Streaming video games may land you in jail if Bill S.978 passes

trickman

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
3,274
Reaction score
48
Location
Illinois
Streaming video games may land you in jail if Bill S.978 passes

I'm surprised nobody on here is talking about this yet. This could really affect a whole lot of people on KLOV, especially ones that stream high scores on arcade games.

http://retroids.com/site/content.php/454-Streaming-Video-Games-May-Land-You-In-Jail-if-Bill-Passes

A bill has been proposed in Congress (S.978) that can get you fined and up to 5 years in prison if you stream a video over a service like Justin.tv that has copyrighted information 10 or more times in a 180 day period, or if those streams net a total of $2,500. This includes streaming of video games. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200. I understand copyrighted works and such, and I'm all for protection of those copyrighted works. But the sheer vagueness of this proposed bill is alarming.

Another good article on the matter: http://shoryuken.com/2011/06/29/trolling-the-stream-by-ultradavid/
 
everyone these days is always tring to make a fast buck...

It wont pass... they wont care.. theres more important things to care about.. i dont think streaming game videos is one of them!
 
good !

i hope people get thrown in jail for stealing other people copyrighted material and make money selling it

did you even read your own article
 
good !

i hope people get thrown in jail for stealing other people copyrighted material and make money selling it

did you even read your own article

Yes I did. But there's a massive difference between streaming a copy of the latest movie that's still in the theatres, and streaming high score attempts on DK. It's not aimed at people who do those things, but the bill is so vague that it would adversely affect people like Richie Knucklez (Kong-Off, Pac-Off).

Try this video to understand it better. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib7-vSrp6y8
 
Well if the person owns the game and wants to show them self playing I don't see why they couldn't. Its not like there putting a copyrighted movie up there its a game people use to go to an arcade and watch people play same difference.
 
This is more aimed at huge sites that stream movies online; those sites are either run by dumb teenagers or well organised mob-type people; they want to close a loophole in the law to bust those guys.
 
This is more aimed at huge sites that stream movies online; those sites are either run by dumb teenagers or well organised mob-type people; they want to close a loophole in the law to bust those guys.

Just like they were able to shut down all the online poker websites, right?
 
Well if the person owns the game and wants to show them self playing I don't see why they couldn't. Its not like there putting a copyrighted movie up there its a game people use to go to an arcade and watch people play same difference.

Agree 100%. I thought long and hard about the imagery that I would use in my book. I made sure certain 'iffy' titles had their owners standing next to them. Thereby, the image seen is no longer property of the manufacturer, it is the property of the game owner.
 
I'm surprised nobody on here is talking about this yet. This could really affect a whole lot of people on KLOV, especially ones that stream high scores on arcade games.

http://retroids.com/site/content.php/454-Streaming-Video-Games-May-Land-You-In-Jail-if-Bill-Passes



Another good article on the matter: http://shoryuken.com/2011/06/29/trolling-the-stream-by-ultradavid/

The actual bill says (Emphasis mine):

(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

It sounds like they are going after businesses that stream things like Movies, or Sporting Events.
 
laws like that wont mean shit. technically its been illegal to podcast copyrighted music and they havent went after a single person for that to date. i started posting episodes of my podcast in 2005 and have about a hundred episodes that have averaged anywhere from 2,000 -18,000 downloads per episode. yet they dont go after me or people like me, instead they bust some old lady or college student for sharing 18 songs on limewire.

why wouldnt you expect them to go after people who distribute copyrighted material by streaming??? frankly i am surprised they have to spell it out with a law like this anyways, it seems obvious that distributing copyrighted material via any source would be illegal.
 
This is just bullsh*t. Whats next? If I post a video of me washing my car am I going to get sued by Ford because I didn't get their permission to show the Ford emblem on a public site?

This is what happens when you let socialists run the country....
 
The actual bill says (Emphasis mine):



It sounds like they are going after businesses that stream things like Movies, or Sporting Events.

I remember reading elsewhere (I believe it was Kotaku.com) that some are speculating a single view would count as a "public performance," so if ten people watch at once it could apply. Not sure if that's the case, but if it can be used that way, then anyone who uploads videos of their arcades to YouTube with attract mode showing that gets more than 10 views could be affected.

That being said, this would only be an issue if they actually enforce it. It's technically "illegal" to use licensed MAME roms too, but everyone does and TG even has a section dedicated to them.
 
*opinion section*
Laws like this aren't about releasing the hounds the day it passes, putting out dragnets and busting everyone they can within the first week (although they would likely down big offenders and make someone a public example).

From my perspective, how it effects you and I...outside of the Internet getting a lot more boring, is it is another vaguely worded way for you to wind up dinged for a crime when authorities want to snag you for something. Every law abiding citizen unintentionally breaks a law every day. It just takes the right bad circumstance for someone in authority to suddenly want to find a reason to bust you. Ask anyone that's been pulled over because they looked suspicious.

