Nintendo Hates You: More DMCA Takedowns Of YouTube Videos Of Game Music Despite No Legit Alternative

from the mine-mine-mine dept

I guess this is nearly an annual thing now. In 2019, we talked about how one YouTuber, GilvaSunner, had over one hundred YouTube videos blocked by Nintendo over copyright claims. GilvaSunner's channel is dedicated to video game music, mostly from Nintendo games. Those videos consist of nothing but that music, as in no footage of video game gameplay. Nintendo, which certainly can take this sort of action from an IP standpoint, also doesn't offer any legit alternative for fans to enjoy this music on any streaming service or the like. Then, in 2020, GilvaSunner had another whole swath of videos consisting of game music blocked by Nintendo over copyright claims. Still no legit alternative for those looking to enjoy music from Nintendo's celebrated catalogue of games.

Well, if Nintendo decided to take 2021 off from this annual project, it certainly has more than made up for it by sending copyright strikes to GilvaSunner's channel at a volume of over 1,300 in one day.

Yesterday morning, YouTuber GilvaSunner posted a tweet explaining that Nintendo had sent them and their channel over 1300 “copyright blocks.” The channel, which is extremely popular, uploads full video game soundtracks, letting fans easily listen to their favorite Kirby or Mario track via YouTube.

After all the copyright blocks went through and the dust settled, GilvaSunner shared a list of all the soundtracks that Nintendo had targeted and blocked from the site. It’s a long list.

A very long list, as you might expect. Now, a couple of items of note here. First, GilvaSunner has insisted that he is not shocked that Nintendo continues to take these actions, nor does he claim that it isn't within its rights to take them. But he's also not going to stop voluntarily.

“I’m also not angry or surprised that Nintendo is doing this, but I do think it’s a bit disappointing there is hardly an alternative,” explained GilvaSunner in a tweet thread from 2020. “If Nintendo thinks this is what needs to be done (to set an example), I will let them take down the channel. It is their content after all.”

Do as you please, in other words, Nintendo. That being said, let's also note that the channel doesn't monetize any of these videos. GilvaSunner doesn't make money off of Nintendo's music.

And neither does Nintendo because, frustratingly, the company still hasn't made this music available on any of the music streaming services we all know and love. Nor has the company announced any plans to. In other words, Nintendo isn't going to provide you with a way to enjoy this music and it is going to shut down anyone who does.

In that scenario, this isn't Nintendo protecting its monetary interests. It's simply the company deciding to take its musical ball and go home. Why? Because Nintendo hates you, that's why.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, music
Companies: nintendo, youtube

Rock Band Doomscroll Has Trademark App Opposed By id Software

from the knee-deep-in-the-dumb dept

id Software is not a complete stranger to silly IP enforcement actions. Between trying to own concepts that are un-ownable and occasionally trying to throw its legal muscle around to bully others into not using common words in their own video game titles, the company has proven that it is perfectly capable of playing the IP bully. But at least in those specific instances, if you squint at them, they kinda sorta seem like industry-related, almost understandable IP disputes.

When it comes to how id Software enforces its venerated Doom trademarks, however, that is not the case. The company has a history of opposing and/or sending C&Ds to all kinds of barely related or unrelated commercial entities for trying to register anything that has to do with the word "doom": podcasts, festivals, and entertainment properties. And now, it appears, thrash metal bands too.

Dustin Mitchell, like many of us in recent years, came across the term "doomscrolling" and decided that "Doomscroll" would be a cool name for his next metal band. After having the idea, he decided to apply for a trademark on the name for musical acts. And then came the opposition from id Software.

In October, Mitchell was noodling around on his guitar before bed when he decided to check his email one last time. A message from a lawyer appeared in his inbox. “Dear Mr. Mitchell,” it read. “My law firm represents Id Software LLC which owns the video game DOOM and related registered trademarks.” That day, October 13, it continued, was the deadline for Id Software LLC, or anyone else, to oppose his trademark application to register “doomscroll.” The lawyer asked Mitchell to agree to extend the deadline. That way, Mitchell and the Doom developer could find time to reach a resolution before any legal action went down.

Mitchell immediately felt funny; even a little sour. He was 10 in 1993, when Doom took the gaming world by storm, empowering edgelord gamers to head-pop demons with a bevy of firearms against the background of fiery hell. He had played Doom and Doom 2 back in the day, both of which he describes as “awesome,” and had listened to the metal-inspired soundtrack for 2020’s Doom Eternal, which he describes as “not bad.” Now Mitchell found himself in an unexpected standoff with its developer. He loved those games as a kid, he says, but “they're trying to take something away from me that is completely unrelated to them.”

