costs exactly are and how to actually get one? Do you need multiple licenses for different music/labels?
1) No player has a license.
2) They are very expensive (not proportional to the income you make while playing music), but getting one is usually as easy as contact the relevant music collection agency.
3) In the US, at least, there are three major organizations, all which have different members. Paying all three will generally cover all main-stream musicians, but not always.
About 2) What is expensive? For some streamers 500$/year might be expensive, for others maybe not.. Also i found this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoundExchange where it says proportional fees can be also done for Internet Radio - but im not sure if this organization covers video streams.
About 3) Is there a service that helps you cover everything/most, without that much hassle? And if not - is there legal framework for twitchv providing that kind of service?
On April 02 2012 14:47 D_K_night wrote: You only need to ask yourself one question. One question.
Are you profiting from this stream. Yes or No. Just answer the question please, don't dodge. Dodging the question is the hallmark of a liar.
If you answered Yes, and you're streaming Taylor Swift(or ANY prominent music), you know as well as I do, that you weren't allowed to, and whoever manages her business WILL rightfully clamp down on you. No, you didn't get authorization from her. No, you didn't.
I don't care what streaming service you're using, or if it's just an mp3 on your hard drive. You cannot generate profits off of someone else's music without their express permission.
Contact some new up and coming musicians. Some no-names or people that no one's ever heard of. Play their music. It's win-win.
You're leaving out an important fact, it doesn't matter if the individual is not profiting off the stream because Twitch is. Even when you aren't a partner/revenue sharing, posting a video on YouTube or streaming a song on Twitch is still commercial use. Twitch is liable for profiting off of it and therefor would have to comply with a DMCA take-down notice even if you aren't the one earning the profit.
Its not worth anyone's time to worry about. When the RIAA comes a knocking at TwitchTVs door then address it. Until then let the good time roll, no one is building a business off of playing copyrighted music. The music is just a nice background. If it was feasible to pay the fees required companies like MLG would do it, it isn't.
I'm surprised to hear that streamers aren't allowed to play copyrighted music because honestly, don't they all? If that's the actual rule regarding the issue then why does it seem like it's never enforced? Seems like a joke to me, just as much as a hypothetical law that would force policemen to ticket drivers who turn up their radio to max with their windows down and let the whole neighborhood hear the music. Shouldn't action be taken against that sort of situation because people who don't pay for radio are getting to hear the music? Just an example.
On April 02 2012 15:00 Areon wrote: I'm surprised to hear that streamers aren't allowed to play copyrighted music because honestly, don't they all? If that's the actual rule regarding the issue then why does it seem like it's never enforced?
Because Twitch only has to comply with the rule and enforce it to a certain degree to stay safe from lawsuits, they don't need to go out of their way and ban anyone that breaks it. As long as they take down any content when the copyright holder asks them to, they can keep functioning. The only time you see a channel taken down is when a copyright holder has issued a take down request to Twitch and Twitch takes action on it. That's the same reason you'll see tons of copyright material all over YouTube, and even though YouTube has several measures in place to filter that material out - you'll sometimes see a popular video suddenly get pulled after months of being fine because of a claim by the copyright holder.
Twitch doesn't have to do anything until notified (as long as they're not encouraging it), as per the DMCA and reinforced by the case Justin.tv won vs the UFC the other day. Currently the copyright holders are just not trolling their site to post take downs yet. And frankly that'd be a retarded thing to do anyway. How often do you see people ask for the name of a song in stream chat? It's free advertising and not the reason people watch the stream. I know this won't stop them, but there you go.
On April 02 2012 15:00 Areon wrote: Seems like a joke to me, just as much as a hypothetical law that would force policemen to ticket drivers who turn up their radio to max with their windows down and let the whole neighborhood hear the music. Shouldn't action be taken against that sort of situation because people who don't pay for radio are getting to hear the music? Just an example.
Drivers aren't profiting commercially while blaring their Radio.
If people would read through some of the thread instead of coming up with random analogies, there wouldn't be nearly as much confusion.
I desperately wish streamers would just play music to themselves but not have it play over the stream.
I would love to learn by watching world class players like Idra, but the blaring sonic diarrhea is such a turnoff that I can't bear to watch it. Sure you can mute it, but I'd miss all the game sounds and particularly the alerts, so it's not as easy to watch.
On April 02 2012 15:57 Chocobo wrote: I desperately wish streamers would just play music to themselves but not have it play over the stream.
I would love to learn by watching world class players like Idra, but the blaring sonic diarrhea is such a turnoff that I can't bear to watch it. Sure you can mute it, but I'd miss all the game sounds and particularly the alerts, so it's not as easy to watch.
And I wish that was easy and free to do :|
Requires paying for software and/or hardware and introduces problems like the audio being out of sync with the image. Its a real pain in the ass trying to make it work from my experience.
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...
Complaining about how your stream got shut down and some others didn't is like complaining that you got caught from stealing from a shop but someone you know didn't. Well, at least in the eyes of the law that is.
I can understand why the artists' are protecting their rights as the copyright owners of their music, but at the same time I can't see how using their music in a stream causes them to lose absolutely anything. They most likely just gain from it as increased publicity.
The law is the law, and that is all there is to be said I guess.
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.
tbh im surprised twitch/own3d etc. isnt banned already in germany hail gema even if you have like 1 second of a relatively unknown song in your youtube video its banned by gema in seconds.
On April 02 2012 13:44 rename wrote: it has been established in this thread that sooner or later you will going to get DMCA'd if you stream using copyrighted music... be it fair or not.
important questions what have not been answered yet: Has a player actually gotten a license to use copyrighted music on their streams? Anybody has any idea what the costs exactly are and how to actually get one? Do you need multiple licenses for different music/labels?
1) No player has a license.
2) They are very expensive (not proportional to the income you make while playing music), but getting one is usually as easy as contact the relevant music collection agency.
3) In the US, at least, there are three major organizations, all which have different members. Paying all three will generally cover all main-stream musicians, but not always.
About 2) What is expensive? For some streamers 500$/year might be expensive, for others maybe not.. Also i found this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoundExchange where it says proportional fees can be also done for Internet Radio - but im not sure if this organization covers video streams.
About 3) Is there a service that helps you cover everything/most, without that much hassle? And if not - is there legal framework for twitchv providing that kind of service?
Streamers who want to play copyrighted music can get a 'backgroundmusic license' which will cover all songs (well 99%) you play at your stream and of course you also have to own the music and i think you cant have vods but you have to check that out at the organization who provides licenses in your country. You can get licenses like that around 300/400 dollars a year, so not that bad indeed if you really need the music on your stream.
Twitch cant provide it cause each streamer has to have it's own license for broadcasting copyrighted music, only thing twitch could provide is a music database with tracks users could use for broadcasting, but dont think thats gonna be cost effective for Twitch. There are already a lot of providers where you can purchase a account and you get a database with like 10000000 songs which you then can use for streaming.
On April 02 2012 19:47 Vapaach wrote: Complaining about how your stream got shut down and some others didn't is like complaining that you got caught from stealing from a shop but someone you know didn't. Well, at least in the eyes of the law that is.
When it becomes impossible to enforce a law across the board, its enforcement becomes selective. Selective enforcement is a notorious method of using laws to serve private interests. Pointing out that the law was brought down on one target but not another is a very good way of showing whether that law was intended to protect society or protect a few special interest groups.
On April 02 2012 19:47 Vapaach wrote: Complaining about how your stream got shut down and some others didn't is like complaining that you got caught from stealing from a shop but someone you know didn't. Well, at least in the eyes of the law that is.
When it becomes impossible to enforce a law across the board, its enforcement becomes selective. Selective enforcement is a notorious method of using laws to serve private interests. Pointing out that the law was brought down on one target but not another is a very good way of showing whether that law was intended to protect society or protect a few special interest groups.
No, if it is impossible to enforce a law across the board, it simply is possible to get away with breaking it. This doesn't automatically lead to selective enforcement. You are jumping to conclusions.
I've been studying Copyright Law for the UK and hopefully can enlighten you all a little.
A person or company who owns the copyright for a sound recording owns an exclusive bundle of rights. These include the right to copy, lend, hire, play in public etc.(Look at the back of a CD cover if you still have one). These can be sold or licensed as individual rights or as the entire bundle.
If another plays this copyrighted material in public then they have infringed the copyright of the owner. S20 of the Copyright and Patents Act 1988 prohibits the playing in public of copyrighted material without licence. This is a primary infringement and the infringer is strictly liable.
There are defences to primary infringement as below, but a streamer would not qualify IMHO.
