Yes, as they have legal permissions from themselves to host their own property. Okay, that sounds like it almost makes sense.icame said:
I am still not a lawyer.
New Bill Makes Illegal Streaming A Felony
- Thread starter Earnest Cavalli
- Start date
I am still not a lawyer.
Say, wouldn't that make anyone using youtube criminals?
well, that's going to be difficult to enforce.
well, that's going to be difficult to enforce.
Surprised it wasn't already a felony.
1. Only the truly idiotic will be caught by this.
2. Probably won't even get to court.
3. There are alot of people who seem to think they can dicate what an person can earn, because they're totally the right people to be deciding that, amirite?
1. Only the truly idiotic will be caught by this.
2. Probably won't even get to court.
3. There are alot of people who seem to think they can dicate what an person can earn, because they're totally the right people to be deciding that, amirite?
Someone said he'd read the law earlier and said it only applied if you did more than $2500 in damages could you be targeted. Unfortunately, I don't find that reassuring, given the ridiculous level of damages that are usually claimed for extremely small acts.The Random One said:
It seems that, depending on how you read it, either anyone posting anything (due to damage claims) or only people who make enough money off it to give a single guy a few weeks' pay will be targeted. I'm not sure which one it is, however, and one of those really bothers me.
To admit my biases, however, I think John Perry Barlow's opinion that copyright is broken, and we need to come up with a new post-scarcity system of making sure creators are paid, is the more on target. Big Media isn't likely to agree, because it'd mean they'd have to adapt or die, unfortunately. (I also don't have a good idea of what such a system would be, which is bad, because I work in an industry that will be affected by people properly acknowledging and embracing the fact that copying bits is nearly free, which is a bit of a problem.)
1. Doesn't cover watching, just hostingFarleShadow said:
2. Probably won't go to jail, but somebody is getting busted.
3. I'm confused with this statement/question.
Indeed. us bronies shall live on now without worry seeing as noone is in MLP for the profit. we're just in it for the fun. I personally get my anime streamed from a non profit source and thats how it will stay seeing as I refuse to pay when I can get it for free legally.DJDarque said:
I get that, but you can bet someone hosting it is an idiot, which is what I meant and they'll probably end up with a big fine or something.vxicepickxv said:
More of a statement really, some of the posts here are like 'but they earn so much, blah blah, they shouldn't' and I find it to be a most idiotic statement. They're not jealous! Honest!
thefreeman0001 said:
Composer said:
I'd think proffiting might include other stuff.Sleekgiant said:
Like if the site, which offers the streams has commercials on it, the site is making money, by having those commercials, and is getting wievs because of illegal streams.
It'd be like if The Escapist or youtube, which i assume both makes money on having adds on their site, started streaming copyrighted stuff they didn't have the rights to stream.
Actually wondering, if this makes the owners of youtube legally responsible every time someone uploads copyrighted music, but then again, they probably already are, seeing as how they're removing copyrighted stuff. But seeing how you can find almost any released song on youtube, i wonder how they're gonna be doing, if the owners gets prosecuted for that... maybe it's the user who uploads it who's to blame, i dunno.
But anyways, main point beeing that even though the viewer doesn't pay to watch streams doesn't mean the site isn't profitting on adds, which they're only paid for because of all the visitors they have, who are only there cause they can watch illegal streams.
"Stream videos without intending to profit" just means you can put up anything as long as there is no attempt to make money because of it (donations, profits from replies, etc.).
For example, due to this line :
For example, due to this line :
It mean that under this law, if this was a streamed news report that was copyrighted it would fall under this new law's jurisdiction (unless there is a clause for news - I'm only working of the info given)Earnest Cavalli said:
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.Kenjitsuka said:
Is not going to stop people downloading the stuff. Srsly, isn't downloading a video instead of streaming it better anyway? God I hate how anal the US is about it's copyright bollocks. I don't see England going nuts over people from the US streaming/torrenting/whatevering the Harry Potter films.
The bill itself in a .pdf :
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s978is/pdf/BILLS-112s978is.pdf
Nothing really new to this as its more or less just adding very little to the same laws as the MPAA have already lobbied for and got. and we all know how well that law is enforced considering every new release is streamed online from day 1 and many are streamed before release day because someone uploads a preview copy.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s978is/pdf/BILLS-112s978is.pdf
Nothing really new to this as its more or less just adding very little to the same laws as the MPAA have already lobbied for and got. and we all know how well that law is enforced considering every new release is streamed online from day 1 and many are streamed before release day because someone uploads a preview copy.
Pretty sure this isn't as bad as people think. It's only for profit streaming, so if you are a pay-to-support site that uploads movies and stuff. If you upload stuff free, and watch stuff free, than you aren't under threat of any legal action.
It mentioned that people not making a profit from the streaming aren't in any danger, only the ones who make a profit from it. So if some guy just streams him playing Warcraft or something, nobody cares. All of the limitations to it are designed to only target the real criminal offenders.Kenjitsuka said:
