Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
DRM Music Social Networks Games

Twitch Suddenly Mass-Deletes Thousands of Videos, Citing Music Copyright Claims (theverge.com) 75

"It's finally happening: Twitch is taking action against copyrighted music — long a norm among streamers — in response to music industry pressure," reports Kotaku.

But the Verge reports "there's some funny stuff going on here." First, Twitch is telling streamers that some of their content has been identified as violating copyright and that instead of letting streamers file counterclaims, it's deleting the content; second, the company is telling streamers it's giving them warnings, as opposed to outright copyright strikes...

Weirdly Twitch decided to bulk delete infringing material instead of allowing streamers to archive their content or submit counterclaims. To me, that suggests that there are tons of infringements, and that Twitch needed to act very quickly and/or face a lawsuit it wouldn't be able to win over its adherence to the safe harbor provision of the DMCA.

The email Twitch sent to their users "encourages them to delete additional content — up to and including using a new tool to unilaterally delete all previous clips," reports Kotaku. One business streamer complains that it's "insane" that Twitch basically informs them "that there is more content in violation despite having no identification system to find out what it is. Their solution to DMCA is for creators to delete their life's work. This is pure, gross negligence."

Or, as esports consultant Rod "Slasher" Breslau puts it, "It is absolutely insane that record labels have put Twitch in a position to force streamers to delete their entire life's work, for some 10+ years of memories, and that Twitch has been incapable of preventing or aiding streamers for this situation. a total failure all around."

Twitch's response? It is crucial that we protect the rights of songwriters, artists and other music industry partners. We continue to develop tools and resources to further educate our creators and empower them with more control over their content while partnering with industry-recognized vendors in the copyright space to help us achieve these goals.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Twitch Suddenly Mass-Deletes Thousands of Videos, Citing Music Copyright Claims

Comments Filter:
  • ROTFL (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    oh my, a Twitch user's life work?

    hahaha ha ah haha ah ahha hahaha

    like literally laugh out loud.

    A twitch user's life work. lolololol

    Haven't you losers heard? If you don't like it, build your own platform.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by LenKagetsu ( 6196102 )

      "Umm I see you made your own platform but I disagree with you so I'm going after your host, your payment processor, and your family."

      • Did not deserve downvote. This can and has happened.

        • by martynhare ( 7125343 ) on Saturday October 24, 2020 @06:04PM (#60644432)
          If people use IPFS, which has the backing of places like CloudFlare and is completely censorship resistant. When combined with the new standards Google is working on (SGX, Web Packages) to allow for digitally signed, archive-packed payloads of webpages from any server, this completely changes the game. Once something is out there, it's out there and everyone has access to it as long as at least one person has a copy of it. Wikipedia is already available on IPFS, for example. Folks can just put ipfs://blahblahblah.url and grab their data just like on a website and when (not if) it becomes a normal part of peoples web browsers, search engines can detect compatibility and return IPFS links for compatible user agents.

          This approach will also end the privacy and copyright debates once and for all. If content were to be subject to a DMCA takedown, one could simply provide a valid hashlink to point to the original content, allowing seamless access by downloading a copy from other people's computers, rather than the point of origin.

          Information can and will be free. Content providers will soon have no choice but to embrace this, as reductions in distribution costs are the only way to keep the gravy train going as ad revenues decline and folks begin to eliminate middlemen. Everyone outside the US can already see just how barren the fields have become. Just turn on ad personalisation, disable your ad blocker and have a look around. The end is nigh for centralised content pushers running unaided by other users.

          DRM will not save the RIAA either in this instance, as it will only take one person to crack the code and the original, legitimate copy of any given file can be decrypted. With further distribution of the DRM-laden copy being legal (by necessity) and no means of effectively stopping people distributing a solitary decryption key - it's game over.

          To any lawmakers out there: I say good luck banning IPFS because the underlying primitives are being adopted by banks for future digital currency ledgers and homomorphic encryption means plausible deniability for anyone who wishes to remain silent when challenged.

          ..and with this, we will begin to truly see the end of bullshit licencing.
    • With hookers, and blackjack.
  • Youtube has a take down functionality where they remove your video from being accessible, without deleting it. It is entirely possible twitch does not have that, and their only way to respond to a takedown is to delete.
  • by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Saturday October 24, 2020 @01:52PM (#60643934) Journal

    To me, that suggests that there are tons of infringements

    Yes lol, has this person never watched a Twitch stream? They play music in the background. Some streamers even let you pay money to choose the next song.