Unrelated in every way. No matter what soundtracks id Software has produced for Doom titles, unless it registered its mark for the music space, that's entirely besides the point. And even if it did register its mark for musical acts or productions, that still probably doesn't make this a valid opposition. "Doomscroll" is not in any way a reference to the video game series. Instead, it's become a common slang term for how everyday folk use social media. They're not related. Also, the words are not the same and I'm finding it very hard to believe that the metal-thrashing public would somehow be confused into thinking that id Software is somehow involved.

And yet id Software is simply making trouble for a musician because it can.

The company owns several trademarks around the word “doom” and video games; in the last month, the company has also filed oppositions to trademarks for “ODoom” and “Doomlings.” Prior to that, Id Software filed oppositions to entertainment properties the Maryland Doom Fest, Garden of Doom, and Doomsday Happy Hour. JB, the guy behind the Maryland Doom Fest, says he didn’t pursue the trademark after Id’s initial opposition. It would have been too expensive, he guesses. Jeff, who tried to trademark Garden of Doom, his podcast, says he came to an agreement with the lawyers representing Id Software; he says he just can’t make a movie or video game called Garden of Doom.

Right now, the fate of Doomscroll is in the hands of Id Software and the Patent Office. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is processing the Doom developer's opposition. A hefty trial schedule was sent out mid-October, which stretches deep into 2023. It may not be that Id Software even wants the Doomscroll trademark; it might just not want Mitchell to form a progressive thrash metal band that, maybe, someone will confuse with the storied game series.

Except that's not going to happen. Either Mitchell, who works at Amazon during the day, is going to fight a likely long and arduous process at the TTAB or, more likely, is going to realize that such a fight isn't worth the personal cost it would take. And, therefore, id Software's bullying will work as likely intended, to simply make a smaller entity give up the fight.

Which is why, as we so often say, trademark bullying works. Which sucks.

Filed Under: doom, doomscroll, music, rock bands, trademark, video games
Companies: id software

'Blue Line' Apparently Doesn't Apply To Bad Cops Abusing Copyright Law To Prevent Citizens From Uploading Recordings

from the try-not-to-be-such-an-asshole,-asshole dept

Last month, Sergeant David Shelby of the Alameda County (CA) Sheriff's Office inducted himself into the Hall O' Internet Infamy by openly admitting to people filming him that he was playing copyrighted music on his phone in hopes of terminating live streams, recordings, and police accountability activists' accounts.

When confronted by activists, Sgt. Shelby pulled up a Taylor Swift track, hoping the fervent protector of intellectual property would keep the recording from being successfully uploaded. His effort failed. The interaction made its way to YouTube and to the internet beyond. Sgt. Shelby showed his whole ass and the world wide web was there to witness it.

This is a new tactic being deployed by cops around the nation. It's not widespread, but it's happened more than once, which implies cops are at least cognizant of one aspect of the law. But, to date, it hasn't worked. The recordings meant to be terminated by copyright-protecting AI have been successfully published to the web. The inability to use copyright as a censor has exposed some cops as the bad faith operators they are -- a list that includes Sgt. Shelby.

His coworkers aren't happy. Emails obtained by Motherboard (and covered by Samantha Cole) show Shelby's behind-the-blue-line compatriots thought this was an especially dumb and disingenuous move by this superior-in-name-only.

"WHYYYYYY?," Miguel Campos, another Alameda County officer, wrote in an email to two colleagues that includes a link to a news story about Shelby’s impromptu Taylor Swift session.

[...]

Another officer replied that she'd sent lieutenants a separate email, and added, "Protected rights are a thing! We must never let our protection of laws override those protections. Also, if there is any uncertainty about what should be done....ask!"

Not all press is good press. That's something cops should know by now. Even if local news outfits are unwilling to question cop narratives, internet denizens are still willing to ask the hard questions. Anything that shows cops are trying to abuse anything in their control to prevent accountability will be noticed and amplified. Sgt. Shelby's co-workers are more aware than he is. And their complaints about his actions make it clear no one's happy he's drawn this much heat to the department and made them unwillingly complicit in his First Amendment violations.

The good news is all of the above. Plus this: the Alameda County Sheriff's Department has issued a new policy two weeks after this infamous incident -- one that forbids employees from being the asshat Sgt. Shelby was.

"Agency members shall not, purposefully and knowingly, use or broadcast any copyrighted body of work in a manner that will adversely impact the level of professionalism, performance, conduct and productivity that is expected of a peace officer or professional staff member," and "Copyrighted work shall not be used in a manner as to limit the public’s ability to exercise their First Amendment rights as set fourth [sic] in the United States Constitution."

Sure, cops violate policy all the time, along with the laws they're supposed to be enforcing. But this bullshit actually turned into a specific ban on playing copyright gotcha with the people who pay their paychecks. That is good news, even if it's inevitable someone will violate the policy and suffer nothing more than a paid vacation.

(Qualified) good news! But let's just briefly address this assertion made in this article at Motherboard:

People have a First Amendment right to film the police.

Not exactly true. Several circuits have affirmed or established this right. But we're still waiting on a Supreme Court declaration that this action is not only lawful, but protected. All odds point to SCOTUS agreeing this much is true. But, at this point, it's not actually a "right." Unfortunately, YMMV depending on your jurisdiction. Sgt. Shelby's actions were complete bullshit. But whether or not it violated a right remains to be seen. And, as long as the Supreme Court leaves this question unanswered, people will be arrested for filming cops. And cops will escape lawsuits for violating rights that haven't been "clearly established" by the top court in the land.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, alameda, copyright, david shelby, free speech, music, police, recording police, taylor swift

Why Companies Keep Folding to Copyright Pressure, Even If They Shouldn't

from the fight-back-for-user-rights dept

The giant record labels, their association, and their lobbyists have succeeded in getting a number of members of the U.S. House of Representatives to pressure Twitter to pay money it does not owe, to labels who have no claim to it, against the interests of its users. This is a playbook we’ve seen before, and it seems to work almost every time. For once, let us hope a company sees this extortion attempt for what it is and stands up to it.

Here is the deal. Online platforms that host user content are not liable for copyright infringement done by those users so long as they fulfill the obligations laid out in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). One of those obligations is to give rightsholders an unprecedented ability to have speech removed from the internet, on demand, with a simple notice sent to a platform identifying the offending content. Another is that companies must have some policy to terminate the accounts of “repeat infringers.”

Not content with being able to remove content without a court order, the giant companies that hold the most profitable rights want platforms to do more than the law requires. They do not care that their demands result in other people’s speech being suppressed. Mostly, they want two things: automated filters, and to be paid. In fact, the letter sent to Twitter by those members of Congress asks Twitter to add “content protection technology”—for free—and heavily implies that the just course is for Twitter to enter into expensive licensing agreements with the labels.

Make no mistake, artists deserve to be paid for their work. However, the complaints that the RIAA and record labels make about platforms are less about what individual artists make, and more about labels’ control. In 2020, according to the RIAA, revenues rose almost 10% to $12.2 billion in the United States. And Twitter, whatever else it is, is not where people go for music.

But the reason the RIAA, the labels, and their lobbyists have gone with this tactic is that, up until now, it has worked. Google set the worst precedent possible in this regard. Trying to avoid a fight with major rightsholders, Google voluntarily created Content ID. Content ID is an automated filter that scans uploads to see if any part—even just a few seconds—of the upload matches the copyrighted material in its database. A match can result in either a user’s video being blocked, or monetized for the claiming rightsholder. Ninety percent of Content ID partners choose to automatically monetize a match—that is, claim the advertising revenue on a creator’s video for themselves—and 95 percent of Content ID matches made to music are monetized in some form. That gives small, independent YouTube creators only a few options for how to make a living. Creators can dispute matches and hope to win, sacrificing revenue while they do and risking the loss of their channel. Fewer than one percent of Content ID matches are disputed. Or, they can painstakingly edit and re-edit videos, or avoid including almost any music whatsoever and hope that Content ID doesn’t register a match on static or a cat’s purr.

While any creator has the right to use copyrighted material without paying rightsholders in circumstances where fair use applies, Content ID routinely diverts money away from creators like these to rightsholders in the name of policing infringement. Fair use is an exercise of your First Amendment rights, but Content ID forces you to pay for that right. WatchMojo, one of the largest YouTube channels, estimated that over six years, roughly two billion dollars in ads have gone to rightsholders instead of creators. YouTube does not shy away from this effect. In its 2018 report “How Google Fights Piracy,” the company declares that “the size and efficiency of Content ID are unparalleled in the industry, offering an efficient way to earn revenue from the unanticipated, creative ways that fans reuse songs and videos.” In other words, Content ID allows rightsholders to take money away from creators who are under no obligation to obtain a license for their lawful fair uses.