*less opinion section*

AFAIK, the things this law covers are already illegal, but the worst you would get is a cease and desist letter followed by a lawsuit from the copyright owner (for a ton of money, but that's still nothing compared to what is coming...). Most video game companies don't want to push for cease and desists today...right now..., because they recognize that all of these videos are actually very beneficial for their marketing and PR. This new law could potentially take that decision out of the copyright owner's hands and shift it to a prosecutor's and turns it into a criminal case. As in jail time.

*opinion again*

I'm not a lawyer though...but I've had this ass planed to me more than once by several. That last paragraph is how it has been interpreted to me. *shrug* Video Game wise, it doesn't just effect high score attempts, this effects a very large video game tournament scene (FPS/Starcraft/Street Fighter). What about sharing preview/trailer videos of an upcoming game? What about showing screenshots from a game? On a larger scale, this thing can have an effect on anyone that has put anything copyrighted on any Youtube video, ever. Especially if you happen to embed it somewhere where you're using ads for revenue. Music. Images. A harmless short clip from a movie or television show you wanted to share. Anything.

*preparing to clean YT account if passed*
 
This is just bullsh*t. Whats next? If I post a video of me washing my car am I going to get sued by Ford because I didn't get their permission to show the Ford emblem on a public site?

This is what happens when you let socialists run the country....

This law is about as far from socialism as you can get... it provides strong benefits to private enterprise and limits the freedoms of the general public. But that argument is for another (sub)forum

To answer your question, if you post a video for public performance using copyrighted images, yes you can be sued by the owners of those images if you don't have permission... so technically you can already be sued for washing a Ford vehicle (protected emblems) in a video.
Is Ford going to sue you? Of course not... It's never a good idea to go around suing your customers, something that the entertainment industries haven't quite figured out yet.
 
this would only be an issue if they actually enforce it.
But that's true of any law...
I'd rather not have stupid laws like this because there is always going to be some sue-happy company, and a District Attorney who wants to make a name for himself, who will be more than eager to see how far they can push the law. If the only purpose of this is trying to crack down on illegal sites streaming movies, then they need to be more specific in their wording of the law.
 
I have no sympathy for Copyright law / owners.

My personal opinion is that Copyright should be matched to Patent law. Same protections and limitations. Why should a patent holder be limited for creating a product, have to pay to sue to protect his patent but Hollywood and the Record industry gets the free investigative and enforcement from the Fed's and protection for basically life?

How in the hell is a movie more important to society than say the artificial heart?

Screwed up priorities in my opinion.
 
The actual bill says (Emphasis mine):

It sounds like they are going after businesses that stream things like Movies, or Sporting Events.

Here's the problem. Notice the emphasis on JTV. Last time I went there, everyone has ads or commercials on their feeds now. AND most importantly it says right there that a portion of ad proceeds go to the streamer. I do not know how that entire thing is set up, but if it has anything to do with that, they should be going after JTV as well since they would end up being enablers... or worse Internet Racketeering!
 
The problem isn't in the "intent" of the bill...it's in the "wording" of the bill as is. Anyone company can sue anyone they want, right now, for copyright infringement. This takes that responsibility, makes it law, and puts it in the hands of the government, with a very, very vague interpretation of that law. Get it? The companies would no longer decide. It would be a felony.

This would affect millions upon millions of people, make YouTube, Justin.tv, Ustream and any other similar service obsolete, take lots of free expression, free press (that benefits companies...which is WHY they don't sue now), etc. out of the hands of consumers, effectively making them afraid to upload anything, for fear of facing a fine and jail time.

Bill S.978, if it passes, will affect more than people realize. Wanna watch Justin Wong at EVO do what he does best in Street Fighter IV? You can't anymore, b/c it's a felony. Want relatives that couldn't make it to your daughter's birthday party to watch people sing Happy Birthday to her over a streaming service? You can't...it's a felony.
 
The problem isn't in the "intent" of the bill...it's in the "wording" of the bill as is. Anyone company can sue anyone they want, right now, for copyright infringement. This takes that responsibility, makes it law, and puts it in the hands of the government, with a very, very vague interpretation of that law. Get it? The companies would no longer decide. It would be a felony.

This would affect millions upon millions of people, make YouTube, Justin.tv, Ustream and any other similar service obsolete, take lots of free expression, free press (that benefits companies...which is WHY they don't sue now), etc. out of the hands of consumers, effectively making them afraid to upload anything, for fear of facing a fine and jail time.

Bill S.978, if it passes, will affect more than people realize. Wanna watch Justin Wong at EVO do what he does best in Street Fighter IV? You can't anymore, b/c it's a felony. Want relatives that couldn't make it to your daughter's birthday party to watch people sing Happy Birthday to her over a streaming service? You can't...it's a felony.

this is all Bush's fault
 
Back
Top Bottom