This Thursday, Watch The Techdirt Podcast Live - And Become A Patreon Backer To Call In With Questions!

from the 300-episodes dept

As you may know, we’re fast approaching our 300th episode of the podcast, and to celebrate we’re bringing back the original co-hosts, Dennis Yang and Hersh Reddy, to join Mike Masnick for a special live-streamed episode this Thursday, September 30th at 1pm PT / 4pm ET.

Stay tuned on Thursday morning when we’ll be sharing a link to the YouTube live stream here on the blog and on Twitter. But, for our backers on Patreon, we’re also testing out a new feature that will allow you to call in live and talk to the hosts! If you're already a backer, you can find the link to join via our recording and call-in platform on Patreon in your message inbox and in a backers-only post on our page. If not, now's the time to become a patron and get access to this and other special bonuses! This is the first time we’ve experimented with this feature, so we’re anticipating the possibility of technical issues that prevent it from working — but if all goes well, we’re excited to field your questions and celebrate 300 episodes of The Techdirt Podcast!

Filed Under: live call-ins, live streaming, techdirt podcast
Companies: techdirt

Universal And Warner Block Time Live Streaming Its Time 100 Event Because Copyright Censors

from the but-filters-work,-right? dept

You know how supporters of Article 13 in the EU keep insisting that just because Article 13 (now Article 17) says not to take down non-infringing content that any worries about taking down non-infringing content are misplaced? About that... This week there's been a lot of fuss about the whole "Time 100" thing that purports to highlight the 100 most influential people in the world. This bit of backslapping among the famous starts off with glowing magazine profiles, followed by a big party, the Time 100 Gala and the Time 100 Summit, which is the conference version of the backslapping. Time Magazine livestreamed the Summit yesterday via YouTube.

As Manish Singh pointed out, it appears that both Warner Music and Universal Music Group got the video pulled on copyright grounds.

It's not clear exactly why this happened, though lots of people are talking about Taylor Swift performing, and she's now on Universal, so that's one possibility. Except she performed at that Gala, and it appears that it's the Summit that got blocked. It's possible that the venue music that likely plays in between speakers could have tripped up ContentID as well.

Either way, it's yet another demonstration of how filters are terrible at this kind of thing, and why laws like the EU Copyright Directive will inevitably lead to censorship of perfectly legal material, rather than "piracy."

Now, some will respond that under the EU Copyright Directive, YouTube may just choose to officially license all music uses, and then no longer have to block incidental uses such as this, but that highlights the other problem we've discussed: almost no one other than YouTube can do that. And thus, even if that were the case, YouTube would then become the only player anyone could ever use for livestreaming events like this if they don't want them blocked. For all the talk of how we needed the EU Copyright Directive to take down Google and Facebook's power, the fact that it might just lock them into their dominant positions seems like it should be a concern.

Filed Under: censorship, contentid, copyright, filters, live streaming
Companies: time, universal music group, warner music

Complete Overreaction: Professor Calls For Shutting Down Facebook Live, Post-Christchurch

from the take-a-deep-breath dept

It is generally a bad idea to make any massive change in the wake of a tragedy. It is certainly reasonable to explore and discuss some of these ideas, but the temptation to overreact to an emotional sample size of one is often too great, leading to very silly outcomes. Take, for example, a suggestion by professor Jennifer Grygiel, in the wake of the awful attack in Christchurch, New Zealand a few weeks back. As with other "blame the tech" attempts, her focus is less on the speed with which the platforms removed content, but more with the fact that live-streaming is even available at all. Her proposal? No more live-streaming at all.

Grygiel at first repeats an earlier argument she made that all live-streaming must be put on "time delay" for censors to review. She notes that she first pushed this idea a few years ago, in the wake of another "streamed live" attack.

In the wake of Godwin’s murder, I recommended that Facebook Live broadcasts be time-delayed, at least for Facebook users who had told the company they were under 18. That way, adult users would have an opportunity to flag inappropriate content before children were exposed to it. Facebook Live has broadcast killings, as well as other serious crimes such as sexual assault, torture, and child abuse. Though the company has hired more than 3,000 additional human content moderators, Facebook has not gotten any better at keeping horrifying violence from streaming live without any filter or warning for users.

