Kenjitsuka said:
Starcraft streams might count if Blizzard decides to go after them.
The key is "intending to profit". Any prosecution will have to prove the intent.
New Bill Makes Illegal Streaming A Felony
- Thread starter Earnest Cavalli
- Start date
The key is "intending to profit". Any prosecution will have to prove the intent.
For those wondering how you might profit from a stream, advertisements. You know all those Youtube partners who have ads before the video starts, the channel owner gets money when people watch those ads. Same thing for other streams, like Justin.Tv. When you watch a live stream and the host pops up an ad, the host gets money for that.
ok first off... there's no way to enforce this. didn't a judge just rule that IP addresses can NOT be used as "probable cause" to start an investigation on someone? cause short of that, you'd have to be caught watching/posting by a cop standing next to you.
not only that, the article, for me at least, seemed very vague in who would be on the hook. is it the viewer or the poster? because they said the posters not making a profit are not liable. under that understanding, the viewers of the streams wouldn't be liable either.
and there's a logical problem with this. like others have stated, what's "illegal streaming"? from the viewer's point (and assuming the viewer has liability) then what constitutes the illegal stream? Is YouTube a safe place to watch? Is Hulu? Is ? There is a huge loophole here because nothing states what is a legal source. You can watch episodes of tv shows on the parent company's website. I'd assume that's safe, but what's the difference between sources? furthermore, does this now mean that use of TIVO is illegal? doesn't that store data (aka, make a copy of the copyrighted material) and you can remove commercials... how is that any different than streaming?
so where is the line? I'm glad we're keeping politicians busy so they can earn their paychecks, but this seems like a frivolous bill that will only cause more confusion in the legal system than clear up. how bout we spend a little more of our tax money on figuring out how to clean up the economic hole that the same government helped to dig.
not only that, the article, for me at least, seemed very vague in who would be on the hook. is it the viewer or the poster? because they said the posters not making a profit are not liable. under that understanding, the viewers of the streams wouldn't be liable either.
and there's a logical problem with this. like others have stated, what's "illegal streaming"? from the viewer's point (and assuming the viewer has liability) then what constitutes the illegal stream? Is YouTube a safe place to watch? Is Hulu? Is ? There is a huge loophole here because nothing states what is a legal source. You can watch episodes of tv shows on the parent company's website. I'd assume that's safe, but what's the difference between sources? furthermore, does this now mean that use of TIVO is illegal? doesn't that store data (aka, make a copy of the copyrighted material) and you can remove commercials... how is that any different than streaming?
so where is the line? I'm glad we're keeping politicians busy so they can earn their paychecks, but this seems like a frivolous bill that will only cause more confusion in the legal system than clear up. how bout we spend a little more of our tax money on figuring out how to clean up the economic hole that the same government helped to dig.
Does show that capitalism only works when fair rules are in play. I love how people can be such social darwinists until they are getting taken for a ride. If only we had dropped the wallstreet assholes when we had the chance.Kair said:
Unless one of you guys is running an illegal movie theater I feel like this law isn't going to effect anyone here.Earnest Cavalli said:
Well the video poster and google since they own youtube and all that. They may get told by the government to take that service away at some point in the future if this bill goes through. Which would probably cause one heck of an interesting battle as the government starts taking on the internet. Youtube and justin tv would probably again be some of the first places hit or close to the top of the list, my guess.thefreeman0001 said:so long as the video poster them self doesnt profit rather the entity that is youtube getting ad revenue then whos guilty?Kuilui said:
People not doing it for profit aren't going to be affected. Calm down, that almost definitely includes any anime sites you use.TheIronRuler said:
Ok? So now, not only are ALL misdemeanors felonies now (conspiracy [thought crime] to commit a misdemeanor is a felony, look it up), but apparently, CIVIL CRIMES, which are covered under CIVIL LAW, and are NOT subject to CRIMINAL LAW and have never been, are now subject to Criminal law and are now also felonies! What's next sending me to criminal court for a traffic violation, which is a breach of contract and not actual law.... oh wait!
We kept the jurisdictions of Civil and Criminal Law separate, for this vary reason, so people wouldn't serve prison times for breaches of contract and copyright violation, because, the very idea of it is absurd. But now, apparently the Constitution is worthless as the MPAA has decided to use it for toilet paper.
And no, I'm not some Glen Beck worshiping ass who brings of vague notions of the Constitution to elicit and emotional response. Look it up, the Constitution make VERY clear distinctions between Civil, Criminal, and Statutory Jurisdictions. This law is a VERY clear violation of the US Constitution.
We kept the jurisdictions of Civil and Criminal Law separate, for this vary reason, so people wouldn't serve prison times for breaches of contract and copyright violation, because, the very idea of it is absurd. But now, apparently the Constitution is worthless as the MPAA has decided to use it for toilet paper.
And no, I'm not some Glen Beck worshiping ass who brings of vague notions of the Constitution to elicit and emotional response. Look it up, the Constitution make VERY clear distinctions between Civil, Criminal, and Statutory Jurisdictions. This law is a VERY clear violation of the US Constitution.
Oh great, as if prisons aren't already crowded enough.
How about just slapping a hefy fine on the perpetrators instead of using taxpayer money on such overly-draconian punishments?
How about just slapping a hefy fine on the perpetrators instead of using taxpayer money on such overly-draconian punishments?
