I never did pay attention in my government classes freshman year. I think it was because my professor just rambled about his personal life all the time instead of teaching us stuff. Oh, and he would always interrupt the lecture and basically force us to debate on the subject at hand even if what he was teaching was pretty straight-forward. It was really strange. I think it was because he worked for the government for a good long while and just wanted to see us all get details wrong because he was a grouchy old man. As a result I didn't really learn anything except that governmental practices are often stupid and convoluted.
So, anyway.
The United States Senate is poised to vote on a bill that will make it a felony to stream copyrighted content more than ten times in a set period of time. You can find the bill here.
Seems a bit silly, doesn't it? Ten times? "Oh, you little rascal! If you do that nine more times, we're gonna toss your flank in jail. That's eight! We're onto you!"
I don't get it. Anyway, supposedly this is pony-related since new episodes were often streamed during season one when they were being broadcast on television. Might wanna keep an eye on this one.
Also a website to do something about it here!
EDIT: There is this clause:
The total retail value of the performances, or the total economic value of such public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner, would exceed $2,500.
Meaning I'm not sure if it would impact us if we aren't profiting from it.
137 kommentaari:
Most likely wont get passed, and if it does, nothing will probably change.
VastaKustutaFuck da police
VastaKustutaWon't get passed
VastaKustuta(off topic)
VastaKustutaIs Ponychan 502'd for anypony else?
{on topic)
Like most copyright infringement bills, there will be too many fires for them to put out, and it will probably go unforced except for a few token "intimidation" busts.
As well as streams, it's illegal to post up any TV shows, movies, gaming vids, etc. Basically, more than 3/4 of Youtube will be destroyed, including all ponies, if this bill passes.
VastaKustutaThey said they would only use this to go after huge offenders, broadcasting entire movies to large audiences and such. But, plenty of laws have been abused before so I'm hoping this bill doesn't pass.
VastaKustutaHopefully it wont get passed, I'm glad more and more people are hearing about this.
VastaKustuta@Myoron
VastaKustutaDerp, read the rest of EQD Myoron.
Even if it does get passed, it will be rather hard to enforce, and would require the copyright holder to press charges, which Hasbro seems unlikely to do
VastaKustutaDoesn't matter if it gets passed; it's virtually unenforceable.
VastaKustutaAlso vote for net neutrality.
Well DUH it was streamed while still on TV.
VastaKustutaBecause NOT EVERY-ONE IS FROM AMERICA!!!!!
HELLO!! I'm sitting here in Backwater Africa!! How the HELL else was I suppose to even SEE the show?!
GAH!! This irritates me!! I HATE it when America does this! (The gubbament, not the people). Not every-one is from America!! You're actually cutting yourselves off from a GIANT audience!
Dumbasses.
Please forgive this rant.
Here's hopin' it doesn't pass.
VastaKustutaIf it does, I'm going to protest.
Hooves crossed it doesn't.
Can anypony let ED know that apparently Brony Movie Night is delated to 8PM EST, from 7PM EST, so that's 1 hour later, today?
VastaKustutaA felony? Seriously what is wrong with the USA and these screwed up priorities?
VastaKustutaAt most this should be a civil matter, with the copyright owner being able to sue for damages. But locking people up for shuffling a few bits around? How are they in any way a danger to society?
You can tell just how in the pockets of corporations our government is. A government that works for the people would never come up with this crap.
FAIL.
Well....wont this simply make the number of torrents increase dramatically?
VastaKustutaThis worried me for about ten seconds, then I remembered that I'm Canadian.
VastaKustutaDo not want.
VastaKustutaSo would you be liable if you watch something or if you're the one streaming?
VastaKustutaI seriously doubt this will pass.
Dear Princess Celestia,
VastaKustutaToday at Equestria Daily, I have learned about some of the obstacles that face us, your loyal followers, as we attempt to spread the wonderful word about you and Equestria in general. From fair-use laws, to potential pitfalls from those who wish to spread the joy of the show 'Friendship is Magic', it sure does seem that rich, stuffy people in tight fitting suits enjoy going out of their way to make the world a less happy and friendly place.
Not that it is my job in any way, shape, or form to try to tell you how to do things, your most exalted greatness, but... I think it would help your cause, and the world at large, if an impromptu attorney and lawyer convention was to form on the moon tonight. Just saying.
Anyway, all hail you, most beautiful alicorn of the sun!
Your faithful follower,
Laurence Brown
I kinda support the way this bill is going, the airing of the episodes on TV supports the funding of the show from viewers watching the show(the producers of the show gets paid depending on the ratings of said show)...if the show is streaming on the internet then theres less viewers watching the show on TV, which means less money for Hasbro and less money for funding future seasons.
VastaKustutaBasically, anyone who watches the shows streaming online instead of on TV is adding another nail in the coffin for MLP:FiM because 1)Funding for viewers will decrease, 2)Show ratings will drop, meaning the HUB *may* cancel the show if it drops below a certain number of viewers, and 3)If it doesnt get cancelled, it may get moved to a worse timeslot.
Can anypony say corporate greed? Seriously, that's what I feel is fueling this bill (Which won't pass, mark my words. America is better than that)
VastaKustutaJust so everypony know, this includes Youtube. So anyone not in the US would be screwed.
VastaKustutaAlso, Hasbro wouldn't have control over who gets sent to court; this bill would give the government that power.
Lol US government doesn't get the internet.
VastaKustutaThis bill is basically an attempt to buy a law. The RIAA, MPAA, and select television giants like CBS have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into getting this passed, despite the complete lack of evidence that streaming hurts their bottom line at all from both independent and government studies. All they're really after is bending the law to hurt their completely legitimate competitors like Youtube and Justin.tv.
VastaKustutaThe video game industry, as well as certain artists who act independently from the RIAA, have IMMENSELY benefited from unrestricted streaming of their copyrighted works. It's all bullshit to cover the fact that the Internet has largely killed the ability to sell movie tickets on huge advertising budgets alone.
Autor on selle kommentaari eemaldanud.
VastaKustuta@==Maverick==
VastaKustutaI'd gladly watch it on TV, but the HUB is only available in the US.
No Youtube/streaming = alienating anypony not in the US = much smaller community.
Fuck tha police.
VastaKustutaOh man, that's too good, they expect people that stream to only stream 20 times a year? I can see how well this one's going to turn out.
VastaKustutaOf course, pirating software is illegal and is enforced as much as this bill will be, so there's no real worries.
@MintBerryCrunch
VastaKustutaNo, it would be up to the government if the bill is passed.
Probably won't get passed anyways.
VastaKustutaYES, I did stream It... BECAUSE I LIVE IN Austria!
VastaKustutaNo Hub here! No other way to see the show in the old Red-White-Red!
I´d happily find another way to get my Pony-fix, but I doubt that there is one. (NOT waiting for the German dub! I love the original voices and it´s good for my English!)
But I doubt it goes through.
And TEN times? Do they go after person (MY daughter watched something! I still got 3 times! NO, don´t throw me in jail!), URL (I got 5 different companies! 45 streams!) or family (No, we can´t marry, darling! As long as we stay separated, I can watch twice as much streams!).
>over 1000 embedded videos on Equestria Daily
VastaKustutaHey
I'm screwed if this passes haha
How will they even fucking know when people stream and who is streaming?
VastaKustutaCorporate Police State interfering with my MLP!
VastaKustutaAs the old saying goes. "The Internet perceives censorship as damage and routes around it accordingly."
We will have our FiM fix one way or the other.
Soooo...when is the senate voting?
VastaKustutaWhat will likely happen is that streaming sources will move overseas or to canada. Youtube and others will be gutted, or move their servers/business north of the border (or perhaps elsewhere) and the internet will evolve...and america will lose out on all those tasty tax dollars. Short sighted, but it won't change much, just devour that much more of America's (the people, NOT the government) leadership in innovation and technology. Sigh.
