Topic: TWITCH.TV IS DEAD

[Oblivion]

http://blog.twitch.tv/2014/08/3136/

[ShyGuy]

Wow, I watch little on Twitch, but when I do, I usually track it down on Youtube because I missed the original broadcast. I won't be able to do that anymore, right?

[Oblivion]

More likely than not.

[pokepal148]

I'm pretty sure if they didn't do this stuff they'd be more dead.

And I didn't even know they had VOD.

[Oblivion]

And I didn't even know they had VOD.

Then you haven't used the site very much because it's a pretty big feature that most people know about. Hell, some streamers I can only catch by watching an older recording.


Also, **** the mod that removed my glorious first post. It's not like it was harming anyone. No one was gonna read the post anyway

[UncleBob]

I don't mind this for the most part, but I wish the DCMA had some kind of automatic penalty to individuals when someone files a false DCMA claim against them.

I think that would be a lot more fair for consumers.

[Oblivion]

How is it fair? These people are just listening to music. It's not like viewers are listening to an 8 hour stream to listen to one 3 minute song. It's friggin' ridiculous.

Not to mention that in-game music is getting flagged. On a video game streaming site. Causing 30+ minutes of footage getting muted. It's a program doing this, not individual people.

Nah dude, it isn't fair at all.

EDIT: Not only that, even those that get permission for their music gets flagged and muted.

Oh, and this is now the only song that can be played through the GTA V radio if you stream the game:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x47NYUbtYb0

Yeah.

On, a stream I was watching got muted during The Last of Us. A game that is 70% silence (no music). She wasn't playing music at the time.

Yeah. Fair.

[UncleBob]

Many of what you complained about would come under my suggestion for a "False Claim" cause.  Got permission, then get flagged anyway?  False claim.  No music?  False claim.

While I don't *agree* with this type of enforcement, the fact is the streamers don't own the music, thus don't have the right to broadcast it.

I think it's a bad tactic, but they're within their rights.

[Oblivion]

But no one is getting punished for that false claim. It just happens because the program has no check or balance built in. Its the same one for Youtube. And so far, there's no way to contact Google or twitch to undue a false claim.

I'd like to know how it's fair that in-game music is claimed. Please, I'd love for you to justify that.

[BranDonk Kong]

Why care about this? Nothing will change. Some videos will have muted audio, bfd.

[UncleBob]

But no one is getting punished for that false claim. It just happens because the program has no check or balance built in. Its the same one for Youtube. And so far, there's no way to contact Google or twitch to undue a false claim.

Again, as I stated originally and will repeat again because you seem to have missed it twice now: "I wish the DCMA had some kind of automatic penalty to individuals when someone files a false DCMA claim against them."

I'd like to know how it's fair that in-game music is claimed. Please, I'd love for you to justify that.

Did you create the music?

[pokepal148]

Are you referring to the GTA radio music? That's you're "ingame" music? That is music licensed to rockstar for use in the game but it still isn't owned by Rockstar, thus in a legal setting it would be more accurate to refer it as licensed music.

[Oblivion]

Are you referring to the GTA radio music? That's you're "ingame" music? That is music licensed to rockstar for use in the game but it still isn't owned by Rockstar, thus in a legal setting it would be more accurate to refer it as licensed music.

Nah, even in-game as in the game's soundtrack is flagged.

Again, as I stated originally and will repeat again because you seem to have missed it twice now: "I wish the DCMA had some kind of automatic penalty to individuals when someone files a false DCMA claim against them."

ANd like I said, which you ignore: that does bumfuck to their own program. That is what I am talking about.

[UncleBob]

The reason why this is in place (and as is covered in the blog YOU posted) is because of the DMCA.

If there was a legitimate system in place to protect individuals from "copyright harassment", you'd be less likely to see some kind of fully automated system like this in place.

[pokepal148]

The fact that they didn't go straight to Google's wonder-Ok, I can't even make the joke here, come on, googles content id thing is garbage, to me is a good sign right away.

I'd say give it a month or so. That way they can adjust some algorithms as needed.

[MegaByte]

I'd say give it a month or so. That way they can adjust some algorithms as needed.

Google's had how many years to "adjust some algorithms"?

[pokepal148]

I'd say give it a month or so. That way they can adjust some algorithms as needed.

Google's had how many years to "adjust some algorithms"?

More then enough. The fact that they haven't put some system to prove that you own the copyright that you claim is being infringed is bad enough.

[lolmonade]

I don't know about you guys, but grainy background copyrighted music with someone talking over it while video game sounds are playing is the best audio experience for me, and why I haven't bought an album in years.  This is deeply upsetting to me.

[marvel_moviefan_2012]

I just completed a course in copyright law for my broadcasting major last year, this easily falls under infringement especially when Pandora and radio stations have to pay so much to broadcast music and they constantly interrupt music with commentary as well as station promos all the time. People might forget radio DJ's still exist but they do make a living broadcasting licensed music and it affects their jobs and their value if others get away with doing it for free illegally. I also work for a wedding company and our DJ's have to pay for every song they play, we have licensing deals in place that allow for most music but weddings are cluttered with all sorts of back ground noise and they still have to pay to play those songs.

[NWR_insanolord]

I don't think anyone's arguing the companies don't have the right to go after people using their content without permission; the argument is that for something on this scale it's unnecessary to be so draconian about it. Whatever they may think they've gained from it is probably wiped out by the bad PR stemming from it.

[marvel_moviefan_2012]

That is what I meant, our DJ company only plays music to a small crowd one night a week and they still have toi pay royalties for the music. I am pretty sure more people are tuning in to twitch per video than even the biggest wedding we do. It doesn't matter how small scale it is. Now if Twitch only streamed to game consoles and was not accessible from outside the privacy of your bedroom it might be a different story. The size of the audience does not matter, never has. There are radio DJ's whose entire listening area are less than some videos on Youtube.

[NWR_insanolord]

Like I opened that post, they absolutely are within their rights to pursue this. I'm just saying the way it's handled is extremely poor, and only serves to get people upset about it.

UncleBob's right on this, the DMCA needs to be amended to have mechanics for people to fight back against false positives. Really, the burden of proof should be on the entity claiming infringement, but the way it is now allows big corporations to bully end users.

[marvel_moviefan_2012]

amending the DMCA is easier said than done, every attempt at doing so only ushers in a new era of oh no censorship outcries. To be fair, Google was sued into their current stance so they are just covering their asses better safe than sorry kind of thing. It just is more of the entitlement mentality a lot of this generation have, they don't think they are doing anything wrong because they never had to pay for music before to them that sounds foreign but they also never had to work as a starving musician getting screwed by the record companies either so its not like they get either point of view they just bitch when something they didn't earn is taken away.

[NWR_insanolord]

If they're getting stuff taken down that came directly from a game stream via a share feature that's heavily advertised on a site specifically designed for streaming games I don't see how that shouldn't be considered fair use.

[marvel_moviefan_2012]

If they're getting stuff taken down that came directly from a game stream via a share feature that's heavily advertised on a site specifically designed for streaming games I don't see how that shouldn't be considered fair use.

Napster advertised their service as used for perfectly legit purposes too and they still got shut down.