Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by Woodrat, Jul 2, 2011.
Noticed this on another web forum, thought I might bring it up here as well.
Dear congress, go fuck off.
This isn't meant to kill LPers, it's a result of the bill's vague wording. This isn't Congress vs. Gamers. It's meant to protect the copyright holders of movies and television shows.
It's kind of disappointing to me that while the person I heard the message from(X) is an understanding enough person to say that, no one listens to it.
I'd agree with your point Spammy. As the bill states "A bill to amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes." Though I'd most likely throw the music industry in with the television and movie shows.
However, like often enough happens. The bill is vaguely worded, and would cover everything that has a copy right, which includes video games along with everything else.
So why it isn't meant to solely target gamers and kill LPers. It could easily do so if a publishing company such as EA or another Co. decided to do so.
Honestly, I don't think this amounts to much. Pass or no, I can only assume it would be up to the game publishers about pursuing stuff like this. And let's face it, game publishers typically have no problems with that kind of stuff. You know why?
Because its giving their game exposure. People will watch those kind of videos and think "Wow, this looks good! I'm going to have to pick this up!"
Letting Let's Play videos and Streams continue does nothing but encourage people to buy the game and thus increase their overall sales. When it comes to movies and shows, yeah, I get it. You watch them once and you're done. No need to go back and re-watch. That loses movie and television company's sales.
In the long run I don't see this bothering gamers as much as you guys are worrying about it. The idea of publishers using this to kill what is basically free advertising is rubbish. If you're getting what is ultimately free advertising from Let's Play videos and streams that's less money you have to spend on advertising and thus more money.
And if publishers don't realize this then they're stupid.
I'm more offended by the fact that Hollywood can waste upwards of $2,335,183 to some of these politicians. If you can surely toss around that kind of money, you can help to improve the economy by fucking hiring people. :P
I have a question. 2.8k threshold is not very high. What if an artist is ok with his/her stuff being spread around?
EDIT: Also, how will this apply to companies not based in America? Say, pixiv or niconico (off the top of my head).
Also, Abridged series are SATIRE, aren't they?
. . . WHY DO THEY KEEP SHUTTING THEM DOWN?
Because as stated by numerous abridgers, they walk in a grey area. It is both poking fun at (okay legally) the show and showing the show (not okay legally) to people who wish to watch. The only thing they don't get is 1. That this actually increases the people's want to probably go out and watch that show again. 2. The show gives to the audience the same depth of plot as they would if they went out to the wikipedia page for it.
But I have to agree with Chaos on games, really they will not attack you unless they are stupid. However, that doesn't mean bots won't be at your throat every two seconds. (like LK) Really copyright is a case by case basis that should be handled as such but is constantly handled as a grouping. This is why that word has given us so much grief.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people!
TV companies and gaming companies will indeed use this to shut stuff down.
There is only one thing to be done now....
Thanks to the vague wording of this bill, 99% of Youtube will be shut down.
Yet the Minecraft videos will persist.
Notch said that if this bill does pass, then they'll be adding a clause to their ToS that says you can post videos on the net.
I see other cool people (Like Blizzard) follow suit.
But let's face it, ever since Google bought Youtube it has been going down hill faster than Bush's approval ratings did.
Lets not bring politics into this now.
But seriously, there are other factors of the downfall of Youtube. That music business that is constantly linking people to THEIR site, people being retards and trying to put their own jokes to old memes (like the POWERTHIRST commercials. My son and I constantly fight over whether the originals (fuckwin) were better than the failpeats or not.) Rebecca Black, those youtube poops that go viral for nooooooooooooooooooo reason.
Youtube was crap before Google, it's just worse crap now. Back. On. Tangent.
This offends me because it's more rights stealing, or at least is vaguely worded enough that it COULD be. I'm not saying I'm not free. I'm saying that by vaguely wording their bill they're giving monopolies the opportunity to infringe MY rights. If my radio is playing or my T.V. is on in the background and my kids do something cute I should goddamn well be able to post it on my facebook.
Let's leave Google out of it also. The problem is not that Google purchased Youtube, but that certain elements of society have a major difficulty with the principle of Freedom of Expression, a principle that has guided the US for a long time, a principle that many people fought and died for.
It's not greedy companies, but power-hungry politicians that are the problem, on ALL SIDES of the debate.
I find it complete and udder bullshit. People who LP games and all that are trying to find the means of entertainment and not to mention providing entertaining commentary. They don't need to be so butthurt and imprison others just because his date last night got a little too rough.
EDIT: As well as the company should be happy that the games become so popular among the people that they'd even show footage of it at all.
"And probably not even your home videos because you forgot to turn off the radio (playing your favorite music station) when your cat started doing something cute."
Actually - this already happens in blue ray players or your PS3 system. I can not remember what the program is called, but, say when recording home movies and a copy righting movie is in the background. In the sound wave files of said movie, or even music, is an encrypted code that triggers the program and stops all audio from being played through the blue-ray player or PS3 system.
It is perfectly legal to make up back up discs of videos that you own. However if you are using a blue-ray player you can not watch the copies you have to watch the actual video otherwise it'll shut off the audio and any captions.
My mother often makes home videos since we live so far away and usually she just shoots me little clips in my e-mail but she sometimes sends me actual DVDs of there trip to the beach, to a fancy resort or whatever. If there is a protected song playing in the background I have to play it through my PC or in my DVD player in my bedroom.
Currently you can get away with posting them on a web or just pop them into an old DVD player.
So! Get this.
Amy Klobuchar and John Cornyn, two of the people who proposed the original bill have said that its not meant to target stuff like video games and what not. They've said its meant that its meant to more aggressively target people who profit illegally from copyrighted material. Chris Coon, the last of the three who proposed this, had a blog statment saying...
"Senator Klobuchar’s online streaming bill, S. 978, does not criminalize any conduct that is not already illegal."
So to me it sounds like gaming streams and videos will operate like it always has even if it passes once they get that straightened out.
Sounds like they're aware of the wording. Though I wasn't really worried before I'm really not worried now. As far as I'm concerned, Crisis nearly averted.
Strictly IMHO, but if they're aware of the questionable wording of their bill, and how it could be interpreted by overzealous law enforcement, perhaps the wording should be edited.