VastaKustutaLOL at Congress trying to regulate the Internet.
VastaKustutaIf they couldn't pass a bill regulating who could buy video games, there's no chance in hell this'll get through. Aside from the basic First Amendment issues, I can't even imagine how they could possibly enforce this with anything close to efficiency.
Autor on selle kommentaari eemaldanud.
VastaKustutaNote that this bill only deals with FOR-PROFIT usage of content you do not own. As such youtube videos without ads (read: pretty much everything) will not be targeted by this. Now before you claim that the bill could be abused to still go after non-profit usage of the content I have one question for you: Why would Hasbro go after us now? We’ve essentially been giving them free advertisement for months now as they don’t try to make money off of their television channel. At any point before now Hasbro could have told youtube it needed to take down the episodes of My Little Pony and that would have been that, but they haven’t. It’s preposterous to think that if this bill passes Hasbro will suddenly become vindictive and attempt to send everyone involved with putting PMVs, mash-ups and actual episodes on youtube to jail.
VastaKustutaBy all means if you don’t like the bill fight it anyway you can, but rest assured that this should not have any effect on your ability to watch ponies. Worst comes to worst we have to ask Hasbro for permission.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/111133-New-Bill-Makes-Illegal-Streaming-A-Felony
@==Maverick==
VastaKustutaMLP:FIM was only created to sell the toy. HUB/Hasbro gets more money from toys then from TV views.
@
VastaKustuta==Maverick==
Let me ask you one question.
Would you be watching this show if it were never streamed on YouTube?
Actually, would anyone even be on this site if it weren't streamed on YouTube? I know I wouldn't.
Come to think of it, I doubt this site would exist had the episodes not been streamed on YouTube.
To claim that streaming hurts the show's profits just doesn't make any sense to me.
For some shows, yes it would hurt their profits, which is why it should be entirely up to the owners of a copyright to report violations and have them taken down. But to throw someone in Jail for 5 years for something as harmless as expanding a fan-base into the hundreds of thousands, and potentially millions, is just impossible for me to wrap my head around.
Is it bad that I typed up my small wall of text four hours ago knowing this would be posted here?
VastaKustuta@BagOfChips
VastaKustutaAgain, if the bill gets passed it would no longer be in Hasbro's hands, but in the government's. The bill gives the government permission to charge someone even if the copyright holder is fine with it (unless you go to court and get the rights to it).
This is one of the most utterly unenforceable and overbroad bills I've seen in a long time. I strongly doubt this bill will make it into law, and if it does, I strongly doubt it would survive a court challenge, either.
VastaKustutaAlso, why the hell are some of you acting as if this has already been passed?
VastaKustuta@Anonymous
VastaKustutaWhy would the government take you to court over something that is non-profit (such as posting the videos on youtube)? This bill isn't for attacking non-profit streams but for-profit streams.
The internet is a big place. This is just going to be impossible to enforce and it's going to be a tremendous waste of money just to enforce it poorly. Between this and the drug war it's a miracle we get anything done here.
VastaKustuta@BagOfChips
VastaKustutaThe problem with this law, is that it is very unclear. It can be easily interpreted to "If you embed/link to a youtube video that contains copyrighted content, you go to jail."
See http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110601/01515014500/senators-want-to-put-people-jail-embedding-youtube-videos.shtml
Actually, herp derp, maybe it would be a good idea to read the bill itself instead of just the summary provided. BagOfChips is exactly right:
VastaKustuta"(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if--
‘(A) the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works; and
‘(B)(i) the total retail value of the performances, or the total economic value of such public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner, would exceed $2,500
‘(ii) the total fair market value of licenses to offer performances of those works would exceed $5,000;’"
Pay specific attention to (2)(B)(i). This only applies to people who make money from their copyright infringement.
