Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
October 1, 2014
arrowPress Releases
October 1, 2014
PR Newswire
View All





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:


Understanding Twitch's new content-flagging policy
Understanding Twitch's new content-flagging policy Exclusive
August 7, 2014 | By Christian Nutt

August 7, 2014 | By Christian Nutt
Comments
    9 comments
More: Console/PC, Indie, Business/Marketing, Exclusive



Yesterday, video streaming site Twitch launched a new content-matching algorithm provided by a company called Audible Magic. It scans saved videos in user channels (in Twitch parlance, "VODs") and mutes them in 30-minute blocks if any infringing content is found.

Today, Twitch CEO Emmet Shear took to Reddit for an "Ask Me Anything" in which he attempted to clarify this situation (and another regarding its new video-storage policies.) His answers are hard to find (they got downvoted by irate users) and not well organized; we're providing them, with context, here.

What is this algorithm looking for?

Audible Magic is looking for copyrighted music in Twitch videos that isn't authorized to be there -- in other words, it's looking for music owned and controlled by the recording industry. "Ambient music (playing Britney Spears in the background) is not allowed on Twitch unless you've licensed it for that purpose," Shear writes.

However, if a game contains licensed music, that might get (rightfully) flagged. Music licensing is complex, and it's unlikely that publishers or developers have licensed broadcast rights to any music they include in their games, even legally.

What isn't supposed to get flagged is original in-game music (but that's happening anyway in multiple instances.) "Muting original in-game music is a mistake," Shear writes.

"The vast majority of matches seem correct as far as we can tell," he also says.

This sounds kind of familiar. Should it?

YouTube has much the same policy, and last December a large crackdown on videos caused outrage in its game YouTuber community. (Rather than Audible Magic, Google uses its own system called "Content ID," but the idea is the same.)

Popular streamer and YouTuber TotalBiscuit devoted an entire show to the topic -- if you're interested in catching up on an educated, inside-the-phenomenon opinion.

What's a VOD? Does this affect livestreams?

Though Twitch is best known as a livestreaming site, it also hosts on-demand videos of users' play sessions that viewers can later play back at any time -- aka VODs.

According to the company's official blog post on the new audio-matching policy, as well as comments made by CEO Emmett Shear on Reddit, the algorithm only scans VODs, not livestreams, for copyrighted music: "We have absolutely no intention of running any audio recognition against live video, period," he writes.

False positives should be reported to Twitch directly.

30 minutes sounds like a lot...

Yeah, it is. As mentioned above, VODs are muted in 30-minute chunks no matter the duration of the infringing audio.

The site would like to get more specific in the future. "In the future we'd like to improve the resolution further, and are working with Audible Magic to make this possible," Shear writes, on Reddit.

Is this affecting developers?

Yep, definitely. Crypt of the NecroDancer developer Ryan Clark noted that his developer streams have been muted erroneously. And it's not just his own streams, of course.

If your game's videos are getting muted, they won't be interesting to viewers or streamers; Shear says that false positives should decrease in the near future but it's unclear what other steps the company is taking. Since it's working with a third party (Audible Magic) which maintains the blacklist, this also complicates things.

Developers continue to stream their own work, and their own games; these kinds of systems continue to be implemented. Streaming video has become an increasingly important part of game promotion. This is relevant.

Is this a big deal?

If you've been paying attention to the news for the last 15 years, you should already know that the recording industry is very serious about protecting its rights (and its profits) against online infringement. From its perspective, streaming music is just that: infringement.

Outside the game space, music label Ultra Records recently sued popular YouTuber Michelle Phan over just this issue, and seeks big damages ($150,000 per instance of infringement).

Attorney Stephen McArthur, who has written about YouTube's Content ID system on Gamasutra blogs says that systems like this are fallout from the lengthy and expensive lawsuit Viacom filed against YouTube:

"Viacom filed a billion dollar lawsuit against YouTube for allowing users to upload and watch their copyrighted material. Though YouTube ultimately won the lawsuit, ContentID gives YouTube/Twitch extra protection against those kind of lawsuits that have the potential to take down the entire company if successful."

Why is Twitch doing this?

The obvious conjecture is that it's a step in the path to being acquired by YouTube, as has been rumored for months now. That's impossible to confirm at the moment, as the parties involved will not comment.

For his part, Shear says it's a necessary step in "laying the groundwork" for new site features that Twitch's user base will like.

