> This is justified because in overwhelming majority of cases the streamer does not have a license for the audio
I guess my point is that this arrangement was fine for a very, very long time. Why is it suddenly not fine in the last handful of years? Who is standing to gain here? In my view, it hurts the very platforms and industries this is trying to "protect." Twitch/YT/etc. are harmed because the content will be inherently worse, and copyright audio IP is hurt because it will spread to fewer listeners. Not only this, but if it were available to me, I actually would pay to license the audio I use, but there is no mechanism to do that!
A similar dumb thing happened a few years ago with the PGA tour - they decided that anyone re-posting PGA clips without their permission, even if it was for commentary/parody/etc., was all of a sudden not permissible. So, all the golf content on IG/TikTok/etc got catastrophically worse overnight, and PGA (which struggles with viewership, especially young viewers) gets less free exposure. There's absolutely no way this was a positive outcome for anyone involved, so why?
It was fine until recently. Crossposting another reply:
> We've had the capability to detect audio for a long time. What changed suddenly in the last few years to deploy/enforce this at scale? Certainly not any improvements to detection. I've made a whopping total of $46 in something like 12 years on these platforms. Something tells me this level of enforcement is ridiculous and against the spirit of the law, and I'm certainly not an expert on the DMCA or a lawyer, but I'd be willing to wager a lot that this strict interpretation is misinterpreted. No one is submitting any takedown requests to this content, which to be clear, averages like 1.3 viewers and has less than a few thousand follwers. And when I describe in-game audio - I mean literal 2-3 second song clips like "barbie girl" song happening when you score a goal in rocket league will get your VOD DMCA'd and you can't upload it to YT. That is a newer thing. You really can't view the last 20 years of DRM and the way it's played out, and say something like "this is how it's always been, now automation." That doesn't add up.
I'm not exactly a big fish here. I don't make money. There is no takedown request, nor would there ever be, because it's silly.
Again, the absence of a negative consequence at the time cannot be used as evidence something was actually fine to do, only that it was possible to get away with. That's regardless of whether it was actually truly fine or not.
If a new automated speed camera catches you on a road you've been speeding on for 7 years it doesn't mean speeding used to be fine it means you'll now receive consequences for doing things which were never fine to do! It also doesn't mean the speed limit always used to be the current value or anything like that. This is because "when regular enforcement began" has no causal relation one way or the other about what used to be fine or whether that was different than what's fine now. It is only an effect, one where "what was fine changed" is only one possible cause.
I don’t think you understand how the DMCA works or what it was intended to do - again, these are not takedown requests, as is the normal mechanism here, which there are guidelines for - this is platforms preemptively deciding for potential dmca takedown requests to takedown/censor content. If your position is that every single piece of content should never be hosted in fair use online, that is not only not how copyright law works, it’s not how the DMCA works, and I’m not sure how to progress this discussion further since we seem to have a fundamentally different understanding of how the law works, or what this thread is even about.
To trivially prove your point wrong - I actually do have the right under fair use to make content of my own with copyrighted material. This has literally always been ok. Platforms are taking these actions to protect themselves from potentially hosting copyrighted content on their platform that would not consistute fair uses, and since I, a user of their platform, have to abide by their policies, it's their decision. Assuming we are now on the same page here, continuing your speeding ticket example - this is not so much like that, as getting pulled over in a labeled 40 zone and the cop goes "well, we didnt know if you'd be breaking the law later or before this, so just to be safe, here you go" or, "actually that's not really the speed limit." take your choice here, they both apply.
My comment isn't in regards to how the DMCA is supposed to work or what content I'd like to restrict from hosting online. If you've gone that far you've already long passed my point and seriously misinterpreted my opening statement "As much as I don't like the current rules either".
As the other commenter mentioned, my point was having done something for many years does without receiving a notice does not inherently imply it was fine to do all those years prior. That does not mean I agree that's how large hosting platforms should work, just that their stance has always been "fuck what the user should be able to easily do with content" rather than some new policy the day you got your first notice.
I guess my point is that this arrangement was fine for a very, very long time. Why is it suddenly not fine in the last handful of years? Who is standing to gain here? In my view, it hurts the very platforms and industries this is trying to "protect." Twitch/YT/etc. are harmed because the content will be inherently worse, and copyright audio IP is hurt because it will spread to fewer listeners. Not only this, but if it were available to me, I actually would pay to license the audio I use, but there is no mechanism to do that!
A similar dumb thing happened a few years ago with the PGA tour - they decided that anyone re-posting PGA clips without their permission, even if it was for commentary/parody/etc., was all of a sudden not permissible. So, all the golf content on IG/TikTok/etc got catastrophically worse overnight, and PGA (which struggles with viewership, especially young viewers) gets less free exposure. There's absolutely no way this was a positive outcome for anyone involved, so why?