[HN Gopher] Metallica's BlizzCon Performance Ruined by Twitch
___________________________________________________________________
Metallica's BlizzCon Performance Ruined by Twitch
Author : croes
Score : 145 points
Date : 2021-02-20 15:18 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.gamespot.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.gamespot.com)
| cush wrote:
| Something tells me someone at Twitch knew this was going to
| happen and let this transpire as a fuck you to Metallica and
| DMCA. Metallica is widely known as one of the absolute worst
| bands for cracking down on small creators for using any amount of
| their content. They ended Napster and pushed back against digital
| music for years. Absolutely love the band, but they just don't
| get it. Same for a lot of the best older bands too (Led Zeppelin,
| AC/DC, KISS, etc.)
| chromatin wrote:
| This is poetic, really.
| cbanek wrote:
| I really hope the South Park creators run with this one. The
| episode about Metallica and Lars fighting Napster is one of my
| favorites.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Rock_Hard
|
| Not a big deal?!?!
| trollied wrote:
| An idea for Twitch:
|
| 1) Allow you to link your Amazon Music/Spotify/whatever account
| to your Twitch account to prove that you are licensed to stream
| songs from a given platform. 2) Allow a streamer to provide a 2nd
| audio channel in their bitstream, from their choice of service.
| You then only deliver this 2nd audio channel to people that have
| a link in place to said service
|
| Simples _.
|
| _ Probably needs rights geolocation checking adding
| rektide wrote:
| Twitch is already adding 2nd, separate music tracks, via Twitch
| Soundtrack[1]. They have negotiated their own licensing of some
| music catalogs for use here.
|
| The article mentions "sync" rights, which is the right to have
| music accompanying a video system. So in your system the user
| having the right to listen to the music is not enough. In this
| hell-hole shit-world the RIAA & MPAA & others have created,
| there are endless infinite licenses & they all require brutally
| disgusting carefully negotiated licenses, each & every time.
| What terrible people. The legalese continually gums of the
| creative & cultural works of our society, causes endless
| nightmares & prohibitions. The systems seem to only grow in
| complexity & become ever more inhumane.
|
| [1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/12/21562372/twitch-
| soundtra...
| trollied wrote:
| What a mess.
|
| It's almost as if they don't want people to use & enjoy
| music.
| fencepost wrote:
| Clearly overlaid with the wrong music.
|
| It should have been a string quartet of very very tiny violins
| playing a sad song.
| paulsutter wrote:
| They were obviously playing pre-recorded music otherwise it
| wouldn't have been a match, which is actually even funnier
| lights0123 wrote:
| Given that the message was
|
| > The _upcoming_ musical performance is subject to copyright
| protection by the applicable copyright holder
|
| (emphasis mine), this was configured manually by a human before
| the performance even started.
| grawprog wrote:
| So, blizzard tries to team up with Metallica to garner publicity
| after some fairly terrible publicity only to have Metallica's
| stream removed from the most popular game streaming service
| currently existing due to DMCA and now it's gotten them both
| negative publicity.
|
| I feel like there's some irony buried in there somewhere...
| lrossi wrote:
| This is karma for all the pain caused to independent artists by
| copyright censorship "AI".
| TazeTSchnitzel wrote:
| > Several commenters online have pointed out the irony of this
| happening to Metallica. The band, particularly drummer Lars
| Ulrich, has been heavily critical of online music sharing, and
| the band had a high-profile case with Napster back in 2000.
|
| Is that not the opposite of ironic?
| noja wrote:
| Was this just for the restreamed videos?
| bitcharmer wrote:
| Awesome, it was Metallica who started the whole nonsense behind
| today's state of DMCA. Finally getting some taste of their own
| medicine.
| Dirlewanger wrote:
| People just can't let something from 21 years ago go, can they?
| The band's done a complete 180 on everything regarding digital
| distribution, and it's been this way for years (I'm sure owning
| their masters and own label has something to do with it). You
| want a real culprit who actually thoroughly abused (and still
| to this day) the DMCA? Get mad at the RIAA.
|
| Also, if it weren't Metallica, it would have been someone else;
| virtually every big artist at the time felt the same way but
| didn't speak up.
| throwmusician wrote:
| As artists, why shouldn't Metallica get paid for their work?
|
| I can't believe the audacity of people thinking they should
| just be able to steal others' (by virtue of copying) music.
|
| The people I know in the music industry are some of the
| hardest working that I know...
|
| And to be clear, Metallica was never against online streaming
| / downloading, only illegal piracy.
| cush wrote:
| Because fair use laws exist and educators like Rick Beato
| get screwed by these over-censoring algorithms.
| capsulecorp wrote:
| Piracy isn't stealing, it may be illegal, but it does not
| fit the definition of stealing. Saying piracy is theft, is
| an antiquated line of thinking that anyone with common
| knowledge of digital products knows to be false.
| capsulecorp wrote:
| I think many people don't buy their "complete 180", as that
| only came after their massively failed campaign. I have no
| doubt that if these guys were successful in their initial
| endeavor there would have never been a 180 as you call it. So
| really, there's not much to praise about a group who tried
| their hardest to do the wrong thing, and settled for the
| alternative when they failed measurably. Glad this happened
| to them, well deserved.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| They maybe did an 180, but they did not undo what they did,
| the effects are visible today and they are at fault. No,
| people cannot just let something go in such circumstances.
| sidpatil wrote:
| > People just can't let something from 21 years ago go, can
| they?
|
| Tell that to the media industries lobbying to extend
| copyright terms to virtually infinite duration. The
| "something" they _can 't let go_ of from 21 years ago is the
| copyright on the material, of course.
| michalstanko wrote:
| Not sure why are you downvoted. It's hard to find a similarly
| popular band sharing more stuff online for free these days
| than Metallica. Besides, the entire Napster thing was about a
| song "I Disappear" being available through Napster BEFORE it
| was even finished and sent to CD manufacturing, and, don't
| forget, it all happened in 2000. It has not been on their
| radar for about 20 years now. Hating based on skimming
| headlines of inaccurate articles is surely easier than trying
| to understand the band's motives.
| jcpham2 wrote:
| I guarantee you people still volunteer their time to
| bootleg anything this band does on the internet, forever.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| splaytreemap wrote:
| Metallica almost certainly still got paid, so I doubt they care
| much. Blizzard is probably furious.
| kzrdude wrote:
| Maybe they'd need to be paid twice - is there a way to
| license the music for online streaming? And was it done as
| part of the contract in this case?
| Mc_Big_G wrote:
| Metallica is probably not in it for the $ much these days.
| I'd wager it's more about ego, so this probably stung.
| Deservedly.
| lawnchair_larry wrote:
| As a teenager, I thought I had a right to enjoy their work
| without paying for it. But this attitude surprises me from
| adults. Why don't bands deserve to be paid for their product?
| zucker42 wrote:
| How exactly does what happened here -- hundreds of streams,
| including the official Twitch stream, muting themselves to
| avoid losing their careers or getting sued for absurd amounts
| of money -- contribute to bands getting paid?
| ouid wrote:
| Lets say that all of the earths water becomes polluted except
| for an infinite well that only you have access to. Do you not
| have the right to get paid for it? Shouldn't you get paid
| something like the value added to humanity? So, everything?
| You should get paid everything?
|
| What if the situation were different, and there where
| billions of people searching for infinite wells when all of
| the water became polluted and you were the lucky one to find
| it. Do you deserve everything now? How else were you supposed
| to have been incentivized to search for infinite wells if not
| for the possibility that everything would be yours upon
| finding it.
|
| Alright, what if it weren't water? What if it were something
| that, instead of keeping you alive, just made life worth
| living? I reckon you probably couldn't get everything for it,
| but surely you could get a lot.
|
| Does that seem like a bad system to you? I tell you what. I
| have a lot of money, I'll pay you to go searching for the
| infinite well of happiness (you can't survive on credit
| forever), and in exchange, it becomes mine when you find it,
| and then I can sell it for everything.
|
| The premise that monopoly rights on distribution are
| necessary to incentivize the searching is pretty severely
| undermined by the fact that those monopoly rights are
| aggregated by companies which incentivize the searching via
| other means.
| blandflakes wrote:
| I want to pay artists for their work. I don't want to lease
| the bytes representing my access from a company, and then
| have them vanish later, because some kind of licensing
| agreement changed. Metallica was a huge driving force and
| public supporter behind the shitshow behavior. Do you like
| rootkits? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protect
| ion_rootk...
