I was wondering if anyone had heard of this bill and the possible consequences of it passing in its current form. The bill can be found here.
This is what I see when reading the bill, combined with what I have heard about it. The base idea for this bill seems to be a decent one, preventing movies, tv shows, music, and such from being uploaded(or streamed) online without permission. While such a thing is technically illegal already, this bill would make it the federal governments job to press charges instead of the owner of the material. This would however include everything with copyrighted material, lets plays of games, video of a talent contest where someone sings a song or performs an act from something they didn't write. Currently for something like a lets play the company that made the game could request that the video be taken down, but they don't because such videos are free advertising. This bill seems to point to that ability being given to the federal government instead of the game company. I don't know about you, but such a thing seems a horrible idea to me. Well thats my rant on this bill.
As I said earlier, I was wondering what others think of this bill. Maybe someone has more legal experience than I do(not hard, all I do is try to read laws to understand their limits).
Knowing some of the things Viacom has done I have no doubt they're involved, I just don't think they've been listed, the list is only partial.
While they might be losing money, they're multi-billion dollar companies, I highly doubt that lose enough money for it to actually be a problem. I'm also wondering how people singing certain songs on youtube or other media sharing websites effects their profit margins, there's going to be an obvious difference between the youtube amateur and the artist who recorded the song.
E3, well, the people who reveal the games are the companies themselves.
Wouldn't be the first time a company has sued itself over such issues. I have to wonder if that trend would continue or even get worse with this in place?
Nice find! I'm surprised Viacom isn't on the list, guess I was wrong.
I'm also surprised not to see Sony up there as well.
This bill i nothing more than another addition to the inevitable effort of lawmakers and companies to tighten their grip on the Internet. They're slow to jump onto new things like that, but regulation is around the corner. The Internet as we know it -- freedom of speech manifest -- is changing. The glory days are coming to a close.
I say fight for it, but I'm too young to know any better.
Well, I though congress was trying to aid the economy? Perhaps I'm wrong, but wouldn't bringing traffic to sites such Youtube and IGN amongst others, to a grinding halt and by extension severely crippling said companies have a negative effect on the job market? Unless of course the cure to a depression is the destruction of jobs.
That entire paragraph warms me. Speaking of jobs, if this bill turns into a law, people will just start losing more jobs.
Amy Klobuchar, just leave our internet alone and let us have fun and not ruin the internet by making this stupid law.
In any case, shouldn't it be the company pressing charges, since when does the federal government have the right to do so without any say from the company in question?
this is another example of near dictatorship.. there is no real democracy anywhere. for gods sake if we didnt have leaders then there would be no economic crisis! dont think of me as a one world illimunati because im not im muslim.. anyways why doesent someone organise a internet revolution
. for gods sake if we didnt have leaders then there would be no economic crisis!
Why? Because we wouldn't have a global economy?
dont think of me as a one world illimunati because im not im muslim..
What does your religion have to do with your political attitude?
anyways why doesent someone organise a internet revolution
What do you mean by internet revolution?
Back to topic. Sometimes (actually very often) I say to myself: WTF is wrong with politicians? If this bill gets passed it will not only have influence on the USA but also on the rest of the world.
I believe that game company's can allow anyone to put 'let's play' videos of their games if they allow it/state it in their legal papers or whatever you call it.
Personally I don't like the law. If it gets passes, does that mean any video on Youtube right now that has copyrighted songs will be banned?
Now this is just pathetic, what about people like Machinima or IGN? Or all the people that make a living off this stuff? We are trying to fix our economy not destroy it. Besides posting commentaries or gameplay is already protected under some sort of fair content usage rules set in place by game company's. (Last time I checked) I'm also fairly sure that this violates first amendment rights somehow...
If you read NoName's post you'll see that sites like Machinima and IGN are protected by fairuse laws. As far as I know though, none of the home video's on youtube have that protection.