That doesn’t even include the times these filters just get things completely wrong. Just the other week, a programmer live-streamed his typing and a claim was made for the sound of “typing on a modern keyboard.” A recording of static got five separate notices placed on it by the automated filter. These things don’t work.

YouTube also encourages people to simply use only the things that they have a license for or are in a library of free resources. That ignores that there is a fair use right to use copyrighted material in certain cases, and lets companies argue that no one has to use their work without paying since these free options exist.

So, when the labels make a lot of disingenuous noise about how inadequate the DMCA is and how platforms need to do more, they have YouTube to point to as a “voluntary” system that should be replicated. And companies will fold, especially if they end up being inundated with DMCA takedowns—some bogus—and if they think the other option is being required to do it by law, the implicit threat of a letter like the one Twitter received.

This tactic works. Twitch found itself buried under DMCA takedowns last year, handled that poorly, and then found itself being, like Twitter, blamed for taking money out of the hands of musicians by the RIAA. Twitch now makes removing music and claimed bits of videos easier, has adopted a similar repeat infringer policy to YouTube’s, and makes deleting clips easier for users. Snap, owner of Snapchat, went the route of getting a license, paying labels to make music available to its users.

Creating a norm of licensed or free music, monetization, or automated filters functionally eviscerates fair use. Even if people have the right to use something, they won’t be able to. On YouTube, reviewers don’t use the clips of the music or movies that are the best example of what they’re talking about—they pick whatever will satisfy the filter. That is not the model we want as a baseline. The baseline should be more protective of legal speech, not less.

Unfortunately, when the tech companies are facing off against the largest rightsholders, it's users who most often lose. Twitter is only the latest target, we hope they become the one to stand up for its users.

Originally posted to the EFF Deeplinks blog.

Filed Under: congress, copyright, dmca, licensing, music
Companies: twitter

New 'Guardians Of The Galaxy' Game Has Game Streamers Worried Over Integral Music In The Game

from the ooga-chaka dept

With streaming games and "let's plays" becoming a dominant force of influence in the gaming world, one of the sillier trends we've seen is video games coming out with "stream safe" settings that strip out audio content for which there is no broadcast license. We've talked already about how this sort of thing is not a solution to the actual problem -- the complicated licenses surrounding copyrighted works and the permission culture that birthed them -- but is rather a ploy to simply ignore that problem entirely. That hasn't stopped this from becoming a more regular thing in the gaming world, even as we've seen examples of "stream safe" settings fail to keep streams from getting DMCA notices.

Well, if there were a perfect example of a video game that highlights the absurdity of all of this, it may well be the forthcoming Guardians of the Galaxy title. If you're not familiar with the GotG movies, you should know that retro music plays a major role in the films. The game promises that retro music will be just as important as in the films. And that's what immediately set off concern for game streamers.

One group that is wary of this heavy emphasis on pop music is the livestreaming crowd, who are concerned that it could make the game near-impossible to broadcast. This is because Twitch and YouTube creators are regularly hit with what are known as Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notices.

As such, a number of social media users have expressed hesitancy to livestream Guardians of the Galaxy when it comes out in October, as they are worried that the game's licensed soundtrack might cause them to receive a DMCA strike.

This seemed to be the general reaction to the game among streamers. The game publisher of course secured the rights to the songs to be included in the game, but did not license the songs for rebroadcast. Because the world is an extremely stupid place, streaming a game equates to a rebroadcast of any music within it. And, also because the world is an extremely stupid place, Eidos-Montreal's solution to this is once again to mute licensed music.

Newsweek contacted Eidos-Montréal to ask if they had made any considerations for Twitch streamers in respect to Guardians of the Galaxy's music. Over email, a spokesperson confirmed that there will actually be an option to mute licensed tracks, if players want to be absolutely safe from potential DMCA takedowns.

And so a major thematic element for the franchise will be nixed in any live-streams of the game. That is immensely frustrating. Yes, "dad rock" is an important component of the franchise and will be likewise in the game, but nobody is buying the game in order to listen to the music. By the same token, nobody is going to watch a stream of the game for that music, either. The music is important to the franchise, but its appearance in a live-stream of the game is certainly not a replacement for buying it in the marketplace.

