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

[Davey Woo]

At least it might stop the bazillions of Call of Duty montage videos from existing, that's a good thing right?

I'm not really bothered, I don't personally put up videos of games or me playing games so it doesn't affect me.

 

[LunaSocks]

I sent this:
I am a constituent and I urge you to reject S. 978, "A bill to amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright".

This bill would allow the government to lock up Americans for streaming videos or music online, and is so overly broad that people who post videos of their friends singing karaoke could be prosecuted. There are entire companies that make livings off of the stuff you're trying to take down. People can make money by playing games and letting other people watch them and listen to their commentary. A few people are even popular enough to almost be able to make a living off of this. If you have a problem with people being paid to play video games, then go ban companies from hiring video game testers. If you pass this bill, you would ruin people's livelihoods and make us Americans even more unhappy with the country they live in. Do NOT pass this bill. It is obscene and it violates our right to freedom.

I'm not saying that I like people who download torrents or illegally stream or watch movies. No, I condone them, they should be arrested or fined. But this bill needs to be revised or given amendments to, such as allowing people on YouTube to upload videos and such. YouTube already has a copyrights policy, and if you violate it the video is removed and after three strikes, your account is either suspended or banned. Amend this bill, or just don't even pass it at all.

This legislation is a tremendous overreach and I am deeply concerned by the danger it poses to Internet freedom.

If you guys can think of anything better to say, edit this to add it in. This is the best I could do at getting my point across.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Kick me in the crotch, because I am not signing a petition that mostly relies on scare mongering. This bill, even if it passes, probably won't change much. YouTube and similar services are already operating in a legal gray area and the reasons that you can find so much copyrighted material there is because a) the companies can't supervise it all, b) likes the free advertising of their products that let's plays and similar provides or c) don't care enough to try and take it all down.

 

[SinorKirby]

I have talked with my friends about this and found that they tend not to worry.

One of my friends claimed it was unconstitutional because "...it would censor media coverage of E3, which violates both Freedom of Press and Freedom of Speech."

Another of my friends doesn't find it troubling because it's only if someone is either A) making money off of the upload or stream or B) the company is losing money because of the upload or stream.

Personally, after having looked it over again, it doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Arguably, the only things that companies would lose money over would be streams/uploads of full movies, TV shows, or music you can purchase somewhere. Video game footage as shown in a Let's Play is not making the uploader money or costing the company who makes the game money. In fact, it's making money for the company that makes the game because more people will be interested in going out and buying that game.

The ONLY reason I can find to worry about this is that it will stop people uploading episodes of Friendship is Magic.

 

[SinorKirby]

I have talked with my friends about this and found that they tend not to worry.

One of my friends claimed it was unconstitutional because "...it would censor media coverage of E3, which violates both Freedom of Press and Freedom of Speech."

Another of my friends doesn't find it troubling because it's only if someone uploads 10 instances of copyrighted material and is either A) making money off of the upload or stream or B) the company is losing money because of the upload or stream.

Personally, after having looked it over again, it doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Arguably, the only things that companies would lose money over would be streams/uploads of full movies, TV shows, or music you can purchase somewhere. Video game footage as shown in a Let's Play is not making the uploader money or costing the company who makes the game money. In fact, it's making money for the company that makes the game because more people will be interested in going out and buying that game.

The ONLY reason I can find to worry about this is that it will stop people uploading episodes of Friendship is Magic.

 

[Farther than stars]

-snip-

I believe you might be merging Protect IP act with the S978. Both are similar but the authorization of copyright holders is PIPA.

I'd actually never heard of PIPA before, so I guess that's the new thing I learn today.
Anyway, having now read up on what PIPA does, my point is that S.978 does NOT try to do what PIPA does and therefore becomes a lot less enforceable concerning an affair as international as the internet.

 

[Matt Dellar]

About 90% of the games I buy, I've made my final decision based on a non-profit review or gameplay video on Youtube. I know one person not buying games isn't gonna affect the industry, but I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I believe music is included here, too. I would never have found out about EVERY LAST ONE of my favorite bands without Youtube, and sometimes, music videos are just crap.

Most of my decisions about purchasing media comes from the Internet, and not from ads from corporations promoting the product, or even IGN reviews. Sometimes, I want to hear more than a 30 second clip from a song before I decide to buy the band's latest album (actually, all the time). I only bought Linkin Park's Meteora album (long time ago) after I'd heard every song on it via Youtube, and only one of them was from the actual band.

 

[raankh]

So America doesn't want to be part of the internet community anymore? That's a bit odd, to me at least.

For us non-Americans, at least we can take comfort in that there's plenty of room for sites to start up in more reasonable jurisdictions, that allows things like "Let's Play" and recordings of your kids' band-performances without slapping a felony charge on you.

Considering the push for internet censorship and filtering, my worry is that the US is slowly but surely isolating itself from the rest of the internet, Chinese style. I find no other words to describe it but "backwards and draconian".

Surely this bill cannot pass? Really, there has to be someone in congress who uses youtube?

 

[NellNell]

I really hope this doesn't pass.

I've been wanting to get into Lets Plays, just need to find a god game, but if this goes off, well guess not.

Also nearly all of my subs on YouTube have some form of video game related nonsense about it.

Also signed by the way.

 

[Farther than stars]

This bill would allow the government to lock up Americans for streaming videos or music online, and is so overly broad that people who post videos of their friends singing karaoke could be prosecuted.

The way I read the bill, penalties only apply when the retail value of distribution exceeds $2500 or if the retail value of liscences exceeds $5000. I think we can all agree we're not talking about karaoke videos on YouTube, right? Or am I overlooking something in S.978 as it stands?

 

[Mrrrgggrlllrrrg]

1. Second, I am surprised how many people agree it is the copyright holders right to limit things like Let's plays. It absolutely is not.

2. Finally, copyright law in the US is VERY complex. [bold]I read the bill.[/bold] I read all the sections that they bill links to and references. I have a college degree (admittedly not in law, English, or communication) and I still don't really understand it.

3. There may be protections for fair use buried in there somewhere. I can't say. Even if there are, any amendments to copyright law need to have very specific wording and be narrowly tailored to avoid overreach. It seems like the terms in this bill are not at all well defined or narrowly tailored.

I'm going to start with number 2 because I want you to see this staggering amount of praise.

I absolutely commend you for admitting not understanding the bill or Section 2319 of title 18 or Section 506(a) of title 17, it takes a lot for someone to admit they dont understand something and honestly I am very proud of you. But...

1. Let's Plays arent targeted and do not. in my knowledge, violate the amendments being proposed in S. 978.

3.
"Section 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include ?

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."

When analyzing whether a work is done under fair use factors (1) and (4) are generally held to be the most important.

Now the supposed loose wording, I am guessing you are referring to "public performance by electronic means". It is in fact defined and quoted.

"Section 1. CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT.

(a) Amendments to Section 2319 of Title 18- Section 2319 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(2) in subsection (f), by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
"(2) the terms 'reproduction', 'distribution', and 'public performance' refer to the exclusive rights of a copyright owner under clauses (1), (3), (4), and (6), respectively of section 106 (relating to exclusive rights in copyrighted works), as limited by sections 107 through 122, of title 17;"

Section 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission."

As far as I can see the bills proposed amendments do not overreach already defined sections and have a definition.


Wall of text is wall of text TL;DR version
S. 978 is not as evil or broad as people make it out to be, this can come from lack of understanding of this area and that is perfectly fine but what is not fine is the fact that people are getting up in arms over something that does not affect Fair Use and in the end only targets those that already infringe copyright. To answer the question on gaming streams and Let's Plays, the average streamer/uploader does not violate the amendments in S. 978 or in turn the already in use Section 2319. Criminal infringement of a copyright of title 18, as far as my understanding goes.


Still TLR colon edition
It(S. 978) is not what people are making it out to be.

 

[blar the great]

Didn't sign, don't plan to. Copyright holders should have the right to decide if they want people to stream their products.

Here is your video anyways:


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.

they have the right to decide...and they did...but this bill would give the government power to decide..that is the problem

 

[Dr Jones]

Failpoll..
I care not for your (op) arguments. If you make a poll biased i will not discuss anything with you.

 

[soul_rune1984]

I signed it. I agree that the T.V. and music industies have a right to protect their property but the gaming industry acually bennifits from Let's Plays and such. What congress needs to do is rewrite the bill to be more specific on what it's trying to acomplish.

 

[Farther than stars]

About 90% of the games I buy, I've made my final decision based on a non-profit review or gameplay video on Youtube. I know one person not buying games isn't gonna affect the industry, but I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I believe music is included here, too. I would never have found out about EVERY LAST ONE of my favorite bands without Youtube, and sometimes, music videos are just crap.

Most of my decisions about purchasing media comes from the Internet, and not from ads from corporations promoting the product, or even IGN reviews. Sometimes, I want to hear more than a 30 second clip from a song before I decide to buy the band's latest album (actually, all the time). I only bought Linkin Park's Meteora album (long time ago) after I'd heard every song on it via Youtube, and only one of them was from the actual band.

On an unrelated note - don't you just love that feeling you get when something you bought when trawling the shops turned out to be one of the most awesome things ever? That feeling always takes me back to my childhood and all of my video game descisions were like that; just purely my own.

Oh and by the way, welcome to the Escapist.

 

[Farther than stars]

they have the right to decide...and they did...but this bill would give the government power to decide..that is the problem

Yeah, I told him the same thing, but having read the bill again I'm wondering whether moves aren't already being made to allow for exemptions. The wording in one of the paragraphs, for instance, already contains the suspiciously worded term "unauthorized distribution".
Although one of my original points still stands. Gaming studios especially small, indie ones may not have the time, money or even awareness of legal complications to make such exemptions (edit: /authorizations) and would thereby be hurt by this process (that is still assuming this bill would ever be passed in its current form [highly unlikely]).

 

[CaptainKoala]

Didn't sign, don't plan to. Copyright holders should have the right to decide if they want people to stream their products.

Here is your video anyways:


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.

You watched the video, so what do you thing about that thing where in, say, a kareoke party occurs where your friends sang, and you thought it was funny and put it on Youtube, suddenly putting that video up is a federal offence. How is that fair?

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.

There's a reason people copyright stuff. Its not just so they can have the cute little 'c' icon after they're stuff. They want to make sure that people aren't allowed to use their stuff whenever they want. Copyright is there so the holder can decide where and when they're stuff gets used. This bill makes that a more feasible concept.