Thread: Ever heard of Bill S.978?

I'm not sure how many of you make LOTRO videos, but this is rather important for those of you who do.

You see there is a bill that (if passed currently) will stop us all from posting or streaming ANY videos of video games. I can't explain it very well (and also don't have the time right now), but you can read an article about it here
http://shoryuken.com/2011/06/29/trol...by-ultradavid/

Its too bad the author of that article failed to fully investigate the bill and its provisions and instead chose to only highlight, what he believes, to be the doom of the internet.

In a nutshell, this bill removes references to phonorecords in Title 18 of the US Code. Other than that, nothing about the current copyright law is changed. While I agree that this will probably allow some overzealous AG to broaden the scope of what is or is not covered, I don't think it will be the end of YouTube videos of video games.

The Fair Use provisions of Title 17 Section 107 will still be applicable:

...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

My, admittedly non-lawerly, two-cents worth.

The only thing I heard about a bill trying to be passed is a 'ten strike' rule of posting/streaming copyrighted music. Meaning that if you make a video with music in the background, that will get you into trouble. Got friends singing karaoke thats funny and you want to post it? Nope that will get you into trouble too.

Out of all the things they could choose to fix in this country the government chooses this.

Originally Posted by Jayarih

Out of all the things they could choose to fix in this country the government chooses this.

Exactly my thoughts.

I don't think that's the only bill congress is working on. Seems like that change is overdue anyway.

While its not the only bill, its still something that is being considered when something more important could be considered since the RIAA cant be bothered to either change how they handle things or continue as they have been

As a rule I don't read blog-interpretations of complex bills being debated in congress. Idiots on the internet almost never comprehend and/or purposely mislead people as to the content of said bills.

I'm pretty concerned about it to be honest. I'm a huge Starcraft 2 fan and love watching streamed games/tournaments.

Originally Posted by Jayarih

While its not the only bill, its still something that is being considered when something more important could be considered since the RIAA cant be bothered to either change how they handle things or continue as they have been

I'd be willing to bet the artists creating the intellectual property in question consider it to be pretty important.

Also consider that the bill only (continues to try) to make unlicensed use of such materials unlawful and enforcable.

If you want to make a video of a video game, and use some music (say... to make a Character Profile such as some of the ones found in My Youtube Channel all you need to do is either do so under Fair Use, or secure permission from the copywrite holders.

Turbine has specifically said (on numerous occasions) that we (the fans) can make fan videos, using their footage, and music, so long as we credit them in the work.. Even with the doom and gloom summaries of this bill - as long as the copywrite holder gives you permission to use the copywrite for certain purposes, then you can't be prosecuted for using it for that purpose.

Copyright infringement is a civil matter, and thus would require the copyright holder to take legal action.

Originally Posted by nolesrule

Copyright infringement is a civil matter, and thus would require the copyright holder to take legal action.

Isn't that exactly what this bill supposedly will change (assuming it has been interpreted correctly)? Giving the government the power to take action directly on their own?

Originally Posted by nolesrule

Copyright infringement is a civil matter, and thus would require the copyright holder to take legal action.

Not entirely; some sections of copyright law have criminal penalties attached. The unathorized performance portion of the law perviously did not have criminal penalties attached to it, which is what this bill seeks to change.

Originally Posted by Nirc

I'm pretty concerned about it to be honest. I'm a huge Starcraft 2 fan and love watching streamed games/tournaments.

don't be. I think are skipping over a part of this.

Originally Posted by the article

Just to hit you over the head with this, that means that if you stream a game like Street Fighter 4 or Starcraft 2 (or a movie or a song etc) only 10 or more times in a full half year, and if you make a bit of money doing it, you either need to have a license from Capcom or Blizzard etc or you risk going to jail.

Notice the bolded part. If you make a bit of money doing it. This is no change to the fair use act. As long as you aren't making money from it then you are fine. Youtube videos will be fine.

Originally Posted by kimano

Notice the bolded part. If you make a bit of money doing it. This is no change to the fair use act. As long as you aren't making money from it then you are fine. Youtube videos will be fine.

Not necessarily. Profit is one (out of context) provision of the fair use doctrine. The full list of considerations as specified by Section 107, Title 17 USC:

- The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
- The nature of the copyrighted work
- The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
- The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

Note that this is not a checklist...all 4 items are considered together to make a legal determination.

So, if streaming something on Youtube is not truly for educational purposes, and you use a substantial portion of the work, and it could be determined that such portion of the work has an effect on the commercial value of that work, then simply saying that YOU PERSONALLY didn't take a profit does not "cover" you from a fair use perspective.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Originally Posted by Branfirth

As a rule I don't read blog-interpretations of complex bills being debated in congress. Idiots on the internet almost never comprehend and/or purposely mislead people as to the content of said bills.

Hmm.. seeing as how the linked article is written by a trained and licensed lawyer who specializes in copyright issues as they pertain to videogames, it might be a little pretentious to label him as an "idiot" internet blogger.

The author of the article has studied this bill and he himself says that he doesn't want to be alarmist but that the possible implications of this bill being passed could be very dire for anyone who uploads or streams video if not given explicit consent from the owner of the work being "performed." It also impacts him fairly directly outside of his legal practice as he frequently organizes and works on fighting game tournaments and their associated streams.

Ok, the more i look at this the more insidious it appears. Giving people control over the use of things they create is ludicrous...

Originally Posted by grudax

Ok, the more i look at this the more insidious it appears. Giving people control over the use of things they create is ludicrous...

I know, right? Why can't people just deal with the fact that streaming game videos is FAR more important to the future of humanity than making sure people who create can be compensated for their creations?

Originally Posted by grudax

Ok, the more i look at this the more insidious it appears. Giving people control over the use of things they create is ludicrous...

The issue raised by the linked article, as well as confirmed by at least one game development company, is that the "performance" of this footage actually helps promote the games that are featured. Certainly some of it may be quite amateurish, but I'd imagine fan made videos have attracted players to LOTRO. I know that I myself only purchased Marvel VS Capcom 3 after watching it streamed in several tournaments. I would likely not have purchased it otherwise.

There is no argument here about control. I'm not sure anyone is saying that they should be able to do whatever they want with a game and then redistribute it, whether money is involved or not. This is simply about display (or "public performance") of the material in the context in which it already exists. Also, the law this bill pertains to already allows for companies to directly pursue those they feel violate their "control" of their own material, it just generally restricts them to doing so at a civil level. If a company feels that their rights are being infringed by videos of their material being available online they can already act to have them taken down.

Originally Posted by kimano

don't be. I think are skipping over a part of this.



Notice the bolded part. If you make a bit of money doing it. This is no change to the fair use act. As long as you aren't making money from it then you are fine. Youtube videos will be fine.

That's exactly the point though, most of the SC2 progamers make money from commercials on those streams. Streaming tournament games have the same problems as well. So I'm still pretty worried :P

Originally Posted by ShinryuLOTR

The issue raised by the linked article, as well as confirmed by at least one game development company, is that the "performance" of this footage actually helps promote the games that are featured. Certainly some of it may be quite amateurish, but I'd imagine fan made videos have attracted players to LOTRO. I know that I myself only purchased Marvel VS Capcom 3 after watching it streamed in several tournaments. I would likely not have purchased it otherwise.

There is no argument here about control. I'm not sure anyone is saying that they should be able to do whatever they want with a game and then redistribute it, whether money is involved or not. This is simply about display (or "public performance") of the material in the context in which it already exists. Also, the law this bill pertains to already allows for companies to directly pursue those they feel violate their "control" of their own material, it just generally restricts them to doing so at a civil level. If a company feels that their rights are being infringed by videos of their material being available online they can already act to have them taken down.

Actually, it IS a question of control...benevolence or benefit is irrelevant without permission from the copyright holder. For some reason, this concept makes sense to people when applied to physical property, but not so much when applied to intellectual property.

Say you own a brick-and-mortar shop. I walk in, during the business day, with my own mop and mop bucket, and proceed to mop your store's floor without your permission. Now, certainly, I'm doing you something of benefit to you (value dependant on how messy your floors are, I guess).

You might think "hey, I'll take all the free labor action i can get", and let me do it. Or, you could decide that my mopping is disrupting your customers, or even that hey, it's your store, you'll darn well decide when and how the floors get mopped. At that point, you could call the police, and I'd be guilty of criminal trespass, whether I was doing something of benefit to you or not.

By the same token, a game company can decide that allowing users to stream videos is either benign, or in their interests, and they're not concerned with the quality or which areas get streamed. In that case, they can do what Turbine has done and offer blanket permission to do so. It makes no more sense to ASSUME that permission on an individual's or company's behalf than it does to ASSUME you'd be down with me mopping your floors.

The author of that article is entirely correct when he states that the driving force behind this legislation is other media (TV and movies, primarily). He goes on though, with:

"But traditional film and television companies, who are the real drivers behind this bill, have even less of a clue. It seems natural to us that if we can watch a show on live TV we should be able to watch it live on our computers too, but that’s barely even on the radar for TV companies. The vacuum left between how we want to watch shows and how the content publishers want to give them to us has been taken up by streamers, and that makes the streamers money and the copyright owners mad."

They have every right to get mad; it's not the consumer's right to fill that vacuum on their behalf. That entire attitude translates to "I want something a certain way, and this company's not letting me have it that way, so therefore their rights are forfeit cause i didn't get what I want, and if they don't like it, they can sue me."

It's entirely ludicrous for me to take your car without permission, drive it around for a few hours, bring it back, then expect YOU to have to go to the expense of initiating a civil action against me. I'm the one who broke the law.

If I did that 10 times in 6 months, I'd certainly hope the government would initiate criminal procedings against me whether you want them to or not.

Seems to me it is jsut a waste of Taxpayers money. Im all for copyright laws and such but I feel this is a bit much. Cause this bill can be obscured to tap you for filming say your kid walking a few steps with music in the background or even something on the TV. I heard that you can get charged for violating this bill for doing just that.

Originally Posted by Jayarih

Seems to me it is jsut a waste of Taxpayers money. Im all for copyright laws and such but I feel this is a bit much. Cause this bill can be obscured to tap you for filming say your kid walking a few steps with music in the background or even something on the TV. I heard that you can get charged for violating this bill for doing just that.

Eh....

Somebody posts an innocent video that happens to incidentally contain a substantial enough portion of a copyrighted work to violate Fair Use 10 times in a 6-month period?

Possible, but mighty unlikely.

Truly accidental shoplifting happens every so often, too (an item ends up inside a storage container you're purchasing, you forget something on the bottom of the cart and the store doesn't see it either, you're not paying attention and put an unpurchsed item in your coat pocket along with the cell phone you just answered....not that I've ever DONE that or anything...). That fact doesn't make a shoplifting law a waste of time.

If their motivation here was to go after those kind of edge cases, if effective controls on the egregious amount of intentional, flagrant violation that's going on currently were already in place and all that was left were the edge cases, I'd agree with you. Neither of those are currently the case.

You know as well as I do that people will start getting hit for this bill in the most obscure ways as possible. Happens all the time when new laws take effect. They always put something along with it as a cover

Originally Posted by Jayarih

You know as well as I do that people will start getting hit for this bill in the most obscure ways as possible. Happens all the time when new laws take effect. They always put something along with it as a cover

Ok, that's a bit too tinfoil for me.

Even if I were willing to believe that they were going to go out of their way to nail as many people as possible out of sheer malice or Machiavellian intent, the way the law's written dramatically decreases the chance Jane Innocent will get hurt.

In order for the new law to apply to an "innocent", they'd have to accidentally, unknowlingly violate it nearly twice a month for 6 months straight. Compared to the outright thievery going on right now? That's a pretty acceptable risk to me.

basically means people who stream copyrighted materials on places like jtv, ustream, youtube, etc. without permission will be a in whole lots of trouble.

Originally Posted by Ailedra

I'd be willing to bet the artists creating the intellectual property in question consider it to be pretty important.

Considering that stories of artists disagreeing with the RIAAs overzealous pursuit of their fans are becoming more common, I highly doubt that.

Are they concerned for their IP? Of course. Are they so concerned that they want to cripple their fans ability to share and spread their works in ways that are profitable for them? I do not think so.

Word of mouth, in all its forms, is still the best way of increasing your fan base because, after all, a recommendation from a friend is the one most likely to be trusted.

Originally Posted by Ailedra

If their motivation here was to go after those kind of edge cases, if effective controls on the egregious amount of intentional, flagrant violation that's going on currently were already in place and all that was left were the edge cases, I'd agree with you. Neither of those are currently the case.

The recording and movie industries have already done stuff like this in the past. Way back in 2007 this story landed:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13508_3-97...g=2547-1_3-0-5

Choice quote (emphasis mine):

Among dissenters is the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against RIAA member Universal Music Publishing Group after the company asked that a home video be removed from YouTube due to copyright infringement. The video features 18-month-old Holden Lenz dancing to Prince's "Let's Get Crazy" and runs for a total of 29 seconds. Following Universal's complaint, the video was removed by YouTube and remained offline until recently.

And by 'asked youtube' they actually mean 'sent a DMCA takedown notice'.

Originally Posted by Ailedra

They have every right to get mad; it's not the consumer's right to fill that vacuum on their behalf. That entire attitude translates to "I want something a certain way, and this company's not letting me have it that way, so therefore their rights are forfeit cause i didn't get what I want, and if they don't like it, they can sue me."

I believe this is quite within the consumer's rights. In fact its the basic economic factor of supply and demand. If a given service is not being offered that a lot of consumers want someone should have the right to pressure the companies to make that service available weather through their own innovation or competitive advertising. If other people didnt have the right to do this, how can we expect competition, much less evolution, in the market?

Originally Posted by tkdyoo

I believe this is quite within the consumer's rights. In fact its the basic economic factor of supply and demand. If a given service is not being offered that a lot of consumers want someone should have the right to pressure the companies to make that service available weather through their own innovation or competitive advertising. If other people didnt have the right to do this, how can we expect competition, much less evolution, in the market?

No. The consumer has every right to see a product, recognize that said product could be better, and create/obtain their own competing product, market it, and fill that void. THAT is the market force of supply and demand. They do NOT have the right to redistribute somebody else's product in a way they feel more appropriate without the permission of that product's owner. The advent of the Internet did not give you rights to anybody else's creative output, no matter how much you'd like to have it for free, or provide it to somebody else.

General Motors designs, produces, markets, and distributes a van. I look at that van and decide it meets my needs. I buy it, license it, and park it in my driveway. You decide that van could be serving everybody's else's interests better if it were being used to sell ice cream in my neighborhood. After all, nobody else is doing it....you see a market opportunity, and supply and demand says that gap should be filled, right? You're a consumer, right? You see a service that isn't being offered, right?

So, you take that van from my driveway, and start selling ice cream from it.

You think you're an entrepreneur. Me, the law, and everybody else thinks you're guilty of grand theft auto.

Why is it different when there's no physical item involved?

Originally Posted by Siaer

Considering that stories of artists disagreeing with the RIAAs overzealous pursuit of their fans are becoming more common, I highly doubt that.

Do you have any statistics on how many RIAA artists agree and don't agree with that stance, or just anecdotes of high-profile ones who disagree?

You say they're becoming "more common"....having made that claim, care to support it?

Originally Posted by Siaer

Are they concerned for their IP? Of course. Are they so concerned that they want to cripple their fans ability to share and spread their works in ways that are profitable for them? I do not think so.

Some feel that way, yes. Because some feel that way, does that remove property rights from those who DON'T feel that way?

Originally Posted by Siaer

Word of mouth, in all its forms, is still the best way of increasing your fan base because, after all, a recommendation from a friend is the one most likely to be trusted.

True in many cases. Therefore, we should liquidate the rights of the IP creators to decide how they'd like to market their wares, because we know what works and what doesn't. We shouldn't allow them to make the wrong decision regarding what they created, because, after all, we know what'll work and what won't, don't we?

At the end of the day, the artists in question created the property. It's the fruit of their labor. They made it. They own it. Who the hell are you to tell them what they SHOULD be doing with it (even if you might be right?)

Originally Posted by Siaer

And by 'asked youtube' they actually mean 'sent a DMCA takedown notice'.

Source? The article you linked said nothing of the sort.

Originally Posted by Ailedra

Do you have any statistics on how many RIAA artists agree and don't agree with that stance, or just anecdotes of high-profile ones who disagree?

You say they're becoming "more common"....having made that claim, care to support it?

Back when the whole napster thing was happening there was only a handful of artists that I remember That were against P2P sharing of music. Most notably Metallica (I was subsequently banned from Napster for of all things a DJ remix of one of their songs)

Source? The article you linked said nothing of the sort.

In most cases though they may say they have been 'asked' usually a C&D letter is sent or something similar to that regard

As you might surmise from my vehemence here, I'm an artist, a "creator of intellectual property"

I'm a composer; I write music. Like many artists, I write some very personal things. The economic viability of what I've written is not at issue; most of you would probably think it's garbage, and I'm not going to tell you you're wrong. It's possible, of course, that we're all wrong, and I'm sitting on a gold mine. I have people who tell me it's plenty viable, and I'm really rather talented, but they're my friends, and they're a very small sample....it's not only possible, it's likely that they're just trying to make me feel good.

Given the current state of piracy and streaming redistribution, I made a conscious decision NOT to make my work public. I couldn't bear the thought of some punk heading to YouTube and doing whatever the hell he wanted with it under the guise of tongue-in-cheek Fair Use, without even the courtesy of asking me whether I agreed.

Am I making a mistake? Am I passing on a fair bit of money, as well as denying the humanities the benefit of my work? It's very unlikely, but it's remotely possible. If so, that is my choice. It's my creation, it's my work, and I have the right to decide what will and won't happen with it. I simply can't trust that you, who seem to feel that you have some right to make decisions about my work for me, will bother getting my permission to do whatever it is you want to do with it.

Somebody who does put their work out there, somebody who does have some economic viability to their work has exactly the same rights as I do. They wrote it. They created it. OR, they bought it from somebody, recognizing the value of it. in either case, they own it. You have zero rights whatsoever to do anything to it or with it unless they GIVE you those rights.

You want plenipotentiary rights to an IP? You want to stream it to the planet, or do anything else you want to it? Then YOU write it, or give your money to somebody else who does.

Otherwise, you're a thief.

Originally Posted by Jayarih

Back when the whole napster thing was happening there was only a handful of artists that I remember That were against P2P sharing of music. Most notably Metallica (I was subsequently banned from Napster for of all things a DJ remix of one of their songs)



In most cases though they may say they have been 'asked' usually a C&D letter is sent or something similar to that regard

Those're great anecdotes.

I've seen enough of your posts to know that you know the difference.

Say you're right, though...say a true majority DO feel that way. Is that reason to take those rights away from those who feel differently?

Im a writer/poet. Ive posted my works publicly for some time now. For me its not about the money and I couldnt care much about if someone wanted to use it or possibly wanted to pass it off as their own. If my work has touched someone and they like it, then I accomplished what I wanted. Though everything I have written is my own IP I am not going to harp on someone because they wanted to distribute it

Originally Posted by Ailedra

Those're great anecdotes.

