Archive: 47 posts

---

Sorry to post this in the news section but this sounds really serious if you think about it, it could mean the end of Creator Spotlights, Sackanima and even myself (and I was nearing a major milestone with my channel too ) But I got this news from joystiq (http://www.joystiq.com/2011/07/02/lets-play-videos-may-soon-make-you-a-felon-thanks-to-senate-b/#comments) I bolded the big stuff Hold on to your butts, Internet, because this party is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets any better. According to Game Informer, a Senate Bill has been introduced which, if passed, would make streaming unauthorized copyrighted material a felony, resulting in up to 5-years of jail time. Bill S.978 states that "10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works" will result in "not more than 5 years" of imprisonment, so long as the performance in question is valued at at-least $2,500 USD, or if the value of a license to legally "perform" the content is valued at $5,000 or more. These are, in essence, the same criteria that allow for DMCA take-down notices to be issued by copyright holders, however jail time and felony status are not currently associated with this particular flavor of copyright infringement. Should this bill jump through all the right hoops, its broadly worded contents could potentially cover everything from homemade gameplay clips (commonly referred to "Let's Play" videos), to fan-made music videos, webcam cover songs, and anything else that involves copyrighted music or video. S.978 could also potentially cover cell-phone videos of concerts and press events, making 13-year-old Beliebers and jaded gaming journalists alike equally in danger of losing their right to vote. If accepted into law, these addenda will be attached to existing copyright laws and will not only apply to YouTube users, but to the sites that embed YouTube content as well. Internet activism group Demand Progress has set up a web-form for those who disagree with the legislation and wish to communicate their displeasure to their local representatives. We would be concerned about the bill's implications as well, but fear not dear reader: the legislation doesn't cover puppet shows as far as we can tell, so Joystiq Playhouse's shadow-kabuki production of Battle Arena Toshinden should still be on track. This sounds really serious

2011-07-03 04:26:00 Author: JKthree Posts: 1125

---

I wonder how this would be enforced? After all, "copyrighted" material is like 95% of YouTube...

2011-07-03 06:00:00 Author: Frinklebumper Posts: 941

---

Inmate: I killed 30 people while I robbed a gas station, what are you in here for? Me: I recorded myself playing a videogame and uploaded it to youtube.

2011-07-03 06:07:00 Author: Silver39 Posts: 1703

---

Inmate: I killed 30 people while I robbed a gas station, what are you in here for? Me: I recorded myself playing a videogame and uploaded it to youtube. Inmate: Man, that's hard core. You're makin what I did look like child's play.

2011-07-03 06:42:00 Author: ConverseFox Posts: 2333

---

you just know that if this is passed than there will be MASSIVE protestes. Or even worse. Good thing i'm canadian :3

2011-07-03 07:08:00 Author: a_mailbox Posts: 416

---

Ah, here it is, been waiting for this to pop up, seeing how people keep over-exaggerating it. xD Look long story short NO THIS IS NOT GOING TO SERIOUSLY AFFECT ANYONE, KILL YOUTUBE, REVIEWERS, lETS PLAY-ERS and what not, everything's going to be fine and the same whether this happens or not. Its not gonna kill the internet, there's not going to be an uber rebellion or nothing, RELAX. Look, this bill doesn't make all that stuff Illegal, it can't, why? BECAUSE IT ALREADY IS ILLEGAL. Whether this happens or not, the game companies can throw all those people in jail IF they wanted to, youtubers, LPers, and all those people uploading videos of whatever they don't have permission to upload are already have the possibility of being thrown in jail if the companies really wanted to, and the real reason no one should care for this is that companies just don't give a hoot, its not like as soon as this bill is passed, everyone's going to suddenly contact the FBI to track every single one of the uploaders, its too much effort and money, and besides, this is mostly aimed at those people streaming movies, and tv shows Illegally, games are just caught in the crossfire of "copyrighted material" so there's a possibility of it still being modified to exclude it. But the main point is this, if you weren't worried about breaking the law even tho you were already, why bother now? A - The bill will most likely not pass. B - The game companies for the most part won't care, as games are not like moves (for the most part.) and the majority preffer to see it as advertisment rather. (Not all.) C - Even if they do care, they would waste too many resources in finding all, too much effort. D - People don't realize the laws already exist, this just increases the punishment. My last point as well is this; say even if it does kill the internet, even if they do stop everyone from doing so unless they get speciall license and managed to stop it all somehow. They're within they're right to do so, its their games and their material, they're all 100% within their right to do so and people have 0 right to complain about it, people are right now saying "NO OMG BILL FAIL DON'T PASS" in which case they're supporting piracy, so you know what, I say pass they bill, I want them to do it, maybe it'll scare most of the fools away. So yeah tl;dr: quit yer whining, nothing's gonna happen, and if it does, you got no right to complain either way.

