ub3rman123 Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 So there's a bill going through Congress right now that would make public performance of intellectual property via electronic media (i.e. streaming) illegal. Things that would qualify under this bill: - You posting a 'let's play' video of a game- Screenshots of your creations in a game- A review of a game that includes footage- A video walkthrough of a game- A video of you singing along to a song- A video where you can hear a copyrighted song in the background the bill is more intended to hurt people who upload entire movies, TV shows, and songs for streaming, but it also affects many things that aren't often considered as illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkInMKUK Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 (edited) So there's a bill going through Congress right now that would make public performance of intellectual property via electronic media (i.e. streaming) illegal. Things that would qualify under this bill: - You posting a 'let's play' video of a game- Screenshots of your creations in a game- A review of a game that includes footage- A video walkthrough of a game- A video of you singing along to a song- A video where you can hear a copyrighted song in the background the bill is more intended to hurt people who upload entire movies, TV shows, and songs for streaming, but it also affects many things that aren't often considered as illegal. Firstly, check the wording VERY carefully. The summary I'd seen actually uses the phrase "streaming" as the only distribution method it covered. Secondly, there has to be a PER ITEM financial LOSS to the copyright holder of at least £2500 in any 180 day period. So, they would have to prove the loss existed. If you stream a film, then potentially you have deprived a studio of it's revenue. If, however, you create a mash-up of the film to go with a music track, then you are not distributing the film and thus causing financial loss. You'd also have to stream the film to enough people to cover $2500/cost of a cinema ticket, or the law doesn't apply. If you torrent a game disc file, you are depriving the game company of revenue. If you do a video walkthrough, you don't deprive them of anything (unless you slate it so badly no-one will buy it - but then it's covered by existing laws about reviewing). And, agaon, the torrent would have to upload ($2500/$ cost of game) times (or equivalent data quantity) in 180 days to be covered. Edited July 2, 2011 by MarkInMKUK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 So many people are going be pissed if this passes. I would like to see them try to pass it :rolleyes: It is something that directly effects people at the moment it passes, so its not going to be easy to keep it. Also, this has been spammed literally everywhere, pretty sure most of the internet knows about it by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor. Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 (edited) A lot of tech company's and investors are highly against it as well and slammed the movie industry for hurting inovation. I bet Netflix and vulu are not to happy about it either. I bet Hollywood has made a lot of enemy's with this bill. Still searching for that article can't seem to find it?? Edited July 3, 2011 by Thor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 The movie industry doesn't care whom they hurt, just so long as THEIR interests are protected. Same as the recording industry. Just who is it you think is responsible for directsound going the way of the dodo with Windows Vista? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ziitch Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 Congress needs to see though this smoke-and-mirrors trick and see that the real people suffering from this so-called "copyright infringement crisis" are small businesses who are waiting for patent and copyright holdings to lapse so that they can freely change or improve upon them. Patent and copyright laws have been a legal nightmare in the USA since 1978 (and further complicated by the DMCA) as any patent/copyright holder does not just have a patent/copyright for life, but also holds it 50 years after his or her death. The problem with this is that by the time it lapses, the technology associated with it is often obsolete and something that works in a better way that does not use the basis of the original patent has been invented - And once again, the wait starts again for the new creation's patent to lapse. My question is this: Who thought that making the patent holder latent, even after death, was a good idea in the first place? Would it not be better for the patent holder to be vigorous in holding his or her patent and then have the remainder of time shortened after the death of the holder? After all, what use would royalties be to a dead man or woman? Let me put it this way - Is anyone else recognizing that as a society, we're getting a little too dependent on money, monetary values, claimed property, and profit (and not in a capitalistic way)? In my opinion, in no way should "corporate values" ever become part of everyday life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadimos Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 (edited) well, if they wanna drive it like that and if it is their only answer, then who needs those ppl anyway? is it not just one big hot air balloon business, that plays with ppl heads? it is all what ppl have become to believe through advertisments. yes some things are good, but what is on the "side" is just as good, if not even better. go explore and enjoy. now for common folks it is easy to understand, but for politicians, with lobbyist whispering in their ears day in and out, it seems to be harder to discern between what the general public wants and what a very select few demand over it. but even viewn in that light, this bill seems pretty silly imo.also streams and lets play are a good form of advertisement, but who am i to tell... Edited July 3, 2011 by Nadimos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboUK Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s978/text This the thing? It stinks of bought legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 The movie industry doesn't care whom they hurt, just so long as THEIR interests are protected. Same as the recording industry. Just who is it you think is responsible for directsound going the way of the dodo with Windows Vista?Any industry doesn't care who they hurt as long as their interests are protected... Also it is definitely bought. Also pretty sure it was started by democrats as well, not sure if that's right or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 The movie industry doesn't care whom they hurt, just so long as THEIR interests are protected. Same as the recording industry. Just who is it you think is responsible for directsound going the way of the dodo with Windows Vista?Any industry doesn't care who they hurt as long as their interests are protected... Also it is definitely bought. Also pretty sure it was started by democrats as well, not sure if that's right or not. Bill was introduced by folks from both sides of the aisle. Why does that matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now