Holy crap.
Thanks for the link - am getting the word out about this ASAP.
Michelle
aka
Samuraiko/Dark_Respite
Dark_Respite's Farewell Video: "One Last Day"
THE COURSE OF SUPERHERO ROMANCE CONTINUES!
Book I: A Tale of Nerd Flirting! ~*~ Book II: Courtship and Crime Fighting - Chap Nine live!
MA Arcs - 3430: Hell Hath No Fury / 3515: Positron Gets Some / 6600: Dyne of the Times / 351572: For All the Wrong Reasons
378944: Too Clever by Half / 459581: Kill or Cure / 551680: Clerical Errors (NEW!)
THE COURSE OF SUPERHERO ROMANCE CONTINUES!
Book I: A Tale of Nerd Flirting! ~*~ Book II: Courtship and Crime Fighting - Chap Nine live!
MA Arcs - 3430: Hell Hath No Fury / 3515: Positron Gets Some / 6600: Dyne of the Times / 351572: For All the Wrong Reasons
378944: Too Clever by Half / 459581: Kill or Cure / 551680: Clerical Errors (NEW!)
You do realize this bill only applies to people who are making money off of doing this, correct? In other words, it is pretty much consistent with all prior copyright and IP law.
"Illegal streaming of copyrighted content is defined in the bill as an offense that "consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works" and has a total economic value, either to the copyright holder or the infringer, of at least $2,500"
I'd like to see NCSoft claim that a YouTube video of how a particular issue's emotes look is worth at least $2,500 in revenue.
The bill seems aimed at those things which get taken down anyway. Now, there is a penalty for those who do such stuff regularly.
Speeding Through New DA Repeatables || Spreadsheet o' Enhancements || Zombie Skins: better skins for these forums || Guide to Guides
Quote:
Hmmmm. $2500 = 167 players subscribing at one month each for $15. Are my vids good enough that I either 'pull in' or 'keep in' 167 players for at least a month per vid?|
Originally Posted by Zombie Man
"Illegal streaming of copyrighted content is defined in the bill as an offense that "consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works" and has a total economic value, either to the copyright holder or the infringer, of at least $2,500"
I'd like to see NCSoft claim that a YouTube video of how a particular issue's emotes look is worth at least $2,500 in revenue. The bill seems aimed at those things which get taken down anyway. Now, there is a penalty for those who do such stuff regularly. |
*mock troubled sigh*
I dunno, Z_M... all it takes is one redname with a grudge and the Ko ends up in jail.
Michelle
aka
Samuraiko/Dark_Respite
Dark_Respite's Farewell Video: "One Last Day"
THE COURSE OF SUPERHERO ROMANCE CONTINUES!
Book I: A Tale of Nerd Flirting! ~*~ Book II: Courtship and Crime Fighting - Chap Nine live!
MA Arcs - 3430: Hell Hath No Fury / 3515: Positron Gets Some / 6600: Dyne of the Times / 351572: For All the Wrong Reasons
378944: Too Clever by Half / 459581: Kill or Cure / 551680: Clerical Errors (NEW!)
THE COURSE OF SUPERHERO ROMANCE CONTINUES!
Book I: A Tale of Nerd Flirting! ~*~ Book II: Courtship and Crime Fighting - Chap Nine live!
MA Arcs - 3430: Hell Hath No Fury / 3515: Positron Gets Some / 6600: Dyne of the Times / 351572: For All the Wrong Reasons
378944: Too Clever by Half / 459581: Kill or Cure / 551680: Clerical Errors (NEW!)
You know, most gaming companies *want* home brew streams like yours to advertise their game.
Now, if you got secret footage of an epic cutscene which totally spoils Issue 23 and put that on YouTube... watch out.
But you know, they could have sued you over that and NCSoft would have won damages anyway. This is adding a criminal penalty. This is a boon for smaller companies that don't have the means to sue people for damages over copyright infringement. They can now alert the authorities and let the criminal system stop it.
You're not supposed to infringe on copyright materials already. What you should or should not have been doing will not change. The penalty gets worse.
And what you have been doing could have been stopped a long time ago with a letter from NCSoft. So, for you, nothing will change.
Speeding Through New DA Repeatables || Spreadsheet o' Enhancements || Zombie Skins: better skins for these forums || Guide to Guides
best way to understand this is watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hytigOSjJxc
He sums it up pretty much what will happen if this bill in it's current form passes. Already a few game companies do not like this and have already swore that if this passes they will edited their TOS to allow players to continue, however that is all well in good if where your uploading to knows your game has done this. What will end up happening is most will have no idea and simply pull your video or stream down.
Again watch the video link above the man does a much better job at explaining this then I do and this is something that needs to be shared.
Goodbye City Of Heroes....
This whole thing smacks to me of them taking a pot-shot at the all the AMV craziness going around, and gaming video getting hit in the cross-fire.
Quote:
*I* will visit you in the hooskow, Miss Sam! |
Originally Posted by Dark_Respite
Hmmmm. $2500 = 167 players subscribing at one month each for $15. Are my vids good enough that I either 'pull in' or 'keep in' 167 players for at least a month per vid?
*mock troubled sigh* I dunno, Z_M... all it takes is one redname with a grudge and the Ko ends up in jail. Michelle aka Samuraiko/Dark_Respite |
(*plays a mournful tune on her little kitty harmonica*)
AMERIKATT: Star of Stage, Screen, and Saturday morning cartoons! (Art by Psygon and ChristopherRobin)
"(Katt-Girl) obviously reads a lot of encyclopedias" -- Kiken
Dark_Respite's video -- Avatar: COH Style!