But here we are, because permission culture demands it.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, guardians of the galaxy, let's play, music, streaming

Karma: Twitch Replaces Live Metallica Concert With 8-Bit Music To Avoid Copyright Madness

from the napster-bad! dept

Long time copyright watchers know that Metallica sullied its reputation with tons of fans when it was the first band to sue the file sharing upstart Napster back in 2000 (and also sued three universities for "not blocking Napster"). The band's drummer, Lars Ulrich, became an outspoken critic of file sharing and the internet, the early face of super wealthy musicians whining about the internet changing the way they did things, leading to the classic Money Good! Napster Bad! meme.

Over the years, Metallica has tried to do more to "embrace" the internet, but almost every time, fans jump up to remind them about what assholes they were towards the early internet experience.

And that brings us around to Friday evening, when Metallica was set to play a streamed "live" show to kick off BlizzCon (an event for video game company Blizzard). The event was streamed live on Twitch, which has had some copyright problems of late. It appears that as Metallica was playing, and the Twitch Gaming channel was streaming the concert, someone realized that there might be a copyright problem. As first called out by Rod Breslau, the channel inserted 8-bit folks music over Metallica's live performance to avoid a situation that, uh, Metallica might sue over.

You can see a fun YouTube video of when the switch happens and it's as glorious as it is stupid:

Watching Lars "rock out" to 8-bit folk music... is really quite something:

As plenty of people pointed out, Metallica and Lars are a big part of the reason that the internet is so, well, twitchy, in trying to take down copyright-covered content these days, so this bit of idiocy demonstrating just how broken copyright is couldn't have happened to a more deserving group.

Filed Under: blizzcon, copyright, lars ulrich, licenses, metallica, music, streaming
Companies: twitch

RIAA Launches Brand New Front Group Pretending To Represent Independent Artists

from the oh-come-on dept

A few days ago, a friend asked if I'd ever heard of the "Digital Creators Coalition," an apparently new group that claimed to be representing independent artists. I was unfamiliar with it, and its website provided basically no information about who was actually behind it, beyond this vague statement on its "who we are" page:

The Digital Creators Coalition (DCC) is a group of associations, companies and organizations that represent individual creators, independent producers, small-and-medium-size enterprises (SMEs), large businesses, and labor organizations from the American creative communities. We contribute significantly to U.S. GDP, exports and employment – collectively employing or representing millions of American creators, and contributing billions of dollars to the U.S. economy.

Right... but... uh... who? There's no named staff. There's nothing that shows who these associations, companies, and organizations actually are. Though, if you click through on the website to their "comments" page, it takes you to two separate letters that were sent nearly a year ago to negotiators trying to sort out a US-UK trade agreement, asking for the most extreme versions of copyright possible, including copyright term extension, secondary liability on websites that host content, no language on "balance" or "fair use" (yes, they explicitly say neither term should be mentioned). It's insanity.

Of course, that letter also reveals who they are, and it's a who's who of industry associations that lobby for the interests of the largest gatekeepers, and not, as the organization's website suggests, small and independent creators:

I mean, you've got basically all the copyright maximalist extremist groups there: the RIAA, the MPA, the Author's Guild, Creative Future, the Recording Academy, ASCAP, SoundExchange, NMPA, the IIPA. Not surprisingly, but incredibly disappointing is that the News Media Alliance is there. The News Media Alliance used to be the Newspaper Association of America, and, as such, you'd think would be supportive of free speech and the 1st Amendment. Considering how much newspapers rely on fair use, you'd think it would be odd that they're now against fair use. But, over the past few years, the leaders of the News Media Alliance have become so obsessed and infatuated with "GOOGLE BAD!" that apparently they have no problem throwing their lot in with copyright maximalists against their own members' interests. The organization literally came out against fair use a few years ago, and has since become just as bad (in some ways worse!) than some of the other organizations here.

But, just as if to prove that this group has nothing to do with small and independent creators, and is just a front for the big gatekeepers who screw over small and independent creators, the RIAA itself put out a press release announcing this group's official launch. Oh, and in case there was any doubt who is really behind this group, a simple whois lookup on who registered the website reveals all:

Yup. This organization set up to supposedly support small and independent artists... was literally set up by the RIAA itself.

This would be the same RIAA whose chairman and CEO's key claim to fame is that while he was a Congressional staffer, he snuck four words into an unrelated bill that literally would take the copyrights from artists and give them to record labels. No one realized he had done this until after it was passed and became law, at which point, the RIAA immediately hired him, and where he's moved up the ranks until he was in charge. This move set off a huge fight with tons of artists screaming about how the RIAA had actually "stolen" their copyrights out from under them, and Congress had to go in and fix this.

