The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Make a Let's Play? Felony. AMV? Felony. Post a Cutscene? Felony.
No, it's not. Both sides of the aisle support this since both sides want sweet, sweet cash cum from media cocks.
So what do we do about it?
Call your senators and your representatives. E-mail them. Snail mail them. I know that sounds insipid, but do it anyway. Enough voters screaming makes any politician cave like a fucking house of cards. We absolutley cannot let this pass.
Supporting:
◦American Federation of Television and Radio Artists
◦Directors Guild of America
◦International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States
◦Screen Actors Guild
◦Motion Picture Association of America
◦Recording Industry Association of America
◦Independent Film and Television Alliance
◦National Association of Theatre Owners
◦Ultimate Fighting Championship
◦American Federation of Musicians
◦American Intellectual Property Law Association
◦NBC Universal
◦Viacom
◦Sony Pictures Entertainment
◦American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
◦Association of American Publishers
◦Association of Independent Music Publishers
◦American Photographic Artists
◦AT&T
◦Broadcast Music, Inc.
◦Business Software Alliance
◦CBS Corporation
◦Church Music Publishers Association
◦Entertainment Software Association
◦Graphic Artists Guild
◦National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing
◦National Association of Broadcasters
◦National Collegiate Athletic Association
◦National Music Publishers' Association
◦National Basketball Association
◦News America Holdings
◦Newspaper Association of America
◦Picture Archive Council of America
◦Professional Photographers of America
◦Professional School Photographers Association
◦Reed Elsevier
◦PPL & VPL
◦SESAC
◦Software & Information Industry Association
◦Time Warner
◦Universal Music Group
◦Magazine Publishers of America
◦The Walt Disney Company
◦Writers Guild of America, West
◦U. S. Chamber of Commerce
◦International Brotherhood of Teamsters
◦Entertainment Merchants Association
◦Global Intellectual Property Center
Opposing:
◦U.S.W.G.O.
◦Demand Progress
◦Electronic Frontier Foundation
Is there a penalty already on the books for breaking copyright in the form of a let's play that just isn't followed now, or has that just not been on the books yet?
From what I gather, yes there is, but it's a civil court issue. This makes it a felony class issue which makes it a goverment issue. Your tax dollars at work.
It's good in these times of financial hardship we are looking at sharing the financial burden that multi-billion dollar corporations have with legal fees.
[duffman] whatever happened to fair use [/duffman]
Most of the stuff listed in the OP was never covered by fair use as its currently interpreted. I actually really want this to pass. After it does, I want it vigorously enforced. I want it to be impossible for people to pretend that copyright is not horribly broken in this country, and that's not happening if their noses don't get seriously rubbed in it.
and has a total economic value, either to the copyright holder or the infringer, of at least $2,500.
Kind of important to note.
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited July 2011
I wonder if people have been hard at work at trying to kill Free Use.
Henroid on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
(2) Evidence.— For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.
I know the intent isn't really important, and that the law itself is kind of fucked up, but this really seems more like a "catch-all" law that won't ever affect 99% of the people who break it.
They will be going after people streaming tv shows and movies. They'll make an example out of a few people, I'm sure, but this seems to me to be something that is largely reactionary to the prevalence of streaming media.
(2) Evidence.— For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.
also fair use is not modified by this change
It's late at night and my brain can't process legal-language. Translate?
Henroid on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
[duffman] whatever happened to fair use [/duffman]
Most of the stuff listed in the OP was never covered by fair use as its currently interpreted. I actually really want this to pass. After it does, I want it vigorously enforced. I want it to be impossible for people to pretend that copyright is not horribly broken in this country, and that's not happening if their noses don't get seriously rubbed in it.
Oh please. Copyright is horrendously broken, that's true, and it's broken in favor of the copyright holders.
The reason things like fair use exist and the reason copyrights expire is that culture benefits from the reuse of these once-copyrighted products. Also, past culture contributes to contemporary artistic innovation.
Anyway, copyrights SHOULD expire, and they should expire a LOT quicker than they currently do. And while I understand that being able to fire up a Youtube video to listen to a song might cut into a label's profit margins from people that might have otherwise purchased a CD or an MP3 of that song, I'm not going to cry a river for their losses.
(2) Evidence.— For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.
also fair use is not modified by this change
Your Honor, The People intend to show, with expert testimony, that "Kingdom Hearts - Sora and Kairi LOVE_Coldplay Yellow.flv" willfully infringes on the copyright of the song Yellow and the video game Kingdom Hearts.
