undefined | Better HN

0 pointsJohnMakin1y ago0 comments

> This is justified because in overwhelming majority of cases the streamer does not have a license for the audio

I guess my point is that this arrangement was fine for a very, very long time. Why is it suddenly not fine in the last handful of years? Who is standing to gain here? In my view, it hurts the very platforms and industries this is trying to "protect." Twitch/YT/etc. are harmed because the content will be inherently worse, and copyright audio IP is hurt because it will spread to fewer listeners. Not only this, but if it were available to me, I actually would pay to license the audio I use, but there is no mechanism to do that!

A similar dumb thing happened a few years ago with the PGA tour - they decided that anyone re-posting PGA clips without their permission, even if it was for commentary/parody/etc., was all of a sudden not permissible. So, all the golf content on IG/TikTok/etc got catastrophically worse overnight, and PGA (which struggles with viewership, especially young viewers) gets less free exposure. There's absolutely no way this was a positive outcome for anyone involved, so why?

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

zamadatix1y ago· 2 in thread

As much as I don't like the current rules either "I never got a notice until recently" is a very different thing than "It was fine until recently".

JohnMakinOP1y ago

It was fine until recently. Crossposting another reply:

> We've had the capability to detect audio for a long time. What changed suddenly in the last few years to deploy/enforce this at scale? Certainly not any improvements to detection. I've made a whopping total of $46 in something like 12 years on these platforms. Something tells me this level of enforcement is ridiculous and against the spirit of the law, and I'm certainly not an expert on the DMCA or a lawyer, but I'd be willing to wager a lot that this strict interpretation is misinterpreted. No one is submitting any takedown requests to this content, which to be clear, averages like 1.3 viewers and has less than a few thousand follwers. And when I describe in-game audio - I mean literal 2-3 second song clips like "barbie girl" song happening when you score a goal in rocket league will get your VOD DMCA'd and you can't upload it to YT. That is a newer thing. You really can't view the last 20 years of DRM and the way it's played out, and say something like "this is how it's always been, now automation." That doesn't add up.

I'm not exactly a big fish here. I don't make money. There is no takedown request, nor would there ever be, because it's silly.

zamadatix1y ago

Again, the absence of a negative consequence at the time cannot be used as evidence something was actually fine to do, only that it was possible to get away with. That's regardless of whether it was actually truly fine or not.

If a new automated speed camera catches you on a road you've been speeding on for 7 years it doesn't mean speeding used to be fine it means you'll now receive consequences for doing things which were never fine to do! It also doesn't mean the speed limit always used to be the current value or anything like that. This is because "when regular enforcement began" has no causal relation one way or the other about what used to be fine or whether that was different than what's fine now. It is only an effect, one where "what was fine changed" is only one possible cause.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse