Alert! Bill S.978 Will Shut Down Gaming Videos and Streams

I have mixed feelings about this bill. On one hand, I can see how the whiny artist might cry that somebody used their music to make a better video then they did. But if its on youtube, the person isn't making any money off it, and the artist is getting their song free publicity.

I don't believe in pirated movies etc, and do wish they would stop it, but until they shut down the net, they will never get it to pass.

Warcraft honestly doesn't care about people watching raid encounters, during beta they even allow streaming videos of real time raid attempts. The more people who see the boss fights mean the more people get to encounter content, which means more subscriptions.

Can someone explain this situation to me? Will most of you tube videos be cancelled, taken off if this bill will pass?
How will this affect me in Italy? How will this affect Europe?
Will I be able to listen to a song on you tube again?

I don't understand very well...They want to censor most of you tube videos?

I think this will affect videos that show videogames playthrough, music videos of tv series and videogames soundtracks and also some videos of songs, is this right?

What do they want, that we come back watching tv like in the old days?

reply to post by Byeluvolk


So i heard this right? Byeluvolk is in favor of sending americans who watched streaming sites and who are watching the streaming? thats quite a fascist behavior


@Zagari
Yes Zagari this wont effect just youtube but other streaming sites, it seems Byeluvolk in favor of sending innocent americans into jail.


@tnhiker

How many times do i have to tell? this bill wont effect just games but music, movies etc on streaming sites.

I cant believe how many of you are actaully ignorant on this issue and yet your here on a alternative news web site?

If you support this bill you support the corporations and the nanny state support of internet censorship but if your agaisnt it you stand for the internet users rights.


And also the government is going to criminalizing everything they can to protect the interests of the corporations - not protecting the citizens.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter




No you are the misinformed one. The watchers are not punished, the posters are. If you post material you do not own the copyright for, and do not have permission from the owner, you will be punished. That is all. Anybody who happens to watch what you have posted will not even be given a second thought.

reply to post by Byeluvolk

looks like you dont understand whose at risk here
and haven't been following it, seeing how strongly you support the internet censorship bill, dont try to swing your opinion from the last reply.


Oh i have a link for you to read about (Against the IP)

Agiasnt IP

The myth of the IP

The watchers are not punished, the posters are

posters are also watchers and are to human and innocent

Sounds like you strongly support the corporations and want them completely overrun youtube and destroy it dont you want that? because it sounds like you want that to happen.

do not have permission from the owner,

And you think Greedy swines companies are going to permission to host videos once they have total control on steaming sites? i didn't think so if you have the cash sure they will give permission but not on a whim.



Corporations dont care about us, oh and also this bill wont effect just video games or just youtube it will effect every streaming sites that is on the net.

So many are clueless and ignorant on this topic.

Originally posted by tnhiker
I have mixed feelings about this bill. On one hand, I can see how the whiny artist might cry that somebody used their music to make a better video then they did. But if its on youtube, the person isn't making any money off it, and the artist is getting their song free publicity.

I don't believe in pirated movies etc, and do wish they would stop it, but until they shut down the net, they will never get it to pass.

Warcraft honestly doesn't care about people watching raid encounters, during beta they even allow streaming videos of real time raid attempts. The more people who see the boss fights mean the more people get to encounter content, which means more subscriptions.

Actually you have the right idea, but just have not thought it to the end. If you want to use "Artist X" as a musical background to a video you make. Send them or their recording label an email and ask permission. You will be surprised at how many will give you permission to do so, assuming they agree with the content of your video. It is not so much that people are making money off the artist song, but rather they lend the artist's "acceptance" of the video content.

The example would be like this. You make a video showing people murdering and raping a small village. You then set this video to the music of some artist. Now people who watch this video associate that artist with the movie. Now this may affect their opinions of this artist for the rest of their lives. This may be a blatant influence, or even a subliminal influence, but it is still there.

