New Bill Makes Illegal Streaming A Felony

[FarleShadow]

1. Doesn't cover watching, just hosting
2. Probably won't go to jail, but somebody is getting busted.
3. I'm confused with this statement/question.

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.
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!

 

[teisjm]

youtube isnt streaming for profit is it?

thought it was only illegal if you made a profit...

Streaming =/= viewing so I don't see how this is confusing. Also unless someone is charging for the stream, I don't even see how this law is applicable. ...

I'd think proffiting might include other stuff.
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.

 

[Bob the frantic]

"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 :

Note: The above is not rhetorical. I am actively calling for your opinions on the convoluted issue of copyright law (and incidentally your revenue-enhancing page views). The comments section is below, so go to it my little dollar signs!

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)

 

[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.

 

[Reaper195]

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.

 

[Buccura]

I will say what I always say to these things.

Aww look the old men are trying to control the internet, how cute.

 

[JET1971]

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.

 

[Dragonborne88]

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.

 

[Hisshiss]

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.

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.

 

[Vault101]

what about songs on youtube?

 

[moose_man]

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

I think they count under review, so no. Also, I don't really care. Yeah Canada!

 

[droid]

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.

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.

It bothers me because that isn't part of the law, that's just part of the MPAA's promises of good intentions. Promises last as long as you want them to, and I don't trust their intentions. They want to push copyright law toward more control to the copyright holders, rather than to limited control to promote creative works.

[rant]

We the people are not getting the full benefit of those creative works. Right now the technology exists to build a searchable digital library of all the books published in the US till say 1950. But it is a legal impossibility since many of those are still under copyright. In most cases we don't know who owns it so we can't ask for permission, but we can't publish anyway since any overlooked copyright holder could sue for *all* profits or $250000 (their choice).

Disney's interests (and those of other owners of the 1% still commercially valuable works) will ensure that works now under copyright never fall into the public domain. Which is ironic since Disney got his start by adapting public domain works.

Past a term of say 50 years, I don't see copyright doing much to encourage innovation. You want to see what happens to innovators, look at Edwin Howard Armstong [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Howard_Armstrong#FM_radio]

There used to be a lot more fair use possible, but there isn't anymore.

[/rant]

To be clear I have no objection to this particular bill, but I see it as a sign of things to come.

 

[Ickorus]

This is gonna make it a hell of a lot harder to watch the TV shows I love, most of them are either shown a week later in England or simply not shown at all here. Very annoying and if the fuckwit movie and TV execs made releases global instead of postponing them for different territories they might find the amount of people streaming online drop one metric fucktonne.

 

[Magicman10893]

I'm not quite sure what streaming is defined as, therefore I'm not sure if I'm breaking the law.
Is watching something on... Youtube, as an example, streaming?
It's not quite clear to me.

Yes, it is. Anything youtube lookalike where you don't actively download anything but still are watching it is streaming.

Well, damn, guess I won't be watching Youtube vids anymore.

I'm pretty sure the bill only punishes the people that put the videos on the internet, not the ones who watch it, since it is to prevent people from profiting off copyrighted material and you can't make a profit from watching a Youtube video.

 

[thiosk]

God bless america, where everything is jailtime.

 

[Reaganomics]

I doubt this will have much of an effect on anything. I doubt most websites streaming copyrighted material are based in the United States.

 

[Westerschwelle]

I'm really glad US Laws don't apply to me

 

[Buizel91]

*is still shocked it wasn't before*

Well, I'm glad all the anime I watch is from 100% legal sources.

Pokemonepisodes.org is legal...

Right

Please to god say it is!

 

[Jubbert]

For some reason I keep reading the title as "makes illegal SCREAMING a felony."

 

[RJ Dalton]

Fuck no, this should not be a felony. Streaming video amounts to petty larceny and it should be treated as such. It should be a misdemeanor at most, invoking a felony only for repeated offenses. Felonies follow you around for a long damn time and we shouldn't be handing them out left and right for something so small.
On the whole, the way it's being described doesn't otherwise sound unreasonable, but I'd have to see the actual legal wording to be sure there aren't loopholes or fine print that make it much worse than it actually sounds.
And even if it's not that serious, just wait a while. The distributors will try to push something bigger through. They are a dying breed and they know it. They'll kick and scream a lot before they finally breath their last.