[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;45622379][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/JkxVsxg.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Yeah, I have a really hard time believing this as well.
Twitch is not about the VODs. It's about the livestreams.
If the RIAA would be up in arms about anything on Twitch, I think VODs would be the least of their focus. This was just easier to implement in a moment's notice.
VODs is an area that's quite small/the least disruptive (Not to say that it ISN'T disruptive...) and could act as a test bed for any future implementation. (Ala live recognition.)
But in the end, livestreams are just as infringing as VODs for one very obvious reason. [I]The are literally the same thing.[/I] One is just saved on a server.
It might sound pretty ridiculous to a lot of people but I view his comment as "We're not going to be doing it for quite awhile."
As many redditors have pointed out the key word he used in his post was "intention".
It'll be done when it's felt that the time is right and/or they're told to do it by a bigger fish. Plain and simple. They can't hide from it forever.
It happens with all these sites. Once you get big enough, you start to get noticed by the RIAA and other copyright holders. Unless you want to spend hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars on lawyers and court costs, you have to implement technologies like this. The same thing will happen to Hitbox when that gets popular.
We should really be looking at the power and influence these copyright holders have on the government, rather than criticizing Twitch for an essentially vital business decision. You've seen how far the government will go to destroy companies that aren't audibly preventing copyright violations. I don't blame them at all for this.
Although, I do agree that the technologies that they have employed are far too buggy and intrusive to be used, and blocking music that is within the game files is ridiculous.
I don't think anybody is really upset at them trying to block or license music that the streamer doesn't have rights for, it's more the implementation of it.
Same deal with YouTube, nobody really gets upset at a TV show episode being taken down, but they get annoyed that a video is flagged because in the background there was a muffled TV that tripped their Content ID system to a random bit of music (Or noise, or silence, etc.) that was incorrectly added by somebody who didn't represent the rights holder, and when it's appealed it's instantly rejected.
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;45625544]I don't think anybody is really upset at them trying to block or license music that the streamer doesn't have rights for, it's more the implementation of it.
Same deal with YouTube, nobody really gets upset at a TV show episode being taken down, but they get annoyed that a video is flagged because in the background there was a muffled TV that tripped their Content ID system to a random bit of music (Or noise, or silence, etc.) that was incorrectly added by somebody who didn't represent the rights holder, and when it's appealed it's instantly rejected.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that video game music also applies to this crap so that's pretty much 80-90% of all archived streams gone.
Yeah, blocking a video of a game for having music from said game on a site dedicated to videos of games is pretty damn stupid (Even if by the law there isn't a difference between that and somebody just playing random music over the stream)
Considering how bad the music licensing industry is, It surprises me more games don't have a "Recording Mode" where it does things like disable in-game music and optimise the HUD for video (Simple stuff like making HUD elements opaque so the encoder can avoid re-encoding it each frame), would completely bypass stuff like this.
Even Valve's VODs are muted for having their own game's music.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
