IFPI Nuking Twitch Streamers Accounts For Playing Background Music
from the all-perfectly-normal-side-effects-of-the-copyright-regime dept
It appears another rightsholder is doing something that's a.) well within its rights and b.) counterproductive. It's also another example of how the DMCA is often used to enforce some weird caste system among creators, favoring the incumbents over the upstarts.
A post on Reddit and a short Twitter thread by Twitch streamer Josh Allen confirm IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) is targeting Twitch streamers for playing music while recording. DMCA notices sent to Twitch are resulting in account suspensions which could turn into permabans if streamers continue to irritate IFPI.
IFPI can certainly target music from artists it represents. And Twitch's terms of service make it clear it doesn't tolerate copyright infringement. But the end result for streamers is possible account deletion, and that can lead to an actual loss of income.
For the most part, these notices seem to target music playing in the background of streams. For these streams, the music isn't why people are tuning in. It's, at best, an ancillary addition that exists alongside the gameplay that actually draws viewers. The system Twitch has in place is there to placate copyright holders. It seems a bit overkillish, seeing as it not only boots users from Twitch for 24 hours but deletes/disables anything else they'd previously recorded (VODs [videos on demand]).
The problem with IFPI's actions is it won't result in greater respect for copyright. Instead of working with streamers -- especially the popular ones -- to promote artists Twitch streamers use for background music, it's instead targeted their livelihoods. It's attacking "lost sales" that simply don't exist. This isn't file sharing. Very few people head to Twitch with the intention of listening to music for free. They're there for the content created by Twitch streamers which happen to have music in the background. This isn't one market destroying another. It could be two complementary markets (ContentID but for product placement of inadvertently featured artists) but IFPI has chosen to treat Twitch as just another Pirate Bay.
This gets more problematic considering IFPI's history. IFPI has done things like target Creative Commons-licensed music posted more than a decade prior to the group's bogus DMCA notice. While it loves the ease of use online DMCA submission systems provide, it has no desire to vet its takedown notices, which has allowed people unrelated to IFPI and its artists to engage in secondhand deletion of content IFPI doesn't own. So, there's a good chance some of these notices are bogus, but with almost no avenue for recourse, streamers are just going to have to sit through the suspension and, more likely, ensure nothing plays in the background of livestreams.
There are also some problems on the Twitch side. As is noted in the Reddit thread, some streamers may be taking paid song requests from viewers, which makes this far more problematic than simply doing the internet equivalent of turning the radio on. This may be what's prompted IFPI's recent interest in Twitch streamers (and Twitch's apparently belated enforcement efforts). This might seem more justified, but this appears to be DMCA carpet bombing, not something targeting the worst offenders. Even so, there's no market replacement here, just some unseemly behavior by streamers looking to side hustle as payola DJs.
In the end, what does IFPI actually get for the money it spends policing Twitch? Nothing but a bunch of pissed off streamers who will now avoid IFPI's catalog when playing music. No new fans. No new sales. Just some more "because it's there" DMCA enforcement that engenders more contempt for copyright holders. Nothing about this chain of events results in artists being paid more, and that's supposed to be the reason IFPI does anything.
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: background music, copyright, counterproductive, dmca, streams, takedowns, video streams
Companies: ifpi, twitch
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solution!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Solution!
Why does his opinion matter? Didn't he sell off the legal rights?
That hasn't helped with Youtube or anywhere else I'm aware of. Stuff gets misidentified all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Solution!
As far as his music on alternate platforms, hes 100% cool with that and while you may again need to ask in person and you can go to his shows and do so, or poke his manager or something. As stated, he makes almost no money on any of his albums, online royalties, spotify plays etc. All of his money is from:
-Live shows
-Merch Sales
-Guest Appearances
-Other Endeavors (Movies, Etc.)
The bad news is that even with a written and signed contract from AL, Sony owns the distribution rights to his music and would still shut you down if they felt like it. Most platforms lack the ability to let you say "I have a contract!" Youtube will give you several strikes before you can make that statement.
Note: Al is famous for asking permission, even when not required, he is one of the few acts out there that would entertain this kind of thing
Your best bet today is to re-record his music and just use the mechanical licenses. In fact this is an entire market today as you will find many new recordings of groups all over sites like spotify. Sometimes the act itself does this to get out of paying labels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is there anybody with a good lawyers handy prepared to play CC0 music, and sue for damages if and when their channel is taken down?