That's who's protecting the interests of small and independent creators? Don't make me laugh.

This is also the same RIAA made up of the major labels who have a long and detailed history of screwing over some of its biggest artists through creative accounting (the only thing the RIAA really does that is creative) to make sure it never needs to pay artists and to keep them tied to the system. These are not the friends of independent artists.

Notice who is not a part of this coalition? Any of the companies who have made it possible for actual small and independent artists to make, distribute, promote, build an audience, and make a living these days. No Apple. No YouTube. No TikTok. No Kickstarter. No Patreon. No Spotify. No Bandcamp. No Substack. Odd, isn't it? Then again, maybe not.

But seeing as this group is now officially "launched" you can expect to see a bunch of bullshit quotes from them that gullible reporters will repeat without question, saying that it's a group to support artists. Don't believe them. This is an organization to support the copyright maximalism of groups that have spent decades screwing over independent artists.

Filed Under: copyright, front group, independent artists, lobbying, music
Companies: dcc, digital creators coalition, mpa, riaa

Twitch's No Good, Very Bad Time Continues: Part 2

from the pay-to-play dept

I won't write up a big summary of the ongoing turmoil in the Twitch community for this post. If you need to be brought up to speed, go see Part 1 or our previous posts on the platform. The only summary you really need is that the past few months have seen Twitch piss nearly everyone off by doing two things. First, it bowed to the RIAA over DMCA notices and nuked a ton of creator content without warning. Second, Twitch began experimenting with very intrusive ads, along with other methods for monetizing creator content. The PR communication coming from Twitch over all of this has been wanting, to say the least.

But now it looks like Twitch is looking to tie a bow around both controversies to continue to piss off its talent even more, having announced that the once-sought-after Twitch Affiliate status, earned through a streamer's ability to get consistent eyeballs, has now been reduced to a pay-to-play scheme involving at least one record label.

Here's the text from Twitch's Affiliate site detailing who qualifies.

Who qualifies?

We’re looking for streamers who aren’t yet Partners, but who have at least 50 followers and over the last 30 days have have at least 500 total minutes broadcast, 7 unique broadcast days, and an average of 3 or more concurrent viewers. This criteria may change as the program develops.

That's been upended by this new deal worked out with music label Monstercat.

Monstercat outlined the new program in a post on its website today. If streamers subscribe to Monstercat Gold for $5 per month, they now gain access not only to a library of songs they can play during their streams, but also Twitch affiliate status. Affiliate is Twitch’s first monetization tier, which allows streamers to gain paid subscribers and Bits, which are basically a donation currency. Before this year, the only way to become an affiliate was to unlock it by having at least 50 followers, 500 total minutes broadcast, an average of 3 or more concurrent viewers, and streaming on 7 different days.

This is similar to a program that Twitch launched with SoundCloud earlier this year, which allowed SoundCloud subscribers to get fast-tracked to affiliate status. But that promotion was focused on musicians. This one, theoretically, is aimed at everybody.

In other words, for $5 a month, you can be a Twitch affiliate. If it seems like that makes the affiliate program mostly meaningless other than as a revenue source for both a music label and Twitch, that's because it does. It also comes after years of Twitch guarding its affiliate status behind merit-based metrics, which led to a ton of work being done by Twitch streamers to get that status. This is a slap in the face to all of those streamers that earned their status as opposed to paying for it.

“This seems amazingly unfair to all those folks who have worked hard to get to affiliate, but it also feels like it lessens the value of an affiliate status if you can just buy your way in,” Spawn On Me’s Kahlief Adams said on Twitter.

“I think this is not good, kind of gross, and...a little exploitative?” said commentator and streamer Thom “F.” Badinger. “Also depressing how the platform sees its creators with an issue and thinks of it as a monetization opportunity vs something they should help with.”

This Monstercat promotion, then, just turns long-simmering subtext into text: Affiliate and partner status don’t mean anything. They’re just means of incentivizing streamers to do what Twitch wants. Before, that was streaming. Now it’s giving money to companies with which Twitch has made deals. Twitch business partners, at least, must be pleased.

All of which seems to suggest that Twitch doesn't understand that its most valuable asset is the talent that chooses to stream on Twitch. Without good streamers producing good content, Twitch is a nothing. And the consistent drumbeat pissing off that talent cannot possibly be good for Twitch in the near or long term.