But, wait, you say: how does this work? Apparently the idea is that adults are allowed but kids are magically put on time delay. Well, now we've massively scaled back the proposal such that a very small percentage of the userbase is effected (which, is certainly better, but...). Of course, there's no indication that the problem of streaming these videos live was that any kids watched them. Indeed, I've heard no such reports.

So this "time delay" plan wouldn't have stopped nearly all of the people who did see the video.

Second, this whole plan assumes that (a) the only reason these attacks occurred was because of the ability to live-stream, and (b) that there aren't other live-streaming options out there (there are many). It also ignores that even if "adults" were able to view the content first, there's no indication that they would report it. Indeed, Facebook noted that less than 200 people viewed the initial live-stream, and no one reported it. So, that would mean that this video still would have gone out to anyone after the "time delay" even if Grygiel's plan was in place.

Facebook relies on users as moderators, and most livestreams don’t have as large an audience as TV, so its delay would need to be longer — perhaps a few minutes. Only then would enough adult users have screened it and had the opportunity to report its content. Major users, including publishers and corporations, could be permitted to livestream directly after completing a training course. Facebook could even let people request a company moderator for upcoming livestreams.

Except, again, no one reported the original video, so nothing would have changed with this plan. And lots of recent mass killings and attacks weren't live-streamed by the killers (in fact, most are not). This plan seems to be taking a side issue (live-streaming) with the real issue: a very terrible, sick person decided to kill a huge crowd of people for terrible reasons. For what it's worth, Grygiel also seems somewhat confused about the legal aspects of all of this:

Facebook has not yet taken this relatively simple step, and the reason is clear. Time delays took hold in TV only because broadcasting regulators penalized broadcasters for airing inappropriate content during live shows. There is effectively no regulation for social media companies; they change only in pursuit of profits or to minimize public outcry.

First off, it's not a "relatively simple step." It's actually asking for something that is incredibly complex and would likely create lots of problems, with little obvious benefit. Second, the reason that broadcasters can be penalized is because they are using the public airwaves, which they got in exchange for certain conditions placed on them regarding obscenity. The internet is not like that, and part of the reason that there's "effectively no regulation" on the internet is because the First Amendment bars it. While I'm sure that "pursuit of profit" is clearly a driving force for all of these internet platforms, to argue that that is their only driving force, and that they don't care about the wider impact is a fun narrative totally devoid of actual understanding of those who are operating these platforms.

Either way, without recognizing any of this, Grygiel then says that after Christchurch she doesn't even think the time delay idea is enough, and that live-streaming should be banned -- unless all content is "professionally moderated" a la television.

That’s why I’m no longer recommending just a livestream delay for adolescent users — it was an appeal to protect children when more major platform changes are unlikely. But all people deserve better and safe social media. I’m now calling on Mark Zuckerberg to shut down Facebook Live in the interest of public health and safety. In my view, that feature should be restored only if the company can prove to the public — and to regulators — that its design is safer.

Handling livestreaming safely includes having more than enough professional content moderators to handle the workload. Those workers also must have appropriate access to mental health support and safe working environments, so that even Facebook employees and contractors are not unduly scarred by brutal violence posted online.

This is a massive overreaction to a few crazy people using one particular tool. Yes, we agree that most people should not watch these videos, but using the very, very, very edge case to argue that live-streaming shouldn't exist makes no sense at all. Again, most mass shootings aren't live-streamed. And the ones that are still aren't viewed by that many people. And, as a society, we're (thankfully) learning not to share the video around as much (yes, there are trolls and assholes who are posting it, but unless you were really looking for the video, you weren't going to accidentally stumble over it). And most kids I know aren't likely to go searching for such a thing.

What happened in New Zealand was truly awful. But overreacting like this does no one any good at all.

Filed Under: christchurch, live streaming, new zealand
Companies: facebook

Progress Isn't Linear: YouTube TV's World Cup Flub Threatens Public's Trust For Sports Streaming

from the cup-up dept

As we've pointed out any number of times over the past few years, cord-cutting is a very real thing and represents a threat to the cable television industry as it exists today. One of the last threads from which that industry largely hangs is professional sports broadcasts, with cable network providers having traditionally locked up pro and college sports broadcast rights in long-term exclusive deals. That has slowly begun to change, as the leagues of the world have finally gotten on board with streaming providers big and small, connected to the cable industry or not. If this is adopted en masse, it puts disruptive change for cable on the horizon.

