Thread: Bill S. 978

The United States Senate is in the process of considering bill S.978, a bill “To amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright,” or as you might know it, the Anti-Streaming Bill. There’s been some discussion about what it really means and how it would affect stuff we care about, so I’d like to clear everything up. To be blunt, if passed it would pretty significantly reconfigure American copyright law in ways that could honestly really hurt internet culture in general and our video game communities specifically.

So what does it do? Its stated purpose is to attack the online streaming of copyrighted works, specifically films and live television. It tries to do this by criminalizing some electronically transmitted (read: internet) public performances of copyrighted works.

Background: the law is split into criminal law and civil law. In (very) short, criminal is for things designated as crimes (like murder and theft), can involve jail time, and is handled by the government, whereas civil law covers everything else, doesn’t involve the risk of jail, and can only be sued over by whatever entity actually got screwed. Copyright law has both criminal and civil law sides, but with a few significant exceptions copyright mostly sticks to civil law in practice. That means that only the copyright owner can sue you for infringement, and the worst thing that can usually happen is that you either get a cease and desist letter and stop what you’re doing or you pay the copyright owner some dough. While that can be really costly (up to $150k per infringement, although that’s very uncommon), you can’t get sent to jail.

so this is a [crazy] bill that is pending right now, I highly doubt this will get passed, but it's still interesting. It would kill the internet.

here is a few links with more info, that quote was just part of the first link:
“Tolling the Stream” (Be Jailed for Streaming?) by UltraDavid « Shoryuken
Jailed for Streaming? Bill S.978 May Make it a Reality.

It would only make things like streaming and torrenting videos more secretive and widespread. People would get pretty mad and backlash at the bill...

Originally Posted by Puffin

It would only make things like streaming and torrenting videos more secretive and widespread. People would get pretty mad and backlash at the bill...

but i mean people wouldn't be able to show copyrighted things, no product reviews, video game walkthroughs, movie reviews, etc. etc.
people would still do these though, they can't stop everyone.
If the government is stupid enough to even consider this, they won't care if people backlash. Though it is highly unlikely this will pass, because so many people are against it.

Originally Posted by erible

but i mean people wouldn't be able to show copyrighted things, no product reviews, video game walkthroughs, movie reviews, etc. etc.
people would still do these though, they can't stop everyone.
If the government is stupid enough to even consider this, they won't care if people backlash. Though it is highly unlikely this will pass, because so many people are against it.

Yeah. You make a good point; half of the internet would be 'shut down'.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

They need to get over themselves. This fixation with copyright is really annoying.

It drives me crazy, even when I'm just uploading a music video to youtube. "Oh, sorry, even though we know you're not stealing this content or claiming it as your own, your video has been blocked worldwide." Yeah, fuck you too, youtube copyright garbage. =/

Originally Posted by Puffin

Yeah. You make a good point; half of the internet would be 'shut down'.

i can imagine just imagine the uproar right now...

Originally Posted by erible

but i mean people wouldn't be able to show copyrighted things, no product reviews, video game walkthroughs, movie reviews, etc. etc.
people would still do these though, they can't stop everyone.

This is just ridiculous. No company is going to care if people review their products. It's literally free advertising for them. It's where most games and technology get their advertising.

It is acceptable to use copyrighted things for review purposes. And in the case of movies, sections of it.

I haven't actually read this yet, but if this new bill somehow is trying to stop even that currently allowed use, well then ignore this post lol

Also,

Originally Posted by Puffin

It drives me crazy, even when I'm just uploading a music video to youtube. "Oh, sorry, even though we know you're not stealing this content or claiming it as your own, your video has been blocked worldwide." Yeah, fuck you too, youtube copyright garbage. =/

It's not youtube. Youtube doesn't care. They only ever do anything if a company complains about it.
You don't seriously expect them to ignore it and lose tonnes of money just so people can put copyrighted material up do you?

Originally Posted by tommo

This is just ridiculous. No company is going to care if people review their products.

Um.

Originally Posted by tommo

This is just ridiculous. No company is going to care if people review their products.

This is just ridiculous. No company is going to care if people review give good reviews of their products.

Originally Posted by erible

This is just ridiculous. No company is going to care if people review give good reviews of their products.

Oh, yeah you're right, that's a good point. Didn't really think of that lol

Gavin - Regarding old movies. I was watching this one a while ago on youtube, it aired on free view television, as a straight to TV movie. Once. As far as I'm aware. You can't buy it anywhere either afaik.

Warner Bros fucking disabled the sound in one of the parts because it contained a fucking nick cave song for like a minute out of the whole thing, and it was just quietly in the background. How fucked up can they be? Afaict warner bros is the absolute worst with this.

They don't even realise how much fucking money they can make, and then people will STILL buy the CD's/movies. You get $2.50 for every 1000 views.
All these pop songs and shit get MILLIONS of views. They could be making over $50,000 per video, when you look at some of the view counts. And that's assuming that youtube doesn't pay the bigger companies more.

Originally Posted by erible

but i mean people wouldn't be able to show copyrighted things, no product reviews, video game walkthroughs, movie reviews, etc. etc.
people would still do these though, they can't stop everyone.
If the government is stupid enough to even consider this, they won't care if people backlash. Though it is highly unlikely this will pass, because so many people are against it.

so pretty much nothing

and no video game walkthroughs?????

They need to get over themselves. This fixation with copyright is really annoying.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

They need to get over themselves. This fixation with copyright is really annoying.

Lol and suddenly a music producer calls you up and tells you they lost a bet with their friends and had to listen to your demo tape. After listening to it, he's realized the error of his ways and wants to sign you to INTERSCOPE RECORDS BY TOMORROW MORNING. You jetset around the world meeting hot models while performing your music at sold out concerts in new york, california, dubai and other hot shit areas. You're a millionaire and the world knows your name..

..Then you feel nostalgic and decide to revisit dreamviews. You stumble back upon this thread and read your first comment in it.

so what? most musicians get a fraction of the record sales. Most goes to the middle men.

Live performances are the kicker.

Originally Posted by dajo

so what? most musicians get a fraction of the record sales. Most goes to the middle men.

Live performances are the kicker.

Film star then, my point remains the same. I would be pissed if I were a movie star and people were streaming my movies online to the point where I'd have to downgrade from a G6 jet to a G5.

Originally Posted by dajo

so what? most musicians get a fraction of the record sales. Most goes to the middle men.

Live performances are the kicker.

Not to mention, they usually have to give up the copyrights to their recordings. My first album will be self-produced, thank you very much.

I couldn't keep my avatar or DJ banners up, for starters. I'd be pissed; 99% of the images I use come from 'copyrighted' things. People who make their living from review sites and stuff, and then some... Oh, man...

Originally Posted by Puffin

I couldn't keep my avatar or DJ banners up, for starters. I'd be pissed; 99% of the images I use come from 'copyrighted' things. People who make their living from review sites and stuff, and then some... Oh, man...

ugh I know D: it would be terrible.
And exactly, think of the people who are partners on youtube and do reviews, or makeup stuff, or videogame walkthroughs and reviews, etc.
that's a source of their money, lost.

I would hope people would just start publishing things under Creative Commons or some sort of anti-IP movement would erupt should this bill pass (doubt it).

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I would hope people would just start publishing things under Creative Commons or some sort of anti-IP movement would erupt should this bill pass (doubt it).

Creative Commons isn't that bad; I [might] be able to live with that. At least it's not a "criminal penalty" death trap.

Copyright is a good thing and we wouldn't have modern civilisation without it; people shouldn't let extortions of the concept like Monsanto suing farmers for their wheat spreading to their farms confuse them about that. It's perfectly possible to have sensible copyright laws that allow for parody, reviews, or general not-for-profit use of IP, which seems to be the main objection here. I'm not sure on what basis people can object to a restriction on distributing and/or selling films that you didn't make, though.

Originally Posted by Xei

Copyright is a good thing and we wouldn't have modern civilisation without it; people shouldn't let extortions of the concept like Monsanto suing farmers for their wheat spreading to their farms confuse them about that. It's perfectly possible to have sensible copyright laws that allow for parody, reviews, or general not-for-profit use of IP, which seems to be the main objection here. I'm not sure on what basis people can object to a restriction on distributing and/or selling films that you didn't make, though.

The same one that I raised in the other thread which you never dealt with.


Any rational definition of theft is predicated upon some instance of deprivation.

If you have an idea, and I suck it out of your brain so that you don't have it any more and put it in my brain, then I've stolen it from you. If I just copy it, then I haven't stolen it from you because you still have it. It's the same with 1s and 0s that make up digital data. IP constitutes an artificial monopoly and a restriction of my fundamental right to copy any idea that I see. Modern civilization would not be possible without this. The seeds of modern civilization were sown by the free exchange of ideas.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

The same one that I raised in the other thread which you never dealt with.


Any rational definition of theft is predicated upon some instance of deprivation.

If you have an idea, and I suck it out of your brain so that you don't have it any more and put it in my brain, then I've stolen it from you. If I just copy it, then I haven't stolen it from you because you still have it. It's the same with 1s and 0s that make up digital data. IP constitutes an artificial monopoly and a restriction of my fundamental right to copy any idea that I see. Modern civilization would not be possible without this. The seeds of modern civilization were sown by the free exchange of ideas.

My memory of that thread is replying to you and not getting a response?

The point is that IP is not normally for something you came up with one evening when you were baked; IP can cost millions of pounds to produce, and take up years of a dedicated individual's life. If you copied the idea for your private use and used private materials and resources to realise it then I suppose you are free to do that, but the idea that you can steal an idea that somebody has dedicated so much to develop and mass produce it and sell it for your own selfish interests is utterly horrid, both ethically, and pragmatically; how on Earth do you think new products will ever be created? And yes it is deprivation, it's deprivation of the value of the resources and labour one puts into the idea; that is what you are stealing.

