Bill S.978

[Nujui]

Just read this.

http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/ten_s...mp;rd=1&t=1

1: "Ten Strikes" bill to make it a felony to stream copyrighted content -- like music in the background of a Youtube video -- more than ten times."


Discuss.

 

[m3rox]

Just read this.

http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/ten_s...mp;rd=1&t=1

Discuss.

1) You could have given a summary.
2) So what?

 

[Nujui]

Just read this.

http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/ten_s...mp;rd=1&t=1

Discuss.

1) You could have given a summary.
2) So what?

Because this could pretty much screw up a lot of things really.

And I will put up a quote for what it means.

 

[Thesolcity]

Won't pass, not a chance in hell.

 

[Nathan Drake]

Although I find this highly unlikely to pass, as the bill is very vague, it wouldn't be impossible. It would really fuck people over though, as streaming can happen with an ad on a site as part of the ad network used by the site. I would like to not go to jail for frequenting the internet. k, thanks.

 

[Yumi]

So this would be only for the u.s. that people would go to jail for this? hypothetically speaking of course, saying that it did pass.

 

[Nathan Drake]

So this would be only for the u.s. that people would go to jail for this? hypothetically speaking of course, saying that it did pass.

It would only be for the U.S, but other countries could easily see it as a good example and begin to enact similar laws of their own. And yes, it would be considered a criminal offense that would warrant jail time.

 

[Yumi]

So this would be only for the u.s. that people would go to jail for this? hypothetically speaking of course, saying that it did pass.

It would only be for the U.S, but other countries could easily see it as a good example and begin to enact similar laws of their own. And yes, it would be considered a criminal offense that would warrant jail time.

Ah that is terrible. either way i doubt that such bill will pass and if it does i cannot imagine how the people will react...or even if they will.

 

[m3rox]

It clearly states that it would apply to copyrighted material. It's always been illegal to copy and redistribute copy-written material without the express written consent of the creator of said material. Why should streaming be considered any different from making a torrent?

Edit: Also, it's the article that is making assumptions about youtube.

 

[Nujui]

It clearly states that it would apply to copyrighted material. It's always been illegal to copy and redistribute copy-written material without the express written consent of the creator of said material. Why should streaming be considered any different from making a torrent?

Because, let's say you wanna lip sync something and post it on youtube without said music maker's permission, that can be one of the ten strikes. Same could be said with video games since they are copyrighted material, or abridged series, which fall under Fair use and are non profit.

 

[Thanatos Telos]

It clearly states that it would apply to copyrighted material. It's always been illegal to copy and redistribute copy-written material without the express written consent of the creator of said material. Why should streaming be considered any different from making a torrent?

Because, let's say you wanna lip sync something and post it on youtube without said music maker's permission, that can be one of the ten strikes. Same could be said with video games since they are copyrighted material, or abridged series, which fall under Fair use and are non profit.

What? no more YTAS or NTAS?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGQyq4Vzfs0[/youtube]
and
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fom5mDC2W70[/youtube]

 

[GeekyGuy]

i doubt that such bill will pass and if it does i cannot imagine how the people will react...or even if they will.

Well, probably the determining factors of a bill like this passing have more to do with what tidbits are attached to the bill and if those additions are incentive enough to get congressmen and women to vote for the bill to satisfy their own agendas. The way our system works, though, it's not as difficult as you might think to pass an unconstitutional bill. However, upholding such bills in our judicial system is where Americans have, in the past, seen the most balance. Thing is, many folks could become victims of such a law before our courts set a precedent on the matter. There are, obviously, many cracks people unfortunately fall through in life.

 

[Hells Malice]

The United States of America, land of the free, and home of a bunch of pointless restrictions on said freedom.
That is the most pointless bill i've ever seen in my life. People must be REALLY bored with their lives to come up with something like this.

 

[Vulpes Abnocto]

for further discussion of this topic, please Go Here.

(Thank you KirbyBoy)