Hollywood Collectively Loses Its Mind About Latest Set Of Livestreaming Apps

from the get-a-grip dept

Thu, Apr 16th 2015 10:44am — Mike Masnick

If you (lucky you!) don't pay attention to the latest craze among the internet media, you may have missed the mid-to-late-March hype cycle around two livestreaming apps that are available via Twitter. The initial darling was Meerkat, which became this year's annual darling-for-a-week at SXSW. Soon after, it was eclipsed by Periscope, a startup that Twitter bought, just about the same time it pulled Meerkat's ability to push notifications out to users. Both offer the same basic idea: enabling Twitter users to easily livestream video to their followers. Of course, livestreaming is not a new concept. It's been around for ages, and things like Ustream and JustinTV are well-known. Even BitTorrent has tried to get into the livestreaming game. Not surprisingly, livestreaming technology has been particularly useful for newsworthy situations -- and have been used extensively in violent clashes around the globe or at protests like in Ferguson, Missouri last summer.

But, of course, Hollywood absolutely hates such things. For years, they've argued that Ustream and JustinTV were destroying their businesses because some people would turn on a television and set up their phone or computer to livestream whatever they were seeing. So it should come as little shock that right after the media hype cycle around Periscope and Meerkat, a whole series of silly articles started appearing about the copyright consequences of livestreaming. The Guardian warned that these new livestreaming apps "could cost unwary brands dear." Billboard warned that these two new apps created a "legal minefield" because a song playing in the background might (*gasp*) infringe on someone's copyrights. The Atlantic warned that these apps were enabling "a new kind of internet pirate." And, CBS really went the distance with a fearmongering headline about how Periscope and Meerkat "threatened" the "multi-billion dollar sports broadcast copyrights," even though they do no such thing (and, in fact, that article speaks to no actual sports officials, whereas when Major League baseball was asked, it noted that it sees no real threat).

And, rather than admit that (1) livestreaming has been around for ages and hasn't really been a serious drag on revenue, and (2) it's not a particularly good user experience for watching broadcast content anyway, various folks in Hollywood lost their minds about these two new services. The main culprit? HBO. After there were a few scattered reports of various Game of Thrones fans using Periscope to broadcast the latest episode of the popular show, HBO decided that it's all Twitter's fault, and who cares about DMCA safe harbors, something must be done, and Twitter has to do it:

"We are aware of Periscope and have sent takedown notices," an HBO spokeswoman said in a statement. "In general, we feel developers should have tools which proactively prevent mass copyright infringement from occurring on their apps and not be solely reliant upon notifications."

There are two issues there. First are the takedowns -- which is a part of the DMCA. But the second part is asking for Twitter to go Beyond the DMCA and to start proactively reviewing and policing the content that is streaming over Periscope. This is a bad idea for a whole variety of reasons that both Twitter and HBO should already understand. First, such efforts inevitably lead to takedowns that block important, legitimate, non-infringing speech. Considering how Periscope and Meerkat are designed for livestreaming events right now, blocking those could lead to important content never seeing the light of day at all. The chilling effects could be massive.

On top of that, there is little to no evidence that unauthorized streams of Game of Thrones are doing any harm whatsoever. In fact, Game of Thrones is often the prime example of how unauthorized streams have helped certain content get more attention and more long-term committed fans. Both a director on the show and Time Warner's CEO (who owns HBO) have admitted as much. So why the collective freakout about these new apps?

It seems, as is the tradition among some in Hollywood, any new technology that might possibly be used for some amount of infringement must be loudly condemned and shamed. Despite the fact that this policy never works, and tends to just lead to widespread ridicule, it is the only gameplan that the old guard in Hollywood have. They could embrace these things. HBO execs -- especially with the launch of HBO's new streaming services -- could be highlighting how much better the official streaming experience is than the crappy Periscope/Meerkat experience. But, what fun is that? That, apparently, takes work.