| lawnchair_larry wrote:
| Metallica had nothing to do with what your issue is then.
| Not a single thing.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compact_discs_sold_wi
| t...
| blandflakes wrote:
| Metallica lobbied and was publicly the face of anti-
| piracy sentiment, and are therefore very much responsible
| for my issues AND their own, in this scenario.
| lawnchair_larry wrote:
| Let me guess, you also don't like police.
| ubercow13 wrote:
| I wouldn't like the police to rootkit my PC if that's
| what you're asking.
| blandflakes wrote:
| Or maybe just engage the statement on its merits instead
| of trying to create a strawman.
| Hydraulix989 wrote:
| I wasn't aware Metallica ever rootkit'd anybody? I already
| knew about the Sony incident that you linked.
| blandflakes wrote:
| The point is that efforts to prevent piracy, pushed by
| Metallica and obviously the recording companies at large,
| can be harmful, and it's possible to want to support
| artists but to prefer that they don't take measures which
| actively hurt consumers.
|
| This is the same community that really hates ebook
| lending, and it's very much the same set of consumer-
| limiting control over intellectual property that curtails
| piracy but also makes things really inconvenient for the
| legitimate customer. I'm surprised but also not that
| people aren't able to think about this as more than a
| (false) dichotomy.
| Hydraulix989 wrote:
| Again, Metallica did not rootkit anybody. How are they
| hurting legitimate consumers of their work? Rootkits are
| not mere inconveniences, they are intentional data
| breaches. Obviously spreading mis-information using this
| particular false example is going to distort peoples'
| understandings of Metallica's actual stance and actions.
| Hacking consumers directly vs. using the court system to
| shut down an illegal piracy application is a very real
| dichotomy.
|
| Properly implemented DRM is fine! Spotify has been a huge
| success, for example. Watching Netflix fully brings the
| convenience of streaming to legal content consumption.
| The only inconvenience here is that you can no longer
| pirate anything.
| blandflakes wrote:
| > Again, Metallica did not rootkit anybody.
|
| And, to use a facile and touchy example, Donald Trump
| didn't revolt at the capital.
|
| But fine:
|
| > what is a very real dichotomy
|
| Help me out here - why are the only two choices: 1.
| rampant piracy 2. automated systems that allow
| corporations to trivially take down content, legitimate
| or not, with generally no recourse unless you get e.g.
| Google's attention on twitter?
|
| Why are people so convinced there's no middle ground
| here, and that everybody with an opinion that #2 is
| perhaps a little problematic must be totally pro-piracy?
|
| > Properly implemented DRM is fine!
|
| Perhaps the argument is that we don't yet live in the
| land of properly implemented IP controls. I didn't
| realize we'd reached utopia; I'll go back to buying
| ebooks and reusing them across whatever devices I please.
|
| Spotify and Netflix are great examples of exactly proof
| that a convenient form of consumption will get paying
| customers, and I was certainly more willing to buy MP3s
| when they stopped coming with DRM attached to them. The
| fact these work does not somehow render the point that,
| well, the original article, occurs, as a result of these
| things, and that it's ironic that it happens to
| Metallica, who would probably prior to this have been
| pleased that an automated system takes down anything
| approximating Enter Sandman.
| lawnchair_larry wrote:
| Your arguments on this whole thing are completely
| nonsensical. None of what you're claiming to be mad about
| has anything to do with Metallica. You're basically
| complaining that you can't freely use the work of artists
| without compensating them.
| Hydraulix989 wrote:
| You originally stated that Metallica rootkitted people.
|
| That's a ridiculous wholly non-analogous example. Trump
| clearly incited the riot, there were recordings as proof,
| and resultant court cases. I assume (and hope) that this
| is also your understanding of what actually happened with
| Trump.
|
| In this case, it doesn't even come close. For example,
| Metallica wasn't even signed on the record label that did
| the rootkit. Metallica had literally no involvement any
| hacking of their fans' operating systems.
|
| You're stating a different dichotomy now. The original
| one you proposed was whether it is possible to be against
| online piracy without attacking consumers' data.
|
| I'm happy to entertain your other more reasonable
| arguments that you have later written as follow-ups, but
| your original post directly accusing Metallica of
| rootkits is just flat-out untrue.
