Congress wants to make streaming copyrighted media a FELONY

[RexM]

http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/ten_strikes/?source=fb

Tell Congress to oppose S. 978, the new "Ten Strikes" bill




Here they go again: Big business's lobbyists are launching another attack on Internet freedom. Senators are considering a "Ten Strikes" bill to make it a felony to stream copyrighted content -- like music in the background of a Youtube video -- more than ten times.


As the writers at TechDirt point out, under this bill you could go to jail for posting video of your friends singing karaoke:


The entertainment industry is freaking out about sites that embed and stream infringing content, and want law enforcement to put people in jail over it, rather than filing civil lawsuits.... We already pointed to one possibility: that people embedding YouTube videos could face five years in jail. Now, others are pointing out that it could also put kids who lip sync to popular songs, and post the resulting videos on YouTube, in jail as well.

That's right: Ten strikes and you could get jail time.



Less than a month ago, the Hollywood industry magazine, Variety, reported, "Industry lobbyists pressed House members on Wednesday to pass legislation that would make illegal streaming of movies, TV shows and other types of content a felony...."
Only a few weeks later, the MPAA is getting its wish.



Will you email your lawmakers and tell them to vote against the Ten Strikes Bill?


Just add your info at right to automatically send this note to them, under your name and from your address. (You can edit the letter if you'd like to.)
Just sign on at right and we'll send an email to your lawmakers.

[Ace-Angel]

So...I can download it? Well, seems like all the download training I had thanks to Canada's limited Bandwidth has finally payed off.

[pior]

I always love how lobbyist groups are always reported so casually. What about telling us HOW they actually pressed House members to do this! Money ? Free porn ? Hannah Montana backstage tickets?

[D4V1DC]

It makes no sense, so it's okay for them to post and distribute their music on youtube (similar sites) but not anyone else? So official music videos would have to be removed as well wouldn't It? Almost rendering youtube (similar sites) pointless for finding such music videos, & similar content as well as promotions. I don't see how this works or makes any sense.

In all honesty I hardly listen to older music or even newer music after about 10-20 plays, music Is not that big of a deal anymore this isn't the Napster days... old people. :)

[EarthQuake]

It makes no sense, so it's okay for them to post and distribute their music on youtube (similar sites) but not anyone else? So official music videos would have to be removed as well wouldn't It? Almost rendering youtube (similar sites) pointless for finding such music videos, & similar content as well as promotions. I don't see how this works or makes any sense.

You're missing the point a bit here, it would be illegal, for someone who does not own the copyright. Bands/publisher posting official videos... They own the rights to the music, they are free to do whatever they want.

[greevar]

We're talking about turning everyone into criminals for having a little creative freedom and posting it on YouTube. That means every parody, every lampoon, every singalong, and any other use of copyrighted content would be a felony if streamed online. Remember the YouTube video of the baby dancing to Prince? They want to make it a crime to do things like that.

This is just getting to stupid proportions. This is not what the founders of the constitution intended when they granted congress the power to, "in order to promote the progress of the useful sciences and arts", create copyright and patent law. This is so beyond the point of reason, you can't see the light back to reason. This is wrong, just wrong.

Since when did infringement become a higher crime than assault and battery?

[Ace-Angel]

Since the music industry was given the permission to bitch, moan and cannibalize itself while blaming anyone with an internet connection.

[Super Happy Cow]

We're talking about turning everyone into criminals...

You're all aware this is happening with many facets of every day human life, right? And has been for many years? I.e. pot?

[greevar]

You're all aware this is happening with many facets of every day human life, right? And has been for many years? I.e. pot?

Yes and it's sick. Protests are pushed into the dark corners where nobody will see them by so-called "free speech zones", the TSA assumes we're all carrying bombs (including our children) so they have to irradiate, humiliate, and grope us (and our children) to maintain the illusion that they're protecting us from each other. Cops are making up bullshit charges to use on people filming their questionable actions in public or arresting people for dancing silently in the Jefferson memorial (Jefferson, a staunch supporter of freedom of expression would be appalled). 200 miles within the US national borders are "constitution free zones" where your rights supposedly don't exist because they have to stop the 'terrists and those illegal aliens that tuk ur jerbz! Liberties are being eroded for the sake of "security". Truthfully, you're better off with a criminal than a cop. At least when a mugger gets your wallet and/or mobile phone, they'll leave you alone in most cases. If you piss off a cop, he'll beat your ass and drag you to jail whether he had just cause or not. They don't like it when you shatter their illusion of unquestioned authority.

