First of all, I'm unsure if this in the right section? (please move to right location if not)

Anyway, we all like watching our favourite streamers right? Some play music and some either don't or play Non copyrighted music for legal/ad friendly reasons.

I would like a 2nd volume control option on the video player itself that is JUST for music that the broadcaster can stream thier music to.

Benefit for the broadcaster;

• Can stream normally and listen to their music without fear of being unable to monetise later. This secondary volume control feed would not be part of archive videos to be able to achieve this. The music would only be in the live video in the moment.

Benefit for the viewer;

• Viewer can watch any given broadcaster with the choice of just watching;


• The casters voice audio


• Game audio


• Completely muting music audio should we choose

I'm not a developer so have no idea if this is feasable or how it would look like to the caster when trying to use such feature, My only request is that Desktop users get this feature first (if it has to be implemented platform by platform)

The blanket license has long been recognized as the most efficient and convenient way of clearing copyrights in the United States. It would be time consuming and expensive for you to locate, contact and negotiate with all copyright holders prior to the performance of each song you plan to play.

The U.S. Supreme Court summarized the virtues of the blanket license in CBS v. Broadcast Music, Inc., 441 U.S. 1 (1979) as follows:

"... the blanket license developed ... out of the practical situation in the marketplace: thousands of users, thousands of copyright owners and millions of compositions. Most users want unplanned, rapid and indemnified access to any and all of the repertory of compositions and the owners want a reliable method of collecting for the use of their copyrights...

"A middleman with a blanket license was an obvious necessity if the thousands of individual negotiations, a virtual impossibility were to be avoided. Also, ...(individual licenses would pose) a difficult and expensive reporting problem for the user and policing task for the copyright owner. Historically, the market for public performance rights organized itself largely around the single-fee blanket license, which gave unlimited access to the repertory and reliable protection against infringement." Id. at 20-22.

This makes 0 sense. You have no problem banning people for inappropriate content or things you disagree with, yet when DMCA comes down on you, it's up to us as content creators to protect ourselves?

You don't get to regulate a platform, and then things get tough, decide you don't want the responsibility anymore. Either ban content AND protect creators yourselves from the DMCA strikes, or do neither. Doing both shows you're just a bunch of greedy pieces of crap who really don't care about your creators. I know your a company and your main thing is to make money - I'm not going to pretend that's not the case. But at least don't pretend like you guys actually give a crap.

You don't even have clear rules about what is and is not bannable AND you let people DMCA content that's not theirs. You suck at both.

Proposal: All DMCA strike appeals within 30 days, or another concrete time period. Twitch must have an avenue for creators to submit proof of license for copyrighted music, which should also have a mandatory maximum 30 days review period. Note: This should be accompanied by an additional 'bad actor' appeal option.

An example from my experience: I'm sure I'm not the only one in this boat, but I have purchased lifetime stream rights to broadcast a song made by a small creator. I have provided twitch with that information. I have appealed every muted audio...for months. I even received a strike from a song listed on Pretzel Rocks which specifically only hosts royalty-free music, so no one should be listed as a DMCA copyright holder...Anyway, Twitch has not removed the mute or added a block on this particular claim for months.

I did get a response that said the issue had been "escalated internally" but nothing has been done on the user end and I continue to get muted audio at the beginning of my streams. This is fair use under the scope of the DMCA laws and restrictions. The point is to protect artists but if you pay the artist for the music, you should have a way to notify twitch you own a license for that music and not get strikes for it.

DMCA Strikes could be avoided if plagiarism was better explained to streamers.

According to Stephanie Morrow, in her article "Plagiarism: What is it, Exactly?": Plagiarism is a confusing subject, and can often occur without the artist knowing it until it is too late.

If you use another person's work and do not attribute that work to the author, including copying text verbatim, paraphrasing a phrase or summarizing an idea, [or playing a song in the background of your stream], you are essentially committing plagiarism. Plagiarism usually occurs when a writer fails to:

• cite quotes or ideas written by another author;


• enclose the direct text in quotes; or


• put summaries and/or paraphrases in his or her own words.

In the case of streaming, by playing another artist's song in the background, the streamer is making money off of someone else's work. By citing the source in the video subscription and/or telling their audience the name of the song, who sang it, and where they can find it will decrease the likelihood of them receiving a DMCA takedown order. And, if they do get a DMCA strike, they'll have a way to fight it.

Why would someone buy the song(s) when they can watch the streamer play it for free?

It all comes down to money; if the original artist is making money too, they'll be happy.

DMCA is in the long and short run a USA policy that does not cover or attempt to handle a International Audiance. As Twitch needs to change to WIPO (World Intellectual Property Orginization) standards like YouTube, Netflix and other companies. Mind you the WIPO does respect the DMCA but unlike that policy was founded and created with a international audience in mind. Numerous counties, and the US is inculded, do recognize the WIPO as being fully legal and binding for international copyright issues.

A good example of this is Viacom vs YouTube. Viacom used DMCA against YouTube in a lawsuit over showing it's music and content on there streaming service. However this backfired as YouTube due to having international users, was in fact respecting the DMCA as per WIPO guidelines. So the courts ruled in favor of YouTube. This was a court case held in 2007, then challenged with increasing evidence against YouTube in 2010 and 2012. The results always being the same, in YouTubes favor.

As such I believe that it might be time for Twitch to do the same as those other services and recognize that it has a users from more then the USA. Mind you this is just my thoughts but I think it is likely time and a idea on how to improve the whole DMCA policy in a way that will help Twitch grow and support our streamers that are bothred by the approach of it's use at the same time.

We really need to come up with something that allows streamers to play any kind of music they want and watchers to post song requests without having content deleted or the creators having to deal with strikes/bans/etc, because it was half, if not a big chunk, of the fun of twitch. I loved being able to share my favorite music with the streamers I like to watch, but now I can't do that because of this DMCA nonsense. Part of the fun with video games is inserting your own background music, and that should be able to be shared with others without having to worried about deleting videos, getting demonetized, or worse...getting sued or any similar legal action. At the end of the day, I just want Twitch to be a place of free expression & choice, and with the way things are right now, it's just not the case...and that needs to change.