I think we should just split the difference.

Create a "Radio/Podcast/DJ/Karaoke" category. Any music played here is subject to licensing, and every track name played (eg a set list) must be sent to Twitch. If a streamer has a license from a rights agency, they will not get muted. The music will still be muted in the VOD (since that requires different rights), but any DMCA's will be sent directly to the streamer who claims to have a licence.

For all video games, link to the game's streaming guidelines if known. If a company (eg Microsoft, Square-Enix) has guidelines, then treat this as a license to stream the entire game. It should not be the streamer's responsibility to know what licensed music is in a game before playing it. No strikes for unknown copyright landmines.

For everything else (eg Just chatting, Reactions to youtube videos) treat music as incidental, "fair use" unless the streamer appears to be operating a jukebox outside the DJ/Radio station category.

Yes and no, I agree they should create a different avenue for DJs. Like many other DJs I am already paying for 3 different record pools & several streaming sites I don’t want to add on to that. What would be ideal is that they allow us license to only play a certain amount of time on one track (i.e being restricted to play only 1:30 of each track) and keep everything else as is. Then that would help DJs avoid being muted/copyright strike.

I'd also like to see something worked out in regards to this. Perhaps similar to Twitch Prime, you could offer a service that could cover a broad range of licensing costs? Maybe different tiers, depending on what a particular streamer might be interested in being able to stream. A drop down menu could come up with a list of games that a particular tier covers the licensing for. Sure, we would have to pay extra to stream these games, but it would be a nice option to have.

I would like services such as audiio.com that grants lifetime licenses for their music to be linked and for these licenses to be verified by twitch before penalizing the streamer.

Anyone choosing any other option to upvote than this one... honestly has minimal use of his brain. This circus of DMCA gotta stop on all social platforms,s not just Twitch... it's time for a new policy with a user contribution or not, it has to be fixed by making a deal and it needs to be done ASAP.

I do not care about DMCA free music because those can change any day and none of us has the time or the expertise in the field to protect our accounts etc.

It's getting ridiculous now... Pay the artists their due and the users can pay a monthly fee just like any other streaming platfirm (if they choose to)

Time for a serious change... streaming is the future and it will be sad to slow the progress because of the copyright regarding music.

In a way the Amazon app is like that for twitch, but the problem is HOW MUCH is available to us on Amazon? I mean, <_< i'd be OK with it so i could do a once a week radio stream for the radio I volunteer for..

I do'nt wanna listen to the stuff while gaming.. that's all sortos nightmares.
Most of the time i play my own stuff and if the DMCA filter trips on that i cry to my distributor lol

Spotify is unlikely to be licensed for this type of use. Only organizations directly representing the rightsholders can grant such a license. Having Spotify in the loop would only increase the cost to the end user, unless Spotify themselves arrange for such a license independently from Twitch (which would be interesting, but then there's no reason to ask Twitch for it).

Maybe even work a deal with Spotify to have some kind of "streamer" plan thats a bit more than a normal plan and those plays pay the artist/spotify more per play type deal.

I have 0 issues with paying a monthly fee to play copyrighted music. I'm sure there is a way to track what songs we play so the artists/labels can get their money. I'm not sure if you could work with Spotify on some sort of integration? I assume it would be like the Amazon music Extention so you log in with your Spotify account and as you stream it tracks what songs you play and then the artist/label will get paid.

All they need to do is make it so the music is a separate audio portion of the stream and you need to login to a music streaming service that you pay for to hear the music the streamer is listening too. Simular to movie watch parties

Since Amazon, the owner of Twitch is wealthy, why not use said wealth on buying licenses to use music on stream and on VODs as well.

I contacted BMI about purchasing licensing and they responded "Thank you for reaching out to BMI. BMI currently has license agreements in place with Facebook/Instagram, YouTube, and Twitch for the public performance of BMI's repertoire on their respective platforms. Currently, there is no need for you to obtain a separate BMI License.

In order to use sound recordings and/or music in conjunction with visual images (i.e. film, video, DVD’s, slide presentations, etc.), you may need to acquire permission from the applicable music publishers and record labels for additional rights including synchronization rights. For your convenience, publisher contact information for songs in the BMI Repertoire is available on our website. Please contact the publishers directly for these rights. Unfortunately, I cannot advise you beyond the scope of a BMI license.

Thank you"

I don't know if it is purposefully vague but it SOUNDS like we're good as long as it isn't recorded?

One issue with DMCA/Copyright strikes is that many people don't understand how to legally acquire music rights for streaming - I propose that this process is streamlined such that users can buy or use certain music easily for their stream, track how long they're allowed to/terms of the agreement, and have access to the limited use of those tracks.

I have permission from a record label to use the music they produce who do i get in contact with?

Actually... Twitch... What are you doing? You HAVE AN ASCAP LICENSE! I checked. Legally, we, the users, are allowed to LIVESTREAM DJ/VJ sets as well as have music on in the background with the caveat that after the stream, we can not save or archive the VOD file. That's it. So why is this an issue here?

I can only guess you're somehow obtaining a revenue flow from the music industry and you're getting strong-armed? DMCA should not even be an issue here. How do I know? Because I used to run a website with an ASCAP license that's how. The only rule was you couldn't play certain artists in a row or perhaps a live concert recording of them. So seriously.... what's going on here?

As for MixCloud, yes, that $15 a month most likely is going to what's called a SYNCHONIZATION LICENSE which is what you need to legally archive such recordings.

taria güeno

as in other services, i mean all the streamers can opt to pay around $15usd monthly for get licenced music

in mexico the cost is around $200usd for INDAUTOR , maybe some of this organizations as ASCAP / BMI can be happy for get a "fair payment" from streamers

ej. $15usd x 1,000,000 Streamers = 15 mill month, im not sure if this is a bad "bussines" for the cited organizations

To the folks who think its difficult to get liscencing permissionm i ask, how did Mixcloud do it? with a monthly fee of $15, you can stream without interruption and without any copyright issues... Their onlydrawbackis not beingable to save the video of your stream... yet... it's doable

side note: every artist or musician i know personally (in the hundreds) many with music selling worldwide have said they have no issues with DJs spinning their music live, but you cant give individual copyright permission and the muting on some random "we're playing it safe and muting this portion" ********. I know people who have gotten muted for playing their own music

There is a single industry association responsible for this mess - the RIAA. They're the ones using literal botnets to send thousands of strikes against content producers all over the internet. Since it's just one entity, I'm sure it's possible to reach a deal that's favorable to all parts. Compliance with the law for takedowns sent by smaller, less aggressive labels can be achieved in the normal manner.

The problem is that how the music industry collects and licenses music is a minefield. You cannot simply purchase a license for "all of Twitch to stream your music". If Twitch buys a license, it covers only a narrow circumstance. If a streamer on Twitch uses that music, well per the music industry they need a different type of license (and the cost of that is ridiculous). Their entire business model at this point seems to be based on how many people they can smash in court rather than being cooperative.