While it might not seem so on its face, this is an extremely complicated question.
In
FSC v. Gonzales (which as I understand it has been administratively closed but is very likely to pick up again at some point), the judge did give some guidance as to what he felt was a reasonable interpretation of the statute and the corresponding regulations with respect to live feeds, but I don't believe that guidance has any value as precedent or case law, because the case was paused/administratively closed before being fully adjudicated.
Bottom line: this is a question for a qualified attorney with relevant expertise. There will likely be disagreement even among attorneys who match that description, because until a case that is on-point is fully adjudicated, all of this is open to interpretation, and interpretations will vary, even among experts.
Or, as attorney JD Obenberger put it on his site
XXXLaw.net:
"Explicit streaming video and live feeds are almost certainly among the kinds of material generically described as "other matter" in the Statute. Therefore, the producer of explicit feeds must in every respect comply with the provisions of Section 2257. Special practical difficulties arise that are distinctive to live feeds with respect to a location for the mandated disclosure statement and for the name or number of the work. The information acquisition and record keeping must go on continuously. Because an approved method of compliance is described neither in the Statute nor in either the existing nor proposed Regulations, the scheme of compliance for those who produce such feeds should be designed in close consultation with a lawyer and a technical expert, and provide for notice all the way through to the destination subscriber."
- Q.