EPTInfringement by Streaming might become a Felony - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Flyingdutchman
Netherlands858 Posts
| ||
|
MozzarellaL
United States822 Posts
The purpose of enforcing criminal penalties against copyright infringers is a recognition that there are criminal rackets that go around doing things like videotaping movies and selling them on street corners (gee, sound familiar?) The relevant law authorizing criminal liability on copyright infringers states that criminal penalties are appropriate for copyright infringement when the infringement was committed willfully: 1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain 2) the work reproduced or distributed had a total retail value exceeding $1000 with any 180-day period, or 3) distributing a work not yet commercially released onto a computer network when the distributor knew or should have known the work would be commercially released (see 17 usc 506) The White House proposal does nothing other than to include 'streaming' in the definition of 'reproduce or distribute' (A analogy would be like including e-mail, or a printout, in the definition of 'written agreement' -- yes, there have been a plethora of lawsuits in the age of a printer where people focused on whether 'written agreement' includes a computer print-out--because it isn't written, you see) it won't affect you at all because the original law wasn't meant to apply to you. It's really quite funny how a little research quells the mob fear so very easily. Now, looking at SC2 streamers: SC2 streamers do not willfully commit copyright infringement, period. They do it negligently, or recklessly, if they do it at all. They don't know if what they're doing infringes copyright simply by playing music over the Internet so friends and fans can watch it, and if they knew it was illegal (which it isn't), they would probably stop. Even if SC2 streamers did commit willful copyright infringement by playing music on their streams, they don't do it for private financial gain. The fact that some may receive money for streaming doesn't rest on their choice of a soundtrack, it rests entirely on their skill at playing sc2, or their ability to entertain their watchers. They don't they leak unreleased music to the public (to the best of my knowledge), and assuming iTune's song cost of $1/ song, prosecutors would have to prove that a streamer played 1000 unique songs that are commercially available for purchase within a 180-day period (lol!). Like the government cares about some nerd's choice of music while he is playing video games? They have more important things to worry about. (i.e., shutting down movie/tv streams available on youtube and megaupload and other similar sites) User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
astroorion
United States1022 Posts
| ||
|
MozzarellaL
United States822 Posts
On May 18 2011 06:37 astroorion wrote: So, since it says willfully, would that mean that if someone has a playlist of royalty free music, but a copyrighted song starts playing, would that mean they committed it willfully, or that it was an accident? That's obviously an accident. The criminal definition of 'willful' in this case means the actor acted intentionally, purposefully, or knowingly, with the goal of performing the criminal act. (he must know what he is doing is against the law, but does it anyway. 'willful' can also mean 'with evil purpose' but really only applies to things like 1st degree murder and sexual assault) | ||
|
flowSthead
1065 Posts
On May 18 2011 06:35 MozzarellaL wrote: Like the government cares about some nerd's choice of music while he is playing video games? They have more important things to worry about. (i.e., shutting down movie/tv streams available on youtube and megaupload and other similar sites) My issue is that I read this and my first thought was not about SC2 streams, but about sites like NinjaVideo, and the ones that replaced it. It looks to me like this would still target the websites distributing and not the people watching (leechers like me), but it still isn't exactly good for my TV watching. | ||
|
Bobbias
Canada1373 Posts
| ||
|
NoobSkills
United States1600 Posts
| ||
|
Soviet_Birthday
United States48 Posts
| ||
|
MozzarellaL
United States822 Posts
On May 19 2011 07:19 Bobbias wrote: Yes, this will likely end up seriously harming the TV streaming websites... But then again, it's just as easy to download a torrent (which is already as illegal as streaming would be) anyway. Sure, itll be a little less convenient... Oh well. Torrents have better video quality anyway. TV streaming websites are stealing money, especially if they are streaming content that is otherwise not available without subscription (i.e., cable channels, sports networks, etc). The law also allow the US Government to go after people who upload torrents (well, it already does). (btw, just because they're in a foreign country does not shield them from US law, it's a common international law concept that a country has the right to arrest and try any foreign national who is engaged in criminal activity or conspiracy that actually harms, or is meant to harm, domestic interests) | ||
|
Kauz
United States38 Posts
I posted this in a new forum post before being directed to this post. Being new to the eSports scene, I'm not sure how much streaming was prevelant in SC:BW days, but it seems quite obvious, from just looking to your right, how much streaming practice, ladder, and tournaments really dominates the SC2 scene and its "downtime" from big events. S. 978 is a bill currently in the Judiciary committee up for vote regarding streaming music online (copyrighted music). I know it had previously been a request of Justin.tv to not stream music in the background, but it is a staple of many streams, such as IdrA, or really anyone of the former ROOT clan in particular (what is that song that they all play, with that dancing guy youtube video?). I watch a lot of streams, but admittedly get quite disinterested when there is just in game sounds and no vocal commentary. Not by any means does S. 978 ruin streaming, but it is an interesting bill. In part a person: "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" Well, it goes on. So I want to hear your thoughts. I am in a nice position that I can't really speak completely on, but I will say I do work on Capitol Hill, and while I don't have pull in an office persay, I am there, which allows me access to these hearings and resources for Congress to look into this bill. Though you aren't technically MY boss' consituents (necessarily), your opinions are important. I can report on what the result of the committee hearing tomorrow is, and I can also look into any questions you have. Its been off-and-on slow at the office, so I'd be happy to help. I'd also suggest that if you have strong feelings, write your own Senator. Though many websites such as Demand Progress have a script that you can fill out about the bill (or any given bill), and you WILL get a response, the pieces that most people in offices pay attention to are well-written, convincing arguments on legislation with a personal touch. Make it your own and your response will be hopefully just as personal. I was encouraged to emphasize this point. I'm not sure what more I can do to do so, but I've worked in a few offices now and I will say, the names from the letters are taken down and then the same response is often sent to all, but thought-provoking messages can really cause a staffer to sit up in their chair and say... "Hey! I should look into this." Please let me know your thoughts and more importantly your questions. The vote (committee vote/hearing) is tomorrow 10am EST. Please be prompt if you want research done. I'll only have an hour in office before hand, and one hour and 15 minutes after posting before I go home. Thanks! | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
I'm really against anything that strengthens copyright law in a way that reduces the value or amount of content for people. Any stream providing content beyond JUST streaming copyrighted material does not encroach on the value of the copyrighted material. No one is going to use an SC2 stream as a way to listen to music. Meanwhile SC2 streams have provided hundreds/thousands/hundreds of thousands of hours of quality unique content for many people and anything that restricts that seems to run against the best interest of the people. The same applies to many other types of streams that may broadcast copyrighted material as an insignificant side effect. All this seems like the sort of stuff that should be covered under some sort of Fair Use clause. As for streams that aim only to redistribute copyrighted material, well I could go into a whole tirade about copyright in general, but that's a whole other argument (or maybe one that's really relevant to this law, I dunno). | ||
|
Reborn8u
United States1761 Posts
The new millennium has been called the information age, but with these kind of actions and the actions taken against wiki leaks it's clear that governments are determined to assume control over the spread of information. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On June 16 2011 05:57 Reborn8u wrote: Does this mean that youtube will have to remove every copyrighted song or game?? Will all internet radio will cease to exist as well? Some/many youtube videos and internet radio sites are legally streaming the material so not ALL of it would disappear at the very least. For example, Pandora pays royalties (which is amusing since OTA radio stations get/used to get paid to play songs). | ||
|
emythrel
United Kingdom2599 Posts
I doubt SC2 streamers will ever be pulled up by this law should it pass as their main focus isn't the music and that argument would hopefully hold up in court, so long as the streamer promised not to do it again in the future, in fact I would guess that most of the time you will get a warning and then if you continue you will get arrested etc, at which point it is your own fault lol. | ||
|
Kauz
United States38 Posts
On June 16 2011 05:57 Reborn8u wrote: Does this mean that youtube will have to remove every copyrighted song or game?? Will all internet radio will cease to exist as well? As stated, my understanding is that legal internet radio will continue to exist. I will look into the rammifications on Youtube. As mentioned, people have worried about kids lipsyncing, etc. I think the norm lately has been that the music industry is appreciative of the music being used in videos as long as they are linked to the music and the option to purchase the song is available. See this awesome Youtube video for a demonstration of how music labels have used great videos for advertising, even going so far as to put a link to where they are playing next or near you. | ||
|
Kauz
United States38 Posts
On June 16 2011 05:54 Logo wrote: Cool stuff Kauz! I'm really against anything that strengthens copyright law in a way that reduces the value or amount of content for people. Any stream providing content beyond JUST streaming copyrighted material does not encroach on the value of the copyrighted material. No one is going to use an SC2 stream as a way to listen to music. Meanwhile SC2 streams have provided hundreds/thousands/hundreds of thousands of hours of quality unique content for many people and anything that restricts that seems to run against the best interest of the people. The same applies to many other types of streams that may broadcast copyrighted material as an insignificant side effect. All this seems like the sort of stuff that should be covered under some sort of Fair Use clause. As for streams that aim only to redistribute copyrighted material, well I could go into a whole tirade about copyright in general, but that's a whole other argument (or maybe one that's really relevant to this law, I dunno). Thank you for your thoughtful message. I will bring this up with the chief council if I can grab her for a minute. She's very busy lately (just lost our staffer that would have been the correspondant for this issue). Again, if you write this kind of stuff to your Senator (particularly tonight if your Senator sits on the Judiciary committee) before the vote is taken, this personal touch will go a long way. | ||
|
emythrel
United Kingdom2599 Posts
On June 16 2011 05:57 Reborn8u wrote: Does this mean that youtube will have to remove every copyrighted song or game?? Will all internet radio will cease to exist as well? The new millennium has been called the information age, but with these kind of actions and the actions taken against wiki leaks it's clear that governments are determined to assume control over the spread of information. Youtube have deals with most record labels and they have some pretty damn cool software that can recognise songs, if the song is on their blacklist they simply take the video down and if its not it gets marked with a link to the original official version. Internet radio also has a legit way to do things, if you rent a server via one of the big companies it usually comes with a PRS licence (or whatever it is called in your particular country) that covers you to broadcast the music, assuming that you obtained it legally. If you don't have a PRS licence, then you are breaking the law... that simple. As a musician myself, downloading music for your own enjoyment is one thing and something I do on a regular basis, but using that music to make money is not cool and you shouldn't do it. If you download an album and you like it, go out and buy it, if you don't like it.... then you won't listen to it anyways and you aren't costing anyone money! | ||
|
KomradeKevin
United States88 Posts
This might not seem related but it is. It further shows that the laws in place, including the Constitution, are outdated and need to be replaced, not edited. Editing only creates more complex laws which requires more money to be wasted on lawyers to figure out what you can and cannot do. The way the US seems to worship its founding fathers as if they knew the future and somehow they know what is best for modern society is not reasonable in any way. These people thought bathing was not healthy and the general cure for illnesses was to bleed out a little. Obviously the founding fathers did not create the copyright laws that we use today, but those that did had no way of seeing the future just like the founding fathers created a great system for the time they lived in, however many of those laws are outdated and cause more problems today. According to Wikipedia, the origins of copyright laws come from the 15th and 16th centuries and were used to control what information got printed and distributed, not to protect the owner's financial status. 15th and 16th century technology and knowledge of science was completely different. Until the end of the 15th century, the world was suppose to be flat. Why do we(the world's population) insist on holding on to so many outdated ways of thinking? | ||
|
Kauz
United States38 Posts
In the Majority: Patrick Leahy, Vermont, Chairman Herb Kohl, Wisconsin Dianne Feinstein, California Chuck Schumer, New York Richard Durbin, Illinois Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota Al Franken, Minnesota Chris Coons, Delaware Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut In the Minority: Chuck Grassley, Iowa Ranking Member Orrin Hatch, Utah Jon Kyl, Arizona Jeff Sessions, Alabama Lindsey Graham, South Carolina John Cornyn, Texas Mike Lee, Utah Tom Coburn, Oklahoma | ||
|
Kauz
United States38 Posts
On June 16 2011 06:09 KomradeKevin wrote: These people thought bathing was not healthy and the general cure for illnesses was to bleed out a little... Just for the record, this is only half right. There wasn't much indoor plumbing when the original segment of the capitol was built. If you go down to the basement (which you can't, but I've been down there), there are the remains of the old Senate baths which included tubs for the Senators to use to cool off and bathe if need be. It was supposedly the cool place to hang out. This was in 1800-1860ish. Fun US Senate fact of the day. I could totally start the most boring blog ever. | ||
| ||
