Bill S.978

[Phoenix_XIII]

This is mainly a US concern but it's still important.

http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/ten_strikes?akid=700.450896.5hVZPC&rd=1&t=1

Read that.

Pretty much, this bill would take away our rights on the internet to upload music, video game footage, and things like that. For more info, here's the video that alerted me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib7-vSrp6y8&feature=feedu

Thank you.

(I am not at all affiliated with the person who made the video, I'm just subscribed to him.)

 

[sluggyfreelancer]

...

I...How could...Why...


...

what is this I dont even

 

[TeeBs]

I accidentally a thread title.

 

[Cpu46]

Voicing opinion now. Poorly written bill is poorly written.

And though I understand the reasons behind it I do not like the fact that it will end my ability to listen to game, movie, and anime soundtracks off of youtube, especially the ones I cant get anywhere else.

 

[NotSoNimble]

'make it a felony to stream copyrighted content'

I agree 100%

If people want to release their products for free, they have the right to. It's not up to you to decide.

EDIT: I imagine that people spoiled by the internet will be crying over this a lot.

 

[Phoenix_XIII]

I accidentally a thread title.

I'm really tired so if my title makes no sense that's why. XD

 

[KarlMonster]

OK, nothing that I read actually says what is going on here, so lets see if I can't guess what the hubbub is? I'm not bothering to do any research here, I'm just guessing:

There are entities out there who own the rights to media, digital or otherwise. Take for example the 'libraries' of copyrighted music owned by Sony, Virgin, Epic, just to name a few. Well, these entities have been trying for a long time to get people to pay for using/playing their music in 'unauthorized ways.' For example, playing music in a public setting is not necessarily allowed, even if you personally own a copy of the music. Some time ago shops and boutiques were being harassed for playing local radio stations 'without proper permission'. Basically it was the flunkies of those content owners that have gone forth to try to wring some kind of fees out of the unsuspecting public for music that they thought was free.

So today you have a LOT of "lets play" videos. Heck, even I have a "S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Call of Pripyat" video somewhere. My video simply uses in-game dynamic music, which is actually pretty good. Many people add their own music. Let's be honest here; by 'their own music', I mean music that they like by a specific band or musical artist, whose permission they did not ask before including said music in the video that they made, and then uploaded.

You should already have figured out where this is going. Every time someone watches a lets play video that incorporates music by Mettalica, they are enjoying Metallica's music - without paying for the pleasure. Its possible this bill, if passed will only be applied to prime culprits, much as other MPAA laws have been used sparingly in the past (by spineless twats).

I'm not clear on the "Hollywood" part of this thing - but lets say that film clips of Martin Sheen (that were annoyingly popular just recently) were used multiple times without permission. [I can't think of any other decent Hollywood examples.] Now I do believe that anyone who was perpetuating any part of that viral Sheen nonsense deserves punishment for conspiring to annoying me further.

I'm still guessing here. It's possible that I'm totally off base, but congress is always being asked to protect stupidly rich business interests. So, you know, go fish. Frag On. May the game be with you. In the name of the Newton, the Maxwell, and the Holy Einstein; go in peace and symmetry.

 

[Bags159]

Sure is cOLD in here. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/111133-New-Bill-Makes-Illegal-Streaming-A-Felony]

An "offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works," the bill states. Additionally, the Motion Picture Association of America states that those who "stream videos without intending to profit" will not be prosecuted under the newly amended law.

and

"(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if--
?(A) the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works; and
?(B)(i) the total retail value of the performances, or the total economic value of such public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner, would exceed $2,500
?(ii) the total fair market value of licenses to offer performances of those works would exceed $5,000;?"

You have to try pretty hard (or be very popular) to violate this law. Anyhow, I can't imagine this passing and if by some small miracle it does pass this will be a headache to enforce en masse. By all means show your opposition if you oppose it, but don't get too upset just yet.

Personally, I'm always torn on piracy debates. Hypothetically speaking, if I were routinely pirating media (not that I pirate anything, mind you) and they took away my ability to do so I would simply live without said media. Because of this my hypothetical piracy is not costing them sales.

On the other hand, I often see people brag about how they pirate every game possible in order to fulfill some unknown agenda. If these attention whores are to be believed then there are lost profits to be claimed, but I am doubtful that taking a firmer stance against piracy will result in much of an increase in profits.

Piracy is theft. Clean and simple. It's smash and grab. It ain't no different than smashing a window at Tiffany's.

Double negatives aside, this is an incorrect comparison. With a smash and grab you have loss and damage of property; repair costs; and the hassle of a cleanup. Internet piracy simply involves the copying of a file. The owner of the file still has the original in mint condition.

Except, copying isn't theft. It's Copyright Infringement. A civil offense.

 

[manaman]

I'm pretty sure that site explicitly misstates this in an attempt to rile up the pleabs.

It's pretty lax on the details to say the least.

 

[The Dark Umbra]

This is insanity!

 

[ecoho]

can never be enforced due to a law that already exists that protects the internet from government over site.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Sure is cOLD in here. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/111133-New-Bill-Makes-Illegal-Streaming-A-Felony]

An "offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works," the bill states. Additionally, the Motion Picture Association of America states that those who "stream videos without intending to profit" will not be prosecuted under the newly amended law.

and

"(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if--
?(A) the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works; and
?(B)(i) the total retail value of the performances, or the total economic value of such public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner, would exceed $2,500
?(ii) the total fair market value of licenses to offer performances of those works would exceed $5,000;?"

