Beware the Crazy Man.
Internet Counterattack anyone? Not too worried. They can't enforce this in any meaningful way.
Final Fantasy, Foreign Policy, and Bollywood. Helluva combo, that...
OMG NO NOSECONES
So, illegal streaming is a felony, now? All I see in the link is that they cleaned up the language of the law some, so that they can go after the illegal stuff more.
But if it's a legal stream, no problems, right?
Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.
Gunpla is amazing!
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I seriously doubt they'd make Netflix illegal.
Still this is stupid as hell.
Only One Avatar
http://www.copyhype.com/2011/06/fears-of-felony-streaming-bill-overblown/
The standard for establishing criminal copyright liability is much higher than civil liability. According to the Administrative Office of the US Courts, less than 50 people are charged with a criminal copyright offense every year [. . .]
[. . .] The Department of Justice’s Prosecuting IP Crimes Manual lists several considerations for US Attorneys to keep in mind when deciding whether to bring charges. Among the considerations specific to IP crimes:
- Federal criminal prosecution is most appropriate in the most egregious cases.
- Limited federal resources should not be diverted to prosecute an inconsequential case or a case in which the violation is only technical.
- Federal prosecution is most appropriate when the questions of intellectual property law are most settled. Victims have a broad range of civil remedies that include restitution, damages, punitive or quasi-punitive damages, injunctions, court costs, and attorneys’ fees.
- The sources or manufacturers of infringing goods and services are generally more worthy of prosecution than distributors.
There are many other considerations that limit the application of criminal copyright infringement laws to only the most egregious pirates. No one need worry about facing jail time for sharing videos online should S.978 pass.
It might not be as bad as people are making it. The government has better things to do than put millions of mostly-law-abiding people in prison.
edited 16th Jun '11 3:24:20 PM by Grain
Anime geemu wo shinasai!
Decemberist
I was never a supporter of drastically changing the copyright laws, but after seeing this and a few other things I'm sure that they desperately need to be reformed.
The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.
Diva of Virtual Death
Karkadinn
I'm watching one RIGHT NOW.
I think I'll take my chances.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
Gunpla is amazing!
Apparently you were never allowed to watch a movie with someone who didn't buy it.
The FBI message you always says there is penalties for unauthorized reproduction OR EXHIBITION.
So if you ever watched a DVD with a friend and they didn't own it, you are nothing but a dirty criminal and should be killed.
Lover of masks.
50 a year means we are all in some kind of shitty lottery is the way I am looking at this.
Please.
486-powered rotating frosted cherry Pop-Tart
Jeysie: I doubt it. The really egregious stuff on You Tube either gets TOSed quickly, tagged by the content tagger (those "buy this song here" links), or is so obscure that no one will care.
The people that actually get charged by the DoJ with this sort of thing are doing a lot more than casually watching stuff on YT or Dailymotion, or running a copy of uTorrent; they're generally actually running off bootleg discs (by the thousands, i.e. they have a plant set up) and selling them on the street.
edited 16th Jun '11 3:25:52 PM by lee4hmz
online since 1993 | huge retrocomputing and TV nerd | lee4hmz.info (under construction) | heapershangout.com
It seems pretty stupid. I mean, I'm not gonna claim that media execs are controlling the government; here, the EU was gonna pass a bill that allowed a 'fair use' policy - similar to that in America, except you can't sue parodists, covers, etc., and was endorsed by the BBC.
But anyway, as an outsider, it looks pretty wacky. You can be sued for streaming videos? That's like being sued by the water company for putting clothes that were made in the third-world in your washing machine.
People should read Grain's post before posting. The reaction here seems largely overblown.
Belief or disbelief rests with you.
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
That, kids, is why I argue for the abolition of copyrights.
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
Decemberist
FIGHT DA POWAH!
The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.
Diva of Virtual Death
@lee4hmz
Considering the number of broke college students and homemakers that have gotten ridiculously fined over in music-sharing land, I in no way trust the government & companies to remain that reasonable about it.
Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)
9
You need to stop the overblown reactions to what you think it is saying, and realize they are talking about unauthorized viewing, not showing a movie at home, but more likely some commercial operation. Believe it or not, they are implicitly authorizing you to show it at home with your friends.
Your reaction is just like for the Mattress Tags.
edited 16th Jun '11 4:11:50 PM by blueharp
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Savage: It really has nothing to do with copy rights just greed and power.
Who watches the watchmen?
Karkadinn
http://www.techspot.com/news/35389-how-many-people-has-the-riaa-sued-in-total.html
"Recently, that question was asked, and some startling figures were discovered – upwards of 35,000 people with most of them taking part in the average $3,000 to $5,000 settlement.
The RIAA disagrees, saying that the number of people actually stands closer to 18,000 in total. Where does the truth lie? According to Ars, somewhere right in the middle. The RIAA has admitted to filing over 30,000 individual lawsuits, but those are composed of both named and anonymous people, and not every case was settled. Regardless of which figure you decide to use, that gives a lowball amount of $50 million in settlements alone, perhaps as high as almost double that."
That article's a couple years out of date, so the number can only have gone up from there since.
edited 16th Jun '11 4:43:56 PM by Karkadinn
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
Alright I have a question.
Does this law, that may or may not take effect yet, affect those who upload game events or something?
Say I upload a game event from let's say, a story mode from a JRPG like Record Of Agarest War. Does this mean I've violated the law already?
So, just to make sure I have this right: Streaming copyrighted movies is a felony, and assault is a misdemeanor. Lovely.
"I want to create an omelet that expresses the meaninglessness of existence, and instead they taste like cheese."
Priorities, they're doing it wrong.
The blurring of the line between crimes that are misdemeanors, felonies and whatnot has rendered any argument over that moot.
time to Vote for Pirate Party !!!
ok guys, hit the panic button now
http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/ten_strikes/?source=fb
don't think you can over blow it with this already staring in our faces
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s978rs/pdf/BILLS-112s978rs.pdf
edited 30th Jun '11 9:31:13 PM by salvadorfranz
http://www.deadline.com/2011/06/senate-panel-oks-felony-streaming-act/
Streaming videos is now as bad as downloading movies illegally now and can earn you 10 YEARS IN PRISON.
Thanks Senate.
I guess if I purchase a DVD, and invite a few of my friends over, we are nothing but a bunch of filthy law breakers now, since they didn't purchase the DVD.
(Yes I forgot the e in Senate, I know)
edited 16th Jun '11 3:05:07 PM by Thorn14