Poll: The death of internet freedom; AKA bill S.978

Recommended Videos

viranimus

Thread killer
Nov 20, 2009
4,952
0
0
Sober Thal said:
I realize most people don't care about copyright, this should open your eyes. The blood sweat and tears people put into a product should be respected. If the creator wants people to use their work for free, they can allow it.

THAT is fair.
All due respect but you do realize how hypocritical it is to say that people dont respect the copywrite holders and the artists should be respected for their work, and possessing and reposting copywritten material in the form of your avatar, correct? I mean do you have the permission of the copywrite holder from which ever anime that originates from to redistribute their property every time you post?

Now granted a still image from a animated show doesnt really hurt the company and if anything helps it, but by that sort of ideology it is no different than mugging the artist on the street and taking their wallet. Im not trying to be an ass or start a fight, but more to the effect of illustrating how far reaching these sorts of interpretations can be and how they are getting worse as we leave them unchecked.
 

daydreamerdeluxe

New member
Jun 26, 2009
94
0
0
Sober Thal said:
orangeban said:
Sober Thal said:
orangeban said:
Sober Thal said:
I don't care about people being able to lip synch and post a video on youtube.

I realize most people don't care about copyright, this should open your eyes. The blood sweat and tears people put into a product should be respected. If the creator wants people to use their work for free, they can allow it.

THAT is fair.
Yeah, but we're talking about videogames here, watching someone else play a game isn't using the creator's work for free, in fact, it's beneficial to the company as it'll probably encourage you to buy it.
Then, if the company deems it as a plus, they will allow you to use their product to stream it.

It should be their choice tho.
Well, okay what about reviews? Suddenly video reviews can only be made of films/games/anything copyrighted if they put up the disclaimer saying you can. Surely people deserve to be informed about such stuff?
People can be informed without a streaming video. Regardless.. The industry will decide if it wants people to have free reign over use of their product via video streaming.
However, a video demonstrating a game can be a very good tool for selling a game. I've recently been playing a lot of Solar 2, which I really enjoy, but would never have found without TotalBiscuit's "WTF is" video of it. The amount of "WTF is" videos he does would make it prohibitively awkward to request for every single one, whilst he can spread word of them to many people, at least a few of whom will buy it.
 

faceless chick

New member
Sep 19, 2009
560
0
0
i don't understand why they'd be against these kind of videos.
piracy, i can understand, but walkthroughs?

it actually helps you with the game and it gets people interested in it.
i don't think it stops people from buying any more than written reviews on IGN.

so it's a retarded idea.
 
Aug 1, 2010
2,768
0
0
Must........ Not........ Rage....... Against...... Stupid people!!!

OT: No, it's not the end of the internet. However, we DO need to keep an eye on stuff like this, because, like it or not, the Internet is built on copyright infringement.

In addition, showing footage of a game and showing footage of a movie are two VERY different things. A movie is static. Whatever you show will be EXACTLY the same next time. A game on the other hand, is immediately changed when you play it. That Let's Play is different than how another person might play it, making it less of "Showing the game" and more of a performance.
 
Mar 9, 2010
2,722
0
0
Sober Thal said:
What people need to realize, is that if a company wants to allow you to make your 'Lets Play' and what not, they can easily give permission to stream their content. They don't have to do so on an individual bases like this video implies.
With a simple change to the EULA, developers can allow anyone to do everything they can now. Without this bill, cease and desists have to be issued every time a site streams their content unlawfully.

I'm with you. The bill is only in the first drafts too, they will change the wording of it so that it may not affect video games. Give them time before saying a first draft bill will ruin the internet.
 

Sixties Spidey

Elite Member
Jan 24, 2008
3,299
0
41
This law will never pass. Think of most of the companies that rely heavily on streamed content like Machinima and Rooster Teeth. And think of the games that have been promoted using streamed content and LPs. I wouldn't have bought Ico on the PS2 if I didn't watch gameplay footage of it via LPs. And think of how hard this will hit existing communities like the Call of Duty, Halo, Starcraft, and Street Fighter communities that rely heavily on user-made content. Considering that most games these days have theater and machinima modes right out the box, I fail to see the reasoning behind it.
 

Isalan

New member
Jun 9, 2008
687
0
0
Don't really have strong feelings for or against, but in its current form this bill cannot be enforced.

