Judiciary Committee To Quiz Justin.tv About Live Streaming, Piracy And Sporting Events
from the this-won't-end-well dept
A year ago, we noted that the rise of Justin.tv and other "live streaming" services was going to put some pressure on things like exclusive "broadcasting" deals for sporting events. Already, some sports leagues have threatened live streaming sites. For the most part, rather than looking for ways to use this to their advantage and to recognize that fans are helping promote these events, the sports leagues have been freaking out, because all they see is that multi-million dollar exclusive broadcasting rights contracts may be harder to come by.And, when big entertainment operations feel threatened, who do they turn to? Congress of course. The House Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing about "piracy" of live sporting events, and have asked the CEO of Justin.tv to come defend himself. This will not end well. These sorts of hearings are not about actually hearing all sides of an issue to better understand them. They're usually for show, so that some politicians can scold some company they don't like, and then push legislation forward that favors their campaign supporters.
Justin.tv should have a clear DMCA defense here -- and that's what the company appears to be planning to express. But, my guess is that Congress won't care very much. Rather than differentiate between users and platforms or technologies, they'll claim that this is "A Problem" that needs to be "Solved."
But is it really? The ability to "live stream" is something that's almost entirely brand new, and it really does change the way people can interact. But, live streaming will almost always create some sort of "copyright infringement" or "piracy," which suggests the real problem isn't with live streaming, but with copyright laws. The sports leagues and entertainment companies are freaked out for the same reason they're always freaked out. This new technology, which allows many wonderful things, also takes away their control, and it's that control that they use to set up artificial barriers, which is what they use to claim monopoly rents. Basically, their markets are being changed by new technologies, and rather than realizing there are ways to embrace that, they instead are running to Congress to try to break the technology.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: congress, judicial committee, live streaming, piracy, sporting events
Companies: justin.tv
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Basically they will take down any infringing stream on request so they don't have to pre-filter the content (basically not possible anyway)
Really the only "solution" to this "problem" would be to shut down all user generated live streaming services completely.
Otherwise all you can do istake down streams that have been identified.
Plus there is another problem. Sports events are not of themselves copyrighted. The coverage generated by broadcaster is but a user shot stream is copyrighted to the user. The sports venue can evict them from the ground - but if they film from a tall building near the ground then it is perfectly legal.
Claiming copyright on a sports event itself would be equivalent to admitting it was "like a dramatic performance" which implies --- rigged!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, Justin.tv, much as I love them, doesn't take down infringing content. I watched MNF on the service yesterday, and it was (at the time) the most popular live stream on Justin.tv. For several hours. I imagine that's the case every Monday night.
I do think Justin.tv has some legitimate section 230 defense, but the fact is that they turn a pretty blind eye towards the content on the service, and the majority of their top feeds *are* unauthorized transmissions of copyrighted content. You can defend that, they can defend that, but to claim complete innocence and surprise is going to come across as disingenuous to anyone who's actually used the service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How do you know that?
watched MNF on the service yesterday, and it was (at the time) the most popular live stream on Justin.tv. For several hours. I imagine that's the case every Monday night.
The DMCA has no proactive requirement to enforce. Only in response to a takedown. Do you have any evidence that it received a takedown and ignored it, or are you making stuff up?
I do think Justin.tv has some legitimate section 230 defense
It sure does, but we're talking about the DMCA, not the CDA.
but the fact is that they turn a pretty blind eye towards the content on the service, and the majority of their top feeds *are* unauthorized transmissions of copyrighted content
Again, the DMCA does not require proactive analysis of content, for a very good reason. Otherwise, the company would need to hire a huge team of people in charge of monitoring all usage. That's ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No it isn't dishonest in any way. I admitted that the feed from the official coverage is copyright I just pointed out that it is possible to have a stream of a sports event that is not copyrighted to either the official broadcaster or the sports authorities.
"Also, Justin.tv, much as I love them, doesn't take down infringing content. "
They claim that they do at least "on request" as I said - so unless you have personally requested that something be taken down and it hasn't then you have no evidence that they don't.
Maybe the originators of the particular streams you mention have an enlightened attitude and don't mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
is that clear for ya?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The DMCA makes clear that if you are a service provider, have officially registered your DMCA info with the US gov't, and respond diligently to DMCA takedown notices -- all of which Justin.tv has done -- then you are not liable for the actions of your users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think it would be more accurate to say "especially when they're wrong."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://newteevee.com/2009/12/15/house-committee-takes-on-live-streaming-piracy/
and for the most part this is true. One must realize that intellectual property was never about benefiting society or the artists or inventors, intellectual property maximists have always been interested in monopolizing everything and destroying anything that competes with their monopolies. Their main goal is to destroy anything that competes with them and live streaming competes with the cable and content monopolies, those who have unethically gained a government sanctioned monopoly on the cableco/telco infrastructure to ensure that anything easily accessible outside the Internet is only available at monopoly prices. and their goal is not to help the artist or anything like that, it's to do the same exact thing within the Internet, to ensure that everything within the Internet is ONLY available at monopoly prices to the advantage of the evil rich people who have acquired their wealth by acting less ethically than everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(same link).
Again, these people run a legitimate business, but their only crime is that they compete with the illegitimate businesses of those who lobby Congress the most.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streaming.
But I think congress should ban all media from the internet LoL
Also they should ban all media from public places too that way if it is on the public is against the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your pets are getting out of control again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sad, but..
I tried to buy the Sunday Ticket, but I have FIOS TV - and DirecTV has the exclusive on the Sunday Ticket. :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tv
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They Pushed Me Out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
quiz
Windows spotlight quiz. After I previously stated, your Windows Spotlight Quiz could be a cool function that lots of individuals will you need to be provided at random. This doesn’t seem when you sign in to your PC only at https://windowsquiz.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]