New Bill Makes Illegal Streaming A Felony

[maninahat]

efforts to stem the rising tide of Internet theft that threatens our members' very livelihoods.

Sorry actors and actresses, but maybe if you weren't paid hundreds of thousands to millions per movie I might buy that statement, but seeing as how a lot of you are I don't.

What about everyone else who works in the entertainment industry who doesn't get paid A list celebrity wages? You know, like practically everyone but the actors and the CEOs? And what about indy game creators, who experience piracy at far greater rates than the AAA titles? And further more, since when was it okay to steal from people, just because they are rich?

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.

I was originally going to rage at this decision, but this sentence here actually makes it better. The people who need punishing are the people doing it for their own gain.

Strictly speaking, everyone who streams does it for their own gain. They are getting entertainment they neither purchased nor where not permitted to see for free. That should be punished. I'm sure they would try, if only it was enforceable.

 

[Beertaster]

What do they mean by profit? and secondly who can be put under litigation for this? Does profit mean for material gain like money, or just that I got to watch the copyrighted material I was hoping to see for free? And does this mean the people who upload illegal videos to be streamed, and the individual people who intentionally watched those videos are the subject of litigation? Or is it Just one of them?

Can some one please clarify what parties are under litigation for performing what actions.

 

[LordLundar]

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.

I was originally going to rage at this decision, but this sentence here actually makes it better. The people who need punishing are the people doing it for their own gain.

Unfortunately, the MPAA is apparently the ones who get to decide who's "intending to profit", and they're notoriously sue happy. For example, if you have a streaming part on your blog and you have a paypal donate button on the site for something else altogether, they can (and given their track record, will) say you're intending to profit and next thing you know, you're in jail.

 

[incal11]

What about everyone else who works in the entertainment industry who doesn't get paid A list celebrity wages? You know, like practically everyone but the actors and the CEOs? And what about indy game creators, who experience piracy at far greater rates than the AAA titles? And further more, since when was it okay to steal from people, just because they are rich?

Since forever literally, they're not about to die of hunger. It would also be appreciated if they gave up some of those millions they'll never live long enough to spend to raise their slave's salaries. If they did that maybe the screen writers wouldn't have gone on strike, and several shows I liked wouldn't have jumped the shark or been cancelled.
As for the indie studios they make do pretty well with talent and good relations with their public, Minecraft is a good example, despite being pirated just as much. Those artists who ***** and moan the most on not having absolute control of their creations often are not very talented to begin with. Naturally those stand to loose more if their lack of talent is exposed, like with Duke nukem forever, hardly a bad thing I would argue.
That brings about the subject of the morality of stealing. Most "by the book" types would say it's absolutely immoral, no question. But actually it can be questioned, stealing when you're about to starve to death for instance. Sure games are luxuries, but I'm also talking about ebooks and more ; everything is a part of Culture, so if it can be shared it is neither amoral nor stealing in the first place. Plus those who access more culture tend to spend more (while getting a somewhat more fulfilling life) than those who are content with a few overpriced mainstream products anyway .

On topic, streaming is just another method of online sharing. When you have to pay some random opportunist for it however it becomes akin to bootlegging. I get that stopping this is the purpose of this bill, but someone is bound to abuse it to try and stop any and all free streaming, even when it's not copyrighted. There's no reason to think it will be anymore effective than the laws against filesharing.

Strictly speaking, everyone who streams does it for their own gain. They are getting entertainment they neither purchased nor where not permitted to see for free. That should be punished. I'm sure they would try, if only it was enforceable.

