Gathering additional details, but the two already listed - Chapo Trap House and David Pakman have been identified.
Gathering additional details, but the two already listed - Chapo Trap House and David Pakman have been identified.
Maybe it's a rights thing? Aren't these debates heavily locked down by the networks that sponsor them?
edit: absolutely doesn't make this fair, just trying to isolate a culprit
Seems like a pretty straightforward TOS violation.
Don't stream copyrighted content.
Wrap it up and put a bow on it. This sums it up.So they wanted to get paid to stream a live broadcast, seems pretty straightforward why they'd get shut down
Same reason people aren't just automatically registered to vote, our "democracy" sucks.I agree, but then the conversation should be - why are these debates copyrighted? wack system.
Image would also be copyrighted. So I have no idea why they thought this was a good idea.So he was showing video with subtitles with no audio ? Correct me if i'm wrong but I don't think audio is the determining factor in copyrighted content. I don't think the debates should be but its their content.
I agree, but then the conversation should be - why are these debates copyrighted? wack system.
So he was showing video with subtitles with no audio ? Correct me if i'm wrong but I don't think audio is the determining factor in copyrighted content.
this seems uh extremely relevant given the reactions since this post
Eh while copyrights are a thing I don't think we need to go to bat for television networks showing something that helps determine the fate of our country.you know what these streamers could do while respecting others' copyrighted material?
run their own streams without using other people's copyrighted material. they can certain comment on it without putting the footage on their own stream.
I mean, yes you're right, but comparing a Democratic primary debate to an NFL game is either super fucked up because, it's a political debate, right, and that should be full open, right? Or it's super fucked up because primary debates don't achieve anything higher than a sports game-level seriousness?They are party events.
Work products of the Federal government cannot be copyrighted in the US (overseas yes, but not in the US).
This is a private party event. Not a government event.
Again, comparing it to a NFL game is apt. The party puts on the event and then assigns broadcast rights.
you can.
I mean, yes you're right, but comparing a Democratic primary debate to an NFL game is either super fucked up because, it's a political debate, right, and that should be full open, right? Or it's super fucked up because primary debates don't achieve anything higher than a sports game-level seriousness?
Either way, yeah the law is against these dudes but that seems messed up for a debate on a future political candidate!
They should have put up a DDR overlay, nobody would know wtf was going onthey should have mashed buttons on a controller to hide the fact it was a live event
The primary debates are sponsored by a network so they can actually happen. These networks pay rights fees for this. They are literally taking someone else's work and trying to monetize it for themselves, and yet have the audacity to say that it's "ruining democracy". And it's not like you couldn't watch it for free legally anyway.I mean, yes you're right, but comparing a Democratic primary debate to an NFL game is either super fucked up because, it's a political debate, right, and that should be full open, right? Or it's super fucked up because primary debates don't achieve anything higher than a sports game-level seriousness?
Either way, yeah the law is against these dudes but that seems messed up for a debate on a future political candidate!
until all debates are federally sponsored, these are and should be TOS violations. The laws are very clear and simple to understand here.This has been happening ever since the first dem debates. I know it's shitty, but they should have adjusted by now. Did Hasan Piker get banned? After his first ban over this he switched to a different method of doing the debates where he syncs with chat but doesn't play the video.
That said there's a fair discussion to be had on why this is copyrighted material at all. Political debates should be free to share discuss by everyone regardless of who owns the original broadcast. But alas, America.
Right, I don't disagree. I'm just saying that discussion on changing the law or how things should be different is a fair discussion to be had.The deserved to be banned for TOS violations? Copyrighted Content 101.
until all debates are federally sponsored, these are and should be TOS violations. The laws are very clear and simple to understand here.
The thread isn't about people who got falsely identified as breaking TOS. That's a Twitch moderation enforcement issue and really isn't what the thread is about.I really feel like this should be in the OP since people aren't reading the responses
That's fairThe thread isn't about people who got falsely identified as breaking TOS. That's a Twitch moderation enforcement issue and really isn't what the thread is about.
Why is that locked to networks? Isnt this a good thing more exposure is done by these streamers? This is like anti-democracy shit i expect say from china.These streamers seem entitled. No, you cannot stream things you don't have rights to. You need permission.
well the networks dont get compensated for "exposure". And they're paying for it.Why is that locked to networks? Isnt this a good thing more exposure is done by these streamers? This is like anti-democracy shit i expect say from china.
I guess Bernie violated copyright laws by tweeting a video clip of one of his responses in the debate.
The debates are garbage and should be free for everyone to watch regardless.