[Super Happy Cow]

All of that is 100% true, even though some might perceive it as a fringe rant.

Our societal system is broken. Bottom line.

[Talbot]

Honestly they need calm down. I know that it is a huge grey area. But banning music in youtube videos? 99% of the videos I watch on youtube are mountain bike movies with music over it.

Oh and did I mention this kid is FUCKED!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm_n3hg-Gbg

[greevar]

All of that is 100% true, even though some might perceive it as a fringe rant.

Our societal system is broken. Bottom line.

Yeah, sorry. Civil rights violations kinda hit a nerve with me.

[Ben Apuna]

LOL! If you thought prisons were overcrowded now, just you wait.

I can see it now: Some crazed drug offender gets early paroled and then goes on a killing rampage on a crowded school bus. Then we find out the only reason he was paroled was to make space in prison for some kid who was unlucky enough to be caught watching some youtube videos.

The lawmakers and big industry in this country are so out of touch with reality it's not funny anymore :(

[greevar]

The lawmakers and big industry in this country are so out of touch with reality it's not funny anymore :(

It was never funny, but I get your meaning.

[Ben Apuna]

I don't think I've ever been so angry at reading something on Polycount prior to this...

Granted it has no chance of passing (I hope), but still the fact that some idiot(s) taking industry bribes (campaign contributions heh) is planning to put this forward to a vote... all while the soldiers need to come home, the economy needs fixing, and the budget needs balancing.

Whoever it is that is wasting the countries time and money on this needs to be banned from politics and law for life!

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-978

Who are these people!? Ah here we go (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=last_name):

Klobuchar, Amy - (D - MN) Class I
302 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3244
http://klobuchar.senate.gov/emailamy.cfm

Coons, Christopher A. - (D - DE) Class II
127A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5042
http://coons.senate.gov/contact/

Cornyn, John - (R - TX) Class II
517 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2934
http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactForm

[Super Happy Cow]

Yeah, sorry. Civil rights violations kinda hit a nerve with me.

No need to apologize.

The irony of our failure after Osama specifically proclaimed he intended to bleed us of our wealth, along with the passage of the Patriot Act are perfect reasons to be furious, at the least.

Granted it has no chance of passing (I hope)

Ahahahah. Does anyone pay attention to politics anymore?

[greevar]

"Klobuchar, Amy - (D - MN) Class I
302 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3244"

Man, one of my senators is in on this? This will not do!

[Justin Meisse]

while this law doesn't effect me at all it's pretty ridiculous (if I ever need music for something I make my own or license it).

[Kevin Johnstone]

I'm sure a bit of Jail time would be just the thing to teach my kids some discipline... sort them out good and proper for daring to express themselves in the world community in such a shamelessly illegal manner.

[Ace-Angel]

Hope Canada doesn't pop in on this, if they do, I swear, Khan will sound like a light cuss.

[Two Listen]

It doesn't have a chance at passing. Our jails are already overcrowded, and while some "big businesses" might feel they're losing money - google's making so much money off of this stuff it's ridiculous, if in a bit of a roundabout way. Even if it DID pass, there's no way they'd be able to effectively enforce it.

[RexM]

I'm sure a bit of Jail time would be just the thing to teach my kids some discipline... sort them out good and proper for daring to express themselves in the world community in such a shamelessly illegal manner.

Jail is a walk in the park these days. You get TV in your cells, game consoles, books, free college....

[Super Happy Cow]

Free sex. Wanted, or otherwise.

[Autocon]

Jail is a walk in the park these days. You get TV in your cells, game consoles, books, free college....

Clearly someone needs to watch Hard Time on Nat Geo.




What are you in Jail for? Murder? Armed Robbery? Abuse? Narcotics?...No I made a Dragon Ball Z music video with a Hanna Montana song 10 times!

[Dylan Brady]

Honestly they need calm down. I know that it is a huge grey area. But banning music in youtube videos? 99% of the videos I watch on youtube are mountain bike movies with music over it.

Oh and did I mention this kid is FUCKED!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm_n3hg-Gbg

I was appalled by this whole thread up until I realized that he would be put in jail...
Now I see the upside.

[Mark Dygert]

We're talking about turning everyone into criminals for having a little creative freedom and posting it on YouTube. That means every parody, every lampoon, every singalong, and any other use of copyrighted content would be a felony if streamed online. Remember the YouTube video of the baby dancing to Prince? They want to make it a crime to do things like that.There is "fair use". People who use the material for education, cometary such as news or comedy are exempt. A little bit of reading on the subject might be required but I'm pretty sure this wouldn't shut down youtube all together just make it impossible for people to post re-runs of shows they just recoded while their web cam was pointed at their TV.

