New Bill Makes Illegal Streaming A Felony

[Aprilgold]

Really, just really? Did everyone put on their stupid hats this year that run buisness's and coporazations? How they plan to enforce this is beyond me, but copyright is fine where it sits, messing with it will only backlash in some way. But isn't streaming just WATCHING something over the internet, so everyone watching it will be hurt if that one site puts up a movie that is not supposed to be free? Damnit, I'm waiting for the day that everyone that thinks that the internet is the devil to die off from old age, so I can enjoy a free internet days.

 

[Pat8u]

Does this include listening to songs on YouTube? Because if so I think that makes pretty much everyone who uses it a criminal.

it really matters on the lisence on the music or the artist themselves posted the vid like for example miricle of sound used to put his stuff up on youtube before he became an escapist contributer and now its not legal to post his vids on youtube (Which I totally understand)

OT: When was it not...

 

[DefinitelyPsychotic]

As if this new law is actually going to stop anybody from doing so? As far as I know, there are still murderers and thieves walking around.

 

[Kenko]

How the hell do they even plan to enforce this?

Anyway, if companies made their shit viewable in other territories, and didn't have stupid rules like taking it down after a set amount of time, then they'd be helping themselves.

People stream shit because they aren't given the opportunity to watch it.

What he said. They're just greedy and backwards and can't keep up with the times. It'd be better if someone murdered/assassinated all the old f***s on the top of the corp's cuz they've no idea wtf they are doing.

 

[RikuoAmero]

Here's a link to the actual bill

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s978is/pdf/BILLS-112s978is.pdf

It's a bit more complicated than explained above.

My first thought, how will this affect my porn?

How do you get your porn?

I wonder if this will harm people streaming their screen as they play videogames?

It depends on a wide variety of factors.
1. Are you making a profit?
2. Are you doing this more than 10 times in 180 days?
3. Are you costing more than 2,500 USD in damages to the original copyright holder?
4. Are you doing it without the permission of the copyright holder?

If you answer no to any of those questions, then it doesn't affect you.
Desert Bus For Hope is live streaming, but can answer no to all four of the questions.
The Escapist can answer no to three of the four questions, and therefore is in the clear.

Does anyone watch streams of stuff anyway?
I surely don't.

Any video you watch without having to download is streaming. This bill is written to go after the hosts of streaming materials, not the viewers.

EDIT : Fark Acronym time IANAL - I am not a lawyer.

The MPAA/RIAA/MAFIAA crowd can simply point at someone who has some ads on a streaming site and say he's making a profit there, even if the ads only just barely cover costs. So that's number 1. Number 2 is easy, if you have a streaming site, you want more views, so obviously more than 10 times in 180 days.
Number 3 is where the sh*t hits the fan. The copyright holder doesn't have to prove actual damages. He can simply say there was a stream, therefore the viewers didn't buy the DVD box set: the copyright holder doesn't have to account for 1. Is the show being streamed available in the viewer's area on a commercial TV channel or on a legit DVD/blu-ray? So, if someone in America streams a certain show that was never legitimately released in the US in any fashion, it doesn't matter, the copyright holder just has to say there were damages, without having to show any proof.
As for number 4, about doing it without permission of the copyright holder...look back at what ICE did a while ago. It took down two music blog sites that were sharing music tracks given to them by record labels as part of a marketing strategy. Even though they had permission, the labels still jumped and called them pirates.

 

[JWRosser]

Oh God...if anything happens to Letmewatch this and the sites it links to....well I don't know what I'll do!

But, again, if no one is making profit from it, then it's cool, right? RIGHT!?

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

"While it is currently a felony to share films or TV shows via bit torrent"

[citation needed]

Please point out in the US code where there are criminal penalties for infringement?

The closest I could find is here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000501----000-.html and here http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000502----000-.html

Section 501 defines infringement and grants the right for the copyright holder to sue the infringer. Section 502 says a court can issue an order saying "stop infringing".

I'm not a lawyer but in my brief search of relevant laws I couldn't find anything close to criminal penalties for torrenting.

Please stop spreading this FUD, copyright violation by sharing online is not a criminal offense in the US.

 

[thublihnk]

Neither of the examples you provided are felonies, they're civil offenses. The felonies are when either are done for commercial or monetary gain.

For as much as The Escapist brow-beats on piracy, you'd think they'd at least get their facts right.

 

[Baldr]

Intellectual Property is the largest percent of the economy and the largest exported thing in the United States, you think they are going to pass laws to protect it? You betcha. Most of the copyright cases in the US involve smaller companies protecting their property, not large companies.

 

[Baldr]

"While it is currently a felony to share films or TV shows via bit torrent"

[citation needed]

Please point out in the US code where there are criminal penalties for infringement?

The closest I could find is here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000501----000-.html and here http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000502----000-.html

Section 501 defines infringement and grants the right for the copyright holder to sue the infringer. Section 502 says a court can issue an order saying "stop infringing".

I'm not a lawyer but in my brief search of relevant laws I couldn't find anything close to criminal penalties for torrenting.

Please stop spreading this FUD, copyright violation by sharing online is not a criminal offense in the US.

You won't find it in US Code, it mostly international law and treaties where criminal offenses come into play.

