LinusTechTips suspended from Twitch [Now unbanned]

[leadeater]

17 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Twitch reserve the rights to suspend accounts for DMCA but only after MULTIPLE DMCA applications are received

Um.....???????

 

Seems like Twitch didn't follow their own process.

[Master Disaster]

14 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Um.....???????

 

Seems like Twitch didn't follow their own process.

It clarifies later that its "unless the claim involves IP Infringment" in which case they can terminate immediately.

 

See the repeat offenders policy.

[Taf the Ghost]

4 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

It clarifies later that its "unless the claim involves IP Infringment" in which case they can terminate immediately.

 

See the repeat offenders policy.

It's probably going to end up being showing Websites, which, if true, is going to lead to some hilarious responses from the community. 

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, Taf the Ghost said:

It's probably going to end up being showing Websites, which, if true, is going to lead to some hilarious responses from the community. 

It's probably McAfee and TunnelBear imo, payback for Linus dropping them as a sponsor.

 

What's funny is WAN is dumped onto YouTube unedited so if something's infringing on Twitch it's also infringing on YouTube yet they've not hit the YouTube videos (yet at least). Might this be because they know it's bogus and the Linus has a good relationship with YouTube but not so much with Twitch?

[CyanideInsanity]

1 hour ago, Arokhantos said:

Why streaming still on twitch tbh why not take it to youtube ? heck you could even stream both platforms at same time, i know some have done it.

Thats actually against twitch's TOS, or at least partnered TOS. It came up in a yt vod of a twitch stream i was watching montha ago.

[Master Disaster]

4 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

It's probably going to end up being showing Websites, which, if true, is going to lead to some hilarious responses from the community. 

Yeah, reporting news is protected by law, if that's really it then Twitch shouldn't have ever followed the claim through.

[i_got_laid_by_a_dragoness]

2 hours ago, AntiTrust said:

They run a talk show, it is so obviously fair use of content that this ban is stunning

Pretty sure it's just some disgruntled Twitch employee. Either that, or like Paypal, they have an automated system that deals with it. The first time I ever got a payment on Paypal, despite having the account for 2 years and having validated everything properly, my account was on hold for 72 hours despite verifying my identity three times via public records. And that was entirely because of the automated system.

[Not_Jony_Ive]

KEEP PICKING FIGHT AGAINST US AND WE WILL PULL ALL THE STRINGS JUST TO MAKE YOU SUFFER! 

 

 

 

/s

[LAwLz]

I am pretty sure it could be argued that showing articles in the way Linus does during the WAN show could be classified as copyright infringement, although it would be up to a LMG to argue for it (since fair use is a defense mechanics).

 

Fair use is judged on four points.

• How large of a portion was taken from the original work - A lot of times Linus shows the entire article, so they would lose on that point.
   
• The effect of the use on potential market - It is easy to argue that someone watching the WAN show would feel less inclined to read the original article, so it has a fairly big impact and it is therefore not a defense for Linus.
   
• The nature of the copyrighted work - This could go either way, but it could be argued that Linus is spreading information that benefits society, and fair use is usually a bit more lenient on that.
   
• How transformative the work is - This is Linus' real defense. If Linus has, for all articles shown on the WAN show, added a substantial amount of value in the form of new information and insight to the original article, then it could be fair use. If he hasn't though (for example if he has said something along the lines of "yeah, I don't have much to add to that"), then it could be copyright infringement.

 

 

Kind of a dick move of Twitch to take down the entire channel though, rather than just the infringing video.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

but what if there were 3000 requests? maybe per day? that's probably where the state of things are on youtube and twitch and the like ._.

Hehe, 3000 requests a day would be a cake walk.

In 2016, Google received over 110,000 DMCA takedown notices PER HOUR. It was over 75,000,000 (75 million) requests in February alone. That's roughly 2000 requests a minute.

And failure to act on even a single one of them could lead to millions of dollars in lawsuits.

[Doobeedoo]

It's Twitch you just gotta send nudes and everything will be fine. 

 

Thing aside, they really need to step up their game about these issues. They have some very obscure and messed up rules as well. 

[samcool55]

27 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I am pretty sure it could be argued that showing articles in the way Linus does during the WAN show could be classified as copyright infringement, although it would be up to a LMG to argue for it (since fair use is a defense mechanics).

 

Fair use is judged on four points.

• How large of a portion was taken from the original work - A lot of times Linus shows the entire article, so they would lose on that point.
   
• The effect of the use on potential market - It is easy to argue that someone watching the WAN show would feel less inclined to read the original article, so it has a fairly big impact and it is therefore not a defense for Linus.
   
• The nature of the copyrighted work - This could go either way, but it could be argued that Linus is spreading information that benefits society, and fair use is usually a bit more lenient on that.
   
• How transformative the work is - This is Linus' real defense. If Linus has, for all articles shown on the WAN show, added a substantial amount of value in the form of new information and insight to the original article, then it could be fair use. If he hasn't though (for example if he has said something along the lines of "yeah, I don't have much to add to that"), then it could be copyright infringement.

 

 

Kind of a dick move of Twitch to take down the entire channel though, rather than just the infringing video.

 

They could indeed work on the way they show and discuss articles. I agree with that.

 

However the issue(s) i have with all this is:

1) It's unclear why exactly he got a strike

    a) Afaik he can't login to check the details of the strike, crappy design if you ask me

    b) Details of the strike send via e-mail seems to be unclear. Linus showed proof he got the mail but also posted he still doesn't know what it's all about, seems to me there's not enough information in the e-mail and the date he posted doesn't make sense either. 

2) taking down the whole channel, i understand twitch needs to react but this is imo a bit too drastic.

 

It's good that Twitch has a system for handling DMCA requests, but right now it's completely broken and needs to be fixed. I mean i don't like youtube but at least it's not THAT broken.

[Master Disaster]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I am pretty sure it could be argued that showing articles in the way Linus does during the WAN show could be classified as copyright infringement, although it would be up to a LMG to argue for it (since fair use is a defense mechanics).

 

Fair use is judged on four points.

• How large of a portion was taken from the original work - A lot of times Linus shows the entire article, so they would lose on that point.
   
• The effect of the use on potential market - It is easy to argue that someone watching the WAN show would feel less inclined to read the original article, so it has a fairly big impact and it is therefore not a defense for Linus.
   
• The nature of the copyrighted work - This could go either way, but it could be argued that Linus is spreading information that benefits society, and fair use is usually a bit more lenient on that.
   
• How transformative the work is - This is Linus' real defense. If Linus has, for all articles shown on the WAN show, added a substantial amount of value in the form of new information and insight to the original article, then it could be fair use. If he hasn't though (for example if he has said something along the lines of "yeah, I don't have much to add to that"), then it could be copyright infringement.

 

 

Kind of a dick move of Twitch to take down the entire channel though, rather than just the infringing video.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hehe, 3000 requests a day would be a cake walk.

In 2016, Google received over 110,000 DMCA takedown notices PER HOUR. It was over 75,000,000 (75 million) requests in February alone. That's roughly 2000 requests a minute.

And failure to act on even a single one of them could lead to millions of dollars in lawsuits.

Except that when reporting on News you are allowed to use copyrighted works as long as they are relevant to the news article.

 

Freedom of the press is a well established principal enshrined in law in most countries around the globe. There's no situation where Linus using a website to source a news topic can be considered breach of copyright.

 

See - http://cmsimpact.org/code/set-principles-fair-use-journalism

 

Remember WAN is a news show, news is literally in the title. It's not a normal channel video, it's not a 'Linus Reacts' video, it's reporting on News topics throughout the week.

 

Also Twitches own rules say they won't terminate a channel unless there have been multiple instances of copyright infringement by that channel. The only exception to this is IP Infringment where they can terminate immediately.

 

Linus had no previous warnings, in fact he knew nothing until his channel died.

[Guest The Viking]

5 hours ago, TimeOmnivore said:

There's also a Reddit thread on r/LivestreamFail if anyone's curious:

 

 

 

when even reddit says it's due to titties....

 

that's twitch for ya.

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, Arokhantos said:

 

I don't give a shit about there eula loop holes.

It's their platform. They could ban you for whatever reason they want and you wouldn't  be able to sue unless it was discrimination.

[LAwLz]

54 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Except that when reporting on News you are allowed to use copyrighted works as long as they are relevant to the news article.

 

Freedom of the press is a well established principal enshrined in law in most countries around the globe. There's no situation where Linus using a website to source a news topic can be considered breach of copyright.

 

See - http://cmsimpact.org/code/set-principles-fair-use-journalism

 

Remember WAN is a news show, news is literally in the title. It's not a normal channel video, it's not a 'Linus Reacts' video, it's reporting on News topics throughout the week.

It's not that simple.

I can't just start rebroadcasting Fox News on my website and say it falls under the freedom of the press.

 

The difference between Linus and a lot of the work your link talks about, is that Linus shows the original article in full, and he sometimes does not add any new or insightful comments. If he doesn't do that, he isn't a journalist, he is a news aggregator. As explained by the document you linked, those two are not the same things.

 

Quote

Journalists recognize that re-using copyrighted material is central to their work.  Responsible aggregation is a key and perennial feature of journalism; journalists always have “advanced the story” by building upon the work of other journalists, whether through attributed quotation or unattributed reference. Of course, much common journalistic re-use of existing material does not even require fair use, since facts themselves are not copyrightable. Often, however, bare facts are not enough; the very words or images through which information is expressed may be part of the story. Thus, in practice, much journalistic re-use and follow-on work has always (if sometimes unknowingly) depended on fair use.

 

However, the rise of journalistic enterprises that embrace aggregation as a business model has created a heightened awareness, and sometimes alarm, about re-use and sharing of journalistic work. This document will help journalists understand what is acceptable re-use, and what the journalistic community, with expert legal advice, believes goes beyond fair use.

 

Journalist = Adds new information and insight to a story. Since facts are not copyrightable, it is OK to retell something using your own words. It is also usually OK to reuse things like pictures as evidence. However, most news organizations are careful about doing this and always ask for permission first, or use their only their own content.

 

Content aggregation = What Linus often does when he shows the content in full, without any alterations, and doesn't add any substantial amount of new info or insight.

 

 

I can't make a for-profit website where I just republish TV channels like CNN or Fox. That would be plagiarism. I can however make a for-profit website and take stories from CNN and Fox, if I do not use their texts or scripts when retelling the news.

It could be argued that Linus is some cases does the former, and the document you're linking talks about the latter.

[Donut417]

I hope we find out who the copy right holder is. Just so some one can send them this: https://dicksbymail.com/

[M300843499]

Nothing wrong with titty streamers...

[mynameisjuan]

Why request a take down? Its fucking free advertising

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

Jeeesus. DMCA only causes stupid problems like this. Fucking thing should be repealed.

[NumLock21]

Many streamers let their viewers do song request, when playing back their past streams. All it does is just, mute portions of the video, that claim copyright, they don't just take down the entire channel. I think someone or thing probably succeeded on getting a patent or copyright, is claiming, the entire wan show format and idea is theirs, not LMG's.

 

 

[.N.]

Was probably Luke “titty streaming” he will deny it but we all know that a “floatplane” with no wings is an ol fashion “motorboat”....this may have been more amusing in my head.

 

however, yes giants like twitch get it wrong far too often the challenge that we all experience is these big sites have really poor customer service not through lack of wanting to support (so they say) but simply the wide range of queries and demand for attention.  Trying to train enough people that can first filter the RTFM issues from the genuine issues (DMCA violation first offence with no clear evidence provided to the alleged offender before temp ban hammering) is where the bad reputations ensue.

 

a simple - you’ve been DMCA’d for this clip due to footage between this point and this point would resolve a lot of issues on the “why”

 

followed by a simple “click here to either challenge this or acknowledge fault/human error and carry on” (the huge admit fault due to human error/innocent mistake would go a long way - you just need a basic reputation score associated with the account I.e not so innocent intentional DMCA violation less likely to get reinstated etc).

 

good luck LTT team.

[Ezzy-525]

Has @LinusTech been stripping off again on the WAN Show for their Mack Weldon spots? 

[Lurick]

2 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

Why request a take down? Its fucking free advertising

It's the same mentality that news organizations take with regards to Google.

They want more money because they feel like they are entitled to it. Doesn't matter that Google is driving traffic to their sites and they are getting money from that free traffic in the first place, they want money from Google too because by displaying a link to their website and a snippet of the article the news organizations "deserve" a cut.

[TacoSenpai]

Honestly platforms like Youtube and Twitch are becoming too cumbersome.  Its hard to upload anything anymore because of automated Content ID and DMCA.  That doesn't even get into the numerous "guidelines" of the sites either that you could be found in violation at any time.  It kinda takes the fun out of just making goofy stupid videos.  Even if you use a 10 second clip of music or anime footage for example.  I totally understand if you are uploading full episodes that's obvious infringement but other little stuff is just ridiculous. 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

11 hours ago, The Viking said:

Titty streamers --> no ban

 

LTT --> ban. 

Unless you are suggesting the former show copyrighted breasts, I don't see the connection.