[greevar]

There is "fair use". People who use the material for education, cometary such as news or comedy are exempt. A little bit of reading on the subject might be required but I'm pretty sure this wouldn't shut down youtube all together just make it impossible for people to post re-runs of shows they just recoded while their web cam was pointed at their TV.

Unfortunately, they've been trying all they can to kill fair use. They don't care that they're destroying people's ability to make beneficial use of content, they just can't stand the idea of people using content in ways that don't make money for them.

[Ferg]

I am going to throw the biggest party in the world when the old Big Media structure finally fucking dies and stops trying to drag the rest of us down with it. Hopefully we can throw all the lobbyists into the bonfire pit with them when they finally go down.

[Calabi]

I'd like to see them do it, just to see what happens. There going to just keep trying, just let them do it, see if they get the outcome that they want.

I doubt they will get the result that they want, but its the only way they will learn.

[Ferg]

I'd like to see them do it, just to see what happens. There going to just keep trying, just let them do it, see if they get the outcome that they want.

I doubt they will get the result that they want, but its the only way they will learn.

are you willing to be one of the innocent people who has to go to prison and get a felony on their record just so those fat fucks can "learn a lesson"?

[Super Happy Cow]

There will probably be even more of shift towards independent works that do not have such stringent restrictions on usage.

Most popular music is utter trash, anyway.

are you willing to be one of the innocent people who has to go to prison and get a felony on their record just so those fat fucks can "learn a lesson"?

Don't think he was saying that. It's unlikely that this'll end up in their favor, even if it passes. It's more likely that people adjust and rebel, while these people who seek a monopoly on culture lose money.

[Calabi]

are you willing to be one of the innocent people who has to go to prison and get a felony on their record just so those fat fucks can "learn a lesson"?

No, but I dont for one second think it would go that far, there would be outrage from the media and general populus at the first felony. Then there would be backtracking and the usual we made a mistake.

Even the idea of implementing it is so stupidly unfeasible, what with the structures already in place and the populations perception.

[Super Happy Cow]

I think it could, very easily. What motivates politicians, media, and private industry is not what's best for the consumer.

I think it probably should pass, actually. It'll open up the doors for many independent people to break into music by doing things independently. Since it's just corporations attempting to maintain their power in a partially free society, the tighter they lock the hands the more consumers will slip through.

[Ace-Angel]

OK, I'm confused, I read up more stuff, and things don't add up anymore for me.

Originally, I got the gist that ANY "Let's Play" stuff, music, ingame audio, snippets and everything was essentially being folded in under the parent company. Meaning if we did something with said stuff, we would be liable to a fine or payment, once we reached the 10 strike count.

Lets say if someone wanted to make another Portal joke, in a video, like "Chell's mind", they would have to contact Valve to get the rights to do so.

I found this stupid, because I really doubt that Valve has lawyers and assistants waiting on communication devices 24/7 replying to every email, hell, I don't think Ubisoft, EA and Activision combined together with Sony, Nintendo and MS would be able to tackle this issue, the huge piles of letters that must line up their boxes with people asking the right to show video X,Y,Z. Plus, with Duke Nukem's recent PR issue, companies could very well close any video that don't like.

Plus, it would require some investment on behalf of the users to get some paperwork done as well a decent backing of the law, bigger companies can pull this off easily, especially reviewers, but anyone else?

However, upon further looking up on said issue, I don't get the following things about it. So I'll break it down more.

The person committing infringement in question has to upload 10 of said 'items' within a time period of 180 days, meaning the person who is performing the uploading of said material is being charged on this point, plus they also have to make 2,500$ from said act.

If said video was used under fair license, they would need to pass the 5000$ mark inorder to get fined. In either case, pending on the severity, the prison time should be less then 5 years.

Now, people are saying it's a 10 strike count for the WATCHER and the UPLOADER depending certain variables, but I yet have to hear those.

To top it off, again, this is what the internet is yelling at me: The company must specifically state at the beginning if something be reproduced with Authorization or not, and this can goes back to being tackled with my first set of paragraphs about amount of money being made when it should be free.

I'm confused...each point seems to be there to contradict or confuse another point. I understand that this is need to stop uploading of full fledged movies and episodes online, but the larger context of the bill is too vague for comfort, so it really breaks more areas then fixes them.