There's another reason, Shear says: "we want every broadcaster on Twitch to be protected from potential liability. No matter how remote you might feel the issue is, we aren't willing to run the risk someone's life gets ruined over this." To be fair, big legal claims, like those being made against Michelle Phan (see above question) could be devastating.

Since easy licenses for streaming licensed music aren't available, says Shear, "this is not something that we want our broadcasters to accept liability for (nor do we want to accept liability for it either)," confirming McArthur's above suspicions.

But can't streamers just share monetization with the rights-holders?

It seems like a simple solution, right? It's in the works, too, but with no ETA. "We would like to provide the ability to allow shared monetization eventually, and we're actively working to provide that type of functionality in the future for those who wish to opt-in," Shear writes.

It's complicated, though. The system (obviously) has to get better at pinpointing the licensed music first, for a start. The right relationships have to be put into place. Shear has essentially admitted that this system launched before it was ready; even if he hadn't, it's clear that it did.


Related Jobs

Crystal Dynamics
Crystal Dynamics — Redwood City, California, United States
[09.30.14]

Senior Environment Artist
Harmonix Music Systems
Harmonix Music Systems — Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
[09.30.14]

Senior Product Manager
Harmonix Music Systems
Harmonix Music Systems — Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
[09.30.14]

Web Developer
DoubleDown Interactive
DoubleDown Interactive — Seattle, Washington, United States
[09.30.14]

Principal Game Designer










Comments


Kyle Redd
profile image
This is probably wishful thinking, but could the streamers whose videos are wrongfully muted have some sort of legal case for lost revenue?

Crypt of the Necrodancer developer Ryan Clark would seem like a clear candidate. His videos have been incorrectly muted in a manner that is inarguably Twitch's fault. And it seems clear that he will lose at least *some* sales as a result.

Justin Kovac
profile image
Likely, no. Which is why an automated system like this is overbearing and not very friendly. False positives are not punished.

I think someone should be able to since basically Audible Magic's system is saying the industry owns that music and we are flagging it. Its like someone claiming a DMCA notice for content they do not own.

David Campbell
profile image
It's "like" a DMCA request, but isn't technically so they get to skirt the law.

That's why these systems are abhorrent and borderline evil. The companies hide behind "the law doesn't have jurisdiction over our private operations", but ultimately these automatic systems are making ownership claims to content they do not have rights to. This should be fraud and affected content owners should be able to sue for damages.

It's worse than just 'guilty until proven innocent', it's punishing the innocent and barring any recompense for the grievance when they do prove the error.

Colin Sullivan
profile image
The system itself isn't a problem if there is competition in the video streaming/hosting market. The problem lies with the fact that Youtube is so dominant and is now buying Twitch.

With such a large market share being governed by these contracts it does become a parallel legal system without the few built in safeguards the DMCA has against abuse.

At this point the only way to remove it is probably through antitrust, which would be an interesting case.

Kevin Fishburne
profile image
This is horrible. I haven't bought music since Twitch started in 2011 and I discovered it was the perfect way to listen to any song I liked for free. It didn't take that long for my mind to start automatically filtering out all the game sound effects and streamer's incessant ramblings. All my friends use Twitch for their music needs as well; we're thinking about starting a protest or petition. Who's with me? Long live Twitch as the ultimate free music streaming service!

Michael Hartman
profile image
hahahahaha

Great post.

Colin Sullivan
profile image
I don't buy the "we're protecting the little guy" argument they are trying to make here. There are many better ways to do that than hacking out chunks of audio from a video, and it doesn't address the many other potential ways that a content creator on Twitch could infringe on another's copyrights or even trademarks.

Legal liability is always a possibility, and as soon as someone starts making money on Youtube or Twitch they are going to be a potential target and will have to protect themselves. Doing it on the platform level with a half-baked idea like this just hurts everyone.

Ben Newbon
profile image
"In the future we'd like to improve the resolution further, and are working with Audible Magic to make this possible,"

There are very very few songs that even go on for 10 minutes, let alone 30 - muting for that length of time is unnecessarily extreme. It wouldn't take any time at all to change the tiny 2 digit int in the automated system's code from 30 to 10 or even 5.

Will Hendrickson
profile image
Greedy Mr. Shear will make a lot of money from this, at the expense of streamers and ultimately developers. And with a 30-minute mute, it's obvious he doesn't care.


none
 
Comment: