|
Post by Sero on Jul 7, 2011 20:09:22 GMT -5
^ There's no way to know if TGWTG would fall under fair use unless it's taken to court. This has got me wondering, there is no way the Plinkett reviews could count as fair use right?
|
|
|
Post by forgottensinpwf on Jul 7, 2011 20:22:28 GMT -5
If the rest end up at fault, then so does plinkett sadly.
Maybe they'd let him off easy if he offers them some pizza rolls.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2011 22:02:53 GMT -5
I was just making the point that this big fear of Youtube bein dead and blah blah blah isn't right.
If I was Youtube I would put up a vid soon explaining that, but at the same time they try to convince those with accounts that they're gonna be arrested for just one strike. Rumor is they make you watch a "Happy Tree Friends" cartoon on copyrights if you get a strike and get quizzed on it before you can do anything else on your account...i've seen the vid and even it makes it sound like you're a horrible person if you get a strike.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2011 23:32:00 GMT -5
Then LPs'll become super hardcore. You'll have to torrent them with some program that obscures your IP in short bursts.
|
|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on Jul 8, 2011 0:22:06 GMT -5
Just because there are some terrible LPers out there doesn't mean that there aren't some equally great ones. DeceasedCrab for instance is more entertaining than the games that he plays. I'm a huge fan of Let's Play videos. My youtube subscription list is like 95% LPers, and 5% Maffew. BTW, if Maffew were a US resident, he could face criminal charges for Botchamania if this law passes. No - I highly doubt that. If Maffew ever got challenged he would have an incredibly good case for fair use. And Nostalgia Critic, etc would as well. I don't think that this law, if it passes, is going to change anything about fair use. What is this incredibly good case that you speak of? Parody? I don't think parody laws allow you to use copyrighted material. Not that I think Maffew or Nostalgia Critic are doing anything wrong at all. I'm a huge fan of both of them, but even I have to admit that they are treading a thin line. They're making money off of videos that contain copyrighted footage. The fact that they're getting away with it now tells me that they'd be ok if this law passes, but you know...what if some film studio decided to press charges against the Nostalgia Critic? See, that's another thing that should be mentioned here. Pressing charges is much simpler than suing somebody. When you sue somebody, you're going to spend money on a lawyer. When you press charges, it's free. Unless I'm missing something important here, this new law would make streaming copyrighted material a criminal offense. Like, you just call the police. Whereas it's presently a civil matter. It's the difference between suing somebody that owes you money, and pressing charges against somebody for assaulting you. The latter is a much simpler and less costly process. BTW I've been drinking tonight. If I said something that was wrong, by all means correct me but please don't bash me over it. I'm fairly certain that I'm right though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2011 3:33:30 GMT -5
No - I highly doubt that. If Maffew ever got challenged he would have an incredibly good case for fair use. And Nostalgia Critic, etc would as well. I don't think that this law, if it passes, is going to change anything about fair use. What is this incredibly good case that you speak of? Parody? I don't think parody laws allow you to use copyrighted material. Not that I think Maffew or Nostalgia Critic are doing anything wrong at all. I'm a huge fan of both of them, but even I have to admit that they are treading a thin line. They're making money off of videos that contain copyrighted footage. The fact that they're getting away with it now tells me that they'd be ok if this law passes, but you know...what if some film studio decided to press charges against the Nostalgia Critic? See, that's another thing that should be mentioned here. Pressing charges is much simpler than suing somebody. When you sue somebody, you're going to spend money on a lawyer. When you press charges, it's free. Unless I'm missing something important here, this new law would make streaming copyrighted material a criminal offense. Like, you just call the police. Whereas it's presently a civil matter. It's the difference between suing somebody that owes you money, and pressing charges against somebody for assaulting you. The latter is a much simpler and less costly process. BTW I've been drinking tonight. If I said something that was wrong, by all means correct me but please don't bash me over it. I'm fairly certain that I'm right though. The Satire/Parody clause is part of Fair Use. Though Maffew's case can be argued his isn't much of a satire or parody as it is a compilation (though when I think about it doesn't he live in, like, Britain or something? He'd probably be safe then). Nostalgia Critic would be much better protected by it since he is providing commentary and it is a parody (and i'd like to know where this idea that using clips from places other than what he is reviewing at that time isn't protected either). I would think NC knows what he's doing, he goes through the trouble of actually owning a copy of every review he's done, only resorting to Youtube clips if he is having trouble exporting footage (which he has done a couple of times) or it's something without a DVD at all (Siskel and Ebert tribute was a compilation of Youtube vids). For doing something that's supposedly illegal as can be, he goes a long way to make sure it's on the up and up, and that his other reviewers do too. I still say if what they were doing was so damn bad, they would have dropped the hammer. I HIGHLY doubt they're just sitting at the ready waiting for the bill to pass and only THEN will they pull the plug. If that was the case that could be used in support of NC and co. if they go to court over it. And I also doubt they just "don't know". Doug was interviewed by Time Magazine (even though the article was ran on the internet) as being someone ahead of the business game while the economy is down. They asked him about how he came up with it, his characters, how well he's been doing, and so on. They talked him up as a trailblazer, more or less. Point being, he isn't some nobody. People that look around for people who are legit violators know damn well who he is, what he does, who "runs with him" so to speak, etc. I'm still siding that this isn't anything to worry about since Youtube is protected by the DMCA and 99% of them aren't making a dime. If Youtube (and not just Youtube...Dailymotion, Facebook, MySpace, etc.) wasn't protected you have to think at least one company would have filed charges on SOMEBODY for uploading stuff. Still hasn't happened. And again, they aren't just waiting until this bill passes to flip the sue switch. As I said before, that's something that can be used against them in court as well. Add that to the "fair use" rule (even if it gets spun somehow) and people from the Nostalgia Critic and co. to someone like Retsupurae and even BillyMC has a pretty solid case in their support. And let's not forget the law is already there in the first place.[/u] All that's happening is a bigger penalty for what they're already punishing. Maybe that forces companies to take a bigger look at the picture since it would become a felony, but I think the Let's Plays and streams of games would be okay. This law COULD be interpreted to make those illegal, but I doubt the people that put this "amendment" (really that's what it is) put it together with the idea to snuff out such low-life scumbags as people posting video game videos. They're after people streaming PPVs and movies and the like. That and torrents are a much more serious issue and the government has been trying to find ways for a LONG time to shut that down, and they probably will keep it up long after this bill floats or fails. They're the real targets. And while I can't speak for those that do actually STREAM games live for the internet (I only watch the Video Games Awesome folks do that, and they're based in Canada AND even get stuff sent to them by developers to stream), I can't imagine they're in any real danger. Yeah I've seen the DarkSydePhil video (who has a track record for flying off the handle...just saying I'd take what he has to say with not just a grain but a whole container of salt tablets), but believe it or not they aren't out to find an excuse to arrest everyone. This whole controversy is just people being paranoid and afraid there'll be some super police-state on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by mysterydriver on Jul 8, 2011 8:58:15 GMT -5
As far as I know, Botch-a-Mania definitely doesn't fall under parody when it's just clips of people falling set to music. It's more of a blooper reel with gags thrown in, which I think would fall under copyright violation since the majority of the humor isn't from parody but from the clips themselves being shown as is. Copyright Law is ridiculously complicated (and has tightened up to really prevent films from going into public domain, which I don't like). I agree with a lot that you say, Powerline, but I'd like to mention a few things from your post: Because it's showing copyrighted footage for no other reason than to show copyrighted footage. Sure, it may be a joke, but it's a joke based completely on "Hey, remember this movie?" with no parody or addition to make it fall under fair use. "OF COURSE!" or "I WAS FROZEN TODAY!" are funny. However, they're also parts of copyrighted movies. Randomly showing them as a punchline is infringement to the best of my knowledge. (Again, I'll admit to not being the greatest researcher of a confusing set of laws). Sorry, I just wanted to point something out: Owning the Movie Doesn't Give you the Right to Show itFrom my the PDF I linked under "Two General Principles": But in all, I agree the whole controversy seems to be people thinking that if the bill is passed (and I don't think it will be. It's poorly written and seems to be trying to hit a small target with a scatter shotgun without caring about collateral damage. That should impair its pass-ability) that suddenly there will be a super force prowling around the internet looking to strike whenever someone loads up a "Let's Play Bubsy!" video.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2011 9:28:14 GMT -5
As far as I know, Botch-a-Mania definitely doesn't fall under parody when it's just clips of people falling set to music. It's more of a blooper reel with gags thrown in, which I think would fall under copyright violation since the majority of the humor isn't from parody but from the clips themselves being shown as is. Copyright Law is ridiculously complicated (and has tightened up to really prevent films from going into public domain, which I don't like). I agree with a lot that you say, Powerline, but I'd like to mention a few things from your post: Because it's showing copyrighted footage for no other reason than to show copyrighted footage. Sure, it may be a joke, but it's a joke based completely on "Hey, remember this movie?" with no parody or addition to make it fall under fair use. "OF COURSE!" or "I WAS FROZEN TODAY!" are funny. However, they're also parts of copyrighted movies. Randomly showing them as a punchline is infringement to the best of my knowledge. (Again, I'll admit to not being the greatest researcher of a confusing set of laws). Sorry, I just wanted to point something out: Owning the Movie Doesn't Give you the Right to Show itFrom my the PDF I linked under "Two General Principles": But in all, I agree the whole controversy seems to be people thinking that if the bill is passed (and I don't think it will be. It's poorly written and seems to be trying to hit a small target with a scatter shotgun without caring about collateral damage. That should impair its pass-ability) that suddenly there will be a super force prowling around the internet looking to strike whenever someone loads up a "Let's Play Bubsy!" video. I'll hit your points in order here since the quote HTML is confusing and every time I try to respond to seperate points the post explodes. For the footage thing, I understand what you're saying. It sucks, but I get ya. And yeah, I understand you're point on owning it not equaling having rights on it. I was just saying I would think NC knows what he is doing. I thought about the post after I made it and forgot to note one thing I find interesting. The thing that makes me think NC has it figured out is when he was on Youtube his movies were pulled constantly to the point he made separate accounts for every video, and if users subscribed to the "NostalgiaCritic" account's favs then you'd get them sent to you since he'd use that account to favorite each one. Youtube discovered it and shut everything down in a fell swoop, with or without copyright claims. I just find it strange that he had all kinds of copyright claim trouble on Youtube (some of his reviews would be pulled within hours) and since starting the site he has had only one problem with copyright that was overturned (The Room), out of WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more videos than he had on Youtube (including the ones from Youtube originally pulled). And that's not even getting into DVD sales where they make considerably more money than off of ad revenue. I am at least somewhat glad a lot of people are starting to figure out the truth and some of the reviewers that are "threatened" are sharing why they aren't worried. It sounds like this is just an update to an old law for the internet age. It's already in the books that this stuff isn't entirely on the up-and-up, and I would honestly think if it was such a problem we would have heard of somebody being in legal trouble. NC, AVGN, Spoony, Linkara, somebody would have had the hammer dropped if government or companies were truly concerned about it, and it would be a rather well-known ordeal. And if THEY have gone untouched, I can't imagine the LPers or tournament streamers and so on could be threatened. Even the most famous LPers don't get the views the guys on TGWTG and ScrewAttack do, not even close. I'm sure down the road they'll introduce another law that will seem "threatening", and I can see at least one person getting questioned or something like that (I recall a case where a teenage girl was reprimanded for comments about another person on MySpace). But this has been blown up into something it truly will not be and cannot even be policed in such a way.
|
|
|
Post by YAKMAN is ICHIBAN on Jul 8, 2011 9:37:03 GMT -5
Those brief clips might get by just because they are such de minimis amounts of the copyrighted work. I don't recall any case quite like that.
It might be similar to music sampling, which requires a licensing fee.
|
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone. Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 23,586
|
Post by Bo Rida on Jul 8, 2011 9:51:18 GMT -5
This only applies to America right, is it the location of the site or the person?
Could an American be arrested for uploading something on (the French site) Dailymotion? Could somebody from England be extradited to America for uploading to youtube?
(or the streaming equivalents)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2011 9:58:26 GMT -5
This only applies to America right, is it the location of the site or the person? Could an American be arrested for uploading something on (the French site) Dailymotion? Could somebody from England be extradited to America for uploading to youtube? (or the streaming equivalents) The person I would assume. I think England is fine (though if this passes and becomes a big deal it might be natural that England would consider something similar).
|
|
|
Post by mysterydriver on Jul 8, 2011 10:27:56 GMT -5
I'll hit your points in order here since the quote HTML is confusing and every time I try to respond to seperate points the post explodes. For the footage thing, I understand what you're saying. It sucks, but I get ya. And yeah, I understand you're point on owning it not equaling having rights on it. I was just saying I would think NC knows what he is doing. I thought about the post after I made it and forgot to note one thing I find interesting. The thing that makes me think NC has it figured out is when he was on Youtube his movies were pulled constantly to the point he made separate accounts for every video, and if users subscribed to the "NostalgiaCritic" account's favs then you'd get them sent to you since he'd use that account to favorite each one. Youtube discovered it and shut everything down in a fell swoop, with or without copyright claims. I just find it strange that he had all kinds of copyright claim trouble on Youtube (some of his reviews would be pulled within hours) and since starting the site he has had only one problem with copyright that was overturned (The Room), out of WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more videos than he had on Youtube (including the ones from Youtube originally pulled). I am at least somewhat glad a lot of people are starting to figure out the truth and some of the reviewers that are "threatened" are sharing why they aren't worried. It sounds like this is just an update to an old law for the internet age. It's already in the books that this stuff isn't entirely on the up-and-up, and I would honestly think if it was such a problem we would have heard of somebody being in legal trouble. NC, AVGN, Spoony, Linkara, somebody would have had the hammer dropped if government or companies were truly concerned about it, and it would be a rather well-known ordeal. And if THEY have gone untouched, I can't imagine the LPers or tournament streamers and so on could be threatened. Even the most famous LPers don't get the views the guys on TGWTG and ScrewAttack do, not even close. I'm sure down the road they'll introduce another law that will seem "threatening", and I can see at least one person getting questioned or something like that (I recall a case where a teenage girl was reprimanded for comments about another person on MySpace). But this has been blown up into something it truly will not be and cannot even be policed in such a way. Sorry about that. My posts have came out a bit oddly today for reasons I'm not sure of... Thank you for clarifying. I get what you were saying now and agree with most of what you say (I just had access to the copyright.gov info and thought I'd share). Let's Plays don't have much to worry about. ThatGuy/ScrewAttack should continue just fine. GiantBomb should continue to be completely awesome.
|
|
|
Post by Mr PONYMANIA Mr Jenzie on Jul 8, 2011 15:54:39 GMT -5
i guess that big ol' deficit isn't that important then .....
DUMBASSES
|
|
|
Post by jrcz on Jul 13, 2011 19:02:08 GMT -5
sorry to bump but any news ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2011 19:06:26 GMT -5
Not that I have heard. Some group called the ECA is putting together an anti-S.978 campaign-ish thing. They're contacting the same senator that supposedly stopped the Protect IP bill, which had some questionable stuff in it.
It's still up for a Senate vote (it actually has been for almost a month...this bill was originally proposed years ago and turned down actually, this is it's second revision), and then it still needs the House vote. If it gets past those, it needs signed by the President. Problem being, it's being reported that the President is in support of it, so if it gets to him it's probably a done deal.
I could give my own theories, but this is probably all I could really say without diving too much into politics (I'm surprised we haven't hit that point already...no offense).
|
|
|
Post by I *still* ✡ Johnny on Jul 13, 2011 19:08:04 GMT -5
There is no way this law could pass in reality.
There are millions of videos containing copyrighted video on Youtube, and to restrict them all to 10 views would take months at least. And during that time thousands more will be uploaded.
What will it take to police the internet? I'm listening to a song on Youtube and then I'm going to watch some old Raws on Dailymotion. Am I a criminal for doing these things?!
|
|
|
Post by forgottensinpwf on Jul 13, 2011 19:09:08 GMT -5
Technically, yes.
I am too, but the point is still there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2011 19:17:42 GMT -5
There is no way this law could pass in reality. There are millions of videos containing copyrighted video on Youtube, and to restrict them all to 10 views would take months at least. And during that time thousands more will be uploaded. What will it take to police the internet? I'm listening to a song on Youtube and then I'm going to watch some old Raws on Dailymotion. Am I a criminal for doing these things?! Again, it all comes back to one thing... This is already a law, Bill S.978 just adds streaming and makes it a felony as opposed to a misdemeanor which it is now (though in some cases it can be a felony if it's done massively). If a company wanted to sue for Youtube uploads, and knew the identity of who it was, they could do it. If you have copyright material in your Youtube vids, you could go to court for it right this very second. Which is why I'm really not afraid. If these movie companies really wanted action taken on the likes of the Nostalgia Critic, it would have been done AGES ago. They aren't waiting for this law to pass just to do it (cases get thrown out of court for that if there is proof, or at the worst they get punished with the old penalties). Even Maffew's Botchamania vids apply here. If the WWE wanted to, they could go to court against him, nothing is stopping them. But they don't. Mostly because they don't feel it's worth the money and it becomes a PR nightmare (imagine the outcry if they did go to court with him). They would make a mountain out of an ant hill. The other option of just having Youtube pull the video isn't as effective but nowhere near the pain. It's a slap in the wrist, but really it's no pain to them compared to people streaming PPVs and films (which is the true target of this bill, and the part of it I honestly support). As for the videogame streaming, some companies have spoken they will only make a big deal if it's a leak; someone playing their company's games before the launch date or a prototype they shouldn't have. A game that's already out probably won't be touched (although Rockstar IS well known for their policing of vids on their games...I could see one of them making a big deal of it). Minecraft is even going to add a provision into their ToS if Bill S.978 passes allowing users to stream all they want, and many companies may follow. Hell, some games allow Youtube uploads already as an in-game feature (Peggle and PAIN on the PS3 are games I have with it, and I know the upcoming Street Fighter 3 3rd Strike Online Edition will have Youtube uploads).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2011 7:52:35 GMT -5
No update quite yet, but giantbomb.com posted an excellent article on it: www.giantbomb.com/news/the-story-behind-s978-the-controversial-streaming-bill/3488/In it, they say discussion on the bill has finished. Congress is taking a month recess in August, so unless they vote on it in around the next two weeks then it'll be put on-hold until September. Even the Senator that introduced this bill has said it's only directed towards the serious offenders, but there are still those scared it could be used otherwise.
|
|