Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So it appears that they finally have a bill in the works (Bill S.978) to set firm mandates on penalties for streaming of copyrighted material. This of course is an amendment to existing law that could cause shifts on both sides of the table.
The idea is that it will set fines and even jail penalties for those who stream any single copyrighted material meeting a criteria of income 10 times within a 180 day period.
Now the main impact on consumers or online users here comes in the criminalizing of streaming such content. Because it means that if you were to post say a stream of you playing a video game and it was removed and you re-posted, or you posted it to multiple sights... if you hit that count of ten strikes on the single property in a 180 day span (roughly 6 months) then you can be criminally charged.
Now of course fair use allows use for both teaching and satire. So a comedic mechanima or parody would be protected speech and fair use.... and video guides might be deemed educational if you are actually explaining something rather than just showing you playing the game. But even that will likely be something that has to be looked at regarding how it is used.
On the one hand it is just a legal sanction for rights already exercised by copyright holders who can demand video of their property be removed on the spot right now. On the other it will have impact on what sort of video or streams people can upload or conduct online.
As a future LPer, I do dislike the bill greatly as it hinders my plans for doing Let's Plays, however, I do also understand the need to have set laws dealing with copyrights and such.
On one hand, things like "Let's Play" videos could be affected should a company decide they do not wish to have their game shown. I doubt this will be much of a problem, because they can already have such videos taken down. They just don't. In fact, many companies regard LP's to be good publicity for a game... unless their game is terrible.
On the plus side, it sets specific penalties in place should a person violate it. The concept of some child torrenting a movie and their parents being sued for $XX MILLION is excessive and could potentially fall under "cruel punishment".
On one hand, things like "Let's Play" videos could be affected should a company decide they do not wish to have their game shown.
On the plus side, it sets specific penalties in place should a person violate it. The concept of some child torrenting a movie and their parents being sued for $XX MILLION is excessive and could potentially fall under "cruel punishment".
I believe the Companies and Big Government have already stated that they don't "intend" to punish the people who stream these videos but to go after the source of where all the videos are streaming from... ironic considering the source is also in violation of copyright laws and are already deemed illegal... so I'll wait and see the difference between what they "say" and what they "do"... you have to ask yourself, if a company and government is INTENTIONALLY being dishonest about something, is that really good for the American people?
Now the main impact on consumers or online users here comes in the criminalizing of streaming such content. Because it means that if you were to post say a stream of you playing a video game and it was removed and you re-posted, or you posted it to multiple sights... if you hit that count of ten strikes on the single property in a 180 day span (roughly 6 months) then you can be criminally charged.
How do you arrive at that?
Firstly doing a screen capture of you playing a game would fall under fair use. If the copyright owner feels you have gone beyond what is considered fair use they can sue you and the court would have to determine whether it was, there is no absolute definition of what fair use is.
Secondly if you say posted this to youtube.com they aren't the law and just because their policies dictate it be removed doesn't necessarily mean it's against copyright law.
Last but not least if you're streaming a video that means you are serving the content that people could connect to from their own machine. Technically I guess you could consider uploading a file to youtube streaming but this type of legislation is intended to thwart people serving it from public or even private servers.
So it appears that they finally have a bill in the works (Bill S.978) to set firm mandates on penalties for streaming of copyrighted material.
Excellent. I like it already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dampylle
The idea is that it will set fines and even jail penalties for those who stream any single copyrighted material meeting a criteria of income 10 times within a 180 day period.
That's it? It should be more stringent. Permanent bar to student financial aid, life-time ban on Food Stamps and Section 8 Housing etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dampylle
Now the main impact on consumers or online users here comes in the criminalizing of streaming such content. Because it means that if you were to post say a stream of you playing a video game and it was removed and you re-posted, or you posted it to multiple sights... if you hit that count of ten strikes on the single property in a 180 day span (roughly 6 months) then you can be criminally charged.
That is not what it says. As the copyright owner, you have control. This bill is intended to protect copyright owners who don't have control because people like you are illegally violating their copyright.
Last edited by gallowsCalibrator; 07-01-2011 at 01:18 PM..
Reason: Please discuss the topic and not your fellow poster.
That is not what it says. As the copyright owner, you have control. This bill is intended to protect copyright owners who don't have control because people like you are illegally violating their copyright.
There is distinct shift here from civil infraction to criminal infraction. Copyright owners at least for anything being served from US server already have sledgehammer with the DMCA.
ANYONE can use this, if for example you find images you created on someones site you can go right to the host who will usually suspend their service immediately because if the host doesn't take action then they are responsible for damages too . On the flip side filing a fraudulent notice can cost you dearly.
I honestly think it was made to crack down on torrenting and also to crack down on the RIAA and MPAA and their ridiculous penalties.
I don't think Let's Play and Youtube has anything to worry about, as Youtube is generally covered with their T.o.S., however, the "Public showing" clause can cover youtube, but that's generally reserved for movies and the like.
Firstly doing a screen capture of you playing a game would fall under fair use. If the copyright owner feels you have gone beyond what is considered fair use they can sue you and the court would have to determine whether it was, there is no absolute definition of what fair use is.
Secondly if you say posted this to youtube.com they aren't the law and just because their policies dictate it be removed doesn't necessarily mean it's against copyright law.
Last but not least if you're streaming a video that means you are serving the content that people could connect to from their own machine. Technically I guess you could consider uploading a file to youtube streaming but this type of legislation is intended to thwart people serving it from public or even private servers.
Because the addendum to the law specifically sights public use or streaming and mentions all copyright.
Fair use is in the use of a portion or use for teaching or satire.... simply streaming the entirety of a game without meeting those fair use criteria would fall under the legal limitations as provided in this addendum. Said addendum sets specific 10 strikes within 180 days for criminal charges.
Meaning suing anyone becomes secondary recourse the same way it is for any criminal charge right now.... primary recourse becomes criminal charges if this addendum goes through the courts.
Also there is a firm definition for what actions constitute fair use for digital distribution or circumvention in the DMCA. Simply presenting an interactive medium without providing satire or teaching aspects would not qualify as fair use for presenting its entirety. Sampling is fine of course as it is often used for criticism in the review purpose but the inclusion of all media in regards to streaming means just streaming the game without adding content within fair use license would be tantamount to streaming an entire film under copyright.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