| blandflakes wrote:
| > That's a ridiculous wholly non-analogous example. Trump
| clearly incited the riot, there were recordings as proof,
| and resultant court cases. In this case, it doesn't even
| come close.
|
| I'm just making the point that Metallica not rootkitting
| anybody is in no way an argument that they are neither in
| favor of that drastic a measure nor that they did not
| encourage or provide justification for the recording
| industry to do the same.
|
| > You originally stated that Metallica rootkitted people.
|
| No, I made a leap from "lobbying for and publicly whining
| about piracy" to "efforts to curb that include rootkits
| and other less horrible inconveniences". I'm sorry if
| that leap felt too extreme, next time I'll make the pit
| stops along the lines of "things don't work offline" and
| "things disappear without you knowing" and "things using
| otherwise standard formats aren't readable on your non-
| blessed device".
|
| Whether Metallica directly rootkitted anything (which was
| never stated, it was just juxtaposed as an example of how
| this POV can hurt consumers in the end) doesn't really
| matter. Let's pretend that nobody ever rootkitted
| anybody.
|
| How is this dichotomy different? My original, according
| to you:
|
| > The original one you proposed was whether it is
| possible to be against online piracy without attacking
| consumers' data.
|
| My recent restating:
|
| > Help me out here - why are the only two choices: 1.
| rampant piracy 2. automated systems that allow
| corporations to trivially take down content, legitimate
| or not, with generally no recourse unless you get e.g.
| Google's attention on twitter?
|
| Hm. Option 1 is online piracy, 2 is attacking consumers'
| data. Sounds pretty similar? Or do I need to be really
| literal and exact and use the same words?
| Hydraulix989 wrote:
| Again, I agree with these newly changed words.
| ubercow13 wrote:
| I wouldn't say that DRM is 'fine'. For example there is
| no legal way to watch my blu-ray movies on my PC, on
| which I use Linux. Similarly Netflix 4K doesn't work at
| all on Linux or even on Windows unless you are using a
| specific web browser.
| blandflakes wrote:
| Oh, right amazing point - it hadn't even floated to the
| top of my memory that I can't actually even pay anybody
| to watch Netflix if I'm using the wrong operating system.
| DRM utopia, indeed.
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| well the industry corrected itself by pushing a la carte
| subscription music services which is what the freedom
| fighters hate but it turns out it's exactly what the people
| wanted all along.
| blandflakes wrote:
| I think it's pretty valid to want to pay a price for
| music, and then take that file wherever you go, without
| having to reconnect to update a license (I both pay for a
| subscription to Spotify and mp3s a la carte).
|
| Of course, that's _also_ available today, but that 's not
| really relevant to the problem being discussed, which is:
| it's possible to want to pay artists, while also finding
| overzealous enforcement of the DMCA problematic.
| mrgordon wrote:
| Nobody said it's what the people wanted all along. I miss
| the days where my songs don't just disappear from Spotify
| because they renegotiated a contract. But there's no risk
| of being sued and it's cheap enough so it's easy to
| subscribe even if it's not your preferred solution
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| no no no they're supposed to give their music away for free
| and then make money on concert tickets and t-shirts
| sidpatil wrote:
| That's essentially what most musicians end up doing when
| they stream on platforms like Spotify.
| dcwca wrote:
| There are cases where it's less important for bands to be
| paid for their music than it is to not sue children and not
| cripple consumer technology.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > Why don't bands deserve to be paid for their product?
|
| The presentation suggests that Metallica goes unpaid for
| their product. I suspect there are many fat bank deposits
| that indicate otherwise.
|
| What I feel is more important is that the assertion
| obfuscates the primary motivation in play. Wealthy and
| powerful copyright interests want to control what customers
| get to do with the product they purchase. This government-
| granted privilege isn't one that's enjoyed by the vast bulk
| of producers.
|
| Worse, copyright gatekeepers have twisted the constitutional
| purpose of copyright - from encouraging the progress of
| science and the useful arts - into a pampered entitlement of
| never-ending profit.
| fixmycode wrote:
| I watched the stream on YouTube and the audio was kept as is. I
| doubt it would be the same for the VOD later but, couldn't Twitch
| do the same?
