Wait a Minute, Could Uploading Video of Video Games Really Send You to Prison?

[Hanamaru Kunikida]

http://kotaku.com/5817735/wait-a-min...-you-to-prison

t might in the future, according to one reading of Senate Bill 978, assuming it gets passed. This is a proposed law put before the Senate about a couple months ago, but the games community just sat up and noticed once it read the language and understood the totality of its prohibitions. The proposed law is ostensibly meant to criminalize streaming copyrighted content (an act currently subjected to civil law provisions only). So S.B. 978 defines that behavior as a performance of copyrighted material, and defines a performance as "10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works." Do the imbeciles who wrote this language even use YouTube? Practically every user on the entire service could be covered by that.

Before anything, I think this article is more about a stupid law than video games so I decided to post it here.

To the article; This has to be one of the most retarded things ever, for god's sake. Really? Reeeeeeeeally?

This crap is annoying for me, someone that owns a Gaming channel on YT. v_v They better not approve this garbage. >.>

[GameGeeks]

Don't think it'll pass. Would most certainly fall under fair use. I expect sites like YouTube to actually fight it since several of their partners are Lets Players with quite a bit of subscribers. Meaning they make them quite a bit of money.

[Hanamaru Kunikida]

Yeah, I make cash out of uploading gaming videos on YouTube so this is an issue for me. >.> One of my money sources will be gone! D=<

[GameGeeks]

Yeah, I bet you're making nothing more then chump change.

[Wio]

It's not that surprising. When you play a video game and upload it, most of the content used to entertain is the video game itself. Perhaps game creators want to be able to monopolize on making walkthroughs, seeing the audiences it creates. I've avoided buying many video games by simply watching walkthroughs, though I'm a bit weird like that I guess?

Since it's copyright related, I'm assuming that companies would still have to pursue you. YouTube would probably not partner with you.

[GameGeeks]

Somehow I doubt that game creators will ever make video walkthroughs. They don't even make text walkthroughs and delegate it to a generally crappy third party company. And what of the people that do voice overs when they record a game? I personally think this shouldn't fly simply due to the fact that a recorded video is the equivalent of a friend watching you. You don't have any of the game data in your possession and have no control over what's happening.

[Wio]

Somehow I doubt that game creators will ever make video walkthroughs. They don't even make text walkthroughs and delegate it to a generally crappy third party company.

You just solved your own doubt. Third parties guys who are already popular on Youtube could be given exclusive rights to walkthrough and let's play a game, under the terms that they payed certain royalties.

I personally think this shouldn't fly simply due to the fact that a recorded video is the equivalent of a friend watching you.

More like having thousands of friends watching you...

[GameGeeks]

You just solved your own doubt. Third parties guys who are already popular on Youtube could be given exclusive rights to walkthrough and let's play a game, under the terms that they payed certain royalties.


More like having thousands of friends watching you...

Except I don't think those people should have to pay anything. Since the book walkthroughs where payed to do it. Sure I'm sure the game owners receive a part of the book sales and make it up but the same deal wont be applied to these people. And I don't think YouTube would be able to give rights that'd be up to the game companies if such a law where to pass.

[Wio]

It would essentially be like VEVO. It's the nature of copyright protection firms to lobby for more and more control over their intellectual property.

[Hanamaru Kunikida]

No, walkthroughs are fine if the article is correct. What is saying is that people can't upload trailers and record gameplay when you play it at booths, but I mean, that's still bullcrap. A few days ago, in France, Japan Expo 2011 happened...and of course, it's not like everyone can afford to go to France just for an expo. >.> And since they are obviously gonna showcase some of the new games, people would play them and record them and will upload them to share it with the people who couldn't attend...but if that law passes then people will be afraid to do so and probably not risk it and yeah, no gameplay for the people who couldn't go to France.

That's just an example though, but this situation is still garbage.

[Scruffy]

I think it's extremely unlikely that this will pass.

Especially when you consider the fact that video games were declared Free Speech by the US Supreme Court. It would be extremely difficult for them to implement this Bill against that.

[Wio]

Free speech protects the government of banning certain behavior. It doesn't protect people who are being sued for copyright infringement.

[Scruffy]

In the near future...

[Eris]

The video game creators don't want this either. Gameplay videos is an advertisement goldmine. And they're getting it for free. This would especially hurt competitive gaming, which constitutes a huge cash cow for companies like Blizzard.

The bill is intended to criminalize streaming films and TV shows and stuff without permission, which is all good and well, but it's implemented so poorly it's scope extends beyond this and into video game streaming.

[Light Buster]

Yeah, this ain't passing. If it does though, we'll have big trouble coming.

[Capitán]

Actually criminalizing people that record their gameplay at the booths and uploading it onto YT makes little sense to me. Its more an innocent gesture than something within the subject of a crime. And the person that uploads the footage onto YT is helping out the company by "advertising" it on YT.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

How American Law Works, Stupid Laws Edition:

1) Small special interest group pays lobbyists to scream in the ear of politicians until they think something stupid is a good idea.
2) Politicians get behind the law as though they actually considered the consequences or legality of the law.
3) Law is either passed or not, depending on the amount of money thrown at it, the alignment of the heavens, and what the menu in the congress cafeteria reads that day. If not, return to 1.
4) Stupid law goes into effect.
5) One second later, someone stands in front of a police station with a CNN crew standing by and breaks the stupid law.
6) Person is arrested.
7) Person is found guilty.
8) Person appeals.
9) Person is still found guilty.
10) Person continues to be found guilty and appeal until they reach the Supreme Court.
11) Supreme Court finds stupid law unconstitutional because unlike your average congressmen they have actually read the constitution.
12) Return to step 1.

[Hanamaru Kunikida]

http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/ten_strikes?akid=700.450896.5hVZPC&rd=1&t=1

EVERYONE SIGN NOW!!!!!!! Doesn't matter if you're not American, your help is appreciated.

=D