Darros Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Clicky~ Basically, it's saying any copyrighted music in YouTube videos will be illegal. This includes Let's Plays, Covers, and AMVs. 10 infractures in a 180 day period can be punished by 5 years in jail. This is just nuts. It would ruin YouTube and other multimedia sites (like Dailymotion). I think it's a very bad idea. Discuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darros Posted July 4, 2011 Author Share Posted July 4, 2011 After I post that, ESR links me to this. So it only applies to unreleased media. Still, makes me wonder about things like FE12. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 If it's only unreleased media, then it's fine to some extent. 5 years is fucking ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 It's really stupid. It's so stupid. This is just idiocy. What can I do about it? *throws up his hands* I'm just surprised they're leaving us connected to the internet... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 So monitoring certain claims on their copyrighted stuff that they don't want released yet is comparable to... internet censorship? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Depends on what their definition is on unreleased. Which is surprisingly an open one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 It's just more of the dying throes of an industry that refuses to adapt to a changing climate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) It's just more of the dying throes of an industry that refuses to adapt to a changing climate. Oh good at least it is dying. However it may take some time. Also I know people who seem to stand by copyright laws though I don't know why. (I stand by them too but I don't think I've actually supported the music industry.) Edited July 10, 2011 by Loki Laufeyjarson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superbus Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Someone asked about FE12. Basically, this would apply to things that are totally unreleased. New Monshou would not qualify since it was released in Japan, though ROM copies would obviously fall under current copyright standards. For that, COICA is your biggest concern (I believe it's S.3084). Furthermore, in Youtube videos, copyrighted music is already *technically* illegal; what happens is Youtube has heuristics of all of the RIAA's music as provided by them, and they can determine whether or not they allow their music to be used. For example, Prince has the right, on Youtube, to take out music of children dancing to Let's Go Crazy if he so chooses. Technically, these things would be covered by Fair Use, but when you're using Google's software on Google's site under Google's terms, "Fair Use" doesn't apply. In other words, no, uploading something to Youtube will not make you a felon, and this is just reactionary bullshit. There are many, legitimate reasons to hate this bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEST TRYNDAMERE PLAYER Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 I doubt this'll pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superbus Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 I doubt this'll pass. It *WILL* pass. The Democrats like it because it protects industry jobs (Democrats are heavy recipients of RIAA money), and the Republicans will like it because it's pro-business. The QUESTION is if it will survive legal scrutiny. That, I'm not 100% sure of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Jesus Christ Superbus is alive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) Jesus Christ Superbus is alive. Note the lack of a comma. (not a particular fan/not fan of superbus but he was pretty cool at one point in one argument i remember) Edited July 13, 2011 by Loki Laufeyjarson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freohr Datia Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) Lol they're making a law about youtube? Sorry but it just seems... kinda funny. Wait, so we can't show concert videos?? ;A; Edited July 14, 2011 by Agnaktor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanami Touko Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Did no one really read the bill? All it's doing is editing an already existing law. It's changing this law, to make it so that people can not, legally, stream or make videos about games that haven't been released yet, and make more than $2500 doing such. It's also making is so that artists can not do fan art, and make more than $2500 doing such. That's all it's doing. People need to lrn2read and calm down some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superbus Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Did no one really read the bill? All it's doing is editing an already existing law. It's changing this law, to make it so that people can not, legally, stream or make videos about games that haven't been released yet, and make more than $2500 doing such. It's also making is so that artists can not do fan art, and make more than $2500 doing such. That's all it's doing. People need to lrn2read and calm down some. I actually read the bill today, as well as some legal analysis of it. It's much worse than that. The best analysis I can think of is here, but to sum it up: * This narrows consumer rights with no payoff. And no, "we'll keep jobs to be able to make you more amazing games/movies/music!" is not a payoff. That's profit for publicly owned companies. * What is actually determining what the worth of a stream is? Let's say, for example, that I decided to live stream my playing of Fire Emblem: Thracia 776 at the end of July instead of just playing it and taking screenshots. Nintendo could determine that they would charge me a $50 license to stream Fire Emblem games. That's 50 readers. Above that, and I can be charged with a FELONY? And would this affect, say, a bar that has a pay per view boxing or wrestling event? * What is determining the jurisdiction? What determines my intent? Am I going to have to go into court and specifically defend myself? If so, I would think that would violate the whole "innocent until proven guilty" aspect of our judicial system. The stated intent of the law is to take out sites like that Spanish site that has streams of games available for download, as well as sites like Justin.TV, which routinely are taking people down for illegally streaming games, either pay per view events, or games from other countries/other feeds (for example, if I decided I wanted to watch the BBC feed of the Women's World Cup instead of ESPN's). IT's intended to go after the big guys. But the law is so vague, it's hard to see a higher court not striking it down as unconstitutional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.