|
| Also, isn't Blizzard or Twitch breaking their ToS by
| simultaneously streaming on Twitch and YouTube?
| pkroll wrote:
| I don't believe there are any ToS covering simultaneous
| streaming on Twitch and YouTube for either service.
| grogenaut wrote:
| Partnered streamers sign away co streaming rights to become
| partners and get those benefits.
|
| For most streamers, they want a community and costreaming
| does the opposite of that
|
| For super large events having a split works. Large events
| aren't usually partners in the typical sense
| kmfrk wrote:
| It wasn't just Twitch's platform: it was Twitch's own channel
| /twitchgaming. On YouTube, Blizzard just streamed it to their
| own channel, and they've surely cleared the rights (for now).
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| Even if there was a tos issue, I'm sure blizzcon will be on
| their own contracts for this kind of stuff
| Supermancho wrote:
| > we have to imagine the band is "madly in anger" with Twitch
| over the fiasco
|
| No, we don't. It's unlikely they care.
| johnday wrote:
| You may have missed the joke.
| Supermancho wrote:
| The irony is the only thing about this event that is
| noteworthy. The attempts at humor (album title) beyond that
| fall flat, but YMMV. Regardless, that quote was the heart of
| the assertion from a non-story.
| f1gm3nt wrote:
| To this day I still boycott anything Metallica. I loved Napster
| and would run out and buy CDs to support the artists. This makes
| me happy, but doubt they even care.
| nightowl_games wrote:
| > I loved Napster and would run out and buy CDs to support the
| artists.
|
| You realize how self-centered this is, right? How it isn't
| indicative of the general public? This is like saying "I love
| drunk driving. I live in Alaska where there's no one around so
| there's no one I can hurt."
| dtx1 wrote:
| no, that comparison doesn't really work.
|
| If your buisness model requires large scale censorship of the
| internet to remain profitable, then your buisness model is
| broken. This was true in the 90s where downloading a few
| thousand mp3s was the most you could get out of your modem
| and it's true today for complete 4k blueray rips.
|
| Spotify and co have obliterated music piracy on the internet.
| It's hard to find torrents for music these days and even the
| best private trackers can't compete with Spotifys ever
| growing catalog. Add to that the availability of Spotify on
| linux, android and basically every other device that has a
| DAC in my household and i wouldn't even bother trying to
| pirate music anymore. There was a time, when this was true
| for netflix, or at least it felt true to a degree. But the
| movie and tv industry chose to split their catalog between an
| ever growing number of competing offers, thus movie piracy is
| alive and well. The same is true for most games these days.
| Why bother pirating a game, requiring complicated
| installation, slow download speeds and a lack of updates when
| i can buy it on steam and get the convenience of fast
| downloads, automatic updates, reliable only gameplay etc.?
|
| The reality is that copying bits of data has become so
| trivial, it's impossible to monetize it. That's why
| everything's a SaaS in the cloud these days. Trying to
| restrict that is a fools errand at best. For piracy to die,
| it has to become inconvenient and the legal alternatives have
| to be priced reasonable.
| LordNight wrote:
| >Spotify and co have obliterated music piracy on the
| internet. It's hard to find torrents for music these days
| and even the best private trackers can't compete with
| Spotifys ever growing catalog.
|
| Eh? Maybe it depends on a musical genre, but from my
| experience musical piracy is about as popular as it ever
| was, with a lot of new releases every day (although I admit
| that it didn't really grow). I can still find anything I'm
| interested in less than a minute.
|
| I also think, that having your own musical library is more
| convenient than spotify. As an example -
| https://ibb.co/VLTh5fD and https://ibb.co/fnxnMmG
| aksss wrote:
| Lately I'm starting to miss the utility of MP3's because
| reasons. So haven't tried it yet, but it seems pretty
| trivial to pirate from Spotify, just a bit of a time suck
| to play an album/playlist, chop up the tracks, look up the
| metadata. There are tools to make all of this easier,
| virtual audio patch cables, audacity, metadata downloaders.
| No?
| dtx1 wrote:
| Is it? I've been unsuccessful so far with the obvious
| exception of ripping the output stream and reencoding
| that. If you find a way to rip music from spoitfy, i'd be
| interested
| aksss wrote:
| Maybe I'm not saying anything different - you play the
| music and use virtual audio cables to harvest it into an
| mp3 file (or whatever format) with no DAC/ADC conversion.