You have to try pretty hard (or be very popular) to violate this law. Anyhow, I can't imagine this passing and if by some small miracle it does pass this will be a headache to enforce en masse. By all means show your opposition if you oppose it, but don't get too upset just yet.

Personally, I'm always torn on piracy debates. Hypothetically speaking, if I were routinely pirating media (not that I pirate anything, mind you) and they took away my ability to do so I would simply live without said media. Because of this my hypothetical piracy is not costing them sales.

On the other hand, I often see people brag about how they pirate every game possible in order to fulfill some unknown agenda. If these attention whores are to be believed then there are lost profits to be claimed, but I am doubtful that taking a firmer stance against piracy will result in much of an increase in profits.

Piracy is theft. Clean and simple. It's smash and grab. It ain't no different than smashing a window at Tiffany's.

Double negatives aside, this is an incorrect comparison. With a smash and grab you have loss and damage of property; repair costs; and the hassle of a cleanup. Internet piracy simply involves the copying of a file. The owner of the file still has the original in mint condition.

Except, copying isn't theft. It's Copyright Infringement. A civil offense.

Actually, violating the law is easy; I post a link to a youtube video on Facebook, and ten of my friends click it. I have now caused 10 public performances to occur. Further, the MPAA and RIAA have proven time and time again that "damages" in these cases are astronomical numbers that they pull from places where the sun doesn't shine. Think about all of the lawsuits over downloaded music, and how much they charged people for something that would have cost them much less to buy, and that certainly didn't cut that much into the company's profit streams. As for the MPAA's assertion that they won't prosecute the little guy, that's a promise from the MPAA about how their lawyers will use the law. They have no legal reason to keep it -- and, indeed, it would be against the letter of the law for them to do so. This is a pretty darned ridiculous law.

 

[Drtfgf5]

Go underground

 

[Bags159]

Sure is cOLD in here. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/111133-New-Bill-Makes-Illegal-Streaming-A-Felony]

An "offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works," the bill states. Additionally, the Motion Picture Association of America states that those who "stream videos without intending to profit" will not be prosecuted under the newly amended law.

and

"(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if--
?(A) the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works; and
?(B)(i) the total retail value of the performances, or the total economic value of such public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner, would exceed $2,500
?(ii) the total fair market value of licenses to offer performances of those works would exceed $5,000;?"

You have to try pretty hard (or be very popular) to violate this law. Anyhow, I can't imagine this passing and if by some small miracle it does pass this will be a headache to enforce en masse. By all means show your opposition if you oppose it, but don't get too upset just yet.

Personally, I'm always torn on piracy debates. Hypothetically speaking, if I were routinely pirating media (not that I pirate anything, mind you) and they took away my ability to do so I would simply live without said media. Because of this my hypothetical piracy is not costing them sales.

On the other hand, I often see people brag about how they pirate every game possible in order to fulfill some unknown agenda. If these attention whores are to be believed then there are lost profits to be claimed, but I am doubtful that taking a firmer stance against piracy will result in much of an increase in profits.

Piracy is theft. Clean and simple. It's smash and grab. It ain't no different than smashing a window at Tiffany's.

Double negatives aside, this is an incorrect comparison. With a smash and grab you have loss and damage of property; repair costs; and the hassle of a cleanup. Internet piracy simply involves the copying of a file. The owner of the file still has the original in mint condition.

Except, copying isn't theft. It's Copyright Infringement. A civil offense.

Actually, violating the law is easy; I post a link to a youtube video on Facebook, and ten of my friends click it. I have now caused 10 public performances to occur. Further, the MPAA and RIAA have proven time and time again that "damages" in these cases are astronomical numbers that they pull from places where the sun doesn't shine. Think about all of the lawsuits over downloaded music, and how much they charged people for something that would have cost them much less to buy, and that certainly didn't cut that much into the company's profit streams. As for the MPAA's assertion that they won't prosecute the little guy, that's a promise from the MPAA about how their lawyers will use the law. They have no legal reason to keep it -- and, indeed, it would be against the letter of the law for them to do so. This is a pretty darned ridiculous law.

I don't quite think "public performances" work that way. However, I will concede that the "retail value" of said media will be up for debate in court.

 

[neolithic]

Public Performances might not work that way, but worded the way it is, you can bet your ass the lawyers will try to portray it as such.

 

[Sprinal]

'make it a felony to stream copyrighted content'

I agree.

THe problem lies in it being an offence for someone like the Yogscast posting videos of minecraft on Youtube.

I only bought minecraft because of watching "let's play's" on youtube. So it could hurt game sales.

ALso something like Unskippable would be an offence without express permission from each publisher it would be an offence.

That is the reason people are upset.

Also in my opinion Look at the money the People at the TOP of this foodchain (the owners of the film studio's and record companies). Why do they need any more?

Also it wont work. just download a little freeware and then you can get past it all and download a torrent.

 

[Wintermoot]

this is pretty stupid.
how are they going to prevent people from recording the music from the radio?
also streaming is legal as long as you give credit,s and don,t make money from it.

 

[Wintermoot]

Also in my opinion Look at the money the People at the TOP of this foodchain (the owners of the film studio's and record companies). Why do they need any more?

I think this explains it.
or the bosses are just douche bags not understanding the internet.
PS
I get companies need to make money but there is a point where you go to far.

 

[Versuvius]

Just wait until the US begins demanding extradition of people linking youtube videos in say, the UK or Russia D