The Story Behind S.978, the Controversial Streaming Bill

While people can say that they don't like DSP for this-and-that reasons is fine but, in my personal perspective what does that really have to do with this bill? Okay, so you believe that he is an “idiot,” while others (including me), enjoy him; but again, what does any of that personally have to do with this bill? Sure, this bill may get dismissed, or maybe it won’t; the main thing that bothers me, is how many people will actually put effort to make sure that this bill in its current state isn’t passed? Don’t just rely on this bill to get rejected because of certainty or presumption. Whether the bill doesn’t pass still that leaves a large contradiction to our government based on how many people actually take part in rejecting or accepting these bills. Small pieces of this bill could be used in another one and cause this to actually become copyrighted with different restrictions. This is just an example, but, let’s just say it gets rejected they create this new bill involving a federal law where games cost can only reach a maximum of $40.00 dollars. Anything above this amount would cause an additional 20% tax on the company annually. That’s a hard thing to just look at and say “nah, I like my current amount,” making interest in this new bill rise without reading between the lines. This is just an example of my thesis so I will say that it could result in 2 ways (that can think of at the moment):

1.)     The bill can contain parts of the original bills intentional actions; but, it only counts as a “misdemeanor,” this time. Depending on the amount of videos you contain on your account, stream, website, ECT will add up, counting them as a felony. Also, depending on the country you are living in this could also result in committing an international crime and a consequence by your countries laws may lead towards being transferred to the United States to serve the crime until completion.

2.)     Companies that make these games are losing profit. So, they prepare a proposal for the government that bans the use of their game to be recorded without direct consent (or licensing) of the publisher. Depending on if it gets passed or not and what the bills consequences will be varies. This can involve in a very bad situation for the people who posted it and the companies who are partnered/associated these people. If the publishing company who made the game wanted to sue everyone involved with the video they could; regardless of the amendment. A decisive lawyer can alter any case (just ask Casey Anthony).

So, these actions may seem unorthodox; but it can still lead to more problematic matters that could affect our rights, in a different situation.

P.s. (my personal opinion feel free to disagree) You have the right to defend your reasons for disliking DSP, I also contain the rights to defend him by saying that he’s funny and I don’t think he’s an idiot. Regarding what you feel is humorous or tolerable is your opinion; but questioning a person’s true intellect from a video is unconscionable if you haven’t interacted with this person in any way besides comments and post.

Thanks for the info pat!

I my opinion, breaking video game copyright would be supplying someone with a copy of the game to PLAY. Just footage should be fine I think. The viewer isn't playing the game but watching someone else. What's the harm in that?

Do Not Want :(

lol people bitching at an embedded video. whats this community coming to.

@DarksydePhil said:

Back on topic (since the trolls are just going to keep trolling if I address things further), this bill changes three major things: -It now covers STREAMING media (streaming coverage of video games in general, which by definition would include any video you stream on YouTube, or a live stream of tournament gameplay, etc.) -It changes the penalties of existing law to include up to 5 years in jail and a felony on your record, which is a CRIMINAL offense So what's the real impact of the bill? 1. Up to now, streaming wasn't officially called out in law, which would have made it a gray area if it ever went to trial. Now, you can't make the defense of "well I knew it was illegal to download/upload movies, but I had no idea I couldn't stream them!" 2. The bill changes the penalties from civil to criminal. Meaning, REGARDLESS if a copyright holder comes after you for making videos of their game (which no companies besides Rockstar Games have done so far), the government can still seek to imprison you up to 5 years if you've made more than 10 videos, regardless of if you are making money on them or not. 3. The bill sets the estimated value of copyrights violated at $2500; so if the copyright holder feels the copyright to inFAMOUS 2 is worth $2500 or more, they can come after you for BOTH civil and criminal damages. Again, I've done extensive research on this story, spoke to UltraDavid directly about it, and other lawyers as well. And yes, I did break the story to the YouTube community; its why my video has over 500k total views and is dated June 30th, while most other videos were just responses to the public outrage that ensued after the issue passed by word of mouth. The bottom line is that the bill is far too broadly worded and as StarvingGamer has said, it will only take 1 crusading idiot in the Senate or Congress to misconstrue what the bill is intended for, and totally go to war against YouTube. In addition, Google may totally flip out and end all video game footage on YouTube in reaction to a criminal threat, whether or not the government ever pursues it or not. One common misconception: there is nothing whatsoever in US law OR in US case history stating that Let's Plays are covered under US fair use law. It is a commonly accepted belief by companies such as Machinima, TheGameStation, blip.tv, YouTube, etc., but that doesn't mean it's a correct belief. The reason that there is a major risk with this bill passing is that until now, no major copyright holders have ever complained about Let's Plays besides Rockstar Games. After the bill is passed, that won't matter anymore - you WILL be considered a criminal by the US Federal Government if you post more than 10 videos. Are you willing to play Russian Roulette in order to get your playthrough of Ocarina of Time on the internet?

They should just get WONDERWAFFLES on the case.

He would double perfect the bill in no time.

"Doomsday, everyone hide! "
 
~People on youtube.

Cool!!!

If the key word here is 'profit,' then youtube videos of game footage will not be included. This bill may be flawed, but it's probably for the best.

While people can say that they don't like DSP for this-and-that reasons is fine but, in my personal perspective what does that really have to do with this bill? Okay, so you believe that he is an “idiot,” while others (including me), enjoy him; but again, what does any of that personally have to do with this bill? 

P.s. (my personal opinion feel free to disagree) You have the right to defend your reasons for disliking DSP, I also contain the rights to defend him by saying that he’s funny and I don’t think he’s an idiot. Regarding what you feel is humorous or tolerable is your opinion; but questioning a person’s true intellect from a video is unconscionable if you haven’t interacted with this person in any way besides comments and post.

And now there is a broader and much worse bill now.So what now?

@Agent47 said:

And now there is a broader and much worse bill now.So what now?

The broader and worse it gets, the harder it will be to pass.

@Agent47 said:

And now there is a broader and much worse bill now.So what now?

The broader and worse it gets, the harder it will be to pass.