I Support Nerd Flirting and Even More Nerd Flirting!
Quote:
seems to me stuff like Samuraiko videos, and fight footage are free advertising. They may be giving the game designers $2500, not taking it. I know I bought at least 2 other games on the basis of a players' uploaded vids.
|
Originally Posted by Zombie Man
"Illegal streaming of copyrighted content is defined in the bill as an offense that "consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works" and has a total economic value, either to the copyright holder or the infringer, of at least $2,500"
I'd like to see NCSoft claim that a YouTube video of how a particular issue's emotes look is worth at least $2,500 in revenue. The bill seems aimed at those things which get taken down anyway. Now, there is a penalty for those who do such stuff regularly. |
public performances by electronic means... felony as this bill is worded.
Aimed at tv/movie/hollywood piracy, effecting all digital media, including footage of videogames.
The indirect side effect of this bill will put a crippling vice on the word of mouth advertising that the f2p model is geared towards.
This should be of great concern to Paragon, and PlayNC.
Ignoring anyone is a mistake. You might miss something viral to your cause.
Quote:
Actually even without this bill they are using similar wording in separate bills against a Spanish company, that is NOT in the US to enact US law on called Rojadirecta or Puerto80. Quick side note, Puerto80 is legal in Spain by Spanish law, lets hope the Spaniards don't decide CoH is illegal. |
Originally Posted by Zombie Man
"Illegal streaming of copyrighted content is defined in the bill as an offense that "consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works" and has a total economic value, either to the copyright holder or the infringer, of at least $2,500"
I'd like to see NCSoft claim that a YouTube video of how a particular issue's emotes look is worth at least $2,500 in revenue. The bill seems aimed at those things which get taken down anyway. Now, there is a penalty for those who do such stuff regularly. |
This is from the government's own statement in the Rojadirecta filing, in proving financial gain. Here, the government makes it clear that even if you don't get direct financial gain from the video, if you put any ads around it, even the automated AdSense ads that earn nothing, they have enough to nab you for financial gain:
As an initial matter, Title 17, United States Code, Section 506(a) "does not require that a defendant actually realize a commercial advantage or private financial gain. It is only necessary that the activity be for the purpose of financial gain or benefit.".... Moreover, courts have held that "[f]inancial benefit exists where the availability of infringing material 'acts as a "draw" for customers.'" ... It appears that Puerto 80's revenue and profitability are directly dependent upon increases in user base and enhanced Internet traffic to the website. Thus, even if Puerto 80 does not directly profit by receiving payment from the sites to which it links that stream the content, in at least some sense, Puerto 80 apparently benefits financially from making available copyright protected works on the Rojadirecta website.
So there you have it, in the government's own words. If you have any ads on your website, they can claim that the embed "acts as a draw," and they've got enough to prove financial gain. It apparently doesn't matter if you earn pennies from it, or if the money that comes in doesn't even cover your basic costs:
the Government's investigation has revealed that the CEO of Puerto 80, the owner of the Rojadirecta Domain Names, has in fact received thousands of dollars since at least October 2005 from Google AdSense, a free program that allows website publishers to earn revenue by displaying advertisements that are likely to be relevant and of interest to users of those websites.
Let's not forget the need for Willfull Infringement. "willfulness" you only need to show that the defendant "recklessly disregarded the possibility" that embedding the video might by infringing. Not only that, but it even suggests that all it needs to show is willfulness in the "intent to copy," rather than the intent to infringe.
Although the Second Circuit held in 1943 that willful intent in the criminal copyright context need only be shown as to the intent to copy the works, and not as to the intent to infringe the copyright... recent decisions in the Second Circuit in civil cases have made clear that "[t]he standard is simply whether the defendant had knowledge that its conduct represented infringement or perhaps recklessly disregarded the possibility."
This same argument has been brought up and debunked on Techdirt Blog, which I have quoted almost completely in my response, with Mikes permission via CC.
If life were fair, we would never be thirsty and have to pee at the same time.
Quote:
The only place I see it having more 'teeth' with regards to the player run videos in a MMO is in the case of leaks. Which then works as simply another trump charge if they choose to pursue NDA violation charges.
|
Originally Posted by LunaMoonChild
best way to understand this is watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hytigOSjJxc He sums it up pretty much what will happen if this bill in it's current form passes. Already a few game companies do not like this and have already swore that if this passes they will edited their TOS to allow players to continue, however that is all well in good if where your uploading to knows your game has done this. What will end up happening is most will have no idea and simply pull your video or stream down. Again watch the video link above the man does a much better job at explaining this then I do and this is something that needs to be shared. |
Let's Dance!
Youtube may get overzealous and start yanking videos if this comes to pass but those videos will soon be back up. The person whose copyright is being infringed actually has to complain in order for any charges to be filed. Nobody except the rights holder can claim loss. And no game company is going to claim loss except possibly where somebody is showing beta footage or demonstrating a hack or other form of cheat. So this means no more video guides to jerk hacking and duping rares.
On the other hand this will prevent people from reposting Rebecca Black videos after she has yanked them from youtube. So it isn't all bad.
Don't count your weasels before they pop dink!
I really hate to bring things like this to light, but for those of us that like to make videos with or about City of Heroes should really pay attention to this horrible bill that is slowly come to pass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib7-vSrp6y8
This is an excellent Video explaining it all as well as links to inform you about. Please take a good look.