• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Twitch: Changes To Audio In VODS

Nanashrew

Banned
I wish all the streamers I followed would jump ship to Hitbox. The delay has never stopped being annoying. Also Twitch likes to do the thing for me where it buffers every 5 seconds unless I play streams in VLC with Livestreamer. Such a shitty ass website that I wish I wasn't so reliant on for so much of my entertainment.

Karli, the staff member in Cosmo's chat mentioned more themes were coming like a dark theme. So that's a plus for me. Had to use addons for that on Twitch and that only produced more problems because they just have too many things on the back end to load.

The buffering could be a lot of things that aren't necessarily Twitch's fault. Some ISPs either don't handle Twitch well due to poor infrastructure that gets overloaded, or they screw you over with deliberate packet shaping.

I dunno how much is their end or my ISP but I do know that flash has always been the biggest problem for my computer and internet. Sucks either way though. Hitbox is working flawlessly for me at the moment at 480p 60fps with HTML5.
 

Nanashrew

Banned
2sNCz1a.png


https://twitter.com/pkollar/status/497640083101478912

Oh dear...
 

Evrae

Banned
So, am I understanding this correctly?

1. Google came to Twitch with an offer of one billion (or two?)

2. Google made stipulations as to what Twitch needed to do before a buyout would be feasible, because the moment Google bought Twitch, they would be sued by every living corporation imaginable for massive sums of money if Twitch did not have any kind of a rhetorical defense against hosting videos with copyrighted content.

3. Twitch desperately scrambled for a quick solution so that the buyout would go ahead, and used an algorithm that muted all of their videos in part or in whole in order to comply with Google's stipulations.
 

LiQuid!

I proudly and openly admit to wishing death upon the mothers of people I don't like
The buffering could be a lot of things that aren't necessarily Twitch's fault. Some ISPs either don't handle Twitch well due to poor infrastructure that gets overloaded, or they screw you over with deliberate packet shaping.

Yeah I dunno, I've looked into a lot of solutions to try and fix it but nothing has worked. Even worse, it doesn't happen consistently. For a few months surrounding TI4 my streams were working flawlessly on Twitch. Then a few weeks ago once a lot of Dota pros started streaming again my streams are shit. Certain times of day are shittier than others. There's very little rhyme or reason to it but when it's happening, it's only happening on Twitch. No other aspect of my internet usage is effected.
 

Bleeether

Member
I honestly didn't think this was going to be that much of a big deal, but i just had a fantastic stream and tried to highlight some great moments right after the cast. 35% of my stream was muted and it was all for in game stuff that got censored. Pretty annoyed now... o well. Hi Google.
 

Rapstah

Member
So, am I understanding this correctly?

1. Google came to Twitch with an offer of one billion (or two?)

2. Google made stipulations as to what Twitch needed to do before a buyout would be feasible, because the moment Google bought Twitch, they would be sued by every living corporation imaginable for massive sums of money if Twitch did not have any kind of a rhetorical defense against hosting videos with copyrighted content.

3. Twitch desperately scrambled for a quick solution so that the buyout would go ahead, and used an algorithm that muted all of their videos in part or in whole in order to comply with Google's stipulations.
It's that, or...
  1. Twitch is running out of money, Twitch plans how to lose less money by checking out alternatives for audio identification and doing some quick calculations on how much storage costs. Plans are not necessarily finished.
  2. Twitch gets confirmation from Google that they'll be bought, getting loads of money, meaning they don't need to fix the things that are leaking money for them.
  3. Google doesn't buy Twitch. Suddenly the plans have to be used right away because Twitch has lost money while waiting for Google to buy them with money.
 

mjontrix

Member

ifOjUWzwjvniw.gif


OH MY GOD THIS IS TOO MUCH!

DYING LAUGHING SERIOUS HAVE TO GRAB A PUFFER FOR THIS SHIT!!!

So, am I understanding this correctly?

1. Google came to Twitch with an offer of one billion (or two?)

2. Google made stipulations as to what Twitch needed to do before a buyout would be feasible, because the moment Google bought Twitch, they would be sued by every living corporation imaginable for massive sums of money if Twitch did not have any kind of a rhetorical defense against hosting videos with copyrighted content.

3. Twitch desperately scrambled for a quick solution so that the buyout would go ahead, and used an algorithm that muted all of their videos in part or in whole in order to comply with Google's stipulations.

Yes, that would be what the lawyers told twitch; who in their euphoria of getting bought out came massively and we ended up with this mess.
 

Donos

Member
Oh wow, i'm not a huge twitch viewer but this is horrible. That's only the beginning....

So, am I understanding this correctly?

1. Google came to Twitch with an offer of one billion (or two?)

2. Google made stipulations as to what Twitch needed to do before a buyout would be feasible, because the moment Google bought Twitch, they would be sued by every living corporation imaginable for massive sums of money if Twitch did not have any kind of a rhetorical defense against hosting videos with copyrighted content.

3. Twitch desperately scrambled for a quick solution so that the buyout would go ahead, and used an algorithm that muted all of their videos in part or in whole in order to comply with Google's stipulations.

;_;
 

LiQuid!

I proudly and openly admit to wishing death upon the mothers of people I don't like
Why can I still go on Youtube and watch bootleg Michael Jackson uploads from Not Michael Jackson's Record Company but this content ID bot is being so draconian on Twitch?
 

Nanashrew

Banned
Why can I still go on Youtube and watch bootleg Michael Jackson uploads from Not Michael Jackson's Record Company but this content ID bot is being so draconian on Twitch?

Probably just haven't hit it yet. I can't listen or watch the Intergalactic music video by Boom Boom Satellites because Sony Japan has taken every single one down. Only one video left that I know of and it's on their official channel but it's only a partial bit of the music video and fades out at around 1:30, stops at the mid point.

It's really annoying. Why have an official channel and upload only a partial bit compared to other official channels? Its dumb.
 

Conan-san

Member
Probably just haven't hit it yet. I can't listen or watch the Intergalactic music video by Boom Boom Satellites because Sony Japan has taken every single one down. Only one video left that I know of and it's on their official channel but it's only a partial bit of the music video and fades out at around 1:30, stops at the mid point.

It's really annoying. Why have an official channel and upload only a partial bit compared to other official channels? Its dumb.

# Music Piracy, it's probably everyone, everywhere!
Buy all our CDs and Tapes! #
 

Mindwipe

Member
Why can I still go on Youtube and watch bootleg Michael Jackson uploads from Not Michael Jackson's Record Company but this content ID bot is being so draconian on Twitch?

Because they're probably being monetised on YouTube with a share of the ads going to the relevant publisher(s).

But Twitch haven't built anything like that yet. They're going to, from the AMA, but that isn't likely to happen quickly.
 

Mindwipe

Member
They keep talking about rights holders, liability, and how they received the license from the rights holders to the games. Well, if there's audio in the games that were licensed for use in the game, and the game license holders have given a general use license to twitch for streaming (obviously not the case for all titles, but let's assume it is...), then aren't the game license holders granting a general use license for streaming audio that isn't theirs? And wouldn't liability pretty much originate with the game copyright holders, then?

Standard boiler plate wording on any licence like that would say that the service provider would be responsible for arranging their own copyright clearance of any third party copyright materials contained within the game.

So no, it's still Twitch's problem.

Indeed, unless you're specially commissioning and buying out all rights or doing very special track by track deals, it's not really possible for a game company to license those those rights in a way they can syndicate them to third parties.

(It's the same for a broadcaster - if a TV programme or clip is uploaded to YouTube officially YouTube are still responsible for clearing the music rights within that clip. The broadcaster's licence of that track doesn't cover syndication to YouTube.)
 

Mindwipe

Member
Question on disk space. Would switching to HTML5 be more beneficial than flash so that so much space isn't taken up?

I keep seeing some talk about server disk space and I'm not exactly the most tech savvy as I'd like to be.

It would make absolutely no difference whatsoever.
 

Mindwipe

Member
Okay. Thanks for answering the question!

No problem. To be more specific, the odds are that Twitch stores the files to be served to Flash play as H264 files in an MP4 container.

They would almost certainly serve the same files, just over a different delivery protocol, in an HTML5 player, and serve the same ones to their iOS and Android apps.
 

PaulLFC

Member
I wonder if music labels and whoever else is signed up to this 'Audible "Magic"' service will ever get it - they are creating a far bigger problem than actually exists, as justification for implementing a system that does nothing but cause annoyance and loss of goodwill.

They will never eliminate all piracy, it just isn't possible. Is piracy wrong? Yes it is. Does that make measures like this acceptable? No, it does not. The only way they will reduce piracy is to offer consumer-friendly alternatives - some of them are slowly getting the hang of it, with the likes of Spotify, Google Play Music, pay-what-you-want albums, and so on.

Then something like this happens and the goodwill they've accumulated for moves like the above is chipped away at, again, by them overreacting and hoping to "eliminate" a problem that didn't really exist in the first place.

If someone is playing music in the background while talking / playing game sounds over it, how many people are really going to take the time to download the ENTIRE video (sometimes hours worth), cut it, and then rip the audio, to have a copy of the song that just happens to have added vocals? Next to nobody, I'd be willing to bet.

And you know what? If someone is "dedicated" enough to getting the song for nothing that they would go to all that hassle, let them. You will never entirely defeat piracy, only reduce it. If they would go to those lengths, the overwhelming likelihood is they would have never bought your song anyway.

Let's look at this from a different angle. If I hear a song on a video or stream, and go "I like the sound of that, what is it?" and find out through Shazam / Soundhound, I'm then likely to stream that via Google Play or buy the song or album, giving the artists at least some money. If I can't hear their music at all, that opportunity is gone because I would never have heard the music to decide to purchase it in the first place.

I feel like I read less and less about people pirating music these days given the ease of use and relative low cost of Spotify, Google music etc. That is surely having a positive effect on record labels, and yet they still feel the need from time to time, on occasions such as this, to treat everyone like criminals and send their public opinion spiralling downwards.

Moreover, what have they achieved through this? Nothing, from what I can see. They don't get revenue if their song is detected, and they compound that by removing any ability for sales to happen from someone hearing a track for the first time, liking it and going out to buy it. They've gone from X sales via streams, to no sales. Well done, record companies and Audible "Magic" (where's the magic?).
 

Linkified

Member
I wonder if music labels and whoever else is signed up to this 'Audible "Magic"' service will ever get it - they are creating a far bigger problem than actually exists, as justification for implementing a system that does nothing but cause annoyance and loss of goodwill.

They will never eliminate all piracy, it just isn't possible. Is piracy wrong? Yes it is. Does that make measures like this acceptable? No, it does not. The only way they will reduce piracy is to offer consumer-friendly alternatives - some of them are slowly getting the hang of it, with the likes of Spotify, Google Play Music, pay-what-you-want albums, and so on.

Then something like this happens and the goodwill they've accumulated for moves like the above is chipped away at, again, by them overreacting and hoping to "eliminate" a problem that didn't really exist in the first place.

If someone is playing music in the background while talking / playing game sounds over it, how many people are really going to take the time to download the ENTIRE video (sometimes hours worth), cut it, and then rip the audio, to have a copy of the song that just happens to have added vocals? Next to nobody, I'd be willing to bet.

And you know what? If someone is "dedicated" enough to getting the song for nothing that they would go to all that hassle, let them. You will never entirely defeat piracy, only reduce it. If they would go to those lengths, the overwhelming likelihood is they would have never bought your song anyway.

Let's look at this from a different angle. If I hear a song on a video or stream, and go "I like the sound of that, what is it?" and find out through Shazam / Soundhound, I'm then likely to stream that via Google Play or buy the song or album, giving the artists at least some money. If I can't hear their music at all, that opportunity is gone because I would never have heard the music to decide to purchase it in the first place.

I feel like I read less and less about people pirating music these days given the ease of use and relative low cost of Spotify, Google music etc. That is surely having a positive effect on record labels, and yet they still feel the need from time to time, on occasions such as this, to treat everyone like criminals and send their public opinion spiralling downwards.

Moreover, what have they achieved through this? Nothing, from what I can see. They don't get revenue if their song is detected, and they compound that by removing any ability for sales to happen from someone hearing a track for the first time, liking it and going out to buy it. They've gone from X sales via streams, to no sales. Well done, record companies and Audible "Magic" (where's the magic?).

One of the other problems with Audible Magic is you don't have to be the original music creator or owner for it to go in the database. Hence why they are just trying out:
From Audible Magic said:
Claim(Coming soon)
Issue a counter claim notice if you believe your music has been improperly registered.
 

Mindwipe

Member
I wonder if music labels and whoever else is signed up to this 'Audible "Magic"' service will ever get it - they are creating a far bigger problem than actually exists, as justification for implementing a system that does nothing but cause annoyance and loss of goodwill.

I don't think you understand their reasoning here. The music labels don't think people are doing listening to Twitch instead of buying songs.

But the labels get fully half their revenue now for licensing songs to be used on services and broadcasts. Half. And if Twitch doesn't have to pay, it's only a matter of time until YouTube start to ask why they do. And then the BBC.

I think in an ideal world the labels would like to cut deals with Twitch for them to pay for the songs. But if they just mute everything, and therefore make the services that do pay up more attractive, that works strategically too.
 
Is piracy wrong? Yes it is..

This is debatable. There have been plenty of studies now over the last ten years showing that pirates (on average) actually spend more on the material they pirate than those who don't pirate at all, that piracy can help unknown bands / devs make a name for themselves and that people sharing entertainment with each other are very much responsible for these industries to grow and make huge profits the way they did / are doing.

I'm not saying it is inherently good and I happily purchase all my entertainment as I can afford it, but to blatantly say "it is wrong" in inaccurate in my humble opinion. Facts matter.

I can think of plenty of arguments for why streaming full play-through of games on youtube or twitch counts as piracy, but we/devs allow it because it counts as "free advertisement".

PS: Let me just say it again, just in case, I do not pirate and I do not condone it, but I do think that the effects of it and therefore the right- or wrongness of it is debatable.
 

Fracas

#fuckonami
Cosmo seems torn on what to do. Honestly, I really like his hitbox stream last night. Looked and ran great, the polls were instant (minimal stream delay was AWESOME), and the whole experience felt like Twitch should.

I do understand that he and some other people were having issues with the chat though. Wonder if it's being worked on.
 

Xerotwo

Member
Welp, it looks like Twitch ain't going to remove that system.

Plus, they're not going to read all of those emails because of that "appeal" button.
 

Gorillaz

Member
It's that, or...
  1. Twitch is running out of money, Twitch plans how to lose less money by checking out alternatives for audio identification and doing some quick calculations on how much storage costs. Plans are not necessarily finished.
  2. Twitch gets confirmation from Google that they'll be bought, getting loads of money, meaning they don't need to fix the things that are leaking money for them.
  3. Google doesn't buy Twitch. Suddenly the plans have to be used right away because Twitch has lost money while waiting for Google to buy them with money.
I'm going to go with these 3.

I thinik Twitch has been cutting it close in profit and hoped for something big like Google to buy them. That is pretty much the end goal for alot of these small service start up companies at this point. I think if Google really had the deal worked out, this would not have came across as hectic as it did. At least IMO.

I'm going with "google and twitch deal had a falling out"
 
I like they're copy and pasted: "Thanks for providing constructive feedback, we appreciate the benefit of the doubt that we're wanting a good product" to people on twitter.

I'm going to go with these 3.

I thinik Twitch has been cutting it close in profit and hoped for something big like Google to buy them. That is pretty much the end goal for alot of these small service start up companies at this point. I think if Google really had the deal worked out, this would not have came across as hectic as it did. At least IMO.

I'm going with "google and twitch deal had a falling out"

Yeah, I mean why would Google/Youtube want all that Twitch content deleted, when youtube is all about content? The potential to have all of that past content archived and monitised must look good to youtube. Imagine having 'Seasons' and 'Episodes' of Dansgaming and Man v Game all chronologically stored and easy to access on Youtube.
 

Dirk Benedict

Gold Member
I like they're copy and pasted: "Thanks for providing constructive feedback, we appreciate the benefit of the doubt that we're wanting a good product" to people on twitter.



