Hacker News Reader

Comment by slightwinder | Hacker News Reader

This is old news and it was wrong. This happend at the height of a new wave of DMCA claims, so people simply assumed this had to be the reason. But it turned out later he showed some nudity, for which he got the usual 3 day-ban.

Also, DMCA claims are not automatically leading to bans. It must have a certain level of harm ir repeated behaviour. And live-DMCA-checks are not active yet it seems, so usually the vod or clip will be deleted and the streamer get's a warning.

View on HN

What's wrong with nudity?

It's against the terms of use for Twitch [1]:

"Nudity and sexually explicit content or activities, such as pornography, sexual acts or intercourse, and sexual services, are prohibited."

[1] https://www.twitch.tv/p/legal/community-guidelines/

I thought body painting and other "artistic" displays of nudity where allowed. Am I wrong?

Rules for body art are more relaxed, but full nudity is still not allowed.

https://www.twitch.tv/p/legal/community-guidelines/sexualcon...

This isn't a good answer in the world of big tech and weak anti-trust.

> But it turned out later he showed some nudity.

Wait, the guy from dragonforce exposed his penis live on stream?

I'm struggling to find any direct clips, but many are suggesting it was due to a fan showing their ass while he was streaming with Sabaton.

Also, even if he composed the music, that's no guarantee that he owns the copyright.

If the copyright be transferred to the label, then his legal rights to stream it are potentially no more than that of any other person.

That’s part of the problem!

Perhaps, but it would not be Twitch's fault.

There are many arguments that can be made for the idea that copyright should not be transferable, much like reputation rights, but Twitch is certainly no party to blame for that it is.

If he was playing his own composition live, it's not the recording that the label owns. This is why revenue from live shows doesn't go to labels. This is also why Taylor Swift is re-recordings her old songs, for another example.

The label would not own the performance, no, but he would still not be allowed to give a performance of any material he does not own without the permission of the rightsholder.

There are some “reasonable fair use” exceptions such as simply singing a certain tune, but the point is that the fact that he wrote the original composition is irrelevant; it only matters that he owns the copyright.

If the copyright indeed were transferred to the label, then he enjoys no more rights to perform it than anyone else.

Yes, to clarify, I meant if he owns the composition. It's possible a publisher owns or co-owns it, even if he wrote it (but unlikely that a label would).

Surely it would be expected of a band of Dragonforce's size that the label would own the rights and not the members?

Labels typically own the rights to the recordings, not the compositions. If the band wrote their own composition, they either retain the rights to them or they may have sold them (partially or in full) to another party, typically a publisher.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com