[BlobberSnobber]

Yeah, I wonder what this even does besides taking a bigger cut from the DJs streaming revenue.

I also love how the problem they say they want to solve has the most meaningless description ever and is not actionable at all.

[lysp]

The other thing is DJs already have to pay their local record industry organisation licences to be able to perform music publicly.

This seems like double-dipping.

[diggan]

AFAIK (at least here in Spain), it's the venue that is responsible for paying this license fee, not the DJ themselves. Unless you organize your own events/play at your own venue, obviously.

Probably works differently everywhere though...

[GuB-42]

Same thing in France (SACEM). The venue pays the fees, and it is dependent on the scale of the event, the entrance fees, etc... The DJ doesn't have to pay anything, he just plays the music the venue has paid for the right to play.

And it is essentially the same thing with Twitch here, as Twitch pays the necessary fees that allow the DJ to perform on their platform.

It may be different in some other countries indeed. I think in Germany, home of the infamous GEMA, DJs have to pay a fee in certain conditions, in addition to what the venue pays.

[Forbo]

I'm not super clear on the situation, but I have a brother that DJs at a local venue. Their biggest complaint was that even though they had obtained their broadcast license they couldn't livestream their sets on Twitch. Not sure if this offering now resolves that issue, or how other platforms are handling those situations. Seems like it would make more sense for the platforms to require proof of the performers licensing rather than handling the licensing themselves.