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

[Medimorpho]

I definitely agree. Watching YouTube walkthroughs lets me know what I'm getting for my hard-earned money. If I like the gameplay, from the videos, I may actually buy it. This is especially true if I want to get a game that you really can't find in stores anymore, like SNES games. I don't want to have to spend the trouble to find the game, and the money to buy it if I have no idea what it is like.

The problem with this is that mostly movie companies are supporting this bill, not game developers. The chances of this going through is inevitable. Even if the petition is signed by millions of people, the movie companies are gonna send it through. Most companies treat customers like criminals anyway.

 

[Mrrrgggrlllrrrg]

Based on the poll options it really makes me think you didn't even read the bill or even Section 2319 of title 18 or Section 506(a) of title 17. Hell it's actually pretty straight forward.

I am really very disappointed in people for being so alarmist over something that honestly does nothing to the average streamer of games like Starcraft or League of Legends, ect ect. Even Let's Play videos on youtube don't violate these amendments. The only excuse I can tell from this is people are up at arms because they don't understand it, now that's a little silly isn't it?

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

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

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.

What people need to realise is that copyright holders already have the ability/right to issue a cease & desist order and stop people from streaming their products.

The problem is that the bill wasn't designed with a proper understanding of how the internet works, and due to its vagueness it would technically make any breach of copyright on the internet a felony (as long as its "value" exceeds $2,500).

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

...
seriously who came up with this?
Because let's be honest, even though i'm not american, it would still affect me massively, what with most game footage coming from americans.
But after that game bill was denied, this other bill could be a massive blow to the industry.
Wish i could help, really do.
...
can i?

 

[RaikuFA]

will this also go to the people who upload movies that cant/wont be published in the US?

or what about lets plays of shin megami tensei 1 and 2 on youtube?

 

[Death Prophet]

[ Youtube does next to nothing to protect copyright, so there is little other choice here.

Incorrect. Thus invalidateing your opinion in mine and I'm sure many others minds. I've had several videos containing obscure songs as background sound taken down due to "copyright Infringement". Please for the benifit of the thread, refrain from posting on topics you clearly do not understand.

OT: Yes I signed, and I emailed all of my friends to as well. The bill makes sense for television and film but as stated in the video the broad generalization will hurt much more than the intent.

 

[Tanis]

Reason why I'm against this bill is simple...

Give the government an inch and they'll take a mile, a house, a virgin, and two of each kind - just because they can.

 

[CrazyMedic]

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.

the problem being the precedent it sets like with the law banning the sale of video games to minors well since video games are no longer protected why not ban all the ones that have sex in them and if that is ok why not ban all the ones with violence in them, see so something like this while seemingly kinda benign sets a dangerous precedent like say the copyright holders get to decide who reviews a game so it only gets good reviews and such.

 

[OneNooneKnows]

Way to stir up a hornets nest.

 

[Android2137]

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

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.

Couldn't have said it better myself! Couldn't you have made the poll a bit less biased, jimahaff?

 

[Mr Fatherland]

Is this only in America? Or will this affect me in the UK?

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Signed.

These Nazis need to be taught a lesson in fair use.

 

[Mrrrgggrlllrrrg]

...sets a dangerous precedent like say the copyright holders get to decide who reviews a game so it only gets good reviews and such.

This bill in no way affects video game reviews or reviews in general. See this is alarmism to the point of being ridiculous.

 

[Baldry]

I really don't see this bill passing and if it does it won't be long before it goes down.

 

[WanderingFool]

As much as I hate the sounds of this bill, part of me thinks this will die long before it gains steam, and another part of me hates signing those "letters to you congressman/woman" things.

 

[RJ Dalton]

"This bill will never fly, because it actually takes away what major companies want to be able to do with their products. As soon as it passes, assuming it does, the video game companies are going to take this law to court and fight it and the courts will strike it down because it takes away the owner's right to decide what will be done with their own material and gives it to the government and is therefore unconstitutional,"
Is what I would be saying if I trusted our government to do the right thing anymore. I will therefore be signing the petition against this bill.

 

[XenonZaleo]

Three things of note.

1) I respect copyright. I believe creators should get paid for their work and I don't believe you should pirate things. But Part of copyright has been two things, Fair Use and expiration. Fifty years ago a copyright expired roughly 25 years after it was first published, and I think in the beginning of copyright law it was only ten. Now this amount is 75. This undermines part of the point of Copyright, which is to encourage the creation of new material.

2) The bill does two things of note. It's important that everyone understands what the bill does. First, it amends the portion of the law that defines copyright violation to include the words "or public performance", which means stuff like what is put up on Youtube is doomed. You can say "they can easily get permission', but that's just wrong. 95% of companies will never give any sort of permission on principle. Their legal department will be afraid and it just won't happen. The OTHER thing the bill does is add a jail time provision for these types of violations if certain conditions are met, and the conditions are quite low.

3) This is important to more than US residents because most of your big sites are run by US companies. They will have to comply with such laws.

 

[Lt.Snuffles]

I haven't read all the other posts in this topic, but I'm sure someone has said what I'm about to say, because it has been said in many similar topics to this.

Bills like this are made on an almost daily basis, but every single time it gets shot down. It isn't the Government's right to control such streaming