I've seen enough of your posts to know that you know the difference.

Say you're right, though...say a true majority DO feel that way. Is that reason to take those rights away from those who feel differently?

No but there is no need to waste taxpayer money making it a criminal offense. If someone wants to exercise their rights then they are still welcome to do as they have always done, take someone to court. You will find most that are brought to court are not by the artists themselves but of either the record label or RIAA.

Originally Posted by Jayarih

Im a writer/poet. Ive posted my works publicly for some time now. For me its not about the money and I couldnt care much about if someone wanted to use it or possibly wanted to pass it off as their own. If my work has touched someone and they like it, then I accomplished what I wanted. Though everything I have written is my own IP I am not going to harp on someone because they wanted to distribute it

Good for you (and no, honestly, good for you).

Having made that decision for yourself, do you feel as if you have the right to make it regarding somebody else's work?

Originally Posted by Jayarih

No but there is no need to waste taxpayer money making it a criminal offense. If someone wants to exercise their rights then they are still welcome to do as they have always done, take someone to court. You will find most that are brought to court are not by the artists themselves but of either the record label or RIAA.

Why not?

If somebody steals my car, or invades my house, or picks my wallet, I don't need to take them to civil court.

Why is intellectual property less sacred?

Originally Posted by Ailedra

Good for you (and no, honestly, good for you).

Having made that decision for yourself, do you feel as if you have the right to make it regarding somebody else's work?

Again no but I do not need the government to fight for me, if I want I will take someone to court I dont need the government to do something in my stead that isnt really needed and is more wasteful then helpful to 'protect' my IP.

Originally Posted by Ailedra

Why not?

If somebody steals my car, or invades my house, or picks my wallet, I don't need to take them to civil court.

Why is intellectual property less sacred?

Ok but why do YOU need the government to fight for you? There is no need to waste more money on something that can be just as easily fought by those that want to protect their IP.

So its ok to start branding people as criminals that may inadvertently break this bill because of spur on the moment recordings? My kids are into music now and we sometimes videotape tape them singing. With this bill I will no longer be able to share it with my friends online through youtube/facebook since I fear that even if it isnt long they will still get me on it. I dont think fair use will have any bearing on this bill at all. Similar to what the Patriot Act did to the rights of US citizens when it first went into effect.

Originally Posted by Jayarih

Ok but why do YOU need the government to fight for you? There is no need to waste more money on something that can be just as easily fought by those that want to protect their IP.

So its ok to start branding people as criminals that may inadvertently break this bill because of spur on the moment recordings? My kids are into music now and we sometimes videotape tape them singing. With this bill I will no longer be able to share it with my friends online through youtube/facebook since I fear that even if it isnt long they will still get me on it. I dont think fair use will have any bearing on this bill at all. Similar to what the Patriot Act did to the rights of US citizens when it first went into effect.

The Patriot Act is apples and Volkswagons. It's apples and Volkswagons because the Patriot Act (as you invoked it, at least) seeks to limit basic rights we as a public had discrete, defined claim to in the name of security. What this bill does is help limit property rights to those who already own that property.

As it regards this specific bill, again, 10 violations in 6 months. It's not a one-time thing, it's repeated violations.

But, to answer the base question:

Scope. I'm one guy. YouTube has how many users?

Say I'm not one guy, though....say I'm a large corporation. Say I'm the RIAA, even. Pretend I'm even bigger than the RIAA...say I have enough employees to manage a 1:1 ratio to youTube users, to make sure what I don't want posted isn't being posted. Why is it beholden on me to continually defend my property rights?

We don't require that of homes. We don't require that for vehicles. Hell, we don't even require that for things we carry with us....if somebody tried to deprive us of any of those things, there are criminal codes that deal with that theft.

Again, what makes intellectual property different?