The number of man hours required to universally enforce such a law would be mind boggling, and the US doesn't have money to piss away at the minute.
 

jpoon

New member
Mar 26, 2009
1,995
0
0
/Signed

The owners of course have the right to profit off of their product but spreading video just should NOT be a criminal activity. People are giving them free fucking advertising. I hate the fact that our piece of shit government thinks they can make even the most mundane of activities a criminal act. Fuck them, I do not agree and I will not submit.
 

Asehujiko

New member
Feb 25, 2008
2,119
0
0
Sober Thal said:
orangeban said:
Sober Thal said:
jimahaff said:
The
Sober Thal said:
Didn't sign, don't plan to. Copyright holders should have the right to decide if they want people to stream their products.
They already have that right, the video explains that at any time a game company like valve could call up a you-tube account and demand that they take down all the videos regarding their games. But game companies don't do that because they know that you-tube videos are great marketing. This bill would take that decision out of the hands of the game companies and give it to the government. Game companies wouldn't have any say in the matter. The goverment would consider lets plays a crime, and would automatically fine or send to jail people who post them.

Please reconsider, and at least watch the video. so that you understand the issue fully. But thank you very much for the video.
Watched the video already. It's just wrong. I say this in the sense of 'at any time a game company like valve could call up a you-tube account and demand that they take down all the videos regarding their games' is just wrong. It doesn't work out as well as you make it sound. Same with all forms of media. Unless people get financially hit, they just make a new account and post the same shit. Youtube does next to nothing to protect copyright, so there is little other choice here.
Bwuh? Youtube is super paranoid about copyright infringement, as soon as a claim is made they instantly take down said video. There like a coiled spring, does nothing, until a company springs them into action.

Here, http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=11738#more-11738
This is a post on Shamus Youngs blog about youtube and copyright infringement. Arbitary and heavy-handed I believe he calls it.
Dude, that's Shamus Young... he calls you an idiot if you vote poorly about games he likes!
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/8819-Experienced-Points-DLC-for-Dummies

There are plenty of people who hate youtube because they constantly have their material posted, regardless of how many times they are asked to take it down. The people who post it just make a new account. Which is why they need to step it up and fine them.
And it's ok to jail/fine the rest of the world as well because it takes too much effort to properly reword the law so it isn't a ridiculous blanket statement that outlaws among other things Unskippable, Zero Punctuation, video reviews, fragmovies, speedruns, LPs and in some cases, even bug reports?
 

Hagi

New member
Apr 10, 2011
2,741
0
0
I'm just filing this under my "silly Americans" header. From all the things there this is only minor.

They can't even take down Pirate Bay. Why should I be worried about them taking down YouTube videos?

And if YouTube is actually lame enough to take down videos on a large scale people will just find another website, one not hosted in the US. With 95% of YouTube videos breaking some form of copyright there won't be anything left if they do.
 

Leviathan_

New member
Jan 2, 2009
766
0
0
Not signing as the bill has no chance nor credibility and is causing people to panic for no reason.


EDIT: And even if it were to pass, it would finally be the end of those retarded cowadooty video's made by 12 year old's on Youtube.
 
Mar 5, 2011
690
0
0
You know, in the agreement everyone always read when installing software there could be a clause granting the player the right to upload footage to the internet. That would save everyone an metric shit ton of time.
 

daydreamerdeluxe

New member
Jun 26, 2009
94
0
0
Hagi said:
I'm just filing this under my "silly Americans" header. From all the things there this is only minor.

They can't even take down Pirate Bay. Why should I be worried about them taking down YouTube videos?

And if YouTube is actually lame enough to take down videos on a large scale people will just find another website, one not hosted in the US. With 95% of YouTube videos breaking some form of copyright there won't be anything left if they do.
They couldn't take down The Pirate Bay because it's located in Sweden, and is therefore out of American jurisdiction. YouTube, being owned by Google, is very much inside America, and would theoretically have to follow it. However, as you said, I would hazard a guess that the majority of YouTube videos either use copyrighted media, so it'd be raaather impractical. Whether the people making the bill know this or not, however, is a different matter...
 

omega 616

Elite Member
May 1, 2009
5,883
1
43
This has no chance of going through as it is, all the people and companies who stream games aren't going to let it.

Think of things like starcraft which is braodcast non stop, be it people streaming themselvs or Koreans streaming an entire tournament.

If it does go through as it is, I would assume most, if not all devs and publishers would release a "you can do lets plays and stream the game" 'cos it's like free advertisment to them. They could get very douche with it and start charging for it but I very much doubt it.

There is no need to worry about this though, especially since gaming has been just classed as art very recently.