›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

The Anti-Streaming Bill

WindUpBirdWindUpBird
edited July 2011 in Everything Else
Stream ten "infringing" videos, go to prison with a felony charge.

Seriously, if you use YouTube, just sign this petition.

Comments

  • RailithRailith
    edited July 2011
    http://shoryuken.com/2011/06/30/tolling-the-stream-follow-up-ultradavid-responds/

    Ultradavid, who is a fighting game stream commentator and lawyer, talks about the bill in that article. I'm pretty sure it is mainly for stopping pirated movies, music, and TV shows from being streamed on the internet. I don't know how it will affect some of the video game broadcasts like let's plays and replay commentating.
    Post edited by Railith on
  • DevilUknowDevilUknow
    edited July 2011
    People streaming games is, no doubt, a good thing for sales. I'll bet there was a spike in purchases of Hitman: Blood Money when AuzzieGamer started doing his Lets Plays and they were featured on the front page of Reddit every week.

    However, if it is illegal by default then companies will just put language into their EULAs that says "users may stream footage at the discretion of the IP owner". That would allow companies to demand that videos that are unflattering or mean spirited be taken down, side stepping "fair use".
    Post edited by DevilUknow on
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    It's far too broad.
  • Victor FrostVictor Frost
    Too broad and unenforceable both technically and societally.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    Just so we're looking at the actual provisions:
    `(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if--
    `(A) the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works; and
    `(B)(i) the total retail value of the performances, or the total economic value of such public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner, would exceed $2,500; or
    `(ii) the total fair market value of licenses to offer performances of those works would exceed $5,000;'; and
    Here's my source.
  • GregGreg
    edited July 2011
    Note that congress still can't use technological terms in their bills, but instead "public performances." Let's elect people who majored in something useful instead of Law in 2012, shall we?
    Post edited by Greg on
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    Note that congress still can't use technological terms in their bills, but instead "public performances." Let's elect people who majored in something useful instead of Law in 2012, shall we?
    How else would you have them define the term?
  • GregGreg
    How else would you have them define the term?
    Expand, please.
  • NeitoNeito
    How else would you have them define the term?
    Expand, please.
    What way would you like them to refer to it, if not as a public performance? That is to say, what specific words. Because "public performance" already has a pretty strict definition in legal circles, and fits here.

    It's like an RFC: words don't strictly speaking mean what they would mean in regular language (e.g., "should" in an RFC doesn't mean something is nice to have, but optional. It means "must unless technical limitations prevent it".)
  • GregGreg
    'Streaming Video Content." Maybe they said that is a "public performance" earlier in the bill -- and if that is the case, someone please show that quote and mock me for being the careless fool that I am -- but "public performances" is general, and not useful for the public. We've advanced beyond Rome, where you didn't have the right to view laws unless you were a law maker, but now you need to take a college course or two in legal terms to understand the laws that you can access.
  • Not nineNot nine
    edited July 2011
    Just because you can access the written law, does not mean it has to be accessible to you. That would just make shit harder.
    Post edited by Not nine on
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    'Streaming Video Content." Maybe they said that is a "public performance" earlier in the bill -- and if that is the case, someone please show that quote and mock me for being the careless fool that I am -- but "public performances" is general, and not useful for the public. We've advanced beyond Rome, where you didn't have the right to view laws unless you were a law maker, but now you need to take a college course or two in legal terms to understand the laws that you can access.
    "Streaming video content" would cover private streams too - things that are not intended for a public audience.

    So the question is what defines a "public performance" legally. Saying "streaming video content" is actually MORE broad.
Sign In or Register to comment.