there is also something called the fair use act where it allows people to review content of others, this includes lets plays, cause in most cases its a review or analysis of sorts.Sober Thal said:
Poll: The death of internet freedom; AKA bill S.978
- Thread starter jimahaff
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So... what this bill is about is having people ask permission before they can stream content that isn't their own? That's like complaining that a band is suing you for sampling their song and selling it without asking their permission. The dude in the video is assuming way too much about how difficult it would be to get permission. Honestly, you shouldn't be able to upload whatever you want to the internet without permission.
He makes the point in his video that film and TV shouldn't be allowed to do it, but gaming should because it's a form of advertisement. The same argument could be made for video games. If you could watch the entire game on YouTube, especially a story based game like Metal Gear Solid, why would you go out and buy the game? Also, for film and music, if you hear a song in a YouTube video, wouldn't that make you want to go out and buy the CD? It all depends on which side you want to argue.
There was also a contradiction. He claims that it video game developers like Let's Plays and that it helps with advertisements. Why, then, would it be so difficult to get through to a company? You would think that instead of ignoring and denying their requests, they would be happy to just go through and blindly approve everyone.
Look, it depends on what side you want to argue. That article does say that lobbyists pressed lawmakers and that is something I'm completely against, though I don't know how much of that was just used to make the law sound bad.
Just read the bill for yourself. Honestly, to me it doesn't sound like they could put an 8 year old in jail for singing a song on her webcam. What it sounds like to me is that they don't want people making money off of other people's copyrighted material, like putting up a video without permission showcasing a video game and then making money off of it. And like the dude says, it's in the very early stages. Bills are almost always changed around before they're passed.
I believe this law is being taken out of context to make it look like something that it's not. It's just adding streaming and public performances to the list of offenses that would be considered copyright infringement. The way I see it is that it's fine to upload a video of you singing as long as you personally aren't gaining any money from it and if it would have been valuable to the company... I could be wrong about that, though.
What I just want everyone to do is to actually take the time to read the bill and what it has to say and what they're trying to add to the law that's already in effect instead of listening to what some people who are incredibly biased have to say.
He makes the point in his video that film and TV shouldn't be allowed to do it, but gaming should because it's a form of advertisement. The same argument could be made for video games. If you could watch the entire game on YouTube, especially a story based game like Metal Gear Solid, why would you go out and buy the game? Also, for film and music, if you hear a song in a YouTube video, wouldn't that make you want to go out and buy the CD? It all depends on which side you want to argue.
There was also a contradiction. He claims that it video game developers like Let's Plays and that it helps with advertisements. Why, then, would it be so difficult to get through to a company? You would think that instead of ignoring and denying their requests, they would be happy to just go through and blindly approve everyone.
Look, it depends on what side you want to argue. That article does say that lobbyists pressed lawmakers and that is something I'm completely against, though I don't know how much of that was just used to make the law sound bad.
Just read the bill for yourself. Honestly, to me it doesn't sound like they could put an 8 year old in jail for singing a song on her webcam. What it sounds like to me is that they don't want people making money off of other people's copyrighted material, like putting up a video without permission showcasing a video game and then making money off of it. And like the dude says, it's in the very early stages. Bills are almost always changed around before they're passed.
I believe this law is being taken out of context to make it look like something that it's not. It's just adding streaming and public performances to the list of offenses that would be considered copyright infringement. The way I see it is that it's fine to upload a video of you singing as long as you personally aren't gaining any money from it and if it would have been valuable to the company... I could be wrong about that, though.
What I just want everyone to do is to actually take the time to read the bill and what it has to say and what they're trying to add to the law that's already in effect instead of listening to what some people who are incredibly biased have to say.
(-_-) Congress, I am disappoint. Did anyone want this bill? Did anybody request it? I can't imagine any game developers out there who wouldn't want the free publicity that comes from Let's Plays or walkthroughs. Not to mention the fact that if this bill passes, then people will all start trying to email game companies to get permission for their videos, but Youtube will have to constantly delete any unauthorized game footage from the site. Wouldn't this cause a hugely unnecessary amount of stress to everybody?
Yahtzee, make room on your couch, I'm gonna go move in with you.
Yahtzee, make room on your couch, I'm gonna go move in with you.
Heh, looks like our government borrowed a pair of balls from Australia. I'll definitely sign, because as has been pointed out, that is already well in the rights of companies affected by this. Besides, if this precedents then who knows what could be next? You never know. 
They're trying to prevent streaming.
Aren't streams and YouTube videos different? Wikipedia said a stream "is multimedia that is constantly received by and presented to an end-user while being delivered by a streaming provider." (So things like TV and radio are streams.) But with a YouTube video, you load the page, the video buffers, and at some point you stop getting that information when the video is fully loaded. Such videos only have so much information to send.
Or at least, I think that's how it works. Feel free to correct me.
If that is the case, though, this bill isn't nearly as terrible as it's being made out to be, since it would just be aimed at streaming websites like Justin.tv or Ustream. (Which personally, while I do watch a stream from time to time, isn't much of a loss.)
Aren't streams and YouTube videos different? Wikipedia said a stream "is multimedia that is constantly received by and presented to an end-user while being delivered by a streaming provider." (So things like TV and radio are streams.) But with a YouTube video, you load the page, the video buffers, and at some point you stop getting that information when the video is fully loaded. Such videos only have so much information to send.
Or at least, I think that's how it works. Feel free to correct me.
If that is the case, though, this bill isn't nearly as terrible as it's being made out to be, since it would just be aimed at streaming websites like Justin.tv or Ustream. (Which personally, while I do watch a stream from time to time, isn't much of a loss.)
Wow, that's cruel, even compared to what I'm used to. I mean, everyone should have the right to start off a video game company without having to hire an entire marketing department right off the bat, right? After all, if all you want to do is create some cool, fun, indie games to distribute on steam, word-of-mouth advertising might not be the first thing you think of and having to suffer because of some law you didn't know anything about could be harmful to your company. And in turn, we as consumers would never get to play their product.mojodamm said:
If you think that because of that, they shouldn't be in business, that's fine, but for me this isn't about business. This is about making entertainment more accessible to the layman and not less, just because some bureaucratic stipulations are making it harder for the industry to do so.
While I do love that Quote, I really really do, and while saying "I'm not american, so this isn't my problem" is stupid, I can see why you wouldn't be to upset about this.daydreamerdeluxe said:
While it would be a shame to see LP and streams of tournaments go away, it is in the end the copyright holders right to decide what happends with his or hers material.
So they'd turn copyright law from a civil matter to a criminal matter? What a crock.jimahaff said:
What you don't realize is that companies already have ways of banning and punishing those they don't want putting up vids of their game.Sober Thal said:
What you also don't realize is that there's a difference between companies working to stop people from streaming, and THE GOVERNMENT making it A FELONY, thus sending streamers TO PRISON.
And yes, streaming helps market games and is found to be great free promotion. Many developers know this, such as Atlus/Atlus U.S.A, Rockstar (no story content! *week or so after release* Okay, go ahead and show story shit), presumably Bioware, whoever released DNF, and others. Why do you think Machinima is such a huge cash cow?
Also, many countries tend to listen to the USA even on bad decisions when it comes to internet legalities. Look it up. If a UK resident does something on an American based website that's considered illegal, they can get in huge shit. Youtube is based in America. California I believe. Don't know exactly.
_ANYWAY! You get my point. This is a major issue and not one to be relaxed or even agree with, because if this goes through it'll make a precedent, it'll be the building block to true governmental censorship, something the U.S. hasn't been really subjected to and something we should hope doesn't start now.
After what happened with Tokyo's manga ban set in motion from the homophobic and prejudice bigot that is Tokyo Gov. Ishihara, no country can take chances. All disbielief in how an utterly stupid and ignorant bill or ban could pass was shattered.poiumty said:
But California lost the "war on violent videogames", so there's plenty of hope it won't happen. Still, better to have people know about it and show their disapproval for it early on. Don't want to end up like...
Tokyo's manga and anime industry T^T
That is interesting. I had not heard about that. Although I do feel I should point out that Japanese and American culture and politics differ greatly so substantially I think it's too much of a wild comparison. And of course I don't live in Japan, so I have no idea how this ban is affecting /will affect people on an individual level.Ian Caronia said:
God, thank you for not making me an American...
Anyway, this should be interesting. Freedom and profit don't go hand in hand.