How exactly do you think the media industry is going to work if what matters is not the cost of development but the cost of copying? Somebody puts millions into a film and you're saying it's your right to copy the DVD and sell it to the public if you bought the blank DVDs??

What do you mean by the seeds of civilisation? My guess is that you are conflating the discovery of truth and nature (what scientific research does, for instance, and what no company has the rights to), with the creation of nature.

Also, do you believe in taxation?

Originally Posted by Xei

My memory of that thread is replying to you and not getting a response?

The point is that IP is not normally for something you came up with one evening when you were baked; IP can cost millions of pounds to produce, and take up years of a dedicated individual's life. If you copied the idea for your private use and used private materials and resources to realise it then I suppose you are free to do that, but the idea that you can steal an idea that somebody has dedicated so much to develop and mass produce it and sell it for your own selfish interests is utterly horrid, both ethically, and pragmatically; how on Earth do you think new products will ever be created? And yes it is deprivation, it's deprivation of the value of the resources and labour one puts into the idea; that is what you are stealing.

How exactly do you think the media industry is going to work if what matters is not the cost of development but the cost of copying? Somebody puts millions into a film and you're saying it's your right to copy the DVD and sell it to the public if you bought the blank DVDs??

What do you mean by the seeds of civilisation? My guess is that you are conflating the discovery of truth and nature (what scientific research does, for instance, and what no company has the rights to), with the creation of nature.

Also, do you believe in taxation?

Okay, we're going to need to make a distinction between the type of pirates.

Pirates that copy IP and sell it for profit = bad.

Pirates that copy IP and distribute it for the spread of information and culture NOT for monetary gain = fuck yeah.

The owners of said IP have the right to sell it no doubt. But copyright laws today really restrict the way that same IP can be shared and enjoyed by the masses.

Originally Posted by Meakel

Pirates that copy IP and distribute it for the spread of information and culture NOT for monetary gain = fuck yeah.

Refusing to fund culture = spreading culture?

Forcing a new band to break up due to the debts they accumulated from making their first and promising album = spreading culture?

I can't believe how disingenuous these arguments get. You don't stream a film because you believe in spreading information and culture. You stream a film because you want to be entertained for a while (without paying the people who made it).

If you're going to debate this at least do it in an honest way like Philosopher.

Originally Posted by Xei

My memory of that thread is replying to you and not getting a response?

You completely ignored my fundamental point though and instead listed a bunch of practical objections e.g. "how will new products get developed?". It was Tommo pointing out that companies would just make their technology more difficult to understand that stumped me. Until I realized that employees would understand and disseminate the technology.

The point is that IP is not normally for something you came up with one evening when you were baked; IP can cost millions of pounds to produce, and take up years of a dedicated individual's life.

And the priority that the person gets for being the first to think of it should be preserved. People should get credit for the ideas that they come up with. I don't know (or care) what to say about monetrary investment. I guess, don't invest in it if you won't be satisfied with the result.

If you copied the idea for your private use and used private materials and resources to realise it then I suppose you are free to do that, but the idea that you can steal an idea that somebody has dedicated so much to develop and mass produce it and sell it for your own selfish interests is utterly horrid, both ethically, and pragmatically; how on Earth do you think new products will ever be created? And yes it is deprivation, it's deprivation of the value of the resources and labour one puts into the idea; that is what you are stealing.

Wait a minute here. I put labor and resources into developing an idea. You copy the idea. Do I not still have the idea? If you were to put it more bluntly, you would say that I've stolen the potential profit that the idea might have led to. That is at best potential theft and more realistically, laughable.

How exactly do you think the media industry is going to work if what matters is not the cost of development but the cost of copying? Somebody puts millions into a film and you're saying it's your right to copy the DVD and sell it to the public if you bought the blank DVDs??

Yeah, pretty much. Your entire argument is based on attachement to our [i]particular[i] incarnation of technology. There is lots of art that can be produced in other ways for reasonable amount of money that will be just as satisfying, e.g. plays. If somebody puts millions of dollars into some stupid movie with people starving and getting massacered all over the world, then I find that morally reprehensible and they can pretty much cry me a river as far as I'm concerned.

What do you mean by the seeds of civilisation? My guess is that you are conflating the discovery of truth and nature (what scientific research does, for instance, and what no company has the rights to), with the creation of nature.

Guess again: Fire, the wheel, spears, spear throwers, bows and arrows, fish hooks, agriculture, building techniques, sailing techniques, boats, carts, chariots, the wheel barrow, etc. You may laugh at all of these things as "primitive" technology but they are a necessary step from where we started to where we are now.

Also, do you believe in taxation?

I reject the premise of the question.