But progress isn't linear and one of the threats to keeping this train on its tracks is the quality of the experience for users that dive into these sports streaming options. Especially early on in this kind of change, providers getting things right is extremely important, as reputations and public perception of the viability of sports streaming are more than somewhat on the line. And YouTube recently botched its broadcast of the World Cup match between England and Croatia.

In the middle of Wednesday's World Cup semifinal match between England and Croatia, YouTube's live TV service suffered an unfortunately-timed outage (not unlike ones we've seen from Sling or Hulu). Naturally, it enraged YouTube TV subscribers who had picked up the service specifically to catch live broadcasts like that game, and now it's offering an apology in the form of a credit.

There are several unfortunate factors at play for why this specific screw-up is worse for the reputation of sports streaming than it might have been otherwise. We can start with the most obvious factor: this is YouTube we're talking about. Look, there are plenty of good streaming service providers out there, but YouTube is the king of them, by reputation if not by fact. Having that name tied to this screw up is likely to register with the public as an indication that streaming for sports may not be ready for prime time.

The second factor: this was the World Cup we're talking about. The popularity of this event, and its related viewership, is immense. The public knows that. Any streaming service for World Cup broadcasts has to know that its service is going to be heavily trafficked and ought to have its shit in order to accommodate the event's popularity. Heavy viewerships shouldn't be a surprise and, whatever the actual cause of YouTube's interruption, it will be assumed by most that viewership load played a factor.

Now, as the post notes, streaming interruptions have happened before and they will happen again. Much of the reaction to what I outlined above will be at least in part unfair. But if you're rooting for sports streaming to erupt in popularity, or if you're a streaming provider trying to get more leagues on board, this kind of a screw up was about as bad in terms of timing as it gets.

Filed Under: football, live streaming, soccer, streaming, world cup
Companies: youtube

UK Court Grants First Live Blocking Order To Stop New Infringing Streams As Soon As They Start

from the whose-side-are-the-ISPs-on-these-days? dept

As we noted last week, one of the main copyright battlegrounds in the UK concerns the use of Kodi boxes -- low-cost devices running the open source Kodi multimedia player, usually augmented with plug-ins that provide access to unauthorized content. One of the popular uses of such Kodi boxes is to watch live streams of sporting events. TorrentFreak reports on an important new court order obtained by the UK's Football Association Premier League (FAPL) to prevent people from viewing live streams of soccer games free of charge. The problem for the FAPL is that the addresses of the servers streaming matches are often only known once the games begin. To meet that challenge, the court has granted a new kind of injunction: one that allows live blocking. Here's how it will work:

servers can only be selected [for blocking] by FAPL if it "reasonably believes" they have the "sole or predominant purpose of enabling or facilitating access to infringing streams of Premier League match footage." Secondly, the FAPL must not know or have reason to believe "that the server is being used for any other substantial purpose."

In other words, the servers must be dedicated to live streaming rather than doing it incidentally alongside other, possibly more legitimate, activities.

This caution is needed because this injunction will be carried out live, as soon as matches begin to hit the Internet. FAPL and its anti-piracy contractor will monitor the Internet, grab IP addresses, and ask the ISPs to block them in real-time. No court will be involved in that process, it will be carried out at the discretion of the FAPL and the ISPs.

Giving the FAPL the power to ask for any IP address to be blocked as it sees fit, and without a court order, is bad enough, but the TorrentFreak post points out some other extremely troubling features of this latest decision. It explains how the FAPL hired an "anti-piracy" company to monitor unauthorized streams. It seems that leading UK ISPs helped by providing data about download patterns:

"A very substantial volume of traffic from BT, Sky and Virgin, who are the three largest UK ISPs, has been recorded from these [infringing servers] during Premier League match times," the injunction reads.

"The extent of these spikes in traffic, the closeness of their correlation with each scheduled match, and the absolute volume in terms of raw bandwidth consumed, are only consistent with large numbers of consumers obtaining Premier League content from these servers."

This information is also "only consistent" with those three ISPs actively helping the investigation of streaming servers. As TorrentFreak points out:

Overall, this injunction provides a clear indication of what can happen when ISPs stop being "mere conduits" of information and start becoming distributors of entertainment content. In the case of Sky and BT, who pay billions for content, it would be perhaps naive to think that they would've behaved in any other way.