| Digital to digital. https://shop.vb-audio.com/en/win-
| apps/19-hifi-cable-asio-bri...
| dtx1 wrote:
| yeah that will probably work but since spotify is already
| sending a lossy compressed audio file, you'll still get
| some quality loss due to compressing it twice. Also seems
| really inconvenient, especially since i'd want to do this
| for mobile use to save on bandwidth. That quickly becomes
| really annoying if you want to do it for thousands of
| files.
| aksss wrote:
| All this talk is probably going to force me to try it
| this weekend cuz science, right?
|
| I don't know if I'd really notice quality[0] degradation
| too much, my use case would be the local storage in my
| vehicle for long trips with dodgy cell coverage. I've
| been burned a couple times by Spotify auto-clearing
| previously downloaded playlists, only to find out after
| I'm without data coverage / in the air.
|
| I have a couple ideas about making the process more
| efficient, as in process running in the background. You
| are essentially restricted to a 1x rip speed, but I
| shouldn't think I'd need to babysit it much and the post
| processing can be largely automated, perhaps less time
| than I remember it taking to find equivalent torrents, dl
| and clean those up. I mean, duration would be longer but
| level of effort on par or less.
|
| Will report back.
|
| [0] https://support.spotify.com/us/article/high-quality-
| streamin...
| aksss wrote:
| Yep it works fine. Three basic steps - 1) configure your
| environment; 2) record; 3) process. Steps 1 & 3 take the
| most effort here, but once set up you don't really have
| to sweat over any of it again. Step 2 takes the most
| duration since it's realtime. But the cool thing is
| there's no DAC happening.
|
| 1) Configure Environment
|
| * In Spotify set quality to Very High (nominally 320kbps)
|
| * Using some virtual patch cabling (I use Voice Meeter
| Banana), set Windows to use it's VAIO input as the
| Spotify output device.
|
| * Make sure B1 channel (the virtual output) is enabled in
| VMB
|
| * Set A1 channel (hardware out) in VMB to your speakers
| if you want to monitor music, otherwise set to nothing if
| you want it to do all this in the background
|
| * Set Audacity to to use the VAIO Output as the recording
| source
|
| 2) Record
|
| * hit play in spotify, hit record in audacity
|
| * Audacity should stop recording after prolonged silence
| when playlist ends - you can tweak the sensitivity of
| this.
|
| 3) Process * Select all in Audacity, then Analyze/Detect
| Sounds, set silence threshold to whatever (e.g. -60).
| Spot check your results for accuracy.
|
| * Export this track list from Audacity (txt file)
|
| * Use a tool like https://watsonbox.github.io/exportify
| to export your playlist details from Spotify (csv file)
|
| * Use Excel or Python (or whatever your hammer of choice
| is) to merge your spotify playlist data with the audacity
| label export file, basically creating a new label file
| for audacity. For example, your audacity label name could
| be "artist-trackname".
|
| * Import your new label file to update the track names;
|
| * "Export Multiple" from Audacity using track name as
| file name.
|
| * Use some media management tool to clean up and download
| all the metadata for the file. I used MediaMonkey for
| this. Basically imported detecting artist and track name
| from filename, then let it do its thing to look up
| additional metadata and album covers.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| By the color of your comment I think it is not self-centered,
| a lot of people agree with that.
| nightowl_games wrote:
| Basically I'm stating that I think it's fallacious to use
| your own willingness to support artists in your value
| judgement of copyright policy.
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| Are you really comparing downloading music to drunk driving?
| That's wild.
| nightowl_games wrote:
| Yes I am making that comparison. It is a reducto ad
| absurdium argument. I skipped all the steps where I
| illustrate the value of copyright law and the value of
| music and then draw a parallel between "but I buy the CDs"
| with "but I don't hurt anyone".
| Bakary wrote:
| It reminded me of those silly "you wouldn't download a car"
| anti-piracy ads
| darkstar999 wrote:
| Streamer CDNThe3rd saw this coming live and played with it.
| https://mobile.twitter.com/CDNThe3rd/status/1362928445353787...
