The Story Behind S.978, the Controversial Streaming Bill

@c0llect: I'd imagine Journalism is different, the companies send GB the games, right? I'd say they fall into the same category as EVO, since they would have permission by the companies to show their games. At least, I hope that is the case.

Nilay Patel over at This Is My Next did a good writeup of what this bill actually means by just reading the bill (he's a lawyer and what not). Generally people shouldn't be freaking out unless you own a website that entirely profits from streaming other peoples content without permission and for profit.

Links http://thisismynext.com/2011/07/06/senate-bill-978-youtube-video-game-lets-play-videos-illegal/

I'm just going to wait and see what happens.

Giantbombpocalypse

This bill sounds like elbowpatch job on an existing law just in case there is a case where the law could so something about a big offender and they have an out. This sounds more like a futureproofing effort than anything else. Of course the DMRA was also a futureproof job and well let's just that bill wasn't made by those who truly understood the internet (especially since it was passed in 1996 and revised in 2003).

As someone who would be directly affected, as I do record footage of games for playthrough commentaries, I'm not worried. I feel like the only YT videos taken down will be the "hey listen to this song, and there's this link in the description to go download it for free!". I fully advocate them trying if the law is also willing to work to catch them. That way it all becomes at your own risk but the viewer isn't to blame because the law can just pull it down.

Besides this law if fucked up properly, would disrupt possibly millions of honest users and an entire industry, namely the video game one. But again since game companies never gave a shit about YT videos of their games after they're released, I don't think they'll use this law to pursue anything.

Can't regulate the internet bitches!

Lame.

@rDr4g0n said:

@whatthegeek: Exactly what you said. They can say it's not intended for x, but that doesn't mean it won't be used against x. Just look at it this way: say GiantBomb does a quicklook or vid review of a game and they don't review it favorably. Now the publisher has a way to legal demand the review be removed.

No they wouldn't. This bill doesn't affect fair use laws, and any video Giant Bomb puts on the site will almost certainly be covered by fair use. As Patrick says in the article, it is deemed fair use if the video is for "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research". I can't think of a single video on Giant Bomb which doesn't fall into those categories. And if somehow the video isn't covered by fair use laws, they would have every legal right to demand the video be taken down right now. A publisher has rights to demand copyright infringing content be removed today. They have had that right for years and years. This law makes posting copyright infringing content a felony, it has no bearing on a copyright holders rights to demand content be removed from the internet. Those rights already exist.

The Street Fighter Commentator/Player/Lawyer, David "UltraDavid" Graham wrote a great explanation of 978.

While it might be a bit lengthy, it's a great read.

It's good to see our political leaders dealing with important issues like someone streaming Pokemon episodes on Justin.TV.

I know I sleep better at night.

Clever girl, but life will find a way.

Why are conservatives helping this AT ALL? 
 
1) The entertainment industry hates Republicans. Offer them no benefits.  I'm still all for massive surtaxes on all DVD's and CD's --- you know, so we can share the sacrifice to balance the budget.
 
2) The DMCA has already been abused beyond all rational measure. More laws in a similar vein are an intrinsically bad idea. 
 
3) The scope ALWAYS expands. This will end up banning those videos within 5 years.
 
There is literally nothing on Earth that the government having MORE control over that will be improved by their dominance.

Basically what all this commotion over this bill has shown was that the people making a fuss about this didn't know what the existing copyright laws actually were since this bill does nothing but elevate the punishment for an already existing offense.

If the law is a vague as Patrick's article suggests, then it will likely be killed eventually by the Supreme Court; however it can take years for it to reach their bench.  In the mean time, I would hope the FBI has other things to do than harass ignorant tread posters.  This is all a push by the recording and film industry to practically charge you for just thinking about a song or movie.  In this case, you can't even show what a game looks like without committing a crime.

The Street Fighter Commentator/Player/Lawyer, David "UltraDavid" Graham wrote a great explanation of 978.

While it might be a bit lengthy, it's a great read.

referencing a fucking DSP video, really?

More control for them, is less freedom for us.

so i guess screened.com is safe.. 

Ha, seeing a DSP video on here makes me laugh.

Well hopefully this doesn't pass, or I guess I could get sued for posting video reviews of games on Youtube with links back to my monetized blog. Fucking stupid.

@Gliz9 said:

@ajamafalous: Yeah but writing a single word is almost as bad as the people that get the quest by writing "first"

They actually don't get the quest by writing first. He wrote a single word to comment first and get the quest, but if you say "first" anywhere in your comment, you don't get the quest. Dave specifically programmed it that way.

OH NO PLEASE DON'T GET RID OF DSP 
 
lmao

@JJOR64 said:

@lordofultima said:

@JJOR64 said:

A DSP video? Oh my god...

DSP IS ON A GIANT BOMB NEWS ARTICLE AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

The video was informative though so I will cut him some slack this time.

I like DSP just sayin.

oh god, if there's one thing the world really needs it's DSP getting more of an ego-burst from being acknowledged... or not =/

 What a load of shit, so the bill will stop your averge Joe Shmoe and Mick Foley there from being an internet star. 
Surely game companies will make arrangments to allow video game review sites to stream videos, so whats the problem?

Once again, I'm glad I don't live in the US.

I am curious as to what real progress they think this would make. 100% of those websites that host television and movies aren't American based; this bill will do nothing. 

There's nothing wrong with the intention of the legislators, but this bill needs to be rewritten to lessen its broadness.

@Nitrocore said:

What a load of shit, so the bill will stop your averge Joe Shmoe and Mick Foley there from being an internet star. Surely game companies will make arrangments to allow video game review sites to stream videos, so whats the problem?

The bill will stop those people from profiting directly off their videos, not from them producing the videos and possibly becoming e-famous. Did you read the article? The law is still bogus. The government shouldn't be protecting private businesses, those businesses should take care of their own problems.

@MikeinSC said:

There is literally nothing on Earth that the government having MORE control over that will be improved by their dominance.

I don't know, I think government run health care has a good shot at being better than the current system.

Am I the only person who thinks that S.978 sounds like a video container?

Seems odd that you could deem a video of a game as copyright infringement. Shouldn't the whole package be considered? The fact that someone is watching a video means they've already been taken out of the interactivity (ie: What makes a game a game). You're just watching some shitty storytelling.

So once again the internet blows up because people (and gamers in particular) are stupid? I'm getting tired of them shouting "the sky is falling" every time something they don't like happens. This happened like two days ago when we was the PSN pass thing attached to Resistance 3. *sigh*
 
If you're not profiting from it, you're not committing a crime, and you have no problem. We're fine. And they're rightly going to go after criminals. Nothing wrong here. Move along.

The real tragedy is that it WILL affect online streamers of games like Starcraft 2 and Streetfigher IV against the will of the publishers of those games. Many people in the competitive gaming scene actually now make most of their money from streaming, and that will be gone should this bill come to pass.

I wouldn't expect game companies to enforce this, even if able. Streams aren't costing them money. Nobody's going "Well I was gonna buy Street Fighter, but I guess I'll just watch it on stream instead!". Streams actually help promote games.

@DivineCC said:

@MikeinSC said:

There is literally nothing on Earth that the government having MORE control over that will be improved by their dominance.

I don't know, I think government run health care has a good shot at being better than the current system.

Jesus, shut up. Do you want to start an unrelated flame war? Freaking troll.

I hope this doesn't pass.

Did anyone ask for this bill? 
 
I don't see gamers asking for it, I can't see how developers would want this either as it would effectively kill "word of mouth" advertising of their games.***    
 
What the fuck happend to "fair use"?!?
 
 
*** games are not like movies, games have to be actively played to get the full experience; if watching it on Youtube is the full experience, then you might want to re-consider how you are making games.

haha DSP represent 

Well considering I use the sorts of websites targeting NFL games because I my content provider doesn't offer the games, I really hope this doesn't pass.

Did anyone ask for this bill? 
 
I don't see gamers asking for it, I can't see how developers would want this either as it would effectively kill "word of mouth" advertising of their games.***    
 
What the fuck happend to "fair use"?!?  *** games are not like movies, games have to be actively played to get the full experience; if watching it on Youtube is the full experience, then you might want to re-consider how you are making games.

Thank you for this Patrick.  Haven't really been able to avoid noticing this when watching Youtube recently so I'm glad to be better informed.

MY MOVES AREN'T COMING OUT! DO YOU HEAR ME PRESSING BUTTONS!?

I like creating machinima in my spare time, so this would be a major kick to the nuts for me.

@Skooky said:

Who the fuck is DSP?

You have no idea how much I envy you. DSP is the new Barney. If there are pre-teens in your house who are at all into video games, you would probably (and unfortunately) know who DSP is.

sooooooo......streaming starcraft and making lots of ad revenue?

@NaCl said:

Did anyone ask for this bill? 
 
I don't see gamers asking for it, I can't see how developers would want this either as it would effectively kill "word of mouth" advertising of their games.***    
 
What the fuck happend to "fair use"?!?  *** games are not like movies, games have to be actively played to get the full experience; if watching it on Youtube is the full experience, then you might want to re-consider how you are making games.

TV companies asked for it. They have money to lobby politicians to draft legislation like this. Therefore, it exists.

Pat I love your writing and understand why you used the DSP video but man fuck DSP so annoying

also Nilay Patel at this is my next wrote a great piece looking at it and so did UltraDavid over at shoryuken

@Agent47 said:

@Sogeman: Wow I didn't know there were so many dicks on GB.

Are you kidding? This place is a total sausagefest. I mean, what?