 

[Riobux]

This is what I'll never understand: They put all these laws into places, but they could significantly cut the amount of piracy by uploading programs online. Films, they're already doing something similar but the prices they charge leave a lot of grumbling. If they uploaded TV programs the day after they were shown, people would pirate less. They could even splash adverts all over the place to get back revenue. I know some people who do pirate programs like House M.D. in England, purely because the alternative is we wait for a few years for our television channel to catch up.

The best way to combat piracy isn't laws, but rather to work with the audiences. Oh, and on the note, getting an actor/musician to preach about piracy is as effective as flushing your own head down a toilet while screaming "WHY?!" on camera, probably even less so since you could say the person's head who's down the toilet is a producer who got fired due to the poor sales of his latest film, just because of piracy. If you create films purely based on box office sales and end up making films no one in their right mind would pay for the actual DVD for (e.g. how many people actually bought DVDs of The Expendables? Want to compare that with Scott Pilgrim Vs The World sales?), then of course piracy is going to be on the loose. Interact with your audiences and stop trying to fool us. We're not stupid.

 

[Andantil]

"Stream[ing] videos without intending to profit" is still Okay, so this in no way affects me.

 

[Sovvolf]

I'm extremely confused by this... wouldn't that make The Escapist activities illegal? I mean, they make video game reviews right? Which include copyright materials (under fair use) however they also make profit from said reviews through the Ad-Revenue on the site. Sooooo would that make it illegal? If so, quite a few websites (like this) are going to be screwed.

Also what about lets plays and such? How do they fair. I'm extremely iffy on this. While I do agree some do need taking down for their illegal activity (hosting movies and such) however I fear this may also affect lets plays, movie/video game reviews and a bunch of other vids that should be protected by fair use.

A good amount of these do it for profit (ad-revenue) so this could probably ruin them too.
Little lost on this.

 

[FinalFreak16]

"Sir, i have good news and bad news..."
"The good news?"
"The amount of people watching online streams of our content has dropped dramatically."
"Good, good. And the bad?"
"Illegal downloading of our content via torrent has risen 250%.."

 

[vxicepickxv]

You know, someone is missing from this conversation.

Content Creators are missing. Is there a way for the escapist staff to dig one up so we could get their side of the story?

 

[Awexsome]

For profit only? That doesn't seem like it'll hit very much.

Oh well. Anything that can at least try to start bringing some more law and order to the internet nowadays is a very welcome thing to me indeed.

 

[nyttyn]

Shit the fuck?

A blanket felony? That seems a bit...extreme.

 

[samsonguy920]

Well you can kiss all those movies and tv shows on Youtube goodbye if this gets passed.
There's something understandable about this, but on the other hand it feels wrong. For one, streaming isn't even downloading but is practically the internet version of renting a video.
And though that's my weaker argument, I will also chime in with others who ask, how is this enforceable? What agency is going to be diverting its resources to scan websites to make sure this isn't being violated?
If I was a member of the MPAA, SAG, or DAG, I would want to make sure that I was getting my share of what I put in effort towards. But on the other hand, not every single person on the planet is deciding to try to find some torrent or cheap way out. Insisting on better protection of copyright so I can squeeze more money on my royalties or such only turns into more expense made by the studios to do their part. That expense in turn eats into the money the studios can then put into my contract for a movie.
It's petty materialistic nonsense that only turns around and bites the MPAA and actors and such in the ass. And then word of mouth will fall because people will lose access to clips of movies because they were streamed, and therefore there will be less a turnout for movies.
Between this blind drive to turn all movies into 3D adding to the cost of a ticket, and concessions going through the roof(Popcorn and Soda at my nearby theater can cost more than a fair dinner now), people are looking for good reasons to put forth that kind of expense.
Hollywood closing more windows into what they are producing is only going to convince people to not bother.
And that is bad for everyone involved.

I don't stream at all, but I was nervious untill I saw this

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.

It's one thing to give something someone else made away for free (which I still think is wrong), it's another to make money off of it.

So put me down as cautiously optimistic

They are just quoting the part of copyright law that gives allowances to us to sound good. You can bet that there will be instances when they ignore the part where the person didn't profit when they take them to civil court and then turn them in to the Feds.

 

[samsonguy920]

This is what I'll never understand: They put all these laws into places, but they could significantly cut the amount of piracy by uploading programs online. Films, they're already doing something similar but the prices they charge leave a lot of grumbling. If they uploaded TV programs the day after they were shown, people would pirate less. They could even splash adverts all over the place to get back revenue. I know some people who do pirate programs like House M.D. in England, purely because the alternative is we wait for a few years for our television channel to catch up.

The best way to combat piracy isn't laws, but rather to work with the audiences. Oh, and on the note, getting an actor/musician to preach about piracy is as effective as flushing your own head down a toilet while screaming "WHY?!" on camera, probably even less so since you could say the person's head who's down the toilet is a producer who got fired due to the poor sales of his latest film, just because of piracy. If you create films purely based on box office sales and end up making films no one in their right mind would pay for the actual DVD for (e.g. how many people actually bought DVDs of The Expendables? Want to compare that with Scott Pilgrim Vs The World sales?), then of course piracy is going to be on the loose. Interact with your audiences and stop trying to fool us. We're not stupid.

I want to see a video on Youtube of someone flushing their head in a toilet screaming 'WHY?'
It will be cathartic for how I feel right now how much of a dumbass Hollywood is being pushing this bill.

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

It doesn't really seem like a problem honestly.If you are profiting through theft then you likely know its illegal so boom,nothing is new.
Also,I now hate Verizon for that commercial.