[greevar]

This bill, along with PROTECT IP, essentially breaks the internet. They are trying to put an end to copying of all kinds (which is what the internet is designed to do). Most take-down letters have been issued and followed with nothing more than the rights holder's say-so despite there being no evidence to support it. They even send out take downs on content they've posted themselves showing that they really have no idea how to tell infringing apart from authorized. If this bill passes, people will receive criminal charges under the same evidential burden that currently persists with DMCA take-downs. Which is to say, is none.

[Super Happy Cow]

I think it could, very easily. What motivates politicians, media, and private industry is not what's best for the consumer.

I think it probably should pass, actually. It'll open up the doors for many independent people to break into music by doing things independently. Since it's just corporations attempting to maintain their power in a partially free society, the tighter they lock the hands the more consumers will slip through.

Illustrating my point:
Epic Rap Battle (Lincoln vs Norris):
http://www.youtube.com/user/nicepeter#p/u/5/zj2Zf9tlg2Y

Used this song independent song, rather than something very well known, yet it got millions of views.
http://www.youtube.com/hitmansbest#p/u/0/ssHqdNnpkhg

[passerby]

man hope this never happens in Canada but fat chance with Harper, who just want to get in bed with big business regardless of it being good or bad for the country.

though i don't think it will have a huge effect since how many people make money by posting content on YT, so i doubt someone will make 5k on copyrighted material.

stuff like this would prolly have the biggest effect on mash-up artists who sell songs or videos

[Mark Dygert]

We can't get any money out of the internet.
Squeeze harder.
But its turning blue and stopped breathing.
That means its working! KEEP SQUEEZING!

[Scizz]

^^^^

[Ace-Angel]

We can't get any money out of the internet.
Squeeze harder.
But its turning blue and stopped breathing.
That means its working! KEEP SQUEEZING!

That's how my phallus and testicles feels most nights...

*ba-dum-tish*

[ErichWK]

But what if you aren't making money from it? Doesn't the law protect parodies and other forms of art appropriation?

[greevar]

17 U.S.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_17_of_the_United_States_Code) § 107 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_17_of_the_United_States_Code) § 106 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html) and 17 U.S.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_17_of_the_United_States_Code) § 106A (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106A.html), 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. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a 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; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#cite_note-0)

[eld]

We can't get any money out of the internet.
Squeeze harder.
But its turning blue and stopped breathing.
That means its working! KEEP SQUEEZING!

I highly doubt they'll get any money from people in lawsuits that cost the companies more than what they'd actually get back.

It has everything to do with companies wanting to control the spread of their content, for good and for bad.

Expand fair use I say, mashups and creations on youtube is a wonderful thing that can even help the further spread of the content of these companies. However I have nothing against stopping unlicensed streaming of full movies or series on different places.

But what if you aren't making money from it? Doesn't the law protect parodies and other forms of art appropriation?

It's a bit of a gray area. If someone gains extreme popularity from doing things that would fall under some kind of fair use, then they could gain money from either ads, donations or extended services.

There are shitty abusive people on both ends of the IP struggle, no one is reasonable.

[almighty_gir]

question:

how the hell do the US gov, hope to enforce something like this?

the cost of obtaining subpoenas from courts in order to gain address/personal information from ISP's regarding specific IP addresses, and then sending billy bob the policeman to go and get that person, will be high enough.
not to mention, the internet is a global freeway... and since i live in england i can (and will if the bill passes) say "FUCK YOU AMERICA", and start streaming every single one of my music and video files.

[Bibendum]

Think you guys might be missing the point of this, it's not meant to stop karaoke videos or uploading shit as terrible background music for their video blogs. That is a side effect of it but I'm pretty sure the point is to remedy the fact that at the moment you can pretty much look up any song on youtube and inevitably somebody has ripped the entire album and uploaded it.

Doesn't mean the law is good but it helps to keep things in perspective instead of pretending like every kid on youtube is going to be a convicted felon after this passes. Odds are in 99% of the cases no one will even try to enforce this on them. Again though, that doesn't mean it's alright.

Fortunately I highly doubt this is ever going to actually pass.

I always love how lobbyist groups are always reported so casually. What about telling us HOW they actually pressed House members to do this! Money ? Free porn ? Hannah Montana backstage tickets?Campaign contributions mostly. We're at a point where being a politician has become a career choice and not a public service, politicians are constantly raising money for their next election so that they can stay in office.

http://maplight.org/us-congress/bill/112-s-978/954321/total-contributions?sort=asc&order=%24+From+Interest+Groups%3Cbr+%2F%3EThat+Sup port

So far 86 million dollars has been 'contributed' by interest groups supporting this bill.

how the hell do the US gov, hope to enforce something like this?

the cost of obtaining subpoenas from courts in order to gain address/personal information from ISP's regarding specific IP addresses, and then sending billy bob the policeman to go and get that person, will be high enough.
not to mention, the internet is a global freeway... and since i live in england i can (and will if the bill passes) say "FUCK YOU AMERICA", and start streaming every single one of my music and video files.They won't pursue legal action unless it's at the request of a copyright holder. The only situation I could see law enforcement trying to enforce this on their own is if they're already charging you with something and want additional leverage.

[Super Happy Cow]

Private prisons. Do read:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8289

the cost of obtaining subpoenas from courts--

Really? Has anyone been paying attention?

[greevar]

Private prisons. Do read:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8289



Really? Has anyone been paying attention?

Bingo. That's why we have drug laws in the US in the first place. It puts the dirty brown people in jail so the uppity white people don't have to afraid of them (the preceding was an exaggerated stereotype, I'm not racist). As much as drugs disgust me, I don't want to see them outlawed. It just creates a market for criminals and the prison industry to make lots of money without doing a damn to stop it and the violence is creates.

[Super Happy Cow]

Again, that seems bonkers, but it's true, at least mostly. Today, drugs are still illegal to help perpetuate the drug war. It's the same thing with prescription drugs, the two current wars, and dare I say, free to play games.

It's about creating a demand where there is none, and getting people to constantly need you services when they are grossly unnecessary.

DynCorp makes huge amounts of money off of the war, then pays off politicians to help perpetuate the cycle. The politicians later become lobbyists and enter the "private sector" when their masquerade in the public service has exhausted its purposes.

Anyway, http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/


There are shitty abusive people on both ends of the IP struggle, no one is reasonable.

Yeah. There are tons of people who just torrent anything and everything they can just because it's free. It is abusive, and a problem, but jail is for violent people who cannot operate within society.

Companies would do better to adapt, and like someone else mentioned in a similar thread months ago, make it more of a pain in the ass to torrent/pirate stuff, than it is to buy it for cheap.

[pior]

Thank you for the link Bibendum, fascinating stuff.

[acc]

Think you guys might be missing the point of this, it's not meant to stop karaoke videos or uploading shit as terrible background music for their video blogs. That is a side effect of it but I'm pretty sure the point is to remedy the fact that at the moment you can pretty much look up any song on youtube and inevitably somebody has ripped the entire album and uploaded it.

Doesn't mean the law is good but it helps to keep things in perspective instead of pretending like every kid on youtube is going to be a convicted felon after this passes. Odds are in 99% of the cases no one will even try to enforce this on them. Again though, that doesn't mean it's alright.

History disagrees with you. Did you forget what the RIAA pulled to try and stop downloading music? Multi-million dollar fines for 8 year old girls? Families suddenly thrown into legal hell for years, fearing for their livelihoods and being forced into massive debt to pay the legal fees?

The way you've interpreted it is exactly what they want and exactly why trash like this gets anywhere at all. They put a tiny bit of legitimacy into the bill to hide the actual intent. This is how most bills are written and why most bills are written.

Kids on youtube are the people who are being targetted because it's a scare tactic and scare tactics don't work for normal people unless you target other normal people. The theory is that if a bunch of kids on youtube hear that some other kid on youtube got sent to jail for 5 years for watching some videos, the rest of them will not want to take the risk.

Of course, this doesn't work at all (again, history says hi) but the People With Money don't like thinking so they just keep trying the same ineffective trick rather than making any attempt to adapt whatsoever. The politicians profit, the lawyers profit, the lobbyists profit, the internet gets to rage (yay!) and nothing changes.

[greevar]

acc is right. They will try to slaughter a few sacrificial lambs to keep the "flock" in check. History proves that. They keep doing it because they don't see that it's a symptom of a problem. Content creators are just not providing people with what they really want. People want convenience, choice, and control over the content they pay for. But the big media doesn't want to do that because they think they can get more money if they slam the gate in your face and demand more money. People respond by giving them the finger by downloading it instead.