To perform or display a work “publicly” means—
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.
so that would cover streaming, it seems
So It Goes on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
(2) Evidence.— For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.
also fair use is not modified by this change
Your Honor, The People intend to show, with expert testimony, that "Kingdom Hearts - Sora and Kairi LOVE_Coldplay Yellow.flv" willfully infringes on the copyright of the song Yellow and the video game Kingdom Hearts.
fair use dogggg
though I admit I am not up on current fair use rulings
also song covers on youtube would not fall under this law, since they are an exception to the rights held by sound recording owners
So It Goes on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited July 2011
I've noticed in some YouTubes that are uploading lately that there's Fair Use disclaimers all over the place, citing how they fit under the title and such. Which is a good move, because YouTube is pretty bad about copyright enforcement (anyone can claim to be representing a corporation, and any video can get flagged and will automatically be taken down; the human interaction comes in when people file to turn over the claim, but those people filing to turn over have to give up their personal info to whoever made the claim in the first place).
[duffman] whatever happened to fair use [/duffman]
Most of the stuff listed in the OP was never covered by fair use as its currently interpreted. I actually really want this to pass. After it does, I want it vigorously enforced. I want it to be impossible for people to pretend that copyright is not horribly broken in this country, and that's not happening if their noses don't get seriously rubbed in it.
Anyway, copyrights SHOULD expire, and they should expire a LOT quicker than they currently do. And while I understand that being able to fire up a Youtube video to listen to a song might cut into a label's profit margins from people that might have otherwise purchased a CD or an MP3 of that song, I'm not going to cry a river for their losses.
That last sentence really bothers me when concerning the copyright and piracy argument.
The way you decide whether or not someone deserves your money is by withholding your money and boycotting their product. I'm not saying I've never downloaded or streamed anything, but to justify downloading/streaming because you don't feel like company x deserves to make any more money is kind of silly. It is not an unreasonable reaction for a business to be upset that they are losing out on money.
So I just followed the whole thing. The main addition of this bill is as follows:
(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
So the main thing here is public performances of copyright work. They amend the definition as well:
(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;’.
So it really seems to be going after justin.tv kind of people.
I know the intent isn't really important, and that the law itself is kind of fucked up, but this really seems more like a "catch-all" law that won't ever affect 99% of the people who break it.
They will be going after people streaming tv shows and movies. They'll make an example out of a few people, I'm sure, but this seems to me to be something that is largely reactionary to the prevalence of streaming media.
Except that the way it will actually work will be as a tool to provide authorities with more power.
Traffic law works similarly in theory, and in reality it is used to harass brown people and extract revenue for the state instead of making roads safe.
[duffman] whatever happened to fair use [/duffman]
Most of the stuff listed in the OP was never covered by fair use as its currently interpreted. I actually really want this to pass. After it does, I want it vigorously enforced. I want it to be impossible for people to pretend that copyright is not horribly broken in this country, and that's not happening if their noses don't get seriously rubbed in it.
Anyway, copyrights SHOULD expire, and they should expire a LOT quicker than they currently do. And while I understand that being able to fire up a Youtube video to listen to a song might cut into a label's profit margins from people that might have otherwise purchased a CD or an MP3 of that song, I'm not going to cry a river for their losses.
That last sentence really bothers me when concerning the copyright and piracy argument.
The way you decide whether or not someone deserves your money is by withholding your money and boycotting their product. I'm not saying I've never downloaded or streamed anything, but to justify downloading/streaming because you don't feel like company x deserves to make any more money is kind of silly. It is not an unreasonable reaction for a business to be upset that they are losing out on money.
No, it's not an unreasonable reaction. But their concern is less important than what would happen to our culture if, say, fair use went away. According to SIG that's not what's happening here, but let's say it was? Let's say it was Fair Use versus a few more dollars in Media Conglomerate X's pockets. I'm siding with Fair Use. I'm siding with culture. And no, I'm not going to shed tears for Media Conglomerate X.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
edited July 2011
I wish I could tell you that Slowbeef fought the good fight, and the AMVers let him be. I wish I could tell you that - but anime prison is no fairy-tale world. He never said who did it, but we all knew. Things went on like that for awhile - prison life consists of watching subs, and then watching more subs. Every so often, Slowbeef would show up with fresh pocky stains. The AMVers kept at him - sometimes he was able to fight 'em off, sometimes not. And that's how it went for Slowbeef- that was his routine. I do believe those first two years were the worst for him, and I also believe that if things had gone on that way, this place would have made him fall in love with Nickelback songs and handcams.
[duffman] whatever happened to fair use [/duffman]
Most of the stuff listed in the OP was never covered by fair use as its currently interpreted. I actually really want this to pass. After it does, I want it vigorously enforced. I want it to be impossible for people to pretend that copyright is not horribly broken in this country, and that's not happening if their noses don't get seriously rubbed in it.
Anyway, copyrights SHOULD expire, and they should expire a LOT quicker than they currently do. And while I understand that being able to fire up a Youtube video to listen to a song might cut into a label's profit margins from people that might have otherwise purchased a CD or an MP3 of that song, I'm not going to cry a river for their losses.
That last sentence really bothers me when concerning the copyright and piracy argument.
The way you decide whether or not someone deserves your money is by withholding your money and boycotting their product. I'm not saying I've never downloaded or streamed anything, but to justify downloading/streaming because you don't feel like company x deserves to make any more money is kind of silly. It is not an unreasonable reaction for a business to be upset that they are losing out on money.
No, it's not an unreasonable reaction. But their concern is less important than what would happen to our culture if, say, fair use went away. According to SIG that's not what's happening here, but let's say it was? Let's say it was Fair Use versus a few more dollars in Media Conglomerate X's pockets. I'm siding with Fair Use. I'm siding with culture. And no, I'm not going to shed tears for Media Conglomerate X.
But fair use isn't going away. Obviously that hypothetical would provoke a different reaction from me.
But for now I'm pretty sure Sailor Moon Nickelback youtube vids are going to be less under attack than the dude who streams the World Series or UFC PPVs from a website, or leaks footage of an unreleased movie on youtube.
stevemarks44 on
0
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
edited July 2011
I must admit that I didn't think much of Slowbeef the first time I laid eyes on him; looked like a single let's play session would blow him over. That was my first impression of the man.
As bad as this is, what Steve Marks says is right. But this bill just leaves too much room for abuse and I trust corporate overlords about as much as I trust Grand Moff Tarkin.
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited July 2011
Straight-up hosting movies, TV shows, and albums is something I could never condone or defend.
Using elements from those things though, that's all good and fun. Or should be. I've seen YouTube videos pulled, no shit, for having like 10 seconds of Lethal Weapon footage or audio in them. That's not right, and the idea that actions like those can escalate to putting someone in prison makes me long for a better America.
[duffman] whatever happened to fair use [/duffman]
Most of the stuff listed in the OP was never covered by fair use as its currently interpreted. I actually really want this to pass. After it does, I want it vigorously enforced. I want it to be impossible for people to pretend that copyright is not horribly broken in this country, and that's not happening if their noses don't get seriously rubbed in it.
Anyway, copyrights SHOULD expire, and they should expire a LOT quicker than they currently do. And while I understand that being able to fire up a Youtube video to listen to a song might cut into a label's profit margins from people that might have otherwise purchased a CD or an MP3 of that song, I'm not going to cry a river for their losses.
That last sentence really bothers me when concerning the copyright and piracy argument.
The way you decide whether or not someone deserves your money is by withholding your money and boycotting their product. I'm not saying I've never downloaded or streamed anything, but to justify downloading/streaming because you don't feel like company x deserves to make any more money is kind of silly. It is not an unreasonable reaction for a business to be upset that they are losing out on money.
No, it's not an unreasonable reaction. But their concern is less important than what would happen to our culture if, say, fair use went away. According to SIG that's not what's happening here, but let's say it was? Let's say it was Fair Use versus a few more dollars in Media Conglomerate X's pockets. I'm siding with Fair Use. I'm siding with culture. And no, I'm not going to shed tears for Media Conglomerate X.
But fair use isn't going away. Obviously that hypothetical would provoke a different reaction from me.
But for now I'm pretty sure Sailor Moon Nickelback youtube vids are going to be less under attack than the dude who streams the World Series or UFC PPVs from a website, or leaks footage of an unreleased movie on youtube.
I was never suggesting that it's "right" to just pirate shit indiscriminately - my comments were in the context that this law was trying to somehow battle against fair use, which it doesn't seem to be.
Posts
Supporting:
◦American Federation of Television and Radio Artists
◦Directors Guild of America
◦International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States
◦Screen Actors Guild
◦Motion Picture Association of America
◦Recording Industry Association of America
◦Independent Film and Television Alliance
◦National Association of Theatre Owners
◦Ultimate Fighting Championship
◦American Federation of Musicians
◦American Intellectual Property Law Association
◦NBC Universal
◦Viacom
◦Sony Pictures Entertainment
◦American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
◦Association of American Publishers
◦Association of Independent Music Publishers
◦American Photographic Artists
◦AT&T
◦Broadcast Music, Inc.
◦Business Software Alliance
◦CBS Corporation
◦Church Music Publishers Association
◦Entertainment Software Association
◦Graphic Artists Guild
◦National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing
◦National Association of Broadcasters
◦National Collegiate Athletic Association
◦National Music Publishers' Association
◦National Basketball Association
◦News America Holdings
◦Newspaper Association of America
◦Picture Archive Council of America
◦Professional Photographers of America
◦Professional School Photographers Association
◦Reed Elsevier
◦PPL & VPL
◦SESAC
◦Software & Information Industry Association
◦Time Warner
◦Universal Music Group
◦Magazine Publishers of America
◦The Walt Disney Company
◦Writers Guild of America, West
◦U. S. Chamber of Commerce
◦International Brotherhood of Teamsters
◦Entertainment Merchants Association
◦Global Intellectual Property Center
Opposing:
◦U.S.W.G.O.
◦Demand Progress
◦Electronic Frontier Foundation
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
To say the least, haha.
This thread title could probably go with less joking about prison, by the way.
Kind of important to note.
Don't forget the infringer loses 5 years of their life.
America is hard at work imprisoning the entire population. Fuck this country into the earth, I want out.
also fair use is not modified by this change
They will be going after people streaming tv shows and movies. They'll make an example out of a few people, I'm sure, but this seems to me to be something that is largely reactionary to the prevalence of streaming media.
5 years is the max you can get, there is no mandatory minimum
It's late at night and my brain can't process legal-language. Translate?
It's still ridiculous.
The reason things like fair use exist and the reason copyrights expire is that culture benefits from the reuse of these once-copyrighted products. Also, past culture contributes to contemporary artistic innovation.
Anyway, copyrights SHOULD expire, and they should expire a LOT quicker than they currently do. And while I understand that being able to fire up a Youtube video to listen to a song might cut into a label's profit margins from people that might have otherwise purchased a CD or an MP3 of that song, I'm not going to cry a river for their losses.
it was already 5 years max before...were you as upset then
I mean I get it, I just don't want people to get confused that they are upping the max sentence, they aren't
Your Honor, The People intend to show, with expert testimony, that "Kingdom Hearts - Sora and Kairi LOVE_Coldplay Yellow.flv" willfully infringes on the copyright of the song Yellow and the video game Kingdom Hearts.
so that would cover streaming, it seems
I didn't know before. So now I'm even more mad.
fair use dogggg
though I admit I am not up on current fair use rulings
That last sentence really bothers me when concerning the copyright and piracy argument.
The way you decide whether or not someone deserves your money is by withholding your money and boycotting their product. I'm not saying I've never downloaded or streamed anything, but to justify downloading/streaming because you don't feel like company x deserves to make any more money is kind of silly. It is not an unreasonable reaction for a business to be upset that they are losing out on money.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LanCLS_hIo4
?
however I do not think it will do what OP claims it will do
I think it is aimed at the sites that stream NFL games and stuff
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
So the main thing here is public performances of copyright work. They amend the definition as well:
So it really seems to be going after justin.tv kind of people.
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
no, it doesn't
for reasons I have pointed out by reading the actual laws
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002319----000-.html
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-978
Except that the way it will actually work will be as a tool to provide authorities with more power.
Traffic law works similarly in theory, and in reality it is used to harass brown people and extract revenue for the state instead of making roads safe.
No, it's not an unreasonable reaction. But their concern is less important than what would happen to our culture if, say, fair use went away. According to SIG that's not what's happening here, but let's say it was? Let's say it was Fair Use versus a few more dollars in Media Conglomerate X's pockets. I'm siding with Fair Use. I'm siding with culture. And no, I'm not going to shed tears for Media Conglomerate X.
But fair use isn't going away. Obviously that hypothetical would provoke a different reaction from me.
But for now I'm pretty sure Sailor Moon Nickelback youtube vids are going to be less under attack than the dude who streams the World Series or UFC PPVs from a website, or leaks footage of an unreleased movie on youtube.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Using elements from those things though, that's all good and fun. Or should be. I've seen YouTube videos pulled, no shit, for having like 10 seconds of Lethal Weapon footage or audio in them. That's not right, and the idea that actions like those can escalate to putting someone in prison makes me long for a better America.
I was never suggesting that it's "right" to just pirate shit indiscriminately - my comments were in the context that this law was trying to somehow battle against fair use, which it doesn't seem to be.