@BagOfChips
VastaKustutaNope, just means your psychic.
Why do my comments disappear a few seconds after being posted...anypony know?
VastaKustutaThis link describes one interpretation of the bill...the bill itself is unclear in several areas
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110601/01515014500/senators-want-to-put-people-jail-embedding-youtube-videos.shtml
Yup. Hasbro without a doubt has made money off of us posting on youtube. They don't air the show to make ad revenue, the air the show to sell toys. If adults watch the show online and buy the toys Hasbro profits.
VastaKustutaIf any governmental agency tried to abuse this law by going after our non-profit postings on youtube if anything Hasbro would come to our defense.
@GabuEx
VastaKustutaNooot exactly.
The government could count retail value to anything from "he sold his damn video for 50$" to "50 people watched a video with this 1$ song in it, so it was worth 50$"
@GabuEx
VastaKustutaBy Celestia, you're right! We people supposedly can stream all we want for free. Long live Brony Night?
NoNoNoNoNo...
VastaKustutathe total retail value of the performances, or the total economic value of such public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner, would exceed $2,500;...
This doesn't mean that the youtuber would have to make money to get arrested, it means that if the value of whatever the youtuber puts online would be worth $2,500 to the company, the youtuber is arrested.
@FRiNKEL The Annoyed-of-This-Law Pony
VastaKustutaThat wouldn't fly by my reading of the text of the bill. It specifically speaks of the economic value of the PERFORMANCES, NOT of the copyrighted material. If a person made a video containing a song you can buy for $1, the price of the song would be irrelevant; the relevant part is the economic value of the PERFORMANCE, which of course is zero.
This reminds me of that pet bill they tried to pass restricting what pets you could have. (For fish people the only fish you could legally have were goldfish.)It failed to pass because of the massive lack a research and also lack of understanding people and pets.
VastaKustutaI think this will fail like that bill, as there is a massive lack of understanding involving the internet and people who use it.
if this DOES somehow get THROUGH people like menlomarsieles and the people who run this and all other pony sites are well....... not gonna be pretty
VastaKustutaNice to see that our senate is working so hard on the deficit/debt ceiling/spending problem that needs to get taken care of by August 2. You know, the one that will supposedly cause the downgrade of our nation's credit rating and therefore possibly cause economic collapse in this country...? Nooooo, stopping internet streaming is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT!!!!!!! >:|
VastaKustutaI Have Diplomatic Immunity! Bad Luck yanks I hope it's stopped for the Internet's sakes but it can't affect me in jolly old England wot wot!
VastaKustuta@Anonymous
VastaKustutaWow...there was a joke bill that almost passed banning DHMO, dihydrogen monoxide, it's a major cause of death, a major part of acid rain, and it corrodes metal. Of course, this is H20. Just shows how much research is needed by senators
@GabuEx
VastaKustutaBut if it contains copyrighted material... then the price of the copyrighted material does become relevant, because your performance of said material is currently distributing the material, so each person that watches it gets that material for free, when it would have cost them a dollar otherwise.
@FRiNKEL The Annoyed-of-This-Law Pony
VastaKustuta*Pinkie Pie Voice* Hey, that's what I said! *Pinkie Pie Voice*
You said it much better than I did. Shows how much sleep I need. I've been watching ponies instead of sleeping.
If this happens it will not only be practically the end of the internet, but they will have to seriously consider making prisons larger.
VastaKustuta@FRiNKEL The Annoyed-of-This-Law Pony
VastaKustutaThe bill will not be used to target non-profit streaming (according to the MPAA), so I think it's safe to assume when they talk PERFORMANCE VALUE they mean the amount of money you have made by "performing" copywritten content.
typical dumbass government doing typical dumbass things.
VastaKustutaBTW they are all communists.
It's shit like this why I hate our government. They are more concerned with something that can't or shouldn't be governed, when they should be more focused on stopping terrorism, or advancing technology to cure cancer or AIDS or something. This kind of stuff is why I would love to move to Japan, other than for being at the epicenter for the world's anime and manga supply.
VastaKustutaI don't see what is wrong with the copyright holders just, oh I don't know, request something to be removed if they do not want it posted like they have been doing for the last few years on youtube anyways and it's been fine so far.
VastaKustutaDoes this also make it so that 10 year old's or whatever could be faced with a police visit, for doing something they didn't know was a crime, hell most children are not even updated with the new laws!
@FRiNKEL The Annoyed-of-This-Law Pony
VastaKustutaI think you're reading too far into this bill. This is the US, which means that the letter of the law is absolute (how do you think we ended up with so many loopholes? :P). As such, the text of the bill is the be-all and end-all, and the text of the bill puts forth the following as a criteria for who may be charged under this bill:
"the total retail value of the performances, or the total economic value of such public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner, would exceed $2,500"
Emphasis mine, obviously. The $1 you pay for a song on, say, Amazon MP3 is emphatically NOT the economic value of a single public performance of that song. Rather, that $1 is the economic value of a download of that song to a person's hard drive where it then may be played an infinite number of times. As such, the fact that you can download a song that a video used for $1 is, as I said, irrelevant - what matters as far as this bill concerned is solely the economic value of the public performance itself. Which, again, in the case of for-fun YouTube videos, is zero.
>Youtube moves to Sweden, give American gov't the finger.
VastaKustutaI'm not sure the government is even staffed by people who live in the 21st century... hell, most of them probably don't even know the 19th century is long gone.
@Max.
VastaKustutaThat's exactly what i thought.
Imagine the size of the uproar if this actually passes.
VastaKustuta'Additionally, the Motion Picture Association of America states that those who "stream videos without intending to profit" will not be prosecuted under the newly amended law.'
VastaKustutaSo... the MPAA says you can stream copyrighted material, so long as you make no money off of it?
That seems... understanding of them. This can't be right.
@AngrytigerP
VastaKustutaNo, they're just saying you won't be prosecuted for a felony for doing so. I imagine they'll still want to sue you. :P
@BagOfChips
VastaKustutaI'm thinking the way a big-wig hoidy-toidy music CEO would think.
Say you owned the record company that records and sells songs for Justin Bieber. You know that many people hate the guy, but you know he has many fans. Now, let's say Justin just completed an album and released it. Each sale of the album gets you 8 bucks, and seeing as though Justin has a lot of fans, he's going to sell a lot, right?
Next morning, you wake up. You look at your sales and realize you've only sold two albums. A measly 16 dollars.
Then you look online and realize someone's leaked the entire album on Youtube. By now at least 500 people have downloaded it. But, doing the math, you realize that's 4,000 dollars you lost. Under this bill, that means you get the right to send the Youtuber to jail for around 5 years, and even possibly fine him for your losses. The Youtuber may have not intended to do it to make a profit, however, his actions made you lose a profit, so what he did had a value to it.
Game, set, match.
Sucks, doesn't it?
@GabuEx
VastaKustutaNo, you got it wrong. Words are my business, and (2)(B)(i) does not refer to actual profit made, but instead refers to the potential profit that could have been made by the owner of said material if the proper channels (licensing agreements, etc.) had been exercised. Basically, if the owner of the material could have made money, then they would be aloud to exercise this law.
In short, all streamers are potentially fucked.
Good thing I'm Canadian.
VastaKustuta@FRiNKEL The Annoyed-of-This-Law Pony
VastaKustuta@5:06 Anonymous:
Well, even if you guys are right (and you probably are) and this bill passes I don't see this affecting My Little Pony.
No, all of you are missing the important clause, which is after the "retail" clause; the "license" clause could be worse.
VastaKustutaPeople already abuse the Flag feature on Youtube, and now they can do it legally.