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: copyright, dmca, livestreaming, takedowns
Companies: hbo, meerkat, periscope, time warner, twitter

39 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Michael, 16 Apr 2015 @ 10:53am

I think they are concerned about live streaming the Boston Strangler or something like that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2015 @ 10:57am

I wonder why they're not freaking out about telephones with their ability to pickup background music and illegally perform it to the receiver's ear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2015 @ 11:00am

Re:
If someone set their phone down near a radio playing music and then called a friend and the friend put it on speakerphone, then everyone around them would be able to hear the music.
It would be an illegal public performance and the world as we know it would come to an end as fire and brimstone rained from the heavens and the rivers ran red with blood.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baron von Robber, 16 Apr 2015 @ 11:01am

I told a friend of mine who lives in another town that if there was a sporting event that was blacked out for him but not for me (he's a sports fan, not I), I would set up a webcam for him and place it in front of my TV. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2015 @ 11:02am

1. The Atlantic is a New Hampshire publication, not Hollywood.
2. The Guardian is a UK publication, not Hollywood.
3. You're a fucking idiot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2015 @ 11:02am

Re:
Hollywood are against anything that people might turn to for entertainment where they do not get all the profit, and which people may flock to instead of their products.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Doug, 16 Apr 2015 @ 11:10am

Even if they were right about its harm on their products (which is pretty dubious), I'd STILL choose a world where technology like this can exist freely even if it meant killing off incentives to create the typical big budget media and broadcasting events they're afraid that it's infringing upon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Violynne (profile), 16 Apr 2015 @ 11:13am

Loses?

Mind?

I wonder if we can see this "collective mind loss" live streamed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2015 @ 11:17am

Re:
1. The Atlantic doesn't limit itself to talking about New Hampshire.
2. The Guardian doesn't limit itself to talking about the UK.
3. You, too, are an effing idiot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 16 Apr 2015 @ 11:18am

Re:
I guess you didn't read the whole article where it talks about Hollywood.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 16 Apr 2015 @ 11:20am

"How come they don't have to play by the same rules we do?"
Big media companies hate it when us normal people do what they do without having to get permission, make licensing deals, or pass everything through their legal department.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bureau13 (profile), 16 Apr 2015 @ 11:26am

Never heard of Periscope or Meerkat, but I sure as hell will download them now, and maybe even stream some copyrighted content, just because. Thanks, Barb!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 16 Apr 2015 @ 11:27am

Re: Re:
This is exactly it. Notice they didn't care that much about Kim Dotcom's cyberlockers until he started getting celebrities to talk about bypassing the MAFIAA and releasing their music on his service instead.

All of a sudden, he was raided by the FBI, I mean New Zealand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WDS (profile), 16 Apr 2015 @ 11:43am

The future
I wonder how long it will be before these apps are turning out to make Hollywood a bunch of money. That seems to be what usually happens with new technology that they go bonkers over.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CharlieBrown, 16 Apr 2015 @ 11:49am

The Problem
The problem I have with HBO in this case is that they demand "developers" to use pro-active blocking, not just Twitter. In this case, I think HBO are the Twits!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2015 @ 11:54am

The broadcast industry and the movie industry (Hollywood) are markedly different (many similarities, but also many significant differences...and especially distribution channels), so it is not fully understood why a comment by a company within a sector of the broadcast industry is particularly relevant to the movie industry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2015 @ 12:24pm

Re:
You're confused. Mike Masnick hates actors and musicians. They're all in Hollywood. Evil, evil Hollywood!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 16 Apr 2015 @ 1:04pm

In general
"In general, we feel developers should have tools which proactively prevent mass copyright infringement from occurring on their apps and not be solely reliant upon notifications."

In general, we developers feel that it is inappropriate to offload your own business expenses onto us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2015 @ 1:12pm

Re: Re:
Just ones who want everyone else to do their fucking job...you know, the lazy ones.

Why coders need to give a flying fuck about HBO is beyond me. Do your own fucking work, or pay me to do your job, if you're incapable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2015 @ 1:22pm

Re: In general
Also, the problem is impossible to solve, and blaming someone else for not solving it obscures this fact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 16 Apr 2015 @ 1:38pm

Re: Re: In general
Absolutely true, but even if it were possible, my point would still hold.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James Burkhardt (profile), 16 Apr 2015 @ 1:41pm

Re:
HBO (the primary company being discussed here) is a bit of a fence case. They make their own, braodcast content, but remain a major purvayor of Hollywood content as well. THat said, it was an improper title. Gets a bit too click baity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2015 @ 1:42pm

omg new tech kill it with fire!

Once again we will just continue doing our thing and as always we don't care what you think media companies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2015 @ 1:53pm

Re: Re: Re: In general
I did start with also. :)
Further is it offloading a business expense, or a tactic to try andbankrupt any possible competition?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2015 @ 2:05pm

or the could allow all devices, and areas and not just apple user in the US to use "HBO now\go"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 16 Apr 2015 @ 2:33pm

PR speak to English
PR speak
"In general, we feel developers should have tools which proactively prevent mass copyright infringement from occurring on their apps and not be solely reliant upon notifications."

English(if forced to be honest)
"In general, we feel developers should go above and beyond what the law actually says that they are required to do, and proactively prevent mass copyright infringement from occurring on their apps, without of course being paid to do so, and despite the fact that they have no possible way to know what is and is not infringing without the actual owners of the copyrights sending the notifications required by the law.

We acknowledge that this will undoubtedly result in a massive number of false positives, as developers will take down a great many legal and legitimate posts on their services in order to play it safe, and will cause a massive drag on any service or site that offers to host user submitted content, heavily burdening them and both running a number of them out of business, as well as stopping many new ones from ever coming into being, but we can confidently say that this is a risk we are willing to take."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2015 @ 5:28pm

Re:
very antidirt
much rage
wow
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2015 @ 5:37pm

"In general, we feel developers should have tools which proactively prevent mass copyright infringement from occurring on their apps and not be solely reliant upon notifications."

If you want developers to have those tools, then supply them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2015 @ 9:28pm

Re:
Not even that would help.

Remember when Hotfile supplied Warner with the tools?

Look what happened to them!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 17 Apr 2015 @ 12:22am

Re: Re:
Read the article? Only far enough to find some weak ammunition to launch a toddler tantrum.

But, hey, let's keep this in mind next time he whines on an article about somewhere other than the US. I have a feeling that his physical location won't matter when he lies about those people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 17 Apr 2015 @ 12:23am

"For years, they've argued that Ustream and JustinTV were destroying their businesses because some people would turn on a television and set up their phone or computer to livestream whatever they were seeing."

...but of course, they won't ask why people are watching a low quality stream of someone else's TV rather than turning on their own TV directly. That would open up discussion of exactly how their own business model is losing them a lot of potential revenue, and they can't have that...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert Rigsby, 17 Apr 2015 @ 12:25am

Here we go again!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 17 Apr 2015 @ 12:25am

Re: Re:
I'd invest in another bale, that strawman is getting rather tattered.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ruben, 17 Apr 2015 @ 7:44am

Re:
Nonsensical tripe and ad-hom.

The true mark of someone who knows they're on the losing side with no cogent points to raise.

oldmanyellsatcloud.jpg
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 17 Apr 2015 @ 7:45am

Re:
Have you ever watched C-Span?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ruben, 17 Apr 2015 @ 7:47am

Re: Re: In general
Precisely. Eliminating infringement is a fool's errand. Just like eliminating terrorism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just Another Anonymous Troll, 17 Apr 2015 @ 7:52am

A mind is a terrible thing to lose.
However, I'm not convinced Hollywood/**AAs lost their minds over this. I haven't seen any proof they actually have one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 17 Apr 2015 @ 2:42pm

Re: Re: Re: In general
Slight suggested change:

Attacking either head on is a fool's errand. You want to eliminate them, go after the root causes(under-served customers and desperate and/or angry people respectively). Solve those(or at least do your best to), and the problems will drastically shrink.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2015 @ 6:06pm

I picture Hollywood as an organization of pimps and old farts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]