Is filesharing so absolutely bad ? Not saying it's totally good either, but those absurd "life+90 years" copyright lengths and the fact that the most successfull works keep making more profits despite being the most pirated goes to show that "piracy is wrong" is not an argument, certainly not an absolute truth. I'm not defending criminal behavior, I'm attacking a practice and a mindset that is definitely harmful to culture. To those same creators the "piracy is wrong" crowd pretends to defend.
I really want to know if I happen to be wrong, so I'd be thankful if you would take the time to discuss this. We can do it without getting mad at each other I hope

In another thread someone mentioned Unjust Enrichment [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unjust_enrichment] under the law, and I digged in for the sake of argument. The defendant is the "pirate", the claimant the copyright holder.
1. Was the defendant enriched?
Yes.
2. Was the enrichment at the expense of the claimant?
No or uncertain in most cases, questionable in others.
3. Was the enrichment unjust?
Failure to profit from all demand is not the responsibility of the defendant.
4. Does the defendant have a defense?
Yes, freedom of information and fair use.
5. What remedies are available to the claimant?
On screen advertising for streamed medias, being popular among the clients and using that popularity for fidelisation and merchandising are two examples proven to work.

Each point can be debated separately.
There's another aspect to this, basically "can the law do anything about it ?". Yes and no, on one hand grandmas can occasionally get sued with more prejudice than a sex offender, on the other it would take death penalty and torture to curb the trend. And even then...

 

[maninahat]

What about everyone else who works in the entertainment industry who doesn't get paid A list celebrity wages? You know, like practically everyone but the actors and the CEOs? And what about indy game creators, who experience piracy at far greater rates than the AAA titles? And further more, since when was it okay to steal from people, just because they are rich?

Since forever literally, they're not about to die of hunger. It would also be appreciated if they gave up some of those millions they'll never live long enough to spend to raise their slave's salaries. If they did that maybe the screen writers wouldn't have gone on strike, and several shows I liked wouldn't have jumped the shark or been cancelled.

So stealing will increase the pay of those on minimum wage? Sharers are thieves. They are not conscientious, they aren't helping the little guy when they steal from the business of the little guys themselves. Pirates are doing it solely for their own benefit.

Stealing from the rich (I stress that pirates take from the poor too) is not acceptable. Just because the rich won't starve doesn't change the fact that stealing from them is quintessentially wrong. Many rich people had to work long and hard to get to where they are today, it is unfair to take the fruits of their labor.

As for the indie studios they make do pretty well with talent and good relations with their public, Minecraft is a good example, despite being pirated just as much. Those artists who ***** and moan the most on not having absolute control of their creations often are not very talented to begin with. Naturally those stand to loose more if their lack of talent is exposed, like with Duke nukem forever, hardly a bad thing I would argue.

Nonsense. Though Mojang has done very well, other indie studios have suffered. 82% of people playing 2DBoy's World of Goo pirated the game. A game made by four guys who worked long and hard to make an excellent title. Worse still, 2DBoy once did a deal in which they let buyers pay whatever they wanted for the game. Even though people could choose to buy it for as little as $0.01, piracy rates increased. That tells you a lot about the way pirates think. They just don't give a shit. Whether it is a lousy title like Duke Nuke'em, or a work of art, theft is theft. The makers invested time and money and work into something that pirates will take for free, even when asked to name their price.

That brings about the subject of the morality of stealing. Most "by the book" types would say it's absolutely immoral, no question. But actually it can be questioned, stealing when you're about to starve to death for instance. Sure games are luxuries, but I'm also talking about ebooks and more ; everything is a part of Culture, so if it can be shared it is neither amoral nor stealing in the first place. Plus those who access more culture tend to spend more (while getting a somewhat more fulfilling life) than those who are content with a few overpriced mainstream products anyway.

This assumes that people wouldn't be able to buy the cultural products in the first place. That might be the case if they live in East Asia where western electronic goods are severely over-priced, but it doesn't sound likely among middle-class, western teenagers.

Just saying the goods are "cultural" actually makes it even worse that they're stolen. If they are of cultural value, they should be valued, not cheapened. The artists should be paid for their efforts. I would not steal a painting, just because "the public deserved it". If I owned an art gallery, I'd buy it at great expense, along with the right to display it to the public. Unless pirates are likewise willing to pay millions upon millions for the ownership and distribution rights to a new game, they aren't acting in the public interest like an at gallery (who gives the artists what they deserve).

On topic, streaming is just another method of online sharing. When you have to pay some random opportunist for it however it becomes akin to bootlegging. I get that stopping this is the purpose of this bill, but someone is bound to abuse it to try and stop any and all free streaming, even when it's not copyrighted. There's no reason to think it will be anymore effective than the laws against filesharing.

A slippery slope argument. I don't see any reason to assume it will end youtube as we know it. As I mentioned to someone else, even if the sharer isn't making a profit, the people who share files are still basically taking someone else's goods and distributing them for the entertainment or educational benefits these products provide.

In another thread someone mentioned Unjust Enrichment [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unjust_enrichment] under the law, and I digged in for the sake of argument. The defendant is the "pirate", the claimant the copyright holder.
1. Was the defendant enriched?
Yes.
2. Was the enrichment at the expense of the claimant?
No or uncertain in most cases, questionable in others.
3. Was the enrichment unjust?
Failure to profit from all demand is not the responsibility of the defendant.
4. Does the defendant have a defense?
Yes, freedom of information and fair use.
5. What remedies are available to the claimant?
On screen advertising for streamed medias, being popular among the clients and using that popularity for fidelisation and merchandising are two examples proven to work.

Each point can be debated separately.
There's another aspect to this, basically "can the law do anything about it ?". Yes and no, on one hand grandmas can occasionally get sued with more prejudice than a sex offender, on the other it would take death penalty and torture to curb the trend. And even then...

Sounds interesting. Will give it a read in greater detail.

 

[FoolKiller]

I've lost a great deal of respect for many of the copyright holders in many cases.

It probably has to do with the addition of unavoidable commercials at the beginnings of DVDs i purchase. I paid for it to not have to be subjected to advertising.

 

[Ad-Man-Gamer]

The main thing with this is as always, abuse. I can Imagine companies going after some youtuber because their video contains "copyrighted content". One of the most bull shit things about copy right is the fact that it now seams to last forever! it was once considered to be in public domain after 60 years, and before that it was 30. Their is music from the 20's still under copyright. EVEN WHEN THE ARTIST IS DEAD! I find it hard to swallow the "your supporting the artist" pill when they have a chronic case of death (no disrespect intended).

And don't get me started on DRM. When a pirated game works better than the retail disc. Then something is horribly wrong! Steam and similar digital distribution software seam to be doing it right, but people still feel the need to add their outdated Serial key DRM on top of another perfectly fine account based DRM *Looks at EA*. Seriously people... I don't need or want 5 hoops to jump through just to play my game. I'm not a dolphin.

 

[incal11]

So stealing will increase the pay of those on minimum wage? Sharers are thieves. They are not conscientious, they aren't helping the little guy when they steal from the business of the little guys themselves. Pirates are doing it solely for their own benefit.

I won't squabble on the use of the "steal" verb to define sharing, clearly you mean that a damage is done (particularly to the "little guys") and that is what I question in this discussion. I was highlighting that the greediness is the sin of the publishers and producers first. Some are paid minimum wage, or not at all for interns, when they do deserve better.
Furthermore, while the owners of the filesharing sites admitedly could do more to facilitate donations to artists, it is common practice for "pirates" to direct filesharers to the artists' sites recommending to buy the medias or donate. At least some of them are consciencious, and they do it with no return on their time investment.

Stealing from the rich (I stress that pirates take from the poor too) is not acceptable. Just because the rich won't starve doesn't change the fact that stealing from them is quintessentially wrong. Many rich people had to work long and hard to get to where they are today, it is unfair to take the fruits of their labor.

I question that stealing is "quintessentially wrong" if you do it to save your life or even just to raise your quality of life (with some reservations of course). Here it's not the fruit of a labor that is stolen, but a right of access to this fruit. Again, is there a harm done by this ? I doubt it. Please read the rest of the post.

Nonsense. Though Mojang has done very well, other indie studios have suffered. 82% of people playing 2DBoy's World of Goo pirated the game. A game made by four guys who worked long and hard to make an excellent title. Worse still, 2DBoy once did a deal in which they let buyers pay whatever they wanted for the game. Even though people could choose to buy it for as little as $0.01, piracy rates increased.

And when they did that deal they deemed it "a huge success", the other face of the coin is that it's remarkable some people paid anything at all, even if it's only a cent, when they had the choice not to.
It's easy to stay fixated on the downloads being orders of magnitude greater than the sells, it does not make them anymore than a potential. A potential 2Dboy exploited, as far as I know they didn't capsize because they didn't sell enough, the game was a commercial success.

This assumes that people wouldn't be able to buy the cultural products in the first place. That might be the case if they live in East Asia where western electronic goods are severely over-priced, but it doesn't sound likely among middle-class, western teenagers.

There's not just East Asia and teenagers in this case, the more media you consume the more you want. Chances are that your apetite for new media will push you to buy more, I've seen plenty of studies confirming this although you will probably question their validity.
Small sidetrack here. I've had a discussion precisely about this in another thread, the consensus was that we can't know for sure because we can't have control groups for media rentability. Still studies without control groups are a possibility, so it is reasonable to hope we'll actually know for sure one day:
http://www.nccmt.ca/pubs/non-RCT2_EN.pdf
For now I'll roll with the current studies that shows downloaders pay for more.
Continuing, while you want more chances are that you'll run against the limits of your income. But why is downloading more than you could afford a bad thing for the artists if you give them all you can because of this already ?

Just saying the goods are "cultural" actually makes it even worse that they're stolen. If they are of cultural value, they should be valued, not cheapened. The artists should be paid for their efforts. I would not steal a painting, just because "the public deserved it". If I owned an art gallery, I'd buy it at great expense, along with the right to display it to the public. Unless pirates are likewise willing to pay millions upon millions for the ownership and distribution rights to a new game, they aren't acting in the public interest like an at gallery (who gives the artists what they deserve).

That culture is a thing to be hidden and (sigh) protected by distribution rights because of it's value strikes me as backward. You can't experience the full glory of a giant (or even small) master painting on a computer screen. Even with hi-rez pics people will still want to go in museums, and the ones who didn't even know those paintings existed ? They'll want to come too. Exposure will have raised culture's value, and the revenues of your gallery and of the artists.

A slippery slope argument. I don't see any reason to assume it will end youtube as we know it.

Just pointing to the slippery slope reasoning some majors had before, it'll end in failure for them again, obviously.

(...)Each point can be debated separately.
There's another aspect to this, basically "can the law do anything about it ?". Yes and no, on one hand grandmas can occasionally get sued with more prejudice than a sex offender, on the other it would take death penalty and torture to curb the trend. And even then...

Sounds interesting. Will give it a read in greater detail.

I hope it's not the torture you plan to look into ^_^
Hey, if you're a lawyer or have a lawyer friend I'm interested to see how I hold against a real pro

 

[hipster666]

This is simply going to be like the Super Injunctions in the UK. Try extraditing someone from outside the US... It merely means that servers streaming this stuff will need to be based in some country covering the other three quarters of the globe. Hardship... This will not stand up unless all countries buy into it and since none of them have about anything else I don't think this will be more than a bump on the road.

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

I'm wondering how this will affect mostly-legal music streaming sites like Pandora, since they've largely been operating within a loophole this whole time. I guess time will tell.

 

[Talshere]

My primary concern here is where this might lead. To profit is one thing, but I worry they are guna up this to watching in general, in which case:

1: Define Streaming. If I watch youtube and its copyrighted content, is that my fault or youtubes? Same applies to all video hosting sites really. Copyright laws are convoluted, many countries have different rules pertaining to how long something remains copyrighted and where it is classed as copyrighted. Plus many video stream sites are unmonitered, or near as damn it. How do they intend to remove this content.

2: I dislike having to wait 2 years for the latest series to come out, even on TV, in my country. Im in the UK, we have really lax laws on importing, we dont censor anything unlike Austrailia or China, yet it is still common for us to be 1 or 2 seasons behind on TV programs. The online players run by fox etc. exclude us from watching. This is the 21st century, waits like that for digital media are retarded. Forcing us to pay £5+ for 1 episode on iplayer, so we cant watch it on release is retarded. Reasonable release times and charges will generate less piracy. This has ALWAYS been the case.

3: How do they plan on enforcing this even inside the US. A law loses its point when you have to criminalise half the country, never mind outside the US

/rant

 

[Talshere]

Just saying the goods are "cultural" actually makes it even worse that they're stolen. If they are of cultural value, they should be valued, not cheapened. The artists should be paid for their efforts. I would not steal a painting, just because "the public deserved it". If I owned an art gallery, I'd buy it at great expense, along with the right to display it to the public. Unless pirates are likewise willing to pay millions upon millions for the ownership and distribution rights to a new game, they aren't acting in the public interest like an at gallery (who gives the artists what they deserve).

That culture is a thing to be hidden and (sigh) protected by distribution rights because of it's value strikes me as backward. You can't experience the full glory of a giant (or even small) master painting on a computer screen. Even with hi-rez pics people will still want to go in museums, and the ones who didn't even know those paintings existed ? They'll want to come too. Exposure will have raised culture's value, and the revenues of your gallery and of the artists.

Just a point of interest on this point. For copyright in the UK, after an item has been in the public domain for 100 years, it is considered the property of the people and can be redistributed without licence.

 

[Kinguendo]

Wait, soooo... its illegal for the viewer or the person hosting the streamed video?

 

[Wintermoot]

so how are they going to enforce this?
there are still boatloads of torrent sites up even though that,s illegal.

 

[incal11]

Just a point of interest on this point. For copyright in the UK, after an item has been in the public domain for 100 years, it is considered the property of the people and can be redistributed without licence.

100 years is a bit long, but why is there need for a license anyway ? It's in the public domain already. It kinda piss me off when artworks that are supposed to be national property have their images kept in shadows like that.

 

[LitleWaffle]

So wait, who would get in trouble now? The people offering the stuff for profit?

Does that still mean I can watch my videos online legally?

 

[TheDooD]

Holy shit they're getting really petty here. Felony for basically INCREASING interest in your product. Somebody gives a shit about you're product so much they're gonna stream it so friends can get into it and you're gonna throw them in prison for 5 years. They know it's not smart to fuck with the masses right...

 

[Zukhramm]

Streaming is downloading, the distinction is arbitrary and removing it is a good thing.

The only difference with streaming is that you can start watching while downloading and that you throw it away once you're done. Is torrenting a movie allowed if I simply delete the file when I'm done watching? No! Because that would be stupid.

 

[Talshere]

Just a point of interest on this point. For copyright in the UK, after an item has been in the public domain for 100 years, it is considered the property of the people and can be redistributed without licence.

100 years is a bit long, but why is there need for a license anyway ? It's in the public domain already. It kinda piss me off when artworks that are supposed to be national property have their images kept in shadows like that.

Its to do with the right to royalties by the artist. The law was origonally in the time when noone lived to 100. So it was garenteeing the royalties to the creator, while preventing great great great grandchildren claiming them. Otherwise technically we could have shakespears decendance trying for royalties for evey film company and theatre troope that remakes any of his plays. Its a fair law tbh. But its why these days you can pick up things like Petre Rabbit books for a few quid each new. The publisher doesnt need a licence to print them because they belong to the public.

 

[incal11]

Its to do with the right to royalties by the artist. The law was origonally in the time when noone lived to 100. So it was garenteeing the royalties to the creator, while preventing great great great grandchildren claiming them. Otherwise technically we could have shakespears decendance trying for royalties for evey film company and theatre troope that remakes any of his plays. Its a fair law tbh. But its why these days you can pick up things like Petre Rabbit books for a few quid each new. The publisher doesnt need a licence to print them because they belong to the public.

If it is in the public domain then the artist has already been paid in principle, but I can understand if it's royalties to the artist for a commercial use.
All right as long as those who republish old works for money don't crack down on those who pass them around for free, as with the ebooks.