Honestly, at this point I'm mostly just waiting to see what Act 3 of Twitch's No Good, Very Bad Time will be.

Filed Under: affiliate, copyright, dmca, music, pay
Companies: monstercat, twitch

Twitch Continues To Trip Over Itself In Response To DMCA Apocalypse

from the do-better dept

What a few weeks for Twitch. You will recall that the platform went about pissing a ton of its talent and viewers off by nuking a metric ton of video content on the site in response to a flood of DMCA takedown notices, most of them from the RIAA. And this truly was the nuclear option, far different from the notice/counternotice system most platforms use. In fact, it was so extraordinary that it arguably lost Twitch its DMCA safe harbor. Regardless, when the company then followed up with a message to all Twitch creators that they should go educate themselves on matters of copyright and proactively delete any recordings or clips that might run afoul of copyright law, it created a cluster-fuck with virtually nobody having any idea how or what they should be doing. In response to the turmoil, Twitch brilliantly rolled out an announcement for a new emoji.

And it just keeps getting worse. This week, Twitch has finally come out with an apology to its talent, noting that the company, bought by Amazon in 2014, probably should have been able to provide better tools and a system that wouldn't have required the mass deletion of millions of hours of recorded content.

“You’re rightly upset that the only option we provided was a mass deletion tool for Clips, and that we only gave you three-days notice to use this tool,” the company wrote. “We could have developed more sophisticated, user-friendly tools awhile ago. That we didn’t is on us. And we could have provided creators with a longer time period to address their VOD and Clip libraries—that was a miss as well. We’re truly sorry for these mistakes, and we’ll do better.”

Twitch also committed to developing additional tools that will hopefully grant streamers more granular control over their recorded content, audio, and reviewing/contesting copyright claims, but it did not provide a release date for those much-needed features. It went on to try and explain why it doesn’t just obtain music licensing rights like Facebook has for its livestreaming platform, but while it said that those solutions won’t work for Twitch in particular, it stopped short of explaining exactly why.

So, apology with a side of obfuscation that doesn't actually put creators in any better a place than they were yesterday. There's still no way to counternotice. No commitment from Twitch to supporting creators' rights when it comes to fair use. And the explanation that a licensing deal with the music labels would take too much money away from Twitch creators considering how sparingly they use music in their streams comes along with two problems. The first problem is that the statement leads to an obvious question: You're Amazon; why don't you just eat the licensing costs and let us create?

But the second problem is that the DCMA apocalypse is continuing and it's starting to get ridiculously granular.

This comes during an especially turbulent week on the DMCA front. In the past few days, streamers have reported getting targeted by copyright claims and Twitch’s automated systems for music and sound effects in games, as well as clips they’ve already deleted. One streamer, MichalRonin, had his audio auto-muted for broadcasting a wind gust sound in World of Warcraft.

“Only music I’ve had on stream was in-game WoW music, played by the game itself,” MichalRonin wrote on Twitter yesterday. “Yet I’ve got ‘muted audio’ on the latest VOD, apparently in Sen’Jin village.” He then posted a screenshot that mentioned a “Medium Wind Storm with Gusts, Whistles and Low Rumble” sound effect from the Hollywood Edge Sound Effects Library.

This example was one of many. If DMCA notices are suddenly going to start coming in and being acted upon over video game sound effects, never mind the game music that comes along with streaming a let's-play, then Twitch is essentially over. On top of that, some streamers report that even covers of video game music are getting caught up in the DMCA takedowns. Still others received strikes for content that had already been deleted.

Streamer JasonParadise deleted all of his clips on October 23, the day Twitch resumed regular DMCA processing after holding back thousands for a handful of months.

“What the fuck was the point of deleting all of my VODs/clips back on October 23rd? The strike on an old clip (that no longer existed) came in ten days later,” he wrote on Twitter.

Questions to Twitch about all of the above by the media have gone entirely unanswered as of the time of this writing. It all paints a picture of a popular and well-traveled platform with a parent company that ought to be able to provide all of the capital, platform tools, and public messaging in the world... instead having none of that.

And with YouTube once again making a strong play for these kinds of streamers, one wonders just how long it all can last.