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| That's hilarious
| haunter wrote:
| How come Twitch aka Amazon can't solve this DMCA problem like
| Youtube aka Google? What does Google do differently than Amazon?
| boffinism wrote:
| Youtube have solved this problem??
| haunter wrote:
| The Youtube stream was not muted. The VOD was not muted.
| Everyone else uploading the video cut of the song is not
| muted and removed. They are demonetized but the video is up
| with the original sound. So yes Youtube does something
| differently than Twitch where everyone deletes VODs asap or
| they replace the sound (like what happened on their own
| official channel)
| mhuffman wrote:
| Let anyone have your content removed for any reason!
|
| -- problem solved!
|
| - youtube
| ttt0 wrote:
| "No man, no problem", as they used to say in Soviet Russia.
| cbsmith wrote:
| They do a lot of things differently. This doesn't prevent
| problems from happening, but it does create a likelihood that
| the problems will be different.
|
| Google/YouTube does demonetization, but keeps the video
| streaming as is. That makes sense for their platform, but it
| creates a host of other problems.
| plorkyeran wrote:
| YouTube has built out a monetization platform which makes music
| companies want to have their music on YouTube. Twitch has
| nothing remotely comparable, and somehow I don't think
| streamers would be happy with a YouTube-like solution of "any
| sub money made while you're playing music go to that song's
| rights holder instead of you".
| Dirlewanger wrote:
| Because they don't care, and they have 0 competition (streaming
| on YT is a joke).
| Shadonototro wrote:
| lot of hypocrisy from Twitch
|
| amazon has enough money to pay for rights to play the music
|
| and twitch streamers are also full of sh:t, they are the one who
| refuses their clips to be reused by people on youtube, and when
| it comes to people's music, they want to be able to freely use
| them
|
| I never liked this twitch community, they are very toxic and they
| take everything for granted!
| phone_book wrote:
| This is light on details. Blizzard had their own channel up and
| was playing the music. This clip is from Twitch's channel. Lots
| of streamers were restreaming the event and right before this
| performance, there was a message that said, "The upcoming musical
| performance is subject to copyright protection by the applicable
| copyright holder." I imagine only Blizzard themselves had the
| rights to stream it. You can watch it on Blizzard's channel
| https://www.twitch.tv/videos/920697882?t=1h24m52s
| henrikschroder wrote:
| > and right before this performance, there was a message that
| said
|
| I understand the legality of it, but this is _absurd!_
|
| Anyone, anywhere, could watch the original livestream and hear
| the music.
|
| Or, you could watch it on Twitch, and get commentary on the
| whole thing by your chosen favourite twitcher, in addition to
| watching it yourself. But then, for legal reasons, the music
| was replaced.
|
| You could imagine a technical solution where Twitch just
| streams the twitcher against a transparent background, and you
| have to stitch it together yourself with the official stream,
| resulting in exactly the same experience as if Twitch did that
| stream stitching directly. That would be ok for legal reasons,
| even though it's completely identical to the not ok for legal
| reasons version above. How does that make sense?
|
| Why does it matter, to Metallica, where the streams are
| stitched together? Why does it matter, to them, that everyone
| watches the completely free stream of their music from a
| specific source, and not any other source?
|
| The value to Metallica is that they're getting paid by
| Blizzard. The value to Blizzard is that it drives attention to
| Blizzcon. Why does either of those entities _care_ how exactly
| people are viewing Blizzcon? What matters is _that_ people are
| watching it, and the how is secondary. But because of copyright
| laws, the how matters, and we get this absurd state.
| jcpham2 wrote:
| Is the internet's memory really this short on this band's
| historical stance on copyright, RIAA, Napster, and so forth?
|
| They've always been like public enemy number 1 of music
| pirates...
| [deleted]
| henrikschroder wrote:
| I remember, but it's one thing to try to protect
| copyrighted material that you're selling, i.e. pirating vs
| selling CDs. But this thing where they're trying to protect
| exactly how you're receiving a free stream of their music
| makes no sense at all. The concert was already free to
| watch, so why does anyone care?
| hertzrat wrote:
| The online world is controlled almost entirely by buggy
| algorithms that have been given a lot of impactful decision
| making power. This sort of thing happens so often. Usually, it's
| a permaban of an individual user for undisclosed reasons and
| without the possibility of reaching support
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-20 23:02 UTC)