VastaKustuta@Anonymous
VastaKustutaYes, it refers to the potential profit that could have been made by the owner from the performance. Not from retail sales of the copyrighted material itself. The MPAA specifically said in a blog entry that this "is intended for criminals engaged in massive theft that seek to profit off the hard work of others" (emph. added), and makes the point that what this bill discusses is in fact already illegal, anyway - the bill in question just upgrades it to a felony.
Given that:
1. Casual YouTubers have no chance of making money from those who watch their videos;
2. The bill specifically requires a nonzero economic value associated with each watch of the video (NOT with the content of the video itself!); and
3. The MPAA has openly said they are not going to attempt to prosecute casual YouTubers under this law,
I maintain that, while I understand your point of view, I believe that in this case it is in error.
This is insane, if they get away with this, how long will it be before they make it a felony to post funny mash ups and PMV's containing copyrighted material?
VastaKustutaIsn't the show one gigantic commercial for hasbro's mlp toys? I mean its one of the best western animation shows, but still its one gigantic commercial for the toys (which yes I have bought). Bearing that in mind wouldnt any stream or youtube video of mlp be free advertisement for hasbro?
VastaKustuta@Gozer the Equestrian
VastaKustutaThat's essentially what this bill is.
@BagOfChips
VastaKustutaIt may very well start to effect My Little Pony. It just depends how generous the CEO of Hasbro (as well as the other companies that produce and own legal rights to MLP) are feeling.
Oh, and it also means that each time you post pony, it would still count as one strike.
And then as 5:12 Anonymous said, the worst part is the license clause. For all we know, just one showing of ponies could do it, if the license to distribute the pony content is > 5,000 dollars.
@Anonymous
VastaKustutaThe license clause goes hand-in-hand with the retail clause; both need to be true for this law to apply, not just one or the other. This bill is basically saying the following, in plain English:
"If someone puts on more than 10 public performances, and made more than $2,500 from those performances, and if he or she would have needed to pay at least $5,000 in licensing fees to legally make those performances, then he or she may be jailed or fined."
Autor on selle kommentaari eemaldanud.
VastaKustuta@FRiNKEL The Annoyed-of-This-Law Pony
VastaKustutaHow generous the CEO of Hasbro is? They're making money because we post this on youtube.
Don't try to tell me the show would be anywhere near as popular if not for the youtube videos.
Hasbro produces the show to sell toys, not to get views on their network. Youtube views are equivalent to Hub views if we go buy a toy after watching it.
If Hasbro was losing money because we stream and post their show on youtube they would have done something by now.
@Anonymous
VastaKustutaHey, someone who actually understands Hasbro's stake in the show!
Autor on selle kommentaari eemaldanud.
VastaKustuta@BagOfChips
VastaKustutaThe law and what is actually happening are very different things in the real world.
Is my post getting deleted, or is something glitching up? I keep attempting to respond to Anonymous 5:06 PM, but my post keeps disappearing after I put it up. :/
VastaKustutaI don't believe this, right now the senate is playing russian roulette with the world economy every day by failing to raise the debt ceiling, yet Senator Klobuchar seems to think that putting kids in jail for making "Hitler is Angry" videos is more important than reaching a compromise.
VastaKustuta@NinesTempest
VastaKustutaHow exactly is this relevant?
@Gozer the Equestrian
VastaKustutaPretty much politics at its finest.
Not gonna pass.
VastaKustuta@GabuEx
VastaKustutaThat happens alot here...maybe the spam filter caught it?
All this means is that we get to take turns streaming season 2!
VastaKustutai guess if this passes more people will go back to iRC and torrents
VastaKustutaThis strikes me as being completely unenforceable.
VastaKustuta@BagOfChips
VastaKustutaWell, that's probably the intentions for many shows airing today and still they get taken down from their owners. Why, I don't have a clue. Either way, I'm probably not ever going to make a Spongebob YTP/YTPMV or a derivative work with Spongebob in it, because some people on Youtube that did were about to be sued by Viacom for doing just that.