Big media wants absolute control over how, when, and on what device you enjoy your content so that they can pinch every penny out of every different use of the same content. It's like charging extra because you read the newspaper while drinking your coffee instead of gargling a mouthful of their reproductive fluids. That's dramatic, I know. Though it is getting to feel that way.

[Moosey_G]

acc is right. They will try to slaughter a few sacrificial lambs to keep the "flock" in check. History proves that. They keep doing it because they don't see that it's a symptom of a problem. Content creators are just not providing people with what they really want. People want convenience, choice, and control over the content they pay for. But the big media doesn't want to do that because they think they can get more money if they slam the gate in your face and demand more money. People respond by giving them the finger by downloading it instead.

Big media wants absolute control over how, when, and on what device you enjoy your content so that they can pinch every penny out of every different use of the same content. It's like charging extra because you read the newspaper while drinking your coffee instead of gargling a mouthful of their reproductive fluids. That's dramatic, I know. Though it is getting to feel that way.

It's not dramatic, it's the truth. Rich, and politically powerful old Americans are just completely disillusioned. It's a symptom of an old era. These old white men born in the 40's and 50's don't realize what the media has become for the common person. They see content users as a commodity, not people just wanting to enjoy the myriad of entertainment being offered today. They also think that we're little monkeys who just want to sit around and watch whatever they can shovel in our faces instead of smart technical savvy people who want to share what we've enjoyed and mash-up thing we love, and most importantly share! What's the point of enjoying something if you cannot share it?

[greevar]

What's the point of enjoying something if you cannot share it?

That's absolutely right. The experience has more meaning when you can share the art you enjoy with others so that they can come to love it as much as you do. If you've ever felt excitement over showing a friend or relative something you thought was just incredible, you'll know what I'm saying is true. I see it all the time right here on Polycount in the P&P threads.

[Ace-Angel]

Unless that thing happens to be Two Girls, one Shroom...

[greevar]

Unless that thing happens to be Two Girls, one Shroom...

Make that two CEOs, one shroom and that will explain why this bill even exists.

[eld]

People want convenience, choice, and control over the content they pay for.

If we do look at it from another perspective, we can see that people want with the low price of one copy have full distribution and rights to alter the material as they see please with no limitations.


Companies would do better to adapt, and like someone else mentioned in a similar thread months ago, make it more of a pain in the ass to torrent/pirate stuff, than it is to buy it for cheap.

Pretty much I guess.

The problem is that games could handle it, because they could all cut out singleplayer, make games multiplayer with free to play system in place and a heavily locked online-style drm system that prevents any kind of piracy, oh and tons of hats.

Movies and music has a harder time since they're not interactive in any kind of way.

[Ace-Angel]

Make that two CEOs, one shroom and that will explain why this bill even exists.

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/6936/ohyouyh.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/39/ohyouyh.jpg/)

So much mileage out of this one pick, wish cars had this mileage...

[Bibendum]

History disagrees with you.Not really. The RIAA gave up trying to sue people as a scare tactic years ago. Their strategy since 2008 has been to have ISPs send emails basically asking customers to stop sharing copyrighted material or their internet usage will be cut off.

In their 5 year campaign against filesharing they sued some 18k people, the entire federal prison population is only 200k. Trying to enforce this with the same scorched earth terror campaign they ran in their civil suits is not only improbable, it's basically impossible. Especially when you consider that they had the luxury of being able to limit their targets down to people in the U.S. by just looking at the IP address. In the case of streaming content they have no way of identifying where the uploader even is without filing a subpoena.

Will they try to martyr somebody? Maybe. But given how ineffective suing people was and the fact that they actually abandoned the idea in favor of trying to attack the problem on a major distributor level, I doubt it.

By the way, copyright infringement is already a 3 year criminal felony, it's just nearly impossible to meet the current guidelines in the case of streaming content because the file is technically only uploaded once.

[greevar]

If we do look at it from another perspective, we can see that people want with the low price of one copy have full distribution and rights to alter the material as they see please with no limitations.

The problem is that games could handle it, because they could all cut out singleplayer, make games multiplayer with free to play system in place and a heavily locked online-style drm system that prevents any kind of piracy, oh and tons of hats.

Movies and music has a harder time since they're not interactive in any kind of way.

Yes, people want to be able to do a wide range of things with the content the buy. People derive a great sense of self-actualization from sharing and altering content. They feel tied to the art and being part of its evolution. That's something important to note. You can't stop them from doing it, so why fight it? Even multi-player and online-only DRM doesn't put much of a dent in people's desire and ability to copy and share games. You could try the online DRM route and cut them off from a single-player experience, but you're just going to piss off people that want something different. And when you don't give people what they want, they find a way to get it. So in the end, it's just not worth it. What you could do is try to build a new revenue stream around people's love of sharing content willy-nilly across the internet. I've no clue what that would look like though.

If you're going to take it from a perspective where you control people's access in order to coerce them to pay up, it's going to eventually fail. It's going to fail hard, because technology will always find a way around every barrier, move every obstacle, and cross any chasm.

[eld]

Oh no, what I meant was that the industry does adapt, by not doing anything of the old stuff anymore.

Free to play titles are pretty much the foolproof piracy solution though, there's no point in copying a game that is already available for free. it IS the ultimate DRM.

My point was that it means the death of singleplayer, movies and music could go through an equal transition in the name of "oh the industry just needs to adapt!"

Enforcing this law is just not going to work, I know that as well, but I still believe in IP-laws and the right for people to decide who gets full freedom with their products.

[Mark Dygert]

Free to play titles are pretty much the foolproof piracy solution though, there's no point in copying a game that is already available for free. it IS the ultimate DRM.
Not always, I'm sure someone will start to crack those games open, set up their own servers and sell whatever in game currency it uses at a reduced rate. The Android market is already flooded with copies and clones, it wouldn't shock me if someone started doing that soon...

I totally agree about ancient law makers being out of touch and too heavily influenced by the wrong kind of people that don't represent the average person. I can only hope that more of them are forced out and replaced by people who aren't walking husks of history.

[Justin Meisse]

That's absolutely right. The experience has more meaning when you can share the art you enjoy with others so that they can come to love it as much as you do. If you've ever felt excitement over showing a friend or relative something you thought was just incredible, you'll know what I'm saying is true. I see it all the time right here on Polycount in the P&P threads.

P&P are the copyright holders sharing their work

As far as video games, Project Zomboid is an example of the effects of piracy in this new era of connectivity - not lost sales but a drain on resources:

project zomboid taken down due to piracy (http://projectzomboid.com/blog/index.php/2011/06/sorry-weve-had-to-take-the-game-down/)

"However, these ‘auto updating’ versions of the game could screw us completely. We have a cloud based distribution model, where the files are copied all over the world and are served to players on request, which means we are charged money for people downloading the game."

[jimmypopali]

I hope listening to music isn't illegal soon. Can only have it on certain mediums and brands etc

[greevar]

P&P are the copyright holders sharing their work

As far as video games, Project Zomboid is an example of the effects of piracy in this new era of connectivity - not lost sales but a drain on resources:

project zomboid taken down due to piracy (http://projectzomboid.com/blog/index.php/2011/06/sorry-weve-had-to-take-the-game-down/)

"However, these ‘auto updating’ versions of the game could screw us completely. We have a cloud based distribution model, where the files are copied all over the world and are served to players on request, which means we are charged money for people downloading the game."

I was referring to the viral effects of sharing content, whether it was your copyright or another person's.

Zomboid's problem isn't really piracy, but people using bandwidth that costs them money, but not contributing to paying for those costs. Really, if they wanted to, they could just try charging for bandwidth, then people who didn't buy wouldn't be draining resources without at least paying for the costs they generate.

[Justin Meisse]

so you're on the side of the telecom giants? gate the internet and charge the end user for bandwidth? Never would of expected that.

[greevar]

so you're on the side of the telecom giants? gate the internet and charge the end user for bandwidth? Never would of expected that.

What? No. Nothing like that. Just set up a subscription system where people pay for access to the cloud service which pays for the bandwidth costs so pirate copies aren't leeching Zomboid and costing them money.

[eld]

What? No. Nothing like that. Just set up a subscription system where people pay for access to the cloud service which pays for the bandwidth costs so pirate copies aren't leeching Zomboid and costing them money.

Exactly, the zomboid creators didn't mind the piracy, they can't do anything about that, but then someone crafty built in an auto-updater into the pirate-releases that would pull every new update from zomboids servers, no revenue, but they'd still have to pay for all that bandwidth.

It's not an example of how piracy hurts the industry (as this hole will be plugged), it's more of a better example on that pirates don't do it for any cause.

[greevar]

It's not an example of how piracy hurts the industry (as this hole will be plugged), it's more of a better example on that pirates don't do it for any cause.