Let me make it as clear as I can. Hollywood can fire all of its staff, all actors can starve in their multi million dollar mansions, all the Cinemas can burn and may no movie me made again, if they're so hurt by Youtube. All musicians can get a job at Big Mac and cry in a corner with Beiber and Saun Paul and may no new song ever appear again if they're so hurt by Youtube. All game developers can close their doors forever and let no more games ever be released again. I have all the music, movies, games and books to last me a lifetime. And maybe then, maybe NOW, we can hear and see the real talents of this world, the unheard voices and unseen faces, the people who want to touch us but never got the chance. People for whom sharing feelings and knowledge is more important than buying another yacht.
If such a law passes and is adopted elsewhere in the world, I swear never to step into another Cinema again or buy another copyrighted CD, DVD or game. On that day I'll install Linux on my PC and raise a statue to the GPL god of this world
Anyway, this should be interesting. Freedom and profit don't go hand in hand.
Let me make it as clear as I can. Hollywood can fire all of its staff, all actors can starve in their multi million dollar mansions, all the Cinemas can burn and may no movie me made again, if they're so hurt by Youtube. All musicians can get a job at Big Mac and cry in a corner with Beiber and Saun Paul and may no new song ever appear again if they're so hurt by Youtube. All game developers can close their doors forever and let no more games ever be released again. I have all the music, movies, games and books to last me a lifetime. And maybe then, maybe NOW, we can hear and see the real talents of this world, the unheard voices and unseen faces, the people who want to touch us but never got the chance. People for whom sharing feelings and knowledge is more important than buying another yacht.
If such a law passes and is adopted elsewhere in the world, I swear never to step into another Cinema again or buy another copyrighted CD, DVD or game. On that day I'll install Linux on my PC and raise a statue to the GPL god of this world
I will not be opposing this bill. Mostly because of the major condition which is pointed out in the OP video which needs to be stressed a lot more. "The infringer must upload at least 10 such performances in a 180 day period AND make at least $2500 from them, or the total fair market value from the infringement would cost at least $5000." (emphasis on the AND is mine)
In legal terminology, when "and" is present, both conditions must be true for the law to apply. So, what opponents of this bill are opposing, as far as I can tell, is a company being legally allowed to sue an individual who is massively uploading copywritten material and making money off of said copywritten material. That seems rather outrageous.
In short, Let's Plays and Video Reviews will not be affected by this as long as those producing them do not make beyond $2500 DIRECTLY from the videos, which (to me at least) doesn't seem to be happening all that often.
In legal terminology, when "and" is present, both conditions must be true for the law to apply. So, what opponents of this bill are opposing, as far as I can tell, is a company being legally allowed to sue an individual who is massively uploading copywritten material and making money off of said copywritten material. That seems rather outrageous.
In short, Let's Plays and Video Reviews will not be affected by this as long as those producing them do not make beyond $2500 DIRECTLY from the videos, which (to me at least) doesn't seem to be happening all that often.
Well the effect to the individual level will ripple from society's new concept of perversion, which in turn will be brought about from the fact that it is now illegal for stores of any kind to sell manga like Hellsing or even mildly violent/barely cheeky (pervy in a funny way ala Lupin the 3rd) unless they sell it from the same section they sell pornography.Farther than stars said:
_This has and will affect the publishers of the industry, as most will not want to have works considered perversion and has/will cancel lots of manga that falls under the impossibly vague guidelines "detailed" in the Tokyo Manga Ban.
_Ultimately, after some time has past, anyone reading a hardcore action manga could be considered a pervert, and since mass society in Japan relies heavily on comformity, everyone else will start thinking the same. For better or, socially speaking, worse, the man/woman who enjoys bloody giant sword battles could be lumped in with the man/woman who enjoys hentai.
An yes, though this bill in the OP is backed by the folks who make or break politicians during their campaigns, this country does operate VASTLY different from Japan, especially it's government.
Hell, Tokyo Gov. Ishihara said homosexuals were subhuman, said otakus (nerds) were subhuman, wrote/reads several novels involving young girls and violation, and said twice that the horrific natural disaster that struck Japan recently was "divine punishment".
...He was later reelected as Tokyo Gov. in a landslide vote.
Companies can already petition for copyright misusage, but most don't because having these videos help people learn about their games and inspires an active community. The bill plans to make it a felony so the government can remove videos even if the company wants to keep it up. Copyright holders can and should hold control to remove things, but they should also hold the right to keep certain things up if they choose.Sober Thal said: