Quick Sign In:  

Forum: General Discussion

Topic: Streaming to Social Media (Facebook Live)

This topic is old and might contain outdated or incorrect information.

Hi friends, I recently streamed a "DJ show" on Facebook Live...everything went well except for the occasional "stream drop" by Facebook and "muting" of some songs Facebook deemed "Copyright DRM Protected"..I was notified my DJ Show had been muted on some songs I played as well as "BLOCKED" on over 200 Countries...anyway, I did have a good show that was streamed live, but was somewhat disappointed some of the music had been "muted"...It was a fun Broadcast and was happy to have entertained LIVE on Social Media.

DJ Jeff Pino, Enid, Oklahoma.
 

Posted Sun 28 Apr 19 @ 6:14 pm
It's to be expected. You don't own the copyright on all those tracks.

Do you have a license for internet broadcasting, so that royalties can be paid to the artists whose tracks you played?

Even if you did, I doubt Facebook would have any way of checking - they're a social network, not an online radio station.
 

Posted Sun 28 Apr 19 @ 6:36 pm
AdionPRO InfinityCTOMember since 2006
It is Facebook who pays the royalties for the tracks for which they have an agreement with the label.
Youtube does the same, but has a bit more deals so less blocked music.
 

Posted Sun 28 Apr 19 @ 6:41 pm
I know YouTube do it (out of necessity, because so many users upload copyright material against the T&Cs). In the past they used to take videos down or mute them, but were fighting a losing battle, so eventually (after much discussion) struck a deal with the license holders.

OTOH Facebook are fairly new to the game, so they're doing what YouTube used to do. It would be so much easier if people didn't ignore the legalities.
 

Posted Sun 28 Apr 19 @ 6:51 pm
I'm not denying that - I'm just saying Facebook are the newbies compared to YouTube.

In most cases now, copyrighted material uploaded to YouTube doesn't get muted or taken down. If it gets flagged, the user may get a warning email but that's all.

In both cases, the sites unfortunately end up having to pay, because of what the users are doing. It really ought to be the users who pay.
 

Posted Sun 28 Apr 19 @ 6:58 pm
AdionPRO InfinityCTOMember since 2006
Not sure if that's unfortunate. I don't think there were ever reasonable ways available for small streamers to get worldwide streaming rights.
Then on too of that you'd have to find your own sponsors / advertisers...

Personally I think it's great that we're getting close to be able to have any dj just focus on the music and still get royalties to the producers. (and the same from the other side, any producer can now much more easily get royalties for his music without being tied to a big label)
 

Posted Sun 28 Apr 19 @ 7:22 pm
I see it in the same way as the recent announcement about new cars that will restrict a drivers speed to the speed limit.

It really should not be necessary to do that. People should abide by the law and drive within the limit.

So many people ignore the limits and break the law, so this is the result. The cars will force them to be within the law.

People shouldn't ignore the copyright laws, but they do. That is unfortunate.
 

Posted Sun 28 Apr 19 @ 8:15 pm


(Old topics and forums are automatically closed)