Permitted Acts under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 Permitted acts include use of a work for:
Research or private study. Criticism, review or reporting of current events provided it is fair dealing. Incidental inclusion. Things done for the purposes of instruction or examination. Anthologies for educational use. Copying by libraries and archives. Anything done for the purposes of parliamentary or judicial proceedings. Copying of material open to public inspection or on an official register.
There is also an offence of authorising infringement. A good example is a library with a photocopier. If a organisation supplies the copyright material (books) and means to copy (photocopier) and the medium on which the copy is made (paper) then they could be liable for authorising infringement for any primary infringement that is done using their equipment. The library must disclaim any liability by informing the users of its facilities that they can only do so for the reasons above, and that not doing so can lead to a primary infringement.
Though the streaming site doesn't supply the music it does supply the means to present the copyrighted music to the public could still be liable for this offence, so i would imagine they would inform new members of their site of any potential copyright pitfalls.
If for instance you own a Bar in the UK and want to play music. You can pay a liscence to an organisation. They will then distribute this as royalties to their members (copyright holders) and you have liscence to play the music in public.
Copyright infringment is a civil offence, and with all civil offences its enforcement boils down to the damage done and whether it is worth suing the offender. In most cases the answer is no with regards to the streamers. They have no money and they also give some artists valuable air time they would not usually get.
This is just a brief outline of the law in the UK and infringment is more complicated than this however I hope it helps!
Yeah, very complicated to uphold. A simple solution is for Twitch to pay the license akin to a bar. I know technically DJ's have to apply for a license to play their own music despite a bar's license here in the UK, but it's a not very well upheld law seeing as how that is double licensing.
When will people realize that when their shit gets spread they will make more money eventually. When people try to quantify certain numbers they refuse to consider situations that might not be quantifiable at this moment, so the comparissions they make to see how much they "loose" are almost always off.
On April 03 2012 00:22 Kyuki wrote: I'm just so tired of all this
When will people realize that when their shit gets spread they will make more money eventually. When people try to quantify certain numbers they refuse to consider situations that might not be quantifiable at this moment, so the comparissions they make to see how much they "loose" are almost always off.
This is a general issue in many organisations.
You are right. Even more, the copyright/troll patent industry in general must stop. It was good for the past centuries. Regarding our own usages, it is not needed / what we want now.
^^ The problem is the people who are suiing for the money aren't making money from exposure, not many people are buying "catalog" songs, so they start to get greedy and get their money from other sources.
All the dying major labels need to somehow transition into the new reality and are having trouble with it.
On April 03 2012 01:15 MooMooMugi wrote: Most streamers use things like grooveshark and pandora anyhow to avoid that
That doesn't avoid anything, you're breaking the license agreement by re-streaming off those services.
Yep, they are licensed on a per listener basis. Streaming to 5k people although there really is only one listener being tracked. Along with the streaming service only getting 1 ad hit while you get 5k ad hits.
Do you think streamers would like it if someone simply restreamed their broadcast? Maybe someone should do that and see how long they will last until they get upset about it.
On April 03 2012 01:15 MooMooMugi wrote: Most streamers use things like grooveshark and pandora anyhow to avoid that
That doesn't avoid anything, you're breaking the license agreement by re-streaming off those services.
That is true. However, it is likely not worth the time of the record lable file an complaint or injunction to stop the streamer. In the case of SC2 streamers who only listen to the music while they practice, they likely do not care or see it as free exposure to new listeners. It would be very different if SotG opened up with the licenced music they did not pay to use in that way. However, it does not fall under fair use if the streamer is making money from streaming. Even then, Twitch is broadcasting the restream of the music and they make money off of ads. But once again, I doubt it is worth the record label's time to take legal action.
The other thing that people need to understand is that the licence holders are not going to give formal approval for a streamer to use their music. By doing so, they weaken their ability to bring a claim later if they somehow object to the way the music is being used. This is how law works and there are times when it is better to not respond at all. By doing nothing, they lose nothing.
to be honest i don't really think it's that big of a deal, nor should we really care if some think it is.
the digital rights industry is easily one of the most corrupt organizations in america. they aren't in it to protect the rights of musicians. they're in it to make a fat profit. they charge an arm and a leg to get their stupid little sticker of approval, and only intervene when its in their interest to do so.
yes, playing music on their streams is illegal. the better question is who cares.
On April 03 2012 00:18 GeNeSiDe wrote: Yeah, very complicated to uphold. A simple solution is for Twitch to pay the license akin to a bar. I know technically DJ's have to apply for a license to play their own music despite a bar's license here in the UK, but it's a not very well upheld law seeing as how that is double licensing.
except that twitch is us based and falls under DMCA, not UK law. As long as twitch removes content at the request of the holder of the copyright, under DMCA, they are not liable for any infringement.
On April 03 2012 00:18 GeNeSiDe wrote: Yeah, very complicated to uphold. A simple solution is for Twitch to pay the license akin to a bar. I know technically DJ's have to apply for a license to play their own music despite a bar's license here in the UK, but it's a not very well upheld law seeing as how that is double licensing.
except that twitch is us based and falls under DMCA, not UK law. As long as twitch removes content at the request of the holder of the copyright, under DMCA, they are not liable for any infringement.
This. What we should be arguing for is the nullification of any and all supposed "IP protection" laws for something a little more nuanced and less vague.
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.
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.
... Permitted Acts under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 Permitted acts include use of a work for: ... Incidental inclusion. ...
Interesting post. What does incidental inclusion mean?
For example, if you're walking around with a camera and happen to walk by an area that has a radio playing, the music in the background is completely incidental.
Essentially, as long as there was absolutely no intention for the copyrighted material to be in your content, then you have a fair use claim.
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 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 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 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 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 19:06 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 07:04 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.
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.
Found out why my stream was shutdown for 24 hours.
Warner Bros contacted twitch.tv about a DMCA violation against me, because I sang along to a backstreet boys song from youtube, for roughly 40 seconds, and turned it off. Talk about a pain in the ass!
Looks like I won't be singing a long to backstreet boy songs while streaming! Or playing youtube music that's licensed by big companies. Hue.
On July 01 2012 08:23 smoothmaydie wrote: Found out why my stream was shutdown for 24 hours.
Warner Bros contacted twitch.tv about a DMCA violation against me, because I sang along to a backstreet boys song from youtube, for roughly 40 seconds, and turned it off. Talk about a pain in the ass!
Looks like I won't be singing a long to backstreet boy songs while streaming! Or playing youtube music that's licensed by big companies. Hue.
Woah that's really harsh I guess Warner Bros really didn't enjoy your singing kekekkekeke
Alas. Copyrights are a tool of the production companies to maintain complete control of the industry. It is sad to see that streamers are being targeted now.
Also if you are following the news then you will find that Team Liquid is also dangerously close to being in violation of copyrights too:
Richard O'Dwyer of the UK faces extradition to the USA for creating tvshack.net a website that only LINKED to sites with copyrighted material. Team Liquid is exactly the same in that it links to streams that frequently contain copyrighted material. Since the USA justice department has moved against Richard O'Dwyer it is matter of time for them to move on twitch and even TL down the road. Please help stop the internet police and the copyright police. You can help by signing this petition against the extradition of Richard O'Dwyer:
On July 01 2012 08:23 smoothmaydie wrote: Found out why my stream was shutdown for 24 hours.
Warner Bros contacted twitch.tv about a DMCA violation against me, because I sang along to a backstreet boys song from youtube, for roughly 40 seconds, and turned it off. Talk about a pain in the ass!
Looks like I won't be singing a long to backstreet boy songs while streaming! Or playing youtube music that's licensed by big companies. Hue.
That's actually just plain pathetic by Warner Bros
On July 01 2012 08:23 smoothmaydie wrote: Found out why my stream was shutdown for 24 hours.
Warner Bros contacted twitch.tv about a DMCA violation against me, because I sang along to a backstreet boys song from youtube, for roughly 40 seconds, and turned it off. Talk about a pain in the ass!
Looks like I won't be singing a long to backstreet boy songs while streaming! Or playing youtube music that's licensed by big companies. Hue.
That's actually just plain pathetic by Warner Bros
All of the really major music labels are infamous for being the most 'plain pathetic'. There isn't any other body of individuals on the planet more concerned with incredibly petty copyright disputes.
On July 01 2012 08:47 wcr.4fun wrote: How do you even get such a license to stream music legally?
I assume by paying big bucks to the labels themselves. And even then, you could technically only play their music. Unless you go around to all the labels of the music you listen to, and pay them for rights. It's pretty retarded if thats the case.
Most streamers thrive on copyright infrignement technically, even if everyone knows almost no one goes out of their way to listen to someone stream call me maybe in mediocre quality. The law still dictates that companies like blizzard and the RIAA can grab you by the balls at any time. Kinda sad, because in the end the streamers themselves (IMO of course) are providing the impetus for people to tune in.
Admittedly I've not read this entire thread so if it occurred in the middle somewhere or I just missed it I apologize.
Does anyone know one way or another if TV or radio stations are required to pay royalties or get permission to broadcast music that is played at a sporting event by the stadium that is then picked up by the announcers or other microphones? It would seem to me that streamers listening to music while primarily doing other activities would fall under that umbrella of copyright law, rather than that of a youtube video being uploaded with with a song added in the background. Is there some clause about the relative fidelity of the rebroadcast sound that allows the former and not the latter?
On July 01 2012 08:38 algorithm0r wrote: Alas. Copyrights are a tool of the production companies to maintain complete control of the industry. It is sad to see that streamers are being targeted now.
This is an incredibly ignorant view as to the laws. I admit that some people (producers, musicians, etc) take things way out of proportion, a band is entitled to earn money on their content.
I actually wonder if anyone has tried contacting bands directly for permission. Obviously huge mega bands aren't easy to reach, but there are plenty great bands out there with a decent following that have pretty good contact with the fans. And I'm sure they could see allowing their music to be streamed as good exposure. I have gone and purchased several bands because of watching streams.
On July 28 2012 05:04 ThirdDegree wrote: I actually wonder if anyone has tried contacting bands directly for permission. Obviously huge mega bands aren't easy to reach, but there are plenty great bands out there with a decent following that have pretty good contact with the fans. And I'm sure they could see allowing their music to be streamed as good exposure. I have gone and purchased several bands because of watching streams.
Day[9] has done this. The music he uses on his stream is used with permission, and at least the Blue Sky Black Death guys have made statements that suggest that it's driven sales for them.
On July 01 2012 08:38 algorithm0r wrote: Alas. Copyrights are a tool of the production companies to maintain complete control of the industry. It is sad to see that streamers are being targeted now.
This is an incredibly ignorant view as to the laws. I admit that some people (producers, musicians, etc) take things way out of proportion, a band is entitled to earn money on their content.
I actually wonder if anyone has tried contacting bands directly for permission. Obviously huge mega bands aren't easy to reach, but there are plenty great bands out there with a decent following that have pretty good contact with the fans. And I'm sure they could see allowing their music to be streamed as good exposure. I have gone and purchased several bands because of watching streams.
Most bands do not hold the copyrights to their work. If they sign with a major label, they signed away their rights as well.
On July 28 2012 05:11 WolfintheSheep wrote: Most bands do not hold the copyrights to their work. If they sign with a major label, they signed away their rights as well.
AKA, asking the bands is absolutely meaningless.
Asking the bands is meaningless if they are signed to a label that has acquired the rights. I believe the guy you're quoting is advocating contacting indie bands who are marketing their own work through, for example, the iTunes program (or similar ones) that allow bands to do so without affiliation with a major label. The bands I mentioned Day[9] using in his streams have so far retained the rights to their music and are able to grant that permission.
Obviously, the rightholder has to provide permission.
Most bands do hold copyrights to their work. Major label bands, no way. But most bands are not on major labels. There are plenty of signed bands out there that could give permission to stream their music.
Oh man, we Germans can only fear the day that the GEMA gets wind of this stuff @__@
Edit:
This video stream is unavailable. Unfortunately, this video stream is not available in Germany because it may contain music for which GEMA has not granted the respective music rights. Sorry about that.
On July 01 2012 08:38 algorithm0r wrote: Alas. Copyrights are a tool of the production companies to maintain complete control of the industry. It is sad to see that streamers are being targeted now.
Also if you are following the news then you will find that Team Liquid is also dangerously close to being in violation of copyrights too:
Richard O'Dwyer of the UK faces extradition to the USA for creating tvshack.net a website that only LINKED to sites with copyrighted material. Team Liquid is exactly the same in that it links to streams that frequently contain copyrighted material. Since the USA justice department has moved against Richard O'Dwyer it is matter of time for them to move on twitch and even TL down the road. Please help stop the internet police and the copyright police. You can help by signing this petition against the extradition of Richard O'Dwyer:
EPT
Which is good, because I'm all in favor of copyright protection.
...