  • youtube-dl (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sound+vision ( 884283 ) on Saturday October 24, 2020 @02:01PM (#60643958) Journal

    This comes within a few days of youtube-dl being removed from Sourceforge? Sounds like the industry lawyers have been busy. "People are spending more time online... we must achieve dominance of the digital realm! Close any avenue where music might be heard outside of designated listening zones!"

  • Twitch creates bad blood by deleting thousands of videos, and the RIAA looks like a bunch of lawyered-up mafia bosses. Did these two organizations really think this through?

    If I was at the table, I'd make a deal. Twitch is making billions streaming videos, and RIAA doesn't want its property getting used w/o compensation. Why can't they just license RIAA content so that streamers can use the music in their vids, RIAA gets a piece of the revenue, and Twitch doesn't create any ill will between its streamers

    • by Sumguy2436 ( 6186944 ) on Saturday October 24, 2020 @02:36PM (#60644038)
      You must be new to the Internet. The RIAA has been doing that since Napster.
      • Earlier; at least since digital music recording systems become available to the average consumer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] (prior recording technologies were physically unable to make a verbatim copy - analog transfer will always lose some amount of fidelity).
        • AHRA "Audio Home Recording Act" - 1992 - won themselves a royalty on digital media and devices.
          • Seems to me any such hardware royalty should automatically grant carte-blanche copying rights to any material published by those collecting the royalties. Otherwise, they're not really royalties are they? They're just legally enforced grift.

            • Otherwise, they're not really royalties are they? They're just legally enforced grift.

              A simple matter of semantics, some might suggest. One looks a lot more friendly in legal documents. Not trying to suggest that royalties, as a general concept, are in any way negative... just that this is how they were described in AHRA.

            • by dryeo ( 100693 )

              That's what happened in Canada, copyright levy was pushed the the *AA's (CRAA IIRC) so every recordable CD, cassette tape and such had a fee that went to them. Then the courts ruled that due to this, Canadians could legally copy music. It's a bit questionable whether it is just Canadian music but after that failure, the *AA's were too scared to go back to court in case of more backfires.
              So currently I can copy any music legally for my personal use and can lend you my music for you to copy or even let you lo

      • You must be new to the Internet. The RIAA has been doing that since Napster.

        From the summary:

        It is crucial that we protect the rights of songwriters, artists and other music industry partners

        I am all in favour of songwriters and artists getting properly paid for their work, and indeed richly rewarded, if they are really good. But that term "music industry partners" is where our concerns should be directed. As far as I know, practically all music copyright is owned by music publishers, not musicians. The interests of publishers do not necessarily correspond to the interests of artists and performers.

    • by Sebby ( 238625 ) on Saturday October 24, 2020 @02:38PM (#60644040)

      and the RIAA looks like a bunch of lawyered-up mafia bosses.

      "Looks like"?!?

    • So #1:

      https://www.techdirt.com/artic... [techdirt.com]

      Does Twitch have an accounting for who did/did not have licenses, or are they just blanket kowtowing to a lawsuit bot? If I had produced a video with a paid for license for the music and got my video deleted, I would be rightfully pissed.

      #2

      (This is more of a lawyer-ish question) Does the RIAA have nexus for individual users of Twitch to file small claims lawsuits against them in this action, or would someone in situation #1 only have recourse against Twitch? (in othe

      • by Cederic ( 9623 )

        I strongly suspect Twitch have a "We can delete your whole life" clause in their T&Cs that would make suing them rather difficult.

        Tortious interference might be a viable challenge to RIAA though.

    • by xlsior ( 524145 )

      Twitch creates bad blood by deleting thousands of videos, and the RIAA looks like a bunch of lawyered-up mafia bosses. Did these two organizations really think this through?

      Why do you think the companies are using the RIAA and MPAA? That way the non-producing RIAA can be 'the bad guy' and the consumer won't blame or boycott Sony and the other member companies directly.

      Keep in mind, the music and movie industries has always been their own worst enemy.

      The MPAA and RIAA spend YEARS fighting tape recorders, VCR, DAT, recordable DVD, streaming audio, streaming video, and other technologies. Most of which ended up gaining widespread adoption anyway. Rather than killing the enti

    • Why can't they just license RIAA content so that streamers can use the music in their vids

      I think I like the current approach better since the RIAA gets no money and their shitty music doesn't get the opportunity to fall on the ears of people that may be inclined to buy it or stream it. Although it would be nice if Twitch made the video unavailable to the public rather than delete it so that the streamer still has a copy for their personal use.

  • By deleting the video portion the MUSIC industry is overstepping it's bounds.

    -Stay in your lane bro.
  • by grep -v '.*' * ( 780312 ) on Saturday October 24, 2020 @02:06PM (#60643978)
    It's not Twitch that insane if that's where you store your only copy.

    Remember, "The Cloud" is simply someone's else's computer -- and that you get exactly what you pay for.
  • by fleeped ( 1945926 ) on Saturday October 24, 2020 @02:11PM (#60643988)

    Maybe the new generation will eventually discover that it pays to have backups

    • by Sumguy2436 ( 6186944 ) on Saturday October 24, 2020 @02:39PM (#60644044)
      Indeed. Whether Twitch went about it in the best way or not is beside the point. If you rely on a single online service to safeguard "your life's work" that's on you.
      • Obviously their life's work wasn't worth the cost of a $25 USB 3 128 gig stick - or even space on their computer.

        Of course they're right - their life's work isn't worth $25 bucks. Maybe we need to relabel local backups as personal clouds for clods.

        • by Cederic ( 9623 )

          a $25 USB 3 128 gig stick

          Ok, and what should I do tomorrow?

          Just that when I stream/record my gaming it's around 6-8GB/hour.

          • Maybe if you think all these GB are worthy to keep, then sort out your own solution, rather than making it somebody else's problem? It's your data, your choice to generate them, your choice what you think is most important.

            • by Cederic ( 9623 )

              Well, I do. I was merely pointing out the comedy of suggesting a 128GB USB key.

              • Fair enough :) I wonder though how long until we have video compression codecs with monstrous dictionaries, where streams for the same game for example can be very efficiently compressed, as it's the same content anyway...

    • I imagine this would be relatively easy if you're streaming from a PC but is this feasible if you're streaming from a console?
  • the is left sitting back and toasting theirvictory and the revolution. They think they will be in charge!
    Going to be a hoot! when the Corporate Committee for Oversight, Public Safety and Reeducation takes over. I wonder if they will even bother to keep Harris as a front. But Harris is pretty malleable she might survive.

    We now salute our corporate Big Tech overloads.
  • Counter-notice or no I'm sure Twitch still reserves the right to delete any video at any time on their own initiative per their TOS agreement regardless of copyright stipulations at their sole discretion.

    A common maxim of private enterprise is "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"

    • A common maxim of private enterprise is "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"

      Unless Section 230 gets rewritten.

  • by zuki ( 845560 ) on Saturday October 24, 2020 @03:01PM (#60644088) Journal
    OBS provides functionality for streamers to record their entire streams locally with a minimum of fuss. For anyone to complain about this is akin to saying that Twitch has an obligation to keep providing access to stored files (not sure where the 10 years comes from, Twitch deletes material after 90 days in the best of cases from what I understood) and that some people are up in arms because it was their only copy?

    That's sad stuff right here if they are able to figure out all the rest of the complex tech required by gaming, but somehow haven't grasped the basic concept of self-reliance when it comes to maintaining proper archival copies of their own content.

    The more interesting question raised may really be that affiliate revenue is dependent on views after a stream (not just during one), and obviously if the videos get deleted then it cuts into streamers' revenue as partner or affiliate. if they want people to watch these videos containing copyrighted content, they'll have to find (and pay for) alternate hosting platforms, and this is obviously going to be requiring time, effort as well as some expense to keep them online.
    • I can speak to your one point because my favorite streamer Dan (from Dansgaming) was one of the original Twitch streamers, having originated during the Justin TV days. He had around 9 years worth of videos (VODs) on Twitch, going back to 2011 or so. All still archived there and watchable; I was just watching some of his really old 2013 Halloween streams as background sound last week. I believe if you were one of the originals you had that as a perk.

      As this story relates, Twitch was not able (willing?) to
      • by Cederic ( 9623 )

        so it's conceivable (although not provable since Twitch cannot say) that the warnings for him came about because of in-game music

        It's still someone else's music that he should have licenced to stream and provide for download online.

        Whether you agree with it or not, that is the law. Why do you think so many games come with a 'Streaming Mode' that explicitly omits all music (that isn't directly licenced for streaming from the creators).

  • Twitch commits suicide on air, live-streamed. After a remarkable display of blood and guts, the logo of the RIAA appears in the background.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Would it not be easier/better to just filter out the stolen music? Just imagine how quiet everything would be on the internet. I think the music industry is npt only shooting them self in the foot but chopping away their entire leg with a axe from the hip.
    • Twitch already does this - check out a steam that plays popular music - and you'll see red bars across the timeline where it has been done. They have been doing this for a few years now.

  • by Stolpskott ( 2422670 ) on Saturday October 24, 2020 @03:51PM (#60644152)

    When a DMCA violation is posted, the reporting party has to provide a URL to the allegedly infringing material and, as far as I know, a timestamp to locate the specific spot in a file.
    If Twitch are saying they cannot assist the poster in identifying the allegedly infringing material, when the report includes that information, then the only possible reasons that I can see are that Twitch are lazy/incompetent, or that they don't have enough staff or bots on hand to manage DMCA claims in the "timely" fashion mandated by the DMCA.
    But given that this is an Amazon company, things like this that do not generate revenue typically get staffed by an intern, a hamster or a gerbil, and the remains of last week's pizza.

    • by Luthair ( 847766 )
      It could be that much like YouTube with its content id system that Twitch is acting pro-actively outside of the DMCA. Heck, maybe the RIAA is strong arming Amazon through Amazon Music.
    • every day I get DMCA claims from google that some of the content found on my sites [poranchi.com] xnx [porndollz.com] allegedly infringes copyrights of others. I think Google don t pay to much attention on that
  • IMHO there's a big difference between having a local copy of the music you like for your own use and playing it on your channel and making money off it.
    • It's bullshit. It's no more than a public library;. These people need to be off and dragged by four horses in opposite directions. Maybe they don't deserve quite that but the tax collectors do.
  • Show me an artist today who's rights are worth protecting? Music today is shit and all the good artists have already gotten theirs.

  • Is the obvious reaction.

    • by ledow ( 319597 )

      Or just stop using copyrighted music in videos.

      a) Stops your videos being taken down.
      b) Stops advertising the products of these companies that form industry bodies want to sue you for using them.

  • What ever happened to 'fair use'? Are these 'streamers' making so gods-be-damned much money that the music industry is in danger of going bankrupt or something? Or are they just throwing a spoiled baby tantrum because they don't get *all the profits* to themselves?
    • Can you explain to me - how charging something $1-$5 dollars to play a commercial song is "fair use".

      Fair use is generally using a small part of an item i.e:- 30 seconds of less of a song - not playing the full works - let alone selling access for it.

      Whether you like it or not - they made the songs - so they own the songs. The streamers can buy rights to play songs on their stream - or use music that isn't copyrighted.

      However they decided to play the highly popular current music to get more viewers and mone

      • What YOU don't understand is that these RIAA assholes would sue you in civil court for HUMMING a copyrighted song without paying royalties. They'd try to have you jailed for SINGING it. They'd send you a cease and desist order for TALKING about the lyrics of a copyrighted song. IF they could get away with those things. It's bullshit and it's out of control.
  • by flyingfsck ( 986395 ) on Saturday October 24, 2020 @10:34PM (#60645060)
    Occam's Razor says that Twitch could not afford to buy another hard disk.
  • by flink ( 18449 ) on Sunday October 25, 2020 @12:17AM (#60645264)

    The DMCA requires that the rights holder notify the platform owner as to what the offending material is and for the platform holder to subsequently provide a copy of the takedown notice to the alleged infringer. As far as I can tell the twitch users affected by this issue haven't received any sort of DMCA notice that identifies whose copyright they violated, what IP they infringed, etc. This looks like a case of Twitch going well outside of their obligations under the law to placate the music industry.

    Maybe the RIAA was threatening to pull out of Amazon music or something, so their response was to nuke everything.

    Now it's Twitch's platform, and they can pull content for whatever reason they want, but this doesn't seem to comport with the process necessary for a legitimate DMCA action.

  • Before I start - I want to be clear that I streamed daily on Twitch for over 4 years until recently.

    There are 2 parties here I don't feel sorry for...
    1) The affected Streamers
    2) Twitch

    Both Twitch and the streamers knew this was coming. This was obvious because over the last few years Twitch has given out multiple warnings not to use copyrighted music - and even implemented features to combat it. If you look at archives of streamers who have been using copyrighted music - you'll see that there is an automati

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Working...