New Bill Makes Illegal Streaming A Felony

[Callate]

I wish I trusted the- mostly older men- who run Congress to understand the technology issues they're legislating and act appropriately. I don't know that I do. And even where I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, what about all the lower court judges in whose courts the guidelines for the law will become a reality?

When they say "10 or more public performances", does that just mean ten different viewers watching the upload of the same work? Because that could very easily be racked up on YouTube inside of ten minutes. And a "copyrighted work" doesn't necessarily mean a whole movie or television show or even music video; something as innocuous as a movie trailer could fall under that heading.

And frankly, while the MPAA may say the law will only be used to prosecute those who stream copyrighted works for profit, is that the letter of the law? And if not, why in God's name should anyone take such an infamously litigious group at their word?

 

[Arehexes]

Well this effect my LPs I'm working on?

 

[Arehexes]

Just a point I keep bringing up, but why is piracy constantly being treated as about 173 times worse than outright theft?

I used to work in a music/dvd store, and we'd regularly get hit by shoplifting, either people sneaking a couple of dvds out under their coat, or the blatant ones who'd pile up about 20 then just run like hell.

Police would get called, them and us would do an hour's paperwork, send off the CCTV videos, etc. Then nothing would happen, and we'd put in an insurance claim. Then we'd wait for the next time to happen. 99% of the time, nothing happened, no-one got caught, no criminal proceedings.

When it did make it to court, small fines and community service.

Yet if I download an episode of 'The Wire' suddenly I'm up for court judgements of hundreds of thousands against me, or jail time.

I agree with you(so much so I'm dealing with this retarded ad based capcha). It makes no bloody since to have that happen, downloading to much people>then stealing the actual thing

 

[Arehexes]

I hear there is another law about how you can't sing with a song on youtube, if this pass we will lose awful covers like this

 

[Aptus]

I wonder if this will affect Let's Plays on YouTube. I really don't want to miss out on my Kikoskia action.

 

[ultimasupersaiyan]

So does this mean I can still watch my anime and US aired shows online in Australia? I watch most of my shows online now to avoid annoying ads and to have a larger pallete to choose from, especially since Australian TV is now 70% reality shows and 30% scripted. I stream all my shows because I don't like downloading stuff.

I can understand cracking down on profit making steams of shows, just stop region locking me out of Hulu and all the other websites that host shows officially!

 

[vxicepickxv]

And frankly, while the MPAA may say the law will only be used to prosecute those who stream copyrighted works for profit, is that the letter of the law? And if not, why in God's name should anyone take such an infamously litigious group at their word?

It actually is the letter of the law, so there is that.

Well you can kiss all those movies and tv shows on Youtube goodbye if this gets passed.

Not all of them. Some of the producers and publishers actually put up content for the purposes of consumption of the content. I know if I had a full movie that people might enjoy, I'd probably post a free 240i or 360i copy on youtube, and sell higher quality at a reasonable price. The guys from Monty Python's Flying Circus did that, and sales of their product went up so much, even they were shocked.

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?

Probably an already overtaxed government organization that doesn't know how to put up blanket codes for things like this.

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.

I can see where these are coming from, but as we've learned, escalation of DRM doesn't work. The pirates are BETTER than the creators, hands down.

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.

This one seems like a pretty weak argument, because not everything is going to be in a theater, or on shelves.

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.

That's why the word intent is there. In order to properly do this, you would have to run a site with no way to pay the site owner. In order to safely stream anything, they would require no way of making money for their works. There's only ONE site that I know of, and it's an intranet site, which means 99% of the world can't get to it.

 

[lokiduck]

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

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

I believe the Let's Players will be okay actually. Like video reviewers, as long as they provide commentary, it is considered under this one law that states as long as you provide new material (commentary, footage you shot of other things and such) you can post the videos with out breaking copy right. So they will be fine though video game companies are allowed to complain and have a LP removed if they feel it goes against copyright.

Under the copyright act of 1976, copyrighted material used without the permission of the author can only be used in the cases of commentary, parody, news reporting, research, or education.

Yeah that was the one I was talking about XD

 

[Jabberwock King]

OK... Can I still watch Deadman Wonderland online? What about re-watching Code Geass... for the 5th time? I get the feeling that I'm in the clear, but I'd like to consult a ninja-lawyer.

 

[Delusibeta]

3. Are you costing more than 2,500 USD in damages to the original copyright holder?

That's where this bill should fall down when it's being applied. How do you calculate this? The ad revenue? The cost of the DVD? What? Any figure will inevitably be bullshit.

Knowing companies with their piracy figures, however, they will blow it out of all proportion. Of course, the age old problem of finding who's behind the username raises its head.

(Of course, there are exceptions. Blizzard won't make us of this new law, since all those streams is probably making them money).

 

[Lightslei]

So are lets plays of video games for no profit considered illegal under this or?

Refer to my 4 step process under the previous page.

That's the one thing I'm confused about. How does this effect groups that do gameplay for charity and gain over $2,500 to be donated.

 

[Stabby Joe]

If downloading Game of Thrones episodes is a felony, it's only logical that spending an hour basking in the awesomeness that is Peter Dinklage via an illegal Internet stream would carry the same penalty.

The only thing worth streaming I'd guess given how awful TV is in general these days.

 

[runnernda]

Didn't they already kind of crack down on streaming when they got rid of NinjaVideo and all those other illegal streaming sites?

 

[TotalHobNob]

Wonder how Anonymous is going to respond mates.

 

[Strazdas]

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.

wait so if i got it right, at least one No means your in the clear? that means they wont be punishing anyone because streaming does not do any damages whatsoever therefore 3 will always be a no.

 

[vxicepickxv]

So are lets plays of video games for no profit considered illegal under this or?

Refer to my 4 step process under the previous page.

That's the one thing I'm confused about. How does this effect groups that do gameplay for charity and gain over $2,500 to be donated.

Charities are non profit organizations by nature, so they wouldn't make a profit.

 

[vxicepickxv]

-snip-

wait so if i got it right, at least one No means your in the clear? that means they wont be punishing anyone because streaming does not do any damages whatsoever therefore 3 will always be a no.[/quote]They're going to do some type of archaic calculations, stating that the retail version of any video viewed is the full cost of the most expensive version of whatever movie is put out(35$ blu ray version for a movie), and use that as a basis for baseless calculations.

 

[Littlee300]

Wasn't illegal streaming a felony before?

 

[ProjectTrinity]

Goodness some people refuse to read. ; -;

We shouldn't be caring about this bill for it does not pertain to 90% of us who don't upload anyways. Well, I upload, but I upload original games and 2D series' like The Perjurer, SO~ =p

 

[Aurgelmir]

If downloading Game of Thrones episodes is a felony, it's only logical that spending an hour basking in the awesomeness that is Peter Dinklage via an illegal Internet stream would carry the same penalty.

Right?

Right.

Now I could go into a long rant about piracy and TV in general, but I am not sure I should.

If you ask nicely I might do it h