I don't believe this bill will be passed even if it is considered. Recent events have proven we AREN'T on our way to the Orwellian Dystopia this bill belongs in. Still, could be wrong, so I signed anyway.
Poll: The death of internet freedom; AKA bill S.978
- Thread starter jimahaff
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The bill is way too ambiguous to get passed. I can't be arsed signing it, besides why would they listen to a Brit?
Copyright holders can always choose to allow others to display their work, only now instead of suing them for copyright infringement and taking it through civil courts (like suing), they'd now be backed up by the muscle of criminal law enforcement (like jail time).Spencer Petersen said:
Bribery and burglary are also felonies. Rape and murder also don't get you up to 5 years in jail. More like 30.MerlinCross said:
Well it's a bill that only ranges american product and broadcasting. Still I find it to be one hell of a dick move from the country who can't keep their mouths shout about the "freedom of speech" and so forth... can't the US clean up something more ... important? Like *ahem* health care?
But this law allows the government to take to role of prosecution and act with the goals of a guilty verdict regardless of the wishes of the company to which the copyright was infringed upon. Even if the family of a DUI victim doesn't want to press charges for moral issues, the government will still push for a conviction. Same would go here, even if a videogame company didn't care or even liked people making videos about their game, the people can still be prosecuted by the government against the will of those whom the law is apparently working for. The grand result is that no one wins and we waste taxpayer money on preventing problems that aren't even problems.MisterShine said:
Also, most copyright suits aren't really motivated by gaining compensation, they are mostly deterrent for preventing more copyright infringement via the threat of legal action. So winning the case isn't really the grand crucial goal, its mostly that the case is presented.
Except it's not their "product".Sober Thal said:
Since games are an interactive medium, the "product" of playing through a game (and recording it) is created by the gamer, just like an image drawn in photoshop is the product of the artist who drew it (and not of Adobe who created the software).
The only thing they could fairly call "streaming their product" would in this case be the streaming of cutscenes (in-game rendered or pre-rendered) since this can be considered movie-like material.
Beyond that, this law doesn't make any sense in terms of Copyright either. Since the driving force behind the sale of video games (opposite of passive media like books, television and movies) is the ability to "play" it, visual recreations/recordings of video gameplay can hardly be considered damaging to the Copyright-holders of the game since video-footage doesn't recreate the gameplay experience that the company actually sells. Copyright-laws are there to ensure the profit of people who deal with intellectual property, and you'd be hard pressed to argue that the streaming of video game footage is damaging their sales.
Agreed, it is the companies right to say no you cant show this and for the most part it wont effect the gaming community as most companies will allow it, if anything your going to see a few companies try to use it to get rid of negative reviews but sense it can only target videos and audio, written reviews will be untouched and most things like Game Informer and Escapist get permission anyway, that will be rather hard to do.Sober Thal said:
P.S.
Waiting for my crotch kick.
First I'd disagree that this isn't a problem. While for gaming this isn't as bad as movies or music because the interactivity for games is their main draw, but for a story-based game or even a horror game looking up the key points on youtube could easily be viewed as lost sales. I know I didn't buy SC2 because I watched the cut scenes online a few days after it came out, and I watched someone else play the entirety of Amnesia: Dark Descent because I was too scared to play it myself (though I did buy the game).Spencer Petersen said:
This bill only comes into effect if the copyright rules are broken, they cannot be broken if consent is given by the holders. For example, EA gives permission to production companies to put their products on disc and sell them to Gamestop, who is also given permission to sell their work in exchange for some of the profit going back to EA. Capcom wants to make a game with Marvel characters in it, so Marvel gives them permission to use their copyrighted characters as fighters in their game, again in exchange for some of the profits here. Laws are only broken if these things are done without consent. And now instead of just threatening to sue, the government can step in and threaten fines and jail time.
For something like a video review that only shows snippets of game footage, that easily falls under fair uselord.jeff said:
"allows limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship."
Who is pushing for this bill?
I'm sure that the companies would appreciate their customers advertising their product through the videos.
I'm sure that the companies would appreciate their customers advertising their product through the videos.
Business is cruel. If the goal is to make entertainment more accessible, there are way of doing that without having to worry about the business end of things. All too often I've seen people dive into a business without knowing what to expect, put out a horrible product, and then complain that legislation is 'against' them. It's the same as when a parent buys a game for their kid and then complains that it's too 'mature' for them. Bullshit; they didn't do their due diligence, and a business owner has the same excuse. None.Farther than stars said:
Of course, if you use copyrighted material in a manner that reports on it or is journalistic... Fair Use still kicks in.
Learn what Fair Use is.
Learn what Fair Use is.
Sir, truer words have never been spoken. *Removes hat*DracoSuave said:
I agree with LordKat [http://www.lordkat.com/bill-s978-criminalizing-streaming.html] on this one. This bill will not mean the end of LPs
Am I the only one that thinks the guy in the video is blowing things way out of proportion? I'm not a lawyer nor a politician, but does a Bill really have the power to cripple the entire internet?
Nevermind, I just got my question answered by reading that guy's article. Also I've never heard of LordKat before, but wow, narcissism much.CM156 said:
He's an Ex-TGWTG contribuiter, and one of the fiew my homeboys at the Crowded Sidewalk like.LobsterFeng said:
He has a very... direct style of writing.
He admitted on his live stream that the first 3-4 paragraphs were him blatantly trolling in order to weed out the tl;dr people. An unorthodox maneuver to be sure, but the man knew that this was going to be passed around, and we all know what kind of assholes there are on the internet. Just read the comments section of any YouTube video. If you'll notice, the article gets a lot more well-written after the trolling paragraphs. This was intentional.LobsterFeng said: