SpectateFaker - what we learned and what we’ll do

Riot·Feb 27, 2015·0 votes·86,364 views

Over the last week, we’ve been wrestling with some complex and layered issues around how players create and share gameplay content online, as brought up by the SpectateFaker streaming case. It’s come with a lot of learnings, some unclear communication on our part and a lot of debate, both within Riot and externally, on the best way to balance access to gameplay footage that players want to see with protection for individual players who do not consent to having a third party stream all of their games.

Here’s the TL;DR: We believe the in-game spectator experience for ranked games is a critical part of the LoL gameplay experience, and we have no interest in seeing it crippled. Where things become problematic is when a spectator mode for a player (pro or otherwise) is consistently streamed against their wish, and in a way that is harmful. Having looked into the SpectateFaker case we’ve established two major things. 1) That the DMCA issued by Azubu did not have a legal standing as we, not Azubu, own the gameplay content, and 2) that Faker believes (and we agree) that this stream is harmful to him and to his brand. We’ll be honoring Faker’s request and pursuing a takedown of the stream.

Personally, it’s pretty clear that I should have handled communications around this better. My intent was to jump to the defense of a player (Faker) who was being singled out and streamed against his will. I’m very sensitive to the topic of bullying. It’s a sobering lesson to me that in discussing concerns about it, I may have came across as the bully myself.

This individual case has brought up a lot of issues that go beyond Faker - or even beyond pro players. It has the power to affect all of us who create and spectate LoL gameplay through the client. We feel the weight of that responsibility, which is why we took some time to really debate this and doublecheck our assumptions before coming back with a thought out response.

I wanted to take some time to talk a little about our core philosophies around how we’ve approached this issue, what we got wrong in our first steps and what approach we’ll be taking moving forward.

What happened?

With such a complex set of variables and players, there's no easy way to summarize the issues - but below is a topline account of what happened.

Early last week, streaming platform Azubu sent a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notice to a stream named SpectateFaker. This stream auto checked for solo queue games of SK Telecom T1 player Lee “Faker” Sang-hyeok, and streamed them on Twitch using LoL’s spectator mode.

Along with several other Korean esports pros, including SK Telecom teammates, Faker signed a contract in September 2014 to stream exclusively on the Azubu platform - and Azubu felt that the independent stream of Faker’s games over on Twitch challenged that exclusivity. As the SpectateFaker streamer StarLordLucian pointed out, however, according to the LoL terms of use, players sign away rights of ownership to the gameplay content they create within the game. Legally, Azubu doesn’t own the streaming content that Faker was producing. As many have pointed out - and as we’ve given feedback to Azubu directly - their DMCA action wasn’t based on a valid legal claim of ownership.

Earlier in the week, SKT and KeSPA had reached out to Riot to express the fact that Faker did not wish his content to be streamed in this way and hoped we would take action to have it shut down. SKT themselves issued a statement via their Facebook page confirming that Faker was uncomfortable about his name and gameplay being streamed without his consent, and that they believed it had a negative impact to the value and stability of his streaming offering .

What's our approach?

Let’s dig a little further into our core philosophies and how we plan to tackle this complicated issue moving forward:

With any issue like this, our guiding philosophy is to protect the interests of players; in this case, things aren’t so simple. There are two distinct player interests that are in conflict: the interests of the individual player (in this case Faker) with the interests of the thousands of players who enjoyed watching the Twitch streams of him playing via SpectateFaker. When we looked at this case, we had to weigh these two interests and make a balanced decision as to what we thought offered the most harm - or the most benefit - to the groups involved.

What StarLordLucian did with the SpectateFaker stream provided a service for thousands of players who were able to watch Faker solo queue games on the platform they prefer and using the tools they’re accustomed to. It was an innovative use of our API which identified a unique edge case, and we believe that the stream was born out of positive intentions to provide esports content to fans worldwide. I regret insinuations otherwise that I made on Reddit in the heat of the moment.

My alarm was driven by the fact that Faker and SKT view this as harmful to his career and brand, and asked for our help in helping to shut down the stream. Having looked into this issue we understand why it would be viewed as harmful. Streaming contracts like this are an important cornerstone in creating a stable financial esports ecosystem in Korea. Systematically streaming spectator mode of each of Faker’s games (rather than a few sporadically) on a rival platform understandably lessens the value of his partnership with Azubu and even more importantly, the potential of pros to gain equally lucrative streaming partnerships in the future. In a very real and material sense, the SpectateFaker stream causes Faker harm in his own judgment - and we believe he should have the right to see it discontinued.

This is a precedent that doesn’t just apply to pro players - or to monetary or brand loss. Imagine a scenario in which a bronze player was targeted by an unwanted stream that meant all of his ranked games were broadcast to a crowd who made fun of him and his gameplay - all against his will. ‘Harm’ could come in several forms - emotional, material, or otherwise. We think that having your gameplay systematically streamed in a way that has the potential to harm or distress you isn’t just something you should put up with as a consequence of playing ranked games. Or imagine a stream targeting a female player, where a narrator or automated system harasses her and comments on every move she makes in every game she plays online. Riot has always taken our responsibility towards nurturing a sportsmanlike and positive community very seriously and we view this precedent-setting situation through a similar lens.

There are examples of this kind of spectator mode streaming that don’t carry the same bite. To give just one, SaltyTeemo is a stream that often targets low elo players and streams their gameplay from spectator mode, but the intent here feels completely different. The stream removes usernames and doesn’t specifically target individual players over and over. This isn’t a calculated harassment of one specific player, it’s a compilation of gameplay that’s entertaining and non-malicious towards individuals.

We will intervene and shut down streams where we perceive that it’s causing harm to individual players. This will usually result from the individual player requesting the takedown (although it isn’t always dependent on it), so we’ll also make it easy for streamers to contact us with those kind of requests and look into them on a case by case basis. Although the SpectateFaker case was the genesis - and will be the first case where this policy will apply - it isn’t specifically targeted to him, any pros or even pro players exclusively. If you believe you are being targeted for harassment by someone streaming your spectator games, please file a ticket with Riot player support.

This doesn’t mean that there won’t be a technical/API fix in the future that helps us tackle these kind of problems at the root. Spectator mode is an evolving tool that should not only enable players to watch gameplay live, but also be sensitive to the concerns of players who feel targeted or harmed by others who systematically stream each of their games without their consent. The in-game spectator experience for ranked games is an important part of the LoL experience for those that enjoy watching and learning from other players - pro or otherwise. It’s the act of streaming that gameplay that becomes problematic when the player actively objects - and at the moment we’ll intervene to protect them. Any technical tweaks to our API have a longer timeframe than this response allows for, but we’re committed to assessing what we can do to improve choices for players and streamers.

With regards to the SpectateFaker stream case, we believe strongly that the potential material harm caused to the player is real - as such, we’ll be honoring Faker’s request and pursuing a takedown of the stream.

What did we learn from communications around this issue?

Sorting through complicated and grey legal issues has become par for the course for Riot as we refine our processes in response to player need. Unfortunately, we sometimes show our inexperience when tackling a new area and there’s a lot to learn from this situation.

When I jumped into the debate on Twitter and Reddit, my first concern was to clarify our position around protecting the player experience. My gut instinct was in full force, and I was quick to jump to what I considered to be the defense and protection of a player who was being mistreated. Unfortunately, in my efforts to explain my concern with the situation, I made several mistakes which hurt our efforts to clarify things.

Although I disagreed with StarLordLucian’s actions, they were born out of good intent. By making things personal and adversarial, and accusing him of ‘estalking’ Faker, my comments didn’t appropriately reflect his original intentions, which was to showcase Faker on Twitch.
I moved too quickly to comment in a situation where I didn’t have the full context. I made an error by originally assuming that StarLordLucian was rebroadcasting direct streams; in fact he was streaming spectated games in an automated fashion. Basic factual mistakes like this blurred the message I was hoping to get across - that our primary goal was to protect players who felt they were being harmed by being systematically streamed against their will.
Players were calling for an overall comment on the issue and the legal precedent it created (like this one), rather than a laser focus on the isolated StreamFaker case. By focusing solely on this case, I obscured some of the bigger issues at stake that we are hopefully now clarifying.