This just shows one way that using someone else’s work can be detrimental to them, even if it was not a monetary gain on your part. And this is only for music. You already see the problem with movies but even with music the same thing applies. If you post a video on the net with some song as the backdrop. Now you have inadvertently set this song up as a "broadcast" of the material. Now someone can download your movie, rip the audio track from it to an mp3, and add it to their playlist. You have now just pirated this song and placed it up for download in a roundabout way. So now we are back to the "theft" angle you see with the pirating of movies.

This law is not just about music and movies either, but any IP, Book, Software, Pictures, 3d models, etc. It is not all about some rich artist crying about the use of their song. There are small time people just like you who may have spent hundreds of hours on making a 3D model, or "painting" a picture. If this material is then just disseminated over the net with no control, they may be losing out on sales. Also, others can take this material claim it as their own, and then go re-sell it as well to other unsuspecting customers. This is not some rich artist whining but some random joe who has a talent and is trying to make a living. He may not have the benefit of some large corporation behind him looking out for his interests; he is on his own, trying to keep people from stealing his IP.

The only people who have anything to fear from these laws are the people who are stealing the content and posting it on the net. The person who may unsuspectingly watch a video on YouTube is not going to be punished. The person who posted it may be, the website that is hosting it may be, and even the credit card processor who has allowed a “pirate” sight to use their services to sell the stolen material might be, but most assuredly not the person who just happens to watch a video on YouTube.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


Swing my opinion? Never, I fully support both of these laws. And your attempts to troll will not work.

Anybody is free to read these laws verbatim, I have posted links to both of them, and they both are very clear in their intent.

If you do not own the copyright to the material, and do not have permission from the copyright owner, do not post the material on the internet. There is no gray area, there is no prosecution of the “Viewers.” There is only prosecution of the people who post, or allow the posting of the material. It is very simple.

reply to post by Zagari




Living in Italy you have much more leeway. An American law can't affect you. Thus the provisions for prosecuting the hosting site and or the credit card processor that assists in the sale of the material (if any).

The point is if you post the video on YouTube, which is a company based in the states, the prosecution will go after them not you. Thus YouTube is making certain any video posted on their site is indeed legal. However you can still post anything you want on a server outside of the U.S. and these laws can’t do a thing about it. That will be up to the laws of the country where the server you post to is located.

reply to post by Byeluvolk

I fully support both of these laws. And your attempts to troll will not work.

My attempts to troll? well it shows how a well of a member you are by calling other older members here trolls, i have been following these internet censorship bills for a while now, i am just trying to reason with you but it seems since your a newbie with a mouthpiece for the corporations why are you even here on a alternative news source corporate fan boy.

The point is if you post the video on YouTube, which is a company based in the states, the prosecution will go after them not you. Thus YouTube is making certain any video posted on their site is indeed legal. However you can still post anything you want on a server outside of the U.S. and these laws can’t do a thing about it. That will be up to the laws of the country where the server you post to is located.

In other words you support the Nanny government and support internet censorship which makes you a corporatist.

the prosecution will go after them not you

Wrong it will go after you

However you can still post anything you want on a server outside of the U.S. and these laws can’t do a thing about it.

Larger this bill will effect outside countries aswell, because there countries governments will be forced to create a similar Internet rules, since there governments have pro Washington standings, just like canada and the eu do of course unless you forget.


This bill will mean the end of streaming sites not just youtube, it will effect gaming, music, movies, and even trailers.

and no more home videos of you on youtube or any other streaming sites singing Karaoke from well known singers.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter




Again, your trolling attemp will not work. I am not going to be drug into an inane argument with such childish attempts. If you wish to discuss the topic, I am here. If you are only here to insult then I am done responding.

reply to post by Byeluvolk


Well that proves your a troll or disnfo agent, trolling in here no offense, i have a been member on here for six years, i have been following such internet censorship bills, if you wont look at the reality on just how bad these bills are going to be once they are voted approved by the nanny state you love.


Then why did you bother of replying here in the first place?

Again, your trolling attempt will not work

And i will say this again, i am not the one attempting on trolling.

sounds to me like napster 2.0, but seriously, who is gonna enforce this bill...? sure they might take a few things out to set examples... sites like Hulu / netflicks and such already have licensing through whoever, hence the site still running and nobody getting sued for copyright infringement. which is joke anyway...

bills like this can really only be enforced by the consent of the gover'd, which doesn't seem to be the companies and corporations... hell the rich have a different set of laws to abide by... with all this recession and the dollar devatuation happening, our entertainment cost have gone up, hell its $5.00 for a large soda at a movie theater...
8 bucks for popcorn, and 10+ bucks for the movie ticket, and thats for one person...

take three people for a movie for two hours and you can pay for a month of internet... a box of three bags of popcorn at a grocery store is about 1.50... that same large drink at a convienent store is about a 1.50... a single hot dog at a theater cost more than a pack of hot dogs and a pack of buns...

id rather torrent or stream a boot leg copy than go to the damn moives... and most movies nowa days suck any way, id rather watch a documentary...

damn americans... i wonder how they will enforce this "law" when folks hit sites uploadig american content on off shore servers by other countries and people outside of american jurisdiction... seems to me they cant be charge'd with anything unless the country they are serving from even gives a damn...

Wanting to add something into the debate here.

A Fair(y) Use Tale

Synopsis: Professor Eric Faden of Bucknell University provides this humorous, yet informative, review of copyright principles delivered through the words of the very folks we can thank for nearly endless copyright terms.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
looks like you dont understand whose at risk here

and haven't been following it, seeing how strongly you support the internet censorship bill, dont try to swing your opinion from the last reply.

Trying to imply I am changing my stance mid stride, thus get me into some childish argument.



And then

My attempts to troll? well it shows how a well of a member you are by calling other older membershere trolls, i have been following these internet censorship bills for a while now, i am just trying to reason with you but it seems since your a newbie with a mouthpiece for the corporations why are you even here on a alternative news source corporate fan boy.

...

In other words you support the Nanny government and support internet censorship which makes you a corporatist.

Blatant name calling, Hostile language, Derogatory labels, Implying your point of view is more valid based on account creation date.

Yes "Trolling"

As I said if you wish to discuss civilly I am here, if not, done responding.

reply to post by Byeluvolk

In other words you support the Nanny government and support internet censorship which makes you a corporatist. Blatant name calling, Hostile language, Derogatory labels, Implying your point of view is more valid based on account creation date. Yes "Trolling" As I said if you wish to discuss civilly I am here, if not, done responding.

So if i call you a corporatist its Blatant name calling, Hostile language, Derogatory labels and trolling? well thats a new one, what are you an artist? song writer?


Please respond in a civilly manner, because i have been responding to you civilly and so odd of your profile for you to responding on my thread only.

And now its July 2011 and you joined in June? i find that suspicious.

reply to post by nvprose1




This is exactly right. That is why this law includes the provision to go after the website owners, the site hosting companies, and if applicable the credit card processing companies. If they allow their service to be used to assist in piracy, then they will be prosecuted when the actual "perpetrator" can’t be.

As for posting on servers in other countries there is no provision for this at all, as U.S. laws do not affect other countries. The hardcore pirate sites will just move them “off shore” and transfer “ownership” to a citizen of another country as well. So really all this law will affect is the “Legit” sites like YouTube. They will have to enforce a strict copyright policy. All this does is prevent people from using the material without permission. There have been cases already where owners of the copyright have given permission explicit and implied to use their work in this manner. It does not shut down your home movies from being posted, it does not prevent you from watching Netflix.

Back a few pages I have posted links to both of the bills in question. You can read the exact wording for yourself and see there are no provisions to punish someone who watches a video on YouTube that contains illegal material. There are no attempts to shut down Netflix or other legit movie streaming outlets. These sites have paid for the license to show the movies they do, just as a theatre in your town must pay to show it. Now if it turns out that Netflix is indeed streaming movies it has not purchased a license for, they will indeed get hit by this law.