Yeah, I mean why would Google/Youtube want all that Twitch content deleted, when youtube is all about content? The potential to have all of that past content archived and monitised must look good to youtube. Imagine having 'Seasons' and 'Episodes' of Dansgaming and Man v Game all chronologically stored and easy to access on Youtube.

Bingo.
 

Zomba13

Member
One of the other problems with Audible Magic is you don't have to be the original music creator or owner for it to go in the database. Hence why they are just trying out:

Oh lol.

"Hey you there music maker! Have you had a video on demand gert muted sections because of some of your music? Well that was us!

Wait... what? You didn't register with us and you said it was fine for that video to have your music?

umm.... get back to us in a bit ok."

*rushes to make a counter claim system*
 

mattiewheels

And then the LORD David Bowie saith to his Son, Jonny Depp: 'Go, and spread my image amongst the cosmos. For every living thing is in anguish and only the LIGHT shall give them reprieve.'
If removing archives after 14 and 60 days is a sign of them moving towards a streaming-only type of site by slowly getting rid of archiving, maybe this music bot won't be used on the live streams at all? I know that the sentiment is "Yeah right, just give it time", but aren't copyright rules different when it comes to live streaming? Maybe that's their way of getting around this shit, slowly phase out archiving and be safe with just streams.
 
If removing archives after 14 and 60 days is a sign of them moving towards a streaming-only type of site by slowly getting rid of archiving, maybe this music bot won't be used on the live streams at all? I know that the sentiment is "Yeah right, just give it time", but aren't copyright rules different when it comes to live streaming? Maybe that's their way of getting around this shit, slowly phase out archiving and be safe with just streams.

If the AMA answers can be trusted, livestreams will never be affected by it.
 

mattiewheels

And then the LORD David Bowie saith to his Son, Jonny Depp: 'Go, and spread my image amongst the cosmos. For every living thing is in anguish and only the LIGHT shall give them reprieve.'
They don't have the tech yet. I bet that's coming in the future.
But like I was saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't someone mention there's a difference in copyright law between streams and archives?
 

TSM

Member
If the AMA answers can be trusted, livestreams will never be affected by it.

There's too much money involved. Either twitch will have to work out rights payments to the relevant licensing agencies (ASCAP, BMI, etc) or they will have to somehow police their broadcasters. Technically if someone live streaming starts singing a copyrighted song, that constitutes a live performance and fees are supposed to be paid (ostensibly to the song writers in this case).
 

CamHostage

Member
No more EA Trax titles on Twitch...

Side note, but are none of these video services able to do multiple audio tracks? It seems crazy that Twitch is talking about muting audio when conversations-over-gameplay is its business.

If it could keep the vocal track and the game track separate, it could do things smartly, cutting out game audio without making the whole clip totally broken, but as far as I know, none of the major streaming providers do multiple audio tracks. Youtube I believe doesn't have the feature, neither does Vimeo, I don't know about Netflix but Hulu has to repost the whole video if it ever offers a commentary track on a movie/show (which is rare.) The file containers for these video services are plenty modern (and predecessors like MKV and DIVX have been doing audio track bundling for probably a decade,) and you can also demux Youtube files to pull the MP4 or AAC tracks out, so what's getting in the way?
 
But like I was saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't someone mention there's a difference in copyright law between streams and archives?

There's a difference in terms of general licensing I believe but not in terms of Copyright law. You can buy a licence that will allow you to legally stream music here, but you'll probably need another (more expensive) one for VOD.
 

M3d10n

Member
I don't use Twitch and I've been trying to browse videos to see the extent of the muting, but it's impossible because they force me to watch the same 60 seconds unskippable ad before every video, even if the video itself is 1 minute long. Damn.
 

Cipherr

Member
Great piece.

I dislike Polygon so Im actually not all that happy that it came from them, but maybe it will get some of the hardheaded people to stop shouting at the top of their lungs and listen. Its absolutely necessary, and no amount of complaining will change that. Its either comply with the law of close your website down. They can and will make the processes for identifying content better, but the idea of being able to use any content you want on VODs and possibly even streaming is dead period. No amount of jumping from sinking raft(website) to raft will ever change that.
 
Top Bottom