The end of Twitch? Sued for £2.1bn

[Otto_iii]

8 hours ago, minibois said:

hopefully then they start getting Twitch.tv back to their roots as a VIDEOGAME streaming website. 

mostly with you, but sutff like thesushidragon>99% of gamers

[williamcll]

How on earth do they expect twitch moderators to catch all the pirates quickly? 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, williamcll said:

How on earth do they expect twitch moderators to catch all the pirates quickly? 

It’s actually not that hard to use software to pick up on the streams and block them. If I can easily search for streams then so can the service provider. It would also be possible for the original broadcasters to embed data in their output that can be picked up whenever it is re-broadcast. That is a thing for the future though.

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

It’s actually not that hard to use software to pick up on the streams and block them. If I can easily search for streams then so can the service provider. It would also be possible for the original broadcasters to embed data in their output that can be picked up whenever it is re-broadcast. That is a thing for the future though.

I can just hear the screaming now -   but that's not fair, I want to watch it for free.

[leadeater]

29 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

That is a thing for the future though

Future? YouTube can and already is doing it. Heck photocopiers have been doing it since forever, every page as an identifier on it so they know which photocoper printed the copy, human eyes cannot see it (not exactly the same but content identifiers have been around for agesssss, which means streaming platforms can just implement content blocking APIs for broadcasters...).

[mr moose]

18 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Future? YouTube can and already is doing it. Heck photocopiers have been doing it since forever, every page as an identifier on it so they know which photocoper printed the copy, human eyes cannot see it (not exactly the same but content identifiers have been around for agesssss, which means streaming platforms can just implement content blocking APIs for broadcasters...).

It's how they tracked every user who re seeded the dallas buyers club.

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Future? YouTube can and already is doing it. Heck photocopiers have been doing it since forever, every page as an identifier on it so they know which photocoper printed the copy, human eyes cannot see it (not exactly the same but content identifiers have been around for agesssss, which means streaming platforms can just implement content blocking APIs for broadcasters...).

I know it is already there, just not being used by law in any place I know of. Until content providers are forced to block by law they will continue to bend the rules and keep the ad revenue flowing. That is what I meant by future. 
 

Back in the distant past I was involved with a printer company at a time hidden code in print was being implemented. As far as I am aware it has not been used in copyright prevention here.

[leadeater]

28 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

As far as I am aware it has not been used in copyright prevention here.

Not sure it ever has, only know if it being used in law/crimes cases outside of copyright.

[Kilrah]

8 hours ago, melete said:

I, personally, could sue Twitch for £2.1bn. Doesn't mean I'd win that much at trial, or collect that much even if I won. Obviously none of us are Russian lawyers here, but even without knowing the specifics of Russian law I'd be very surprised if this suit resulted in anything remotely similar to that judgment.

It says in the OP:

13 hours ago, Phill104 said:

It is holding talks with Twitch in the hope of reaching a settlement agreement. 

Which says it all, they're threatening to sue for £2.1bn just as intimidation. "Do you want to risk a court judging that valid, or you can just give us 100M on your own will and we're sorted?"

Money-grabbing stunt.

[mr moose]

15 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

It says in the OP:

Which says it all, they're threatening to sue for £2.1bn just as intimidation. "Do you want to risk a court judging that valid, or you can just give us 100M on your own will and we're sorted?"

Money-grabbing stunt.

 

Typical LTT response, it doesn't matter that a company might actually being chasing lost revenue due to said streaming,  it's always just a money grabbing stunt

 

It says nothing of the sort,  we know nothing about this case, about Russian law (going after that much might just be standard practice) or about what revenue loses may have occurred.

 

 

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Typical LTT response, it doesn't matter that a company might actually being chasing lost revenue due to said streaming,  it's always just a money grabbing stunt

 

It says nothing of the sort,  we know nothing about this case, about Russian law (going after that much might just be standard practice) or about what revenue loses may have occurred.

 

 

Here in the UK Sky paid £3.58bn to show 128 games, BT paid £885million to show 32 so there really is a lot of money involved. Those are the costs to just broadcast in the UK. I cannot find figures for the fees charged in Russia but they would be very substantial just to cover the average football pre-Madonna wages of £100K-£400k per week.

[Doobeedoo]

Broadcast, exclusive one, football? Oh yes, greed is what I sniff oof. 

But yeah, sickening to see this shit reaching such numbers money wise really... 

I don't see them winning this, on the other hand Twitch is very slow at banning channels for hours even literal porn being streamed at top 10 too. 

[Master Disaster]

14 hours ago, Caroline said:

Hang on why is Russia complaining about broadcasts of English content?

Because their TV networks pay millions for exclusive broadcasting rights.

[Master Disaster]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

Future? YouTube can and already is doing it. Heck photocopiers have been doing it since forever, every page as an identifier on it so they know which photocoper printed the copy, human eyes cannot see it (not exactly the same but content identifiers have been around for agesssss, which means streaming platforms can just implement content blocking APIs for broadcasters...).

VHS tapes actually hid a signal in the blank section of the tape which was used for V Sync and H Sync to prevent copying. There was a similar system created for cassettes too but it never became popular.

 

Nintendo used lockout chips on NES carts despite the tech to copy them not actually existing at the time.

 

Copy protection has been around for a VERY VERY long time.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

VHS tapes actually hid a signal in the blank section of the tape which was used for V Sync and H Sync to prevent copying. There was a similar system created for cassettes too but it never became popular.

 

Nintendo used lockout chips on NES carts despite the tech to copy them not actually existing at the time.

 

Copy protection has been around for a VERY VERY long time.

As have methods for circumventing them. It is done to this day on YouTube for instance, just watch the dodgy streams it the grand tour of examples of that.

 

Back in the VHS days you could make a little box to re-introduce the correct sync signals. Full project builds were published in most electronics magazines of the time such as practical electronics and the like. IIRC even Tandy had a kit you could buy and build at home.

[Anomnomnomaly]

23 hours ago, Caroline said:

Hang on why is Russia complaining about broadcasts of English content?

Some Russian company paid a lot of money for exclusive broadcast rights to some UK Premier league games within Russia.

 

Some enterprising people on twitch have been broadcasting those streams... and I can only assume that people within Russia have been watching them... thus depriving the poor monopoly of a tiny bit of revenue.

 

A few things to point out

1. It only applies to Russia
2. It only involves content exclusive to said company within Russia
3. Who gives a shit

 

The very worst case scenario is that the Russian court finds in favour of the Russian company and hands out a large fine, which they could refuse to pay as they have never received any kind of notification from said Russian company about infringing content... and if you don't know how are you supposed to stop it. of course they could order or ban the company from Russia... this is actually the most likely scenario as Russia is taking a cue from China and demanding that you conform to their way (inc censorship and propoganda) or be banned from doing business in the country.

 

part of me wants Bezos to turn round and just go... fuck you, and shut down Russian access to it completely.

[Anomnomnomaly]

9 hours ago, Phill104 said:

Here in the UK Sky paid £3.58bn to show 128 games, BT paid £885million to show 32 so there really is a lot of money involved. Those are the costs to just broadcast in the UK. I cannot find figures for the fees charged in Russia but they would be very substantial just to cover the average football pre-Madonna wages of £100K-£400k per week.

and if you want to watch every single game by the team you support... you have to pay for subscriptions to both... and the license was split to make it 'more' competitive for consumers... Nope.. turned out to be the other way round.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Anomnomnomaly said:

and if you want to watch every single game by the team you support... you have to pay for subscriptions to both... and the license was split to make it 'more' competitive for consumers... Nope.. turned out to be the other way round.

No idea, as I don’t follow football. I do know however that Amazon have just paid a bucket load of money to broadcast a number of matches on Prime Video as whenever I visit Amazon I get plagued with adverts for it.

[Anomnomnomaly]

4 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

No idea, as I don’t follow football. I do know however that Amazon have just paid a bucket load of money to broadcast a number of matches on Prime Video as whenever I visit Amazon I get plagued with adverts for it.

I got rid of my sky tv about 6yrs ago, for a few years I used my mums Sky Go to watch the F1 on my PC but when she got talked into upgrading her package and saving money... they took away the F1 channel and then wanted an extra £18 a month for it.  She told them where to go. 

 

She did get the new package as she does watch a lot of stuff and likes to record shows... I wasn't bothered by losing the F1 as I'd become very bored with it anyway... Didn't watch a single race this year, not even by alternative means that I know how to use... barely even bothered to look up who won any race, and only looked fort YT highlights if I'd heard of a particular incident.

 

I'll follow my teams results, but won't ever pay to watch one.

[melete]

12 hours ago, Kilrah said:

It says in the OP:

Which says it all, they're threatening to sue for £2.1bn just as intimidation. "Do you want to risk a court judging that valid, or you can just give us 100M on your own will and we're sorted?"

Money-grabbing stunt.

Again, I'm not familiar with Russian law, but in the US just about every corporate lawsuit like this would involve extensive settlement negotiations. Litigation and especially a trial is costly, lengthy, unpredictable, and both companies have a fiduciary duty to their respective shareholders to explore settlement opportunities in order to minimize risk and save money. Settlement isn't just a tool for "shakedowns", it's a way to resolve disputes in a timely and cost-effective manner.

[Teddy07]

Twitch is a money genearting monster for Amazon.  I mean think about the cut that twitch takes from every bit and subscription purchase, not to mention the amount of people that specifically buy prime.

 

No way that they will ever go broke

[Curufinwe_wins]

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50829553

 

It's been addressed.

Quote

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES/TWITCH

A Russian watchdog no longer plans to block Twitch over a dispute concerning pirated Premier League football games, according to the country's state media.

Tass reported telecommunications regulator Roskomnadzor had dropped its threat after the Amazon-owned service removed the offending content.

The proposed ban had been prompted by a complaint from a firm that owns the local online rights to the matches.

Rambler had claimed 36,000 cases of copyright infringement.

A lawyer acting on Rambler's behalf had said on Monday that it was suing the US firm for 180bn roubles (£2.1bn) in damages. But another spokesman for the company subsequently said that sum needed to be "clarified".

A source close to the matter told the BBC that Twitch now believed the case would not go any further and that it would not have to pay any compensation.

Russia is the third-largest user of Twitch. The platform's focus is video games but it also offers other live video streams and pre-recorded content.

Rambler bought exclusive digital distribution rights for three seasons of the English Premier League from the Russian sports broadcaster Match-TV earlier this year.

Amazon has its own interest in restricting access to the Premier League since it recently bought exclusive rights to a number of matches for its own Prime Video service in the UK.

 

[corsairian]

The real shocker to me is that Amazon bought twitch in 2014. Feels like just yesterday that happened. 

[Taja]

On 12/16/2019 at 4:48 PM, Ryan_Vickers said:

The CEO could personally pay this fine out of his own savings without even noticing. 

Its insane how that sounds, and yet its 100% true.