Untangling the threads around this kind of issue has been a learning experience for all of us - and it’s one that’s still ongoing within Riot and externally. We know that our decisions will spark a ton of debate. We think that in these instances when something has the power to set precedents in a new and emerging space, debate is not only healthy but necessary.

I look forward to hearing your feedback and want to thank everyone who participated in the discussion. To be honest, a lot of the comments still sting - but we’ll learn from this experience and improve going forward.

- Marc Merrill

Correction: We mistakenly referred to a direct stream as a ‘rebroadcast’ within this original post - error in writing has now been fixed.

467 Comments

ˉ10Feb 27, 2015181 votes

Spectate players playing with faker is coming......mark my words rito

Dies To GankFeb 27, 2015108 votes

Better Idea just create a stream turn names off, and call it "SpectateYouKnowWho" and we all just know who it is :D

also this post needs more #bigsorry

WhiteSammyFeb 27, 201511 votes

HeWhoMustNotBeNamed

Im CynicFeb 27, 201527 votes

We're gonna spectate voldemort?

trivialattireFeb 28, 201521 votes

"HE WHOM SHALL NOT BE NAMED"

Deep Terror NamiFeb 27, 2015219 votes

Shh, don't mention "He Who Must Not Be Streamed"

KonidiasFeb 28, 201514 votes

Oh god... my sides... they hurt

bad pennyFeb 27, 201510 votes

Voldemort?

Rubber JesusFeb 28, 201528 votes

"There are examples of this kind of spectator mode streaming that don’t carry the same bite. To give just one, SaltyTeemo is a stream that often targets low elo players and streams their gameplay from spectator mode, but the intent here feels completely different. The stream removes usernames and doesn’t specifically target individual players over and over. This isn’t a calculated harassment of one specific player, it’s a compilation of gameplay that’s entertaining and non-malicious towards individuals."

So, in order for this to work it looks like there has to be two criteria: remove usernames & target different players. Does this mean, with a compilation of choice players around the world, you could just remove their names and play their streams randomly, including Fakers? SpectateProLeague for instance. And take the most renown players, with usernames removed, and randomly spectate them 24/7 (which might actually be better time-wise considering one person would be on at all times, and you could keep the stream up night and day without waiting on a player to get online, which could be odd hours in Korea). I mean, if you can target the broad category of bronze elo players, then you can target the broad cateegory of Pro elo players as well, right?

TwilcarioFeb 28, 201515 votes

That, honestly, sounds very interesting. Imagine a stream called "SpectateLCS" that specifically spectates any LCS players that may be solo queueing while also removing the names. It would be up nearly 24 hours, as you said, due to the Korean league.

gg git diffFeb 27, 201533 votes

"SpectateFakersVictims"

tanjo3Feb 27, 201527 votes

SpectateRandomPlayerOhLookItJustSoHappensToBeFakerEveryTime

DfenestratorFeb 28, 201588 votes

I'm not very familiar with SpectateFaker, or the situation surrounding it, but I'm pretty concerned about how you're handling it.

I disagree with your argument that Faker is materially harmed or harassed by the existence of SpectateFaker to the extent that RIOT should take it down.

From what I understand from your article, SpectateFaker was a Twitch channel that automatically broadcasted games that Faker played in League of Legends. It accomplished this through League of Legend's spectator data. You also state that Faker, according to RIOT's ToS, has no right or claim on the gameplay content from that data.

If Faker has no right to the gameplay content, he is incapable of suffering material harm if someone else takes or copies that gameplay content. Additionally, Azubu cannot contract with Faker for the exclusivity of that gameplay content. (Azubu can, however, contract for the exclusivity of what Faker does and says on his stream. That material belongs to Faker, and he can do with it as he pleases.)

While Faker cannot suffer material harm if someone takes or copies the gameplay content, he can be harmed if his stream loses value (e.g. by losing ratings, views, etc.). In this case, it appears that you are upset because SpectateFaker caused Faker material harm by causing his stream to lose value; and it lost value because some viewers preferred to watch the raw gameplay content over his stream.

I understand why this would upset you. A high profile gamer (and his sponsor) lost money and value. High profile gamers and sponsors are large pillars for your company, and are essential to obtain RIOT's goals.

On a fundamental level, however, I do not feel that it is RIOT's job to step in and resolve this conflict. It's Faker's job (not RIOT's) to provide value in his stream. If players are preferring to watch the raw gameplay content rather than his stream, it is because it does not adequately fulfill the needs of those players. I think Faker's contracts and agreements (with Azubu or whoever else) should reflect this. I also think that the onus should be on Faker to maintain the value of his stream; he shouldn't rely on RIOT to grant a pseudo-monopoly/license.

Additionally, by shutting down player's access to certain gameplay content, you are indirectly subsidizing and sponsoring particular players and companies. This, on it's own, I don't particularly have an issue with, but I do take issue with the fact that it appears that you will only apply this to a certain echelon of players. This appears unfair and arbitrary to a lot of your playerbase. It also creates a large grey area for people who want to use that content for commentary and entertainment purposes.

All that said, I agree with you that harassment is a legitimate concern. If someone uses data under the API to shame, harass, or embarrass specific players, I'm fine with that content being removed. However, I feel that harassment is more than merely watching a stream, raw gameplay content, or even simple commentary.

If I'm misunderstanding the situation or this article, please let me know, but what I'm seeing here is not encouraging or exciting as a League of Legends player.

PelladionFeb 28, 201518 votes

slow claps

sinZsoulFeb 28, 20154 votes

My comment pertains to the " but I do take issue with the fact that it appears that you will only apply this to a certain echelon of players" part of your post. Although I see the logic of almost everything in your post, I must disagree with that statement. Riot has already established a fair judging rule on which cases will require action. In the post, they mention that they will only take action if a single person is being targeted. They even gave example saying they would take action if a bronze elo player was being singled out. "This is a precedent that doesn’t just apply to pro players - or to monetary or brand loss" You can control-f that to read the actual part in the post.

Also, even if they didn't say that, Riot usually takes the path that has the player's best interest. It is in fact a great part of their commercial success because they are interested in benefiting the player. Why would they risk that by doing as you said - making this exclusive to pro players. I would definitely give them the benefit of the doubt.

This is another thought that comes to mind, but remember when Riot brought out the new harsher punishment for leaving games system? How, we all thought it would screw up playing because our connections were unstable sometimes? It actually hasn't. They found a way to make it work so that it is an improvement over the previous system.

Sorry for ranting so long, but next time please read and understand the full post. Also, I do believe that you're correct and it is not Riot's job to step in and shut down a stream. I don't think this is a bad policy to take though overall.

DfenestratorMar 1, 201510 votes

I read and understood the article, but I feel that you misunderstood my post.

RIOT's policy, as described in this article, is multifaceted and geared towards addressing different types of harm that its players experience. Some of the policy I agree with, some of it I do not. For example, if someone uses RIOT's information under the API to engage in cyberbullying (resulting in emotional harm), I'm fine with RIOT taking action. However, I feel that RIOT should not take action if the use of that information simply resulted in **material harm. **

The quote you pulled from my post is talking about that material harm. Material harm, by its very nature, can only be experienced by a certain echelon of players. You don't necessarily need to be a pro player, either; all you need to do is make money or have something of value.

While RIOT often acts in the interests of its players, it has made many mistakes. I feel that addressing material harm under this policy will be one of them.

MacSquizzyMar 1, 20152 votes

The trouble here is that RIOT owns the gameplay content that is being monetized. So, the decision on whether to protect Faker's, or anyone else's, ability to continue monetizing that content ultimately lies with RIOT. Basically, no matter the reason for shutting down a stream, at the end of the day, RIOT (and I suppose the streaming service itself) are the only ones with the legal authority to actually shut down the stream. So, if RIOT were to say that they will not attempt to shut down streams that cause a player monetary or material harm, then they would effectively be saying that there is no protection at all for the monetization of League of Legends content. This is a problem because it means that exclusivity contracts like Faker's have no actual value. Even your ability to generate ad revenue off of a personal Twitch stream would be compromised because someone else could just stream you in spectator mode and there would be no precedent that said this is not allowed.

TL;DR If RIOT doesn't cover material/monetary harm under this policy, then there cannot legally be coverage for those kinds of harm.

I suppose I should also include the caveat that I am no expert, just judging based on past experience and the explanations given.

DfenestratorMar 1, 20156 votes

{quoted}

. . . . So, if RIOT were to say that they will not attempt to shut down streams that cause a player monetary or material harm, then they would effectively be saying that there is no protection at all for the monetization of League of Legends content. This is a problem because it means that exclusivity contracts like Faker's have no actual value.

. . . .

TL;DR If RIOT doesn't cover material/monetary harm under this policy, then there cannot legally be coverage for those kinds of harm.

I suppose I should also include the caveat that I am no expert, just judging based on past experience and the explanations given.

This is only partially true.

Faker has no right to the raw gameplay content under the ToS. Oversimplifying things, this means that he generally cannot take that raw gameplay content and make money off of it without RIOT's consent. This also means that he generally cannot be materially harmed if someone takes that gameplay content. However, if he takes that gameplay content and adds his own material to it, it may become "transformative," and he can claim/sell it as your own under Fair Use.

You can make the argument that Faker's stream is "transformative." If Faker's stream is "transformative," it has an inherent value of its own, and Faker can sell or license it as he pleases. This means that Faker has his own legal remedies if someone breaks the protections surrounding his stream and materially harms him. This also means that Faker's exclusivity contract for that stream has value, regardless of whether RIOT chooses to display or use the gameplay content elsewhere or whether someone else makes a different "transformative" work based on the same gameplay content.

The issue in this particular situation is that a number of players have deemed the value of Faker's stream to be lower than the value of the original gameplay content. Azubu doesn't like this, so RIOT decided to step in and artificially boost the value of Faker's stream by limiting the way in which the gameplay content is used. I don't agree with this because I think Faker should be responsible for maintaining the value of his stream; he shouldn't rely on RIOT to subsidize his stream because he cannot make his stream appealing enough to others.

Of course, when all is said and done, it's RIOT's decision to do what they want with the company and gameplay content. I just feel that this is not the most appropriate solution to this particular problem, and may also result in additional problems (community, legal, etc.) down the road.

ShimmersFeb 27, 201571 votes

Can I opt out of being spectated and streamed? Is it just top players that allowed to do something about being streamed when not wanted?

Adrian UmbraFeb 27, 201519 votes

It looks like Riot has a "backdoor" fix in place right now that you can ask for and it's highly likely that an option to disable spectating of your games will be added in the near future.

Or at least, that's the idea I'm getting from this post.

ShimmersFeb 27, 20158 votes

I do understand your concern. Unfortunately, we do not have an option for this since those websites that release streams are 3rd party websites that we are not affiliated with.

That was the response I got from Riot when asked if I could opt out of being spectated or streamed.

BônesFeb 27, 20158 votes

From what I got out of this article, if you see a specific stream that targets you, then you can ask Riot to take it down. Or if there's a stream that like SaltyTeemo's but actually does try to humiliate low elo players. Was there actually a stream that spectated your games or did you just post this to try to make Riot look bad?

ShimmersFeb 27, 201511 votes

I posted it to see what the stance was on it in general, not just pro players. If the option is there for select professionals, then it should be there for everyone. I'm looking forward to the streams that will pop up of spectating players that play with Faker. Not because I want Riot to look bad, or watch them fall. I enjoy Riot's product A LOT. I just want them to give everyone the option and not just a select few.

KevGatzFeb 27, 20155 votes

You miss the part where it mentions "streams targeting specific players"?

Unless they are spectating you and only you then I imagine they wont do anything about it if you are in a game that happens to be streamed.

SkytopFeb 28, 201553 votes

This needs an apology to StarLordLucian for how you acted.

Spiral ContinuumFeb 28, 201523 votes

As much as I appreciate Merrill's extended examination and explanation here, I do agree that he should have issued an explicit apology to StarLordLucian, along with his justification of his position. Instead it reads like a partial mea culpa without actually fully admitting his fault.

It's ok that he reexamined and found that he still mostly supported his original position, but given that he is admitting those mistakes, just a simple "I would like to publicly apologize to StarLordLucian about my reaction towards him personally" or something similarly direct would have gone a long way. I do feel like he was trying to apologize, just that he didn't do it quite explicitly enough to be completely clear for everyone. Yes he admitted he made mistakes, but those mistakes had a both public and personal target and so that target deserved a public and personal apology.

TheSouceMar 1, 201512 votes

Considering how over-reacted, and abusive Trynd, and Riot approached this case. I believe a very public apology is in-order, and not this skirting, half-ass apology. It was more than being misinformed, you were just completely out of line with how you treated the specific person.

When you verbally insult another person, and his intentions, regardless of how informed you were, you need apologize explicitly. Some read between the lines apology does not cut it when you not only got the context COMPLETELY wrong, the intention COMPLETELY wrong, and not only wrongly represented StarLordLucian, but also publicly made derogatory comments towards his character. Just because your in riot, does not excuse your behavior.

DrMarshSwampFeb 28, 201547 votes

You didn't just come off as a bully - you were literally using your position in Riot to make insulting accusations and to force someone to do what you tell them to without having the correct amount of information for the situation.

You literally insinuated that watching replays using your own system is tantamount to E-Stalking.

And even now the situation hasn't changed as you basically said that you'll force people to stop what their doing if its not to your liking.

llIusionistFeb 28, 201523 votes

He insinuated that broadcasting a stream that specifically streams every single game a player plays is E-Stalking, which it is honestly.

HeavyDesperadoFeb 28, 201531 votes

Don't be an idiot, it is not. Merrill just used a buzzword to rally as many simpletons as possible for his personal agenda. SpectateFaker used PUBLICLY available data (replays provided by Riot itself) and streamed them.

Spiral ContinuumFeb 28, 201522 votes

Information about you walking down the street, taking the city bus to a red-light district, or going to visit your boyfriend in a park is publicly available information too. If a bunch of people followed you around all day, taking turns keeping tabs of what you were doing(at your job in particular) and discussing all of it, whether derogatory or not, that would be called stalking.

Just because information is publicly available doesn't mean collecting a bunch of it on a specific person isn't stalking in the general linguistic(not the technical/legal) sense.

A lot of people would define that as stalking. Maybe you wouldn't, and there's a lot of general debate as to whether and how much privacy "celebrities" ought to expect, but this sort of situation is definitely more complex than you seem to want it to be.

Don't get me wrong, I do think there are issues with the way this was handled(as I've written too much about already) but I definitely think this is a complicated issue that has several different positions that are both legitimate, and in conflict with each other. I feel like you're much more guilty of oversimplification than Merrill is here though, despite my partial agreement with your overall thesis.

OrisiFeb 28, 201525 votes

If you sign an agreement that a TV crew can follow you around all day and that you have zero control over what footage they use, and at the same time broadcast some of that footage yourself with a colour commentary, you are actively choosing to place yourself in that position. They're not following Faker in real life, or his out-of-game activities. They're watching him do his job, and only his job; play League. And they're watching him through a system he agrees to be part of with every patch update.

CrocabillyFeb 28, 201535 votes

My apologizes for not reading every ones post where this may already be covered. According to the what you (Riot/Tryn) have described. If I am in a game against Faker or any other streaming player and I do not want my name or play being on stream, whatever my reason may be (being mocked or harassed for getting outplayed for example), then that streaming player would have to stop their stream for the duration of said game. Now imagine if everyone not a pro player, playing in those ranks were to take that stance. At what point are you protecting the players or protecting the "pro" players/ financially compensated players. Don't get me wrong I think we can all appreciate and accept the jumping to conclusions apology, and I am in no way trying to support one side. I just want to point out that whether it's Faker, Oddone, Krepo, Cutie, or even Trick2G, there are always 9 other players in that game who may or may not be making money on the game they are playing. By the information you've placed here and are putting into effect each and every one of them have a valid reason for shutting down any stream that includes them. As much as some may not admit it, this can be a community of trolls and you seemed to have opened a giant can of worms for what at least on the surface seems to be to protect a financial partnership and not the actual best interest of the overall game and its entire player community and its fans. I truly hope this doesn't go as sideways as it has the potential too. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Very Respectfully,

CynthaerFeb 28, 20159 votes

According to the what you (Riot/Tryn) have described. If I am in a game against Faker or any other streaming player and I do not want my name or play being on stream, whatever my reason may be (being mocked or harassed for getting outplayed for example), then that streaming player would have to stop their stream for the duration of said game.

That's not really what they said. Based on what this post says, you'd only be able to stop a stream that was dedicated to streaming your games, or at least which was harmfully targeting some class of players that included you.

This is good, because it means that Riot is able to exercise basic human reasoning when determining whether a stream is a problem. So if you're a streaming player and you find yourself matched against Faker, you will not be compelled to stop streaming just because Faker happens to be in your game -- it's clear that you're not engaged in the behavior that is harming Faker right now. Conversely, a stream dedicated to Faker's games will not be able to survive just by calling it something like "SpectateDefinitelyNotFakerWinkWink" or "SpectateRandomTopTierPlayers" -- if it's clearly dedicated to streaming Faker and everybody knows it, Riot will exercise its authority on the matter.

TulaDiveFeb 28, 20159 votes

Maybe I am just jaded, but I never like a system that relies on individuals to make judgement calls. I'd rather see them add something in the eula that says, you don't have the right to use our content if you are not in the game or have the the expressed consent of someone in the game. Obviously it would need to be in more legalese, and it would catch streams like saltyteemo as well, but when the world is grey things are better when the rules are black and white as everyone knows what is expected, and how things will be handled. Also from a pure PR standpoint it is way better to say these are the rules, and stream x is to be shut down, but stream y complies within the rules, rather than after our internal discussion we have decided to shut down stream x, but stream y is fine. These are our findings and you'll just have to trust our reasoning. Again I may be jaded, but I feel this would be a much more satisfactory solution that doesn't in my view have a way to snowball out of control.

YaknoseFeb 27, 201534 votes

I appreciate getting a very thoughtful wrap up for the first round of this after all the heightened emotions and some confusion. I think this is really well done, and I agree that Faker does have a financial interest threatened by having a stream using his name that detracts from his exclusivity with Azubu.

This still leaves the big question of what permanent changes are coming because of all this, but I do feel hopeful given how reasonable and thoughtful this post was in explaining things and the apology for the mistakes in the Twitter posts. I don't envy the people having to try to figure out the permanent plan to deal with this.

Adolf GhostlerFeb 27, 201528 votes

This seems like a load of crap.

GUARDXDOGFeb 28, 201516 votes

Great, shut down competitive and legal streaming and allow monopolies to exist.

12 Kills A WaveMar 1, 201516 votes

Seriously Riot? This is a bad idea and you have to realize it. He doesn't own the gameplay footage, anyone should be free to stream it if they so desire. That's like telling me I can't host Superbowl Parties because it financially hurts a player. We get that you're all about LC$BIGPLAYS now instead of the rest of the community, but come on. This only hurts your image in your fanbase's eyes. Also, you're essentially creating a monopoly. If you continue on this course of action, that's illegal in the country you're based out of.

TrollFan01Feb 27, 201515 votes

I can't believe all these came from a simple stream.

DalaninFeb 27, 201515 votes

K, can we shut down kaycetron now?, Veeeeery misleading acording to her gameplay and her toxicity

ThaddeusMikeFeb 27, 201515 votes

I've usually thought you handled yourself well in public comments, be it on Reddit or the forums. I'm glad to see you admit to your mistakes when you do make them. I hope you reach out to StarLordLucian and offer him something neat. As you note, he was doing something that provided some good to the community, even if it wasn't healthy for the development of competitive LoL.

Mild BoyFeb 28, 201515 votes

This absolutely blows my mind "This is a precedent that doesn’t just apply to pro players - or to monetary or brand loss. Imagine a scenario in which a bronze player was targeted by an unwanted stream that meant all of his ranked games were broadcast to a crowd who made fun of him and his gameplay - all against his will." This literally happened, there is or used the be a stream which name has slipped my mind, that streamed random games of low bronze-rated players so people viewing can laugh and make fun of them. I cannot fathom how you can make this comment when you let stuff like this go on and only address it when it is about a pro player and his 'brand'.

Arcus VelesFeb 28, 201518 votes

SaltyTeemo is already mentioned in the post. I think their stance on that particular example makes sense. The players featured are entirely anonymous, and there is no harassment or singling out involved.

Hellish ProphecyFeb 28, 201514 votes

Riot, I have a question. Some people record streams done on Twitch and post it on Youtube. Some specifically go for toxic players so you guys can see what they do and allow us to see how toxic people really are. So my question is, if he records a specific toxic streamer, is there action taken against him, must the toxic streamer request you stop him, or do you take action against the toxic streamer?

PrinplupFeb 28, 201513 votes

So for instance I was on a youtube video with brofresco and it showed him beating the ever loving shit out of me. If I wanted to take the video down because obviously I have strict rights to my own game play and it is my brand that got me like 2 subscribers on youtube I could file a report and get the video taken down? What tryn is saying sounds like the biggest mistake riot has made in PR in forever. I see people showing up in youtube videos of popular people, saying post facto that they don't want to be put online, and causing many youtubers, twitch streamers and etc to lose a major chunk of their revenue. it sounds like riot has just tipped the nice resting point by taking down a stream And will create a cascade of hell that will ruin a lot of peoples time and effort, and turn the happy part of the community into victims of trolls who DMCA every video they appear in.

vikenFeb 27, 201512 votes

SpectateFaker had good intentions, but it was a problem from the very start. First off, Faker knew he was a role model for many players, and when you're as good and famous as he is, that's understandable. But having thousands of pairs of eyes watching you in EVERY solo queue game is ridiculous, regardless it's his choice who watches his games and who doesn't, and he has the right to control that. Meanwhile, while Azubu technically doesn't own the gameplay, Faker signed a contract with them to stream EXCLUSIVELY on Azubu, and having someone off to the side creating more content than this "exclusive" site pretty much nullifies that contract. I think Riot did the right thing here. While the term "e-stalking" is way too much to describe this situation, with someone so closely tied to LoL, it definitely is invading his privacy and if Riot messes this one up, a few months later "SpectateSneaky"'s gonna come up and Riot is gonna take a whole TON if the don't do precisely what they did right now.

Sould OutMar 1, 201511 votes

I agree with a lot of people commenting here... blinks But I also noticed one note here isn't being addressed: Why does Azubu get to make a contract like they own all of Faker's games, and therefore him being streamed on Twitch isn't okay? The contract should simply be FAKER PERSONALLY will only stream on Azubu. I think it's messed up that they get to keep control over who is streaming him. I realize it can hurt the pro players ways of making money, since Faker gets funds from Azubu for only streaming through them, and not Twitch, but I don't think it's fair to remove Twitch streams. I see WHY Riot did what they did... however, I feel like it's giving Azubu a "monopoly" in a sense.

Oddly enough, my brother (Challenger Tier) and I used to watch Voyboy a lot. However, when he made a contract with Azubu and moved over there, we quit watching, because we really don't like Azubu. I think a lot of fans quit watching, also. Azubu is "buying" players in a sense, and that's all fine and dandy, but what about the fans? I specially stop watching my favorite streamers because of behavior from Azubu like this. I feel like they're buying a monopoly, and in this situation they completely won out. I get it's their business, and all, but their contract should be that specifically the pro player is only allowed to stream via Azubu. THAT is the agreement, and THAT is how they get paid. Whether or not fans stream to watch via Twitch should be allowed, IMO. We should not have to be forced to use Azubu and allow them to basically "copyright" all Faker streamed content. Neither party owns ANY of his gameplay, even Faker himself.

If the streamer on Twitch was making a profit, or stalking/bad-mouthing/bullying Faker, it would be an entirely different story. The examples used, such as the female gamer or bronze player, were about bullying. Faker wasn't being bullied. He was simply saying he didn't like it, and I'm sure it was because Azubu was getting angry about him being streamed on Twitch. This wasn't bullying or harassment at all. It was simply people wanting to watch Faker via Twitch, instead of Azubu. Why should Azubu be allowed to control that? Monopolies are not a good thing.

AeolynxFeb 28, 20158 votes

Do you understand that if anybody else (that isnt Faker) from the Korean scene was spectate-streamed. This issue would've never came up?