Indeed, this case has all the hallmarks of companies agreeing to take action together and then going through the formalities of an injunction application to get the necessary rubber stamp and avoid criticism.

If confirmed, that's a terrible development. It would mean that the ISPs with investments in material that customers view over their connections no longer see themselves as neutral "mere conduits," but now are on the side of the copyright industry.

The legal blog IPKat points out another important aspect of this latest case. It seems to be the first time that the awful GS Media ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union -- that a link posted "for profit" can be considered direct infringement -- has been applied in the UK. The judge in this live streaming case wrote:

Generally speaking, the operators of the Target Servers are not merely linking to freely available sources of Premier League footage. Even if in some cases they do, the evidence indicates that they do so for profit, frequently in the form of advertising revenue, and thus are presumed to have the requisite knowledge for the communication to be to a new public.

Expect to see more of these live blocking orders in the UK as the copyright industry there continues to wage its war on the popular Kodi boxes. The question is, will courts in other EU countries start to use them too?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: censorship, kodi, live blocking, live streaming, streaming, takedown, uk
Companies: fapl, premier league

China's Latest Target For Online Crackdown: Live-Streaming Foreigners

from the I-saw-what-you-did-there dept

As we've noted before, China's grip on the domestic Internet seems so complete that it's hard to think how the authorities there might tighten control yet further. But the Chinese government is nothing if not resourceful, and has managed to come up with a new group to target, as this report on the Sixth Tone site explains:

Multiple foreign users have received suspension notices from major live-streaming apps, including Blued, China's most popular gay social networking app, and Yizhibo, which is backed by microblog platform Weibo.

This seems to be as a result of the new regulations governing the Internet in China, brought in at the end of last year. Among the measures there is one that requires online broadcasts to be "beneficial to the promotion of socialist core values", while another stipulates that platforms should not allow hosts from outside mainland China to create channels without first asking permission from the country's Ministry of Culture. That's where the difficulty arises:

According to an employee of one of the biggest streaming companies, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record, the problem with the new regulations is that there are no details on how to apply. Live-broadcasting platforms have dealt with the uncertainty in a variety of ways. At the employee's company, old users are allowed to continue broadcasting, but new foreign users cannot sign up for the time being.

However, other services have decided to play it safe by taking all non-Chinese users offline until the new rules have been clarified. A Yizhibo employee told Sixth Tone that a key issue was a requirement for real-name verification -- something that Techdirt has discussed before. Apparently, it's not a straightforward process when it comes to foreigners.

The crackdown on live-streaming services is not the only recent move by the authorities that targets foreigners. Last week, China made another announcement, much more far-reaching in its effect than the live-streaming ban:

China is to begin taking fingerprints of all foreign visitors as it steps up security on its borders, the Ministry of Public Security said on Thursday.

Perhaps the Chinese government feels that it has the domestic population sufficiently under control now that it can move on to tightening up the rules for foreign visitors.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: censorship, china, free speech, great firewall, live streaming

Ridiculous Congressional Proposal Would Fine Reps Who Live Stream From The Floor

from the congress-excels-at-petty-actions dept

It would be nice if we weren't remind daily just how petty politicians can be (on all sides of the aisle... so don't go making this about one party or the other). Over the summer, we wrote about a situations in which House Democrats tried to stage a protest on the House floor -- and House Republicans responded by gavelling the House out of session and turning off the live feed on C-SPAN so that the protest could not be easily seen (again, this isn't partisan: the House Dems did the same to House Repubs eight years ago). In response, some of those participating in the protest started using Periscope and Facebook Live to livestream online from the floor.

And, now, just to turn up the level of petty vindictiveness, some House Representatives have proposed fining Congressional Reps who live stream (or post photos) from the House floor.

... the new policy would fine representatives $500 for the first offense of broadcasting video, audio, or photos, and rise to $2,500 thereafter. In order to take effect, the proposal would need to be approved by the House when its next session starts in January.

And, of course, supporters of the proposal change are doing their best to give totally bullshit reasons for this petty action, claiming that it's about "ensuring" that "order and decorum are preserved in the House." That's a load of hogwash. This is just politicians acting like elementary school children yet again.

The push for this is being led by Speaker Paul Ryan, who apparently doesn't much care for the Constitution. You see, people who actually have read the Constitution are noting that this proposal is likely unconstitutional:

But experts say Ryan’s proposal may run afoul of Article 1 of the Constitution, which says “each House may … punish its Members for disorderly behavior.” For more than 200 years that has been interpreted to mean any contested sanctions against lawmakers must be approved by the full House with a floor vote, attorneys steeped in congressional legal matters say.

“The Constitution gives the House the authority to discipline members; I have never heard of anything where an officer of the House was given that authority,” said Mike Stern, a former lawyer for the nonpartisan House counsel’s office and the Senate Homeland Security Committee’s GOP staff.

Meanwhile, one of the members who took part in the streaming, Rep. Eric Swawell, is coming out fighting against this proposal: Back in June, Swalwell responded to the shutdown of the C-SPAN cameras by pushing a proposal that would have given control of C-SPAN's camera stream to C-SPAN, rather than petty politicians in the House who can shut down the stream whenever they want to.

And, honestly, as I'm writing this entire post, I'm sitting here wondering why the hell this is an issue. Of all the things that Congress should be doing right now, is this really a major priority? To try to punish Congressional representatives for actually wanting to provide a more transparent look into what happens on the floor?

Filed Under: congress, eric swalwell, live streaming, paul ryan, politics, streaming
Companies: c-span

NHL Bans Use Of Periscope Streaming By Media During Warmups And Intermissions

from the why? dept

Anyone interested in the business of professional sports already knows how important broadcasting rights and revenues are. One needs only look at the insane amount of money generated for Major League Baseball through broadcast contracts to see how lucrative they can be, or the relative indifference the NFL has over the surprising decline of game attendance to see where these leagues think their money is made. The story with the NHL is slightly different, in part because the lucrative television contracts just aren't there for the league (except in Canada, duh), and in part because if any major sport could benefit from wider distribution to become more lucrative it's the NHL.

But that doesn't mean the NHL won't play the fun-police when it comes to theoretically protecting its product. As some journalists have recently discovered, the league is going so far as to make sure credentialed members of the media aren't using apps like Periscope and Meerkat during warmups and intermissions. The way these apps work is to allow the user to produce snippets of live-streamed video/audio, perfect for formats like Twitter. Some enterprising media members found interesting ways to use them, such as Yahoo Sports' Greg Wyshynski.

So the question then became how I could use this technology during coverage. At Game 1 of the New York Rangers’ series against the Pittsburgh Penguins, I did live Periscope intermission coverage. That seemed OK. Some of the other people in the press box that were Periscoping the pregame skate or postgame comments? That seemed a little more dicey, given the NHL’s rules about shooting video at events where big media companies held the broadcast rights.

It seemed like there was a gray area. I can promise you that credentialed media members covering a sport don't want to do much to hurt the leagues they cover generally, given that's where their money is made. But you can certainly see useful ways media members could use Periscope and Meerkat to cover games in ways that could only help the league through increased visibility. Commentary and stand-ups during warmups, for instance, or breakdowns from media members in between periods. Those would be quite useful.

The NHL disagrees. Far from seeing any gray area, the league sent notice to media members that using the apps was banned completely.

We have been advised that certain individuals attending NHL games pursuant to credentialed access are streaming live footage from inside NHL arenas before, during and after NHL games using technology offered by companies such as Periscope and Meerkat. As a reminder, NHL media credentials prohibit any “unauthorized use of any transmission, picture or other depiction or description of game action, game information, player interview or other arena activity . . . without prior written approval of” NHL or the team as applicable.Without limiting the generality of the credential language, any streaming of footage in violation of the NHL’s Broadcast Guidelines (including, for example, live streaming inside the arena less than 30 minutes before the start of the game) and Media Access Policy is expressly prohibited.

So live-streaming warmups and intermissions is just as banned as in-game streaming. Why? Well, because some NHL teams are also using those apps and want to retain control. Control of the footage, the message, the information that gets released and the live commentary that might go along with it. Even during times when the NHL's product is ostensibly not in play, the ban remains in place. And that's too bad. For a sport and league that I truly love, it would be nice if they could see the opportunity in all of this, if only the league would relinquish just a bit of control. Unfortunately, when it comes to forward-thinking about the consumption of its game, the NHL never seems to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Filed Under: hockey, journalism, live streaming, livestreaming, reporting
Companies: meerkat, nhl, periscope