That's a complete non sequitur. You're drawing conclusions where none exists. Leeching bandwidth from a game company doesn't prove that pirates have no cause, it doesn't show that they do either. What it proves is that people will do with content what they want to do, so you better integrate your business into that. If Zomboid wants to be effective in the market facing the reality of file sharing, they're going to have to figure out how to monetize the things people do with the content they're creating for them. What you're saying is just an ad hominem attack against a group of people to legitimize your negative position against them. You're trying to magnify their out-group status by casting more negative opinion on them, possibly to justify any and all subjugation actioned against them.

But we're not discussing Zomboid here, we're discussing this abortion of a bill that threatens to ignite a war between the public that wants to enjoy their content on their own terms and the big media corporations that want to extract revenue by restricting what you do with content to a narrow range of models that fall apart as soon as you add the internet into the equation. This whole system that was started by Disney has been on a downward spiral from the beginning because it tried to do what wasn't really possible in the first place and shouldn't be done at all, which is restricting content. It's a mistake to let the media corps have their hands in this facet of legislation because it's dangerous to have the people the law directly applies to, choosing how the law will regulate them. It's rotten with bias and regulatory capture.

[eld]

If Zomboid wants to be effective in the market facing the reality of file sharing, they're going to have to figure out how to monetize the things people do with the content they're creating for them.

That wasn't the point, it was that they didn't expect pirates to go that far when the game was already fully out on the torrent networks, they weren't going to fight piracy, they just didn't expect it to intrude on their home step.

However, this fits in nicely with the discussion, since the crowd wanting there to be no intellectual property is as extreme as the people now wanting to go as far as they do with this bill.

There has been a nice balance, corporations are allowing people to use their content in creative ways, people post lets plays that aren't all taken down, other companies even encourage this behavior of creativity.

But then there's the people that just go the full on way of streaming entire content without any intention to be creative or "mix it up", the industry eventually pushes back.

[passerby]

hmm the industry will grumble on about it's customers being pirates for ever, even before the Internet the music industry was being a bitch about people mixing and reproducing LP's on cassette tapes and sharing them and that was at a huge quality loss.

and like with most fights, there are usually douche bags on both sides of the fight, the industry wants to restrict use way too much, than there are the assholes who pirate everything and anything and say media and art should be free, when they don't got a fucking clue how much it costs to produce a movie or album and how much people make a living off it.

[arrangemonk]

i want a new internet based on ad hoc wlan

[greevar]

That wasn't the point, it was that they didn't expect pirates to go that far when the game was already fully out on the torrent networks, they weren't going to fight piracy, they just didn't expect it to intrude on their home step.

However, this fits in nicely with the discussion, since the crowd wanting there to be no intellectual property is as extreme as the people now wanting to go as far as they do with this bill.

There has been a nice balance, corporations are allowing people to use their content in creative ways, people post lets plays that aren't all taken down, other companies even encourage this behavior of creativity.

But then there's the people that just go the full on way of streaming entire content without any intention to be creative or "mix it up", the industry eventually pushes back.

I don't see how there can be a balance in this day and age. Copyright wasn't designed, and was never intended, to be a business model. It was meant to serve as an incentive to encourage authors to create more works for the opportunity to profit it from it so that more works would be available in the public domain. It wasn't created for authors, it was created for the benefit of everyone else. The public domain was the end game that copyright was meant to fulfill. It wasn't meant to protect anyone's jobs, income, or property. If nothing else, copyright needs to be rolled back to what it was before Disney extended it to near limitless time spans and these ridiculous laws they're lobbying for need to stop. It's been twisted into a system bent on making people rich instead of enriching our culture through constant remixing of older works.

14 years to exploit your works for an opportunity to profit is more than fair considering most works have a profitable lifespan of less than a decade. These works need to go to the public domain within a portion of a lifetime rather than never. Regardless, this isn't going to quell the file sharing culture of the internet. So, it behooves the industry to figure out a peaceful way to deal with it and not beat people down with stupid laws that people have lost all respect for. Had the 14 year limit been upheld, everything from 97' and before would be open to the public to use for a great many things that haven't even been thought of yet. Shorter copyright terms would encourage authors to create more works to replace the soon to expire revenue streams of older works with new works. It keeps them busy creating instead of chasing down every grandmother and child to shake them down for extortion money.

[Mark Dygert]

i want a new internet based on ad hoc wlan
http://watermarked.cutcaster.com/cutcaster-photo-100233181-Little-boy-getting-shocking-message-on-tin-can-phone.jpg

Good idea, lets start up our own internewbs!

(Image courtesy of Matthew Klees, "I Klees'ed it!")