Originally posted by Byeluvolk
reply to post by nvprose1

 

This is exactly right. That is why this law includes the provision to go after the website owners, the site hosting companies, and if applicable the credit card processing companies. If they allow their service to be used to assist in piracy, then they will be prosecuted when the actual "perpetrator" can’t be.

As for posting on servers in other countries there is no provision for this at all, as U.S. laws do not affect other countries. The hardcore pirate sites will just move them “off shore” and transfer “ownership” to a citizen of another country as well. So really all this law will affect is the “Legit” sites like YouTube. They will have to enforce a strict copyright policy. All this does is prevent people from using the material without permission. There have been cases already where owners of the copyright have given permission explicit and implied to use their work in this manner. It does not shut down your home movies from being posted, it does not prevent you from watching Netflix.

Back a few pages I have posted links to both of the bills in question. You can read the exact wording for yourself and see there are no provisions to punish someone who watches a video on YouTube that contains illegal material. There are no attempts to shut down Netflix or other legit movie streaming outlets. These sites have paid for the license to show the movies they do, just as a theatre in your town must pay to show it. Now if it turns out that Netflix is indeed streaming movies it has not purchased a license for, they will indeed get hit by this law.

yea i saw that after the fact i looked up the bill and wasted about 15-20 minutes comparing to other websites displaying the same content and their own "interpretation" of how the bill will impact us... so until i catually afford to go to moive or buy CDs again without the feeling im being robbed, by some meida giant... I wont

here is another good explaination on the music limits:

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter




Actually if you go look at my profile you will see I finally created this account a few weeks back to respond to a post about the homeless. I have indeed been reading the ATS forums for years, and have indeed posted in many threads besides your's in the few weeks I have had an account.

Further, you will see I have never attacked anybody for their beliefs, over their use of the English language, or any of the other things so many here do. My posts have always been civil, well written, and never confrontational. Other than the fact that topics here are by nature confrontational. The point is I do not attack the poster in any way. So as I said, if it is civil I will respond. If it is (or seems to be) an attempt to drag me into a childish argument I will not.

…

So back to the topic on hand; where have you seen they intend to prosecute the average Joe, that just happens to watch a video on YouTube that has been put up illegally? The site I looked up these two bills on, did not have any indication of this in the description of the bills. I admit I have not been to the “official” congress web page, assuming they even have one. It was just a page that seemed to be an unbiased site talking about these bills.

reply to post by nvprose1




Yes I wholeheartedly agree. I have been to a theatre maybe 5 times in the last 10 years. And I very rarely buy a CD. I do buy DVD/Blue ray disks however as I can justify this expense as I now can watch it any time I wish. And for my “Home Music System” I got myself an account on Pandora Radio, and my Blue ray player can access this account to pipe this music over my sound system. I have a Netflix account and at one time I used Cable T.V. However the cable seems to be very expensive for how much I use it, so I shut it off a few months later.

reply to post by Byeluvolk


i know i posted a very lengthy video and it may not grab any body's attention who does not listen to the types of genre that is portrayed in the video to convey the point but to truely understand what the point is one must listen to the the words that are being said, in regards to court cases of copy right law... and to hear the music, (some might not think of it as music) but it is an intelectual form of art and companies own that art worldwide... they make it harder for ideas to be revamped and changed for the next generation, who inturn will build on the great ideas we produce from great ideas in the past... Its all about control, and with control comes money and frivilous lawsuits for money... there is a coprorate consitution by decree of the money holders, our government represents the companies and corps more than they do the "citizen"... we get fined and jailed, they get a congressional commision or sub commitee hearing... no more anti trust laws for media ownership, and therefore copy right laws will become more lenghty and costly to those who violate, im sure the bill will pass... its just an addition of the past bills that have already passed...