Bill S.978, The Bill to End Video Games on the Internet?

[PokéTrainer J]

Hi there guys, today I'm here to tell you guys about a new bill started in Congress. This bill was started to prevent the streaming of copyrighted material over the internet. This means movies, TV shows, etc. This may seem like a good thing at first, but at the way it is worded at the moment, it says 'copyrighted material.' This means Video Games as well. Now, as you may know, a huge portion of Youtube, and the internet itself, is part of a Video Gaming society. Many people make videos about nearly all types of video games, whether it be Pokemon, Call of Duty, Halo, Zelda, Mario, and many, many more.

If this bill passes, every single video on Youtube about any sort of Video Game will have to be removed. This is obviously bad and will not be good for the Gaming community. Not only do LPs, Walkthroughs, reviews of the games, and basic gameplay videos promote and advertise the games, but they also are almost never the same. If you watch the same movie five times, it never changes.

But if you play the same game five times, it is nearly impossible to recreate everything. That simple fact provides some defense against the bill. You need to interact with the video game and actually play it in order to fully experience it. With TV shows and movies, there isn't much else to do except watch it. I can fully understand where the people are coming from, wanting to prevent illegal movie streaming, but they really need to fix the wording or something.

If that all was way too confusing for you, just watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hytigOSjJxc

Wording of the Bill:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s978/show

 

[Thorns]

fuck that i wanna watch my league of legends streams

i hope you americans stop this cause over in australia we're all chill and shit but it's not gonna be chill if we can't watch videos yeah?

 

[VKCA]

Oh dear. I keep on seeing this in streaming video's
I hope it gets shot down or something
or that dumb people who don't know anything about stuff would stop trying to do stupid things.
Fucking copy right is too complicated. If someone is using something not for profit it shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Trax]

America: land of the increasingly less free.

 

[His Eminence Lord Poppington II]

lame, i enjoy my highlight videos

 

[awyp]

This isn't fair!

Just look at everyone taking a stand at this.

 

[DanielG]

That bill is not going to pass, and if by some miracle it does, its not going to stop streamed copyrighted material, too many websites to try to stop.

 

[Iamslow]

Oh fuck I really don't want to see this happen

Oh shit

WHY TAKE ISSUE WITH THIS OF ALL THINGS

 

[billymills]

That bill is not going to pass, and if by some miracle it does, its not going to stop streamed copyrighted material, too many websites to try to stop.

I'd be surprised if it doesn't pass, but I really doubt it's going to prevent much.

There will be loopholes, and I assume many companies will allow the use of their material on the internet, under certain circumstances of course. And considering how much copyrighted music there is everywhere, there will be work-a-rounds.

 

[Outlaw]

i hope you americans stop this cause over in australia we're all chill and shit but it's not gonna be chill if we can't watch videos yeah?

The same country that bans games outright that have gratuitous violence and sexual themes? You so silly Thorns.

And yeah, this won't pass.

 

[auramaster]

As shown by the large amount of pirated music and ROMs on the internet, a piece of paper signed by a bunch of overpayed guys in suits will not stop anyone. Assuming it passes, either everything will continue as normal, or Youtube (In fear of getting shut down) will enforce the law, and everyone will use some other site for their copyrighted videos.

This law won't stop the people it's trying to stop, waste of time and energy by Congress as usual.

 

[DanielG]

Its just a bill, it'll be almost impossible to enforce so its more than likely it won't be passed.

im sorry.

 

[Glen]

if you actually think that some tangible entity that can be stopped with guns is a bigger threat to your freedom than some of the other stuff going on in your country you are retarded

 

[Aldaron]

self citing, i did that in a research paper once

got an A cause my prof thought i was referring to my father

who's your daddy, glen?

 

[Mastadi]

No serious video game company will enforce this, unless it's a negative video review of their game. Otherwise, games enjoy publicity, as can be seen by many of them even including video modes or replay theaters.

 

[Trax]

The same country that bans games outright that have gratuitous violence and sexual themes? You so silly Thorns.

At least our video game censorship laws are looking likely to go the other way..

P.s. sexual themes aren't exactly banned.

 

[Fishin]

Besides the fact that this may or may not be passed, a game company can already go to Youtube and tell them to remove X video that contains their game for whatever reason and Youtube will comply. Most don't because it means free publicity.

 

[evan]

This doesn't change much of anything important with respect to the application of copyright law. All this does is up the penalty on illegal streaming of copyrighted materials. That's probably something worth discussing, but to claim that "all youtube videos with game footage must be taken down" is absurd. If it's up today, it'll still be up after this bill passes.

(the video is terrible, by the way. he obviously misunderstands the bill stating that he thinks that the $2,500 thing is about how much money the video poster makes. the $2,500 are damages the company can cite. posting a multiplayer match is not going to cost any video game company $2,500 in revenue unless it's evidence of shitty gameplay. not to mention the bullshit "politicians are out of touch" "only listen to lobbyists" buzzwords this kid throws around. tragic that this kind of thing is taken seriously.)

((although, developers of sims like PO may want to take note of the increased penalties that this bill includes))

 

[HiipFire]

I'd be surprised if it doesn't pass, but I really doubt it's going to prevent much.

There will be loopholes, and I assume many companies will allow the use of their material on the internet, under certain circumstances of course. And considering how much copyrighted music there is everywhere, there will be work-a-rounds.

I've already found a small loophole in that bill. They wrote that shit way too vague.

 

[Deck Knight]

The bill is harmless.

It's basically an amendment to pre-existing language with no relevant implications. The vast majority of video game material on Youtube is going to fall under Fair Use anyway, and the text in no way alters the definition of Fair Use. The bill applies only to Criminal infringement.

Dude is just trying to scaremonger people. It's a 2 page bill ffs. I could reproduce it here. I think I will:

SECTION 1. CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT.

(a) Amendments to Section 2319 of Title 18- Section 2319 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (b)--

(A) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively; and

(B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:

‘(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

(2) in subsection (f), by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:

‘(2) the terms ‘reproduction’, ‘distribution’, and ‘public performance’ refer to the exclusive rights of a copyright owner under clauses (1), (3), (4), and (6), respectively of section 106 (relating to exclusive rights in copyrighted works), as limited by sections 107 through 122, of title 17;’.

(b) Amendment to Section 506 of Title 17- Section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)(C), by inserting ‘or public performance’ after ‘distribution’ the first place it appears; and

(2) in paragraph (3)--

(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘or public performance’ after ‘unauthorized distribution’; and

(B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ‘or public performance’ after ‘distribution’.

Again, most of this is covered under Fair Use. Youtube already shoots down copyright violators, all this does is change the fine structures. Moreover IIRC the very purchase of a game gives the purchaser a license to use the footage. Finally, both conditions (10 uploads and demonstable economic harm) must be met. Given the interactive nature of video games, all video game uploads are basically free advertisement.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

America already goes around the world enforcing its messed up copyright law, I wonder how much worse it can get before people do anything about it. Maybe now that it's starting to affect video games the younger generation will start see the country they're inheriting isn't exactly a paradise.

 

[evan]

best deck knight post ever