Nice idea, but unfortunately your odds of getting anything(let alone enough to cover legal fees) for fraudulent claims like that would almost certainly be in the 'zero to none' range.
Courts will bend over backwards to go after those dastardly copyright infringers who's actions threaten creativity itself, but going after the valiant defenders of copyright who might make perfectly innocent mistakes that result in demonstrable harm every so often? Perish the thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The economics more or less only favor the big players, who can destroy you for claiming DMCA on their stuff but in the same breath claim that it "only" cost you a few days of revenue.
It's the same tragedy that causes firms to try to block class action lawsuits, no one taken down stream is worth the money to fight over. But Every stream's case is "unique" and must be fought on a case by case basis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"It shouldn't be all that expensive for streamers to get a license."
I suggest you have a look around. From my understanding, you need to pay at least 2 agencies with lists of exactly what you played, and then the automated bots don't check for compliance anyway (if you're even playing music the requires a licence in the first place). One podcast I listen to regularly is always complaining that their musical intervals are being muted on YouTube even though they're fully paid up with licensing.
It's a mess, and since these things always err on the side of caution (they're rather block someone for playing music that's allowed vs not blocking someone who's infringing), you can comply fully and still get screwed. Better not to even try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
2. Only use music that has granted streamers rights to use
3. Use a service like PretzelRocks that takes submissions from artists who allow streamers to use their music on-stream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Part of me seriously just wants all Copyright holders to get what they dream they want. Just so we can all watch the world implode as the freedom to create new things ceases to exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then UN-happen to have [someone else's] music in the background
Next anti-copyright hit piece, please.
[Short version, I'm no longer even trying to add interest here: this is just to trigger you kids to empty ad hom.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Then UN-happen to have [someone else's] music in the background
How does this help the artists whose music is no longer being played?
(Also, lol)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It doesn't. In fact, it likely harms some artists more than the actions of any Twitch streamer ever could. But, he managed to score a point against this site in his head, so that's all that matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Then UN-happen to have [someone else's] music in the background
This is about legal rights/privileges/bullying, not helping people. Though maybe it will "help" musicians disassociate themselves from terrible organizations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[someone else's] music in the background
I wasnt even playing music on the side it was the in-game music playing that was flagged. So my solution is to not stream the game. I dont want to take the time to challenge the flag on the video nor risk having future content flagged.
Sure it's the rights holder's choice to stop the audio of a game from being broadcast, but it is my choice to also stop promoting that product.
Since twitch streaming is a hobby for me I dont care if I stream or not. But I can appreciate the situation others are in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm no longer even trying to add interest here
You? Add interest?
For your sake I hope you meant the banking variety...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Then UN-happen to have [someone else's] music in the background
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Then UN-happen to have [someone else's] music in the background
Exactly. Why have a passive advertising outlet in a place where nobody is going to try and "steaL' music from you, when you can ensure they watch their chosen form of entertainment in silence instead!
The *intelligent* answer would be to work with people who have a built in audience but aren't there fore the music and cut a deal. They're not losing sales based on Twitch streams, so why not work to maximise their passive audience like they used to when they illegally paid radio stations to play their stuff?
But, no, you'd rather the route that removes the avenue of possible sales completely, kills the income of people categorically NOT losing the music industry sales and puts many people off putting money into the recording industry at all. All because someone left a radio on in the background while they were working.
I'm sure *you* think this is a great move, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Then UN-happen to have [someone else's] music in the background
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Then UN-happen to have [someone else's] music in the background
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Then UN-happen to have [someone else's] music in the background
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spotify has a commerical tier
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radio
It's not surprising they'd go after people for it, when such groups are infamous for trying to shake down businesses who simply turn the radio on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cutting off one’s nose
This is exactly right. YouTube, for example, is full of comments from interested users inquiring about the background music used in specific videos and asking where to get a copy. Since no-one is actually using livestreams as a free jukebox for copyrighted music, it seems like the net effect of all this could be totally positive for music creators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cutting off one’s nose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cutting off one’s nose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Love this stuff..
that needs NOT to be proven..
AND ANYONE can abuse it..
Dont need to prove you OWN the rights, or even have a Master copy of the recording..
Dont need to show you represent the ARTIST..
Is this as bad as a House loan, thats sold to other companies, and to other countries, multiple times..UNTIL the original Company does NOT even know who has your loan.. (yep its happening now)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here, corrected it for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]