@FRiNKEL The Annoyed-of-This-Law Pony
VastaKustutaThe fact that other shows get taken down is irrelevant.
Hasbro isn't involved in the other situations.
AH, SHIT NO.
VastaKustutaIM NOT GETTING THE HUB, AND TIVO
There's an easy way to deal with this.
VastaKustutahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2YaTVRR90g
Ooh I really do love how politicians who know nothing about how the internet works love making laws to restrict it.
VastaKustutaSomeone go ask their friend in a foreign country to put up season 2.
VastaKustuta@BagOfChips
VastaKustutaYes, I was about to say ">inb4 this is irrelevant" but I pushed the "Publish" button a bit too late.
Anyways, say what you must, I'm done talking about this bill, and I don't want to hear about this stupid bill again until I hear it's either here to haunt us forever (in which case I'll probably be closing down my Youtube and slowly fading off of the face of the Internet) or I can celebrate over it's ashes.
I thought this was already in effect.
VastaKustutaI don't think that the people who posted them have to profit in order for the performance to be worth $2500. If someone posted an episode which costs $1 to rent on Itunes and 2500 people watch it, the performance would be worth $2500.
VastaKustutaEven if this does pass, I don't see how they can enforce it.
VastaKustutaSimilar laws have been presented and failed because they aren't enforceable.
Because, clearly, our government here in the US doesn't have anything better to do than work on stupid crap like this bill. After all, we have absolutely no pressing problems that need attention. Everything in the country is fine and things are pretty boring in the world.
VastaKustutaGov, I am disappoint.
More government stupidity. Sigh.
VastaKustutaI really wish I could move to Canada.
WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN
VastaKustutacongress, u silly. celestia will banish you to the moon!
VastaKustutaSo basically, this is a law that won't affect us in the slightest, probably will be impossible to enforce in the first place, and probably won't even pass?
VastaKustutaWhy are we still talking about this?
Seth, I think me and you may have had the same exact teacher.
VastaKustuta*Cereal, I mean.
VastaKustutaForce of habit.
Problem government? *trollestia*
VastaKustuta@Sethisto
VastaKustutaDon't worry Seth, you can't be prosecuted for a crime committed before it was illegal. You'll just have to limit the number of embedded material to 1 and a 1/3rd each month.
It's also illegal for television companies to monitor how many views they recieve unless it is through a consented survey. (Those little paper books they send to a couple peoples' houses. That's how they get ALL their data. It's not a very accurate survey either.) It's concidered an illegal invasion of privacy to see how many television sets are connected to a network. Recent advancements in social networking on the internet allow viewers to directly contact their providers, so hopefully they will use this to their advantage and start to use this to get better statistics.
Greedy corperates don't seem to understand that even if we do watch something online, we still want to buy it! There is nowhere near enough people who would go "Why should I buy the DVD if I can just watch it online?" to be loosing a profit! I've downloaded every episode and I can't wait for those MLP DVDs! And I'm sure I'm not the only one. My other proof to the success of distribution of free media are comics. Newspaper comics most specifically. If you go to Garfield.com, you can read every single Garfield comic every created ever. Is Jim Davis going broke? No! He's more successful then ever! Are people like him and Scott Adams going to be targeted next by silly laws? Tecnically even though they created the comics, they are owned by PAWS Inc. and the United Feature Syndicate.
The easy way around this seems to be to get together a group of 3 to 26 bronies to each upload a specific episode. Also, I would hope Hasbro wouldn't let us sink.
Simply put our gov't doesn't know how to handle the future we've created. Organizations *cough* MPAA RIAA *cough* have old business models that are failing and they are trying everything to stay alive, like suing minors and dead people...
VastaKustutaThe internet and soical networks have completely changed the way we share and interact with each, the result is businesses models must change.
The gov't and good ol boy systems are simply afraid of change and don't know how to deal with it.
@ecmc1093 or maybe they could focus on violent crimes.
VastaKustutaFrom a practical standpoint, I have no problem with this, because there is no way it could be enforced. From a moral standpoint, I think this is just the government trying harder to restrict the freedoms of their "free" country.
VastaKustutaI think this explains at least part of what's wrong:
http://danny.oz.au/free-software/advocacy/against_IP.html
Wait, why is everybody flipping out? As far as I can tell, it's just amending a bill so that people don't just walk clean around the loophole of "I'm not using a PHONOGRAPH, so the bill doesn't apply!" It looks like some fairly generic "if people steal, we punish" bill that already existed, and they're just swapping some nouns around so it keeps up with the times.
VastaKustutaHaving said that, this may also mean that online streaming gets further enforced, so *shrug*
Hm, I doubt this will get passed. But if it did, imagine what Anonymous would do.
VastaKustutaOh right I forgot the US owns the internet.
VastaKustutaOh wait....
@Anonymous
VastaKustutaOhhh I wasnt aware MLP was only available in the US...I dont keep up with the technicalities of the show, I just watch it. :3
I think the government is trying to distract people from the debt ceiling by going about this bill, it'll benefit them money sure but they really do have more important matters to be doing, and yet they're making a bit of a fuss over this.
VastaKustuta@C-PuffThat was awesome.
VastaKustuta*Silent applause*
Well-done, sir.
Is it me...or some ponies Do indeed look like CATS xD? Especially some ways Twilight was sitting like in Ticket Master ;D
VastaKustutaSeems that it really doesn't matter where you live, politics are always stupid and waste their time on getting their voters more and more upset.
VastaKustutaThat would seriously be such a stupid new law without any reason at all.
It just creates artificial scarcity for no reason at all, I can't even imagine how they will make money with this.
I just realized something. People are talking like one performance would have the same economic value as one production. However, the economic value of an electronic performance is practically nothing because a single disk or electronic copy could in theory be used infinitely making each individual use infinitely small in value.
VastaKustutaSo, this law would only be applicable against for-profit streams.
Wait - could this making streaming channels on the internet illegal?! What could happen to our movie night groups?!
VastaKustutaOkay, let's back up a bit here and not panic.
VastaKustuta1) The bill amends existing law. What we're getting worked up over is the "punishment" section of the law (Title 18)...not the definition of the crime itself (Title 17).
That $2500, $5000, ten times etcetera bit? That simply determines to what EXTENT you're to be punished...IF you're guilty of the actual crime.
2) The actual CRIME is this:
"Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished...if the infringement was committed —
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(B) by the reproduction or distribution...of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution..."
TL;DR: if you don't intend to make money off of it AND if you could buy the entire mess of what you're streaming for less than a grand at retail, AND if you're not trying to leak unreleased material...you're clean.
So I think we're good. Even if Season One MLP:FiM was available on DVD or Blu-Ray, it wouldn't cost you a thousand dollars to get it. None of us are trying to make money here. And we're not hijacking unreleased MLP stuff either.
Because the CAN-SPAM Act was SO successful at preventing people from spamming inboxes. *facehoof*
VastaKustutaWell, how the hay do they think they can enforce this law, anyways? Going to backtrace us? Perhaps call the cyberpolice?
Excuse me while I laugh at you Americans and your ridiculous laws that will never work.
If this bill does get passed, people will just simply use VPNs and proxies to hide their tracks. Nothing will change.
VastaKustutaThere are VPN services that keep no logs, effectively making somoene untraceable.
If it hasn't been said already, video game publishers have agreed that if the bill passes, they'll include in their terms of use that streaming and what not is OK by them. Notch was the main one to announce it.
VastaKustuta@Davesknd
VastaKustuta@Anonymous
If your looking for an active Group in Austria (meetups are in Vienna) join US! We are the "Eqaustrians"
http://www.facebook.com/groups/254071921272153/
http://rainbowdash.net/group/eqaustrians