Filed Under: clips, dmca, music, takedowns
Companies: riaa, twitch

Tom Lehrer, Still Awesome, Releases Lyrics Into The Public Domain

from the good-for-him dept

Back in 2014 we had a post about Tom Lehrer and copyright. As you hopefully know, Lehrer, the unassuming retired math teacher, had a brief and massively successful music career, in part because all of his work is amazing. Years back, Buzzfeed had a fantastic article about Lehrer that is worth reading. That's what spurred my post about Lehrer and copyright, because in the Buzzfeed piece it became clear that Lehrer did not care one bit about retaining his copyrights.

While Lehrer has made startlingly little effort to ensure a future for his work, a handful of superfans have filled in the gap. One is Erik Meyn, a Norwegian who manages the Tom Lehrer Wisdom Channel on YouTube, a feed of performance videos and playlists that has received more than 10 million views since 2007. Meyn originally posted content to the channel without Lehrer’s permission and called him from overseas in December 2008 to apologize, a conversation he later posted on the “Tom Lehrer!” Facebook page. An excerpt:

TL: Well, you see, I’m fine with that channel.

EM: You’re very kind. But my question is: Who in your family will take care of your copyright and your songs in the distant future?

TL: I don’t have a family.

EM: OK, but what do you think will happen to the channel and your songs? And if you have someone who will act on your behalf, could you give them my name in case they’d want the channel taken down?

TL: Yes, but there’s no need to remove that channel.

EM: I was just wondering what will happen in the future, because you’re certainly going to continue to sell records.

TL: Well, I don’t need to make money after I’m dead. These things will be taken care of.

EM: I feel like I gave away some of your songs to public domain without even asking you, and that wasn’t very nice of me.

TL: But I’m fine with that, you know.

EM: Will you establish any kind of foundation or charity or something like that?

TL: No, I won’t. They’re mostly rip-offs.

And then later, Lehrer talks about how he doesn't even care about his masters any more:

In 2011, Morris was rummaging through the Sparks Street basement, and alongside the collection of books and records Lehrer referred to as his “Noel Coward shrine” were two boxes marked “masters.” They were, to Morris, “the holy grail.” These were the original recordings of the 1959 album More Songs by Tom Lehrer: the orchestral session and outtakes and Lehrer’s recordings. Morris offered to help Lehrer remix them from half-inch tapes into stereo recordings.

“Well, why don’t you just take them with you?” Lehrer said.

“I was like, ‘Are you kidding?! These are the master copies!’” Morris recalled. “I was just trying to reassure him, I’ll be very careful with them, I won’t let them fall in the wrong hands, I’m not going to distribute copies to anyone without your permission.”

“I don’t care!” Lehrer told him. “They’re not worth anything to me.”

Lehrer clearly sees that he doesn't need to retain the copyrights and try to squeeze extra profits out of the works (of course, it helps that he never gave up the copyrights and masters to giant record companies). And I loved the fact that he said he was "fine with that" when told that his songs were given away to the public domain.

Of course, all of that is just talk in an article. Which is why it was exciting to see earlier this week that Lehrer's website has announced that all of his lyrics should be considered in the public domain:

I, Tom Lehrer, and the Tom Lehrer Trust 2000, hereby grant the following permission:

All the lyrics on this website, whether published or unpublished, copyrighted or uncopyrighted, may be downloaded and used in any manner whatsoever, without requiring any further permission from me or any payment to me or to anyone else.

Some lyrics written by Tom Lehrer to copyrighted music by others are included herein, but of course such music may not be used without permission of the copyright owners. (The translated songs may be found in their original languages on YouTube.)

In other words, all the lyrics herein should be treated as though they were in the public domain.

In particular, permission is hereby granted to anyone to set any of these lyrics to their own music and publish or perform their versions without fear of legal action.

If you want to be technical, under US law there is no "official" way to move things into the public domain like this. You can only make an effective license not to sue about it, which is what Lehrer has done. And good for him.

And while at this time it's just his lyrics, it sounds like he's looking to figure out how to do something similar for the compositions as well:

This permission applies only to the lyrics on this website. Most of the music written by Tom Lehrer will be added gradually later with further disclaimers.

Of course, it's notable that at the time he made most of his recordings, you could only get a federal copyright for the composition and not the sound recordings. Some later recordings, however were released in the 2000s (and sometimes by other companies) and I imagine the copyright situation with those recordings may be a bit more complex. Still, putting the lyrics in the public domain is something worth celebrating.

And, thus, in celebration, I'll embed Tom Lehrer performing "Who's Next?" in the hopes that other musicians will embrace this (even though the song is actually about who will next get the nuclear bomb).

Filed Under: copyright, music, public domain, tom lehrer