2011-07-03 07:10:00 Author: Silverleon Posts: 6707

---

@Silverleon: 'Nuff Said! Well, back to downloading that movie that just came out

2011-07-03 07:52:00 Author: Night Angel Posts: 1214

---

Uploading a video of LBP on youtube is NOT illegal. It comes under the "fair use" clause of the DMCA. I don't know if this changes with the new bill, but using a copyrighted work for purposes of criticism, original content, satire etc. is fine so long as it is non-commercial. Now if Mm release a copyrighted trailer and you simply post that on your channel, THAT is not allowed under the DMCA. But if you record your own gameplay that's fine. And of course Mm would have to actually persue a legal challenge.

2011-07-03 08:33:00 Author: thor Posts: 388

---

Anyway, I think that the copyright owner must ask for the removal/bill/jail, like it already happens now, and I don't think MM/Sony will ask to remove user's levels from youtube, maybe the story levels, though I highly doubt that.

2011-07-03 09:07:00 Author: OmegaSlayer Posts: 5112

---

Ah, people are right now saying "NO OMG BILL FAIL DON'T PASS" in which case they're supporting piracy, You were doing SO well until that part I'm certainly no expert on copyright law, but I'm fairly certain that there is room within the existing laws already for fan art etc, whatever medium is used, music, pictures, movies, or lbp games. If not, there morally should be (in my opinion) That aside. I fail to see how someone wishing an extension to already powerful copyright law to fall, equates with supporting piracy. You really think you can't have one without the other?

2011-07-03 10:12:00 Author: MuddledMuppet Posts: 115

---

Im sure if the bill does pass, which i dont think this exact bill will, that it will only pertain to streaming of movies. Piracy is defined as making an illegal "copy" of copyrighted material or distributing it. Thats how downloading movies is illegal. As for streaming it is not illegal because no copy is being made. Some argue that when you stream a movie, your computer makes a temporary copy of the movie, which is true but no one has been prosecuted for streaming a movie because they are aware of the major gray area. I believe this bill is an attempt to get rid of the gray area of streaming movies, i dont think it intends to wipe out streaming of any copyrighted entertainment. Someone making a video of their lbp lvl or a fan made movie trailer, if anything, helps advertising.

2011-07-03 10:27:00 Author: ShadowTyphoon Posts: 80

---

Should the bill pass, there could be a slight technicality that allows LBP to slip through (if needed). The game isn't so much of a game as it is a software, which from what I read wasn't there. Under these ground people could continue to do what they please with it.

2011-07-03 11:15:00 Author: Captain_Dinosaur Posts: 214

---

Wouldn't it be up to the copyright holder to complain? Sooooo... if you were uploading LBP gameplay clips and Mm/SONY didn't want free publicity and they thought that your efforts are worth $2500+ USD aaaand you had uploaded HEAPS of likewise performances of you jumping over pits that were also making you more than $2500. Not to add that I don't think there is any licensing fee to upload gameplay clips of a game. I'm sure you could contact the game's PR company to confirm that they weren't charging $5000 for each performance because why would they?

2011-07-03 12:07:00 Author: Mr_Fusion Posts: 1799

---

You were doing SO well until that part I'm certainly no expert on copyright law, but I'm fairly certain that there is room within the existing laws already for fan art etc, whatever medium is used, music, pictures, movies, or lbp games. If not, there morally should be (in my opinion) That aside. I fail to see how someone wishing an extension to already powerful copyright law to fall, equates with supporting piracy. You really think you can't have one without the other? Why would you want the extension to a copyright law to fall if you didn't support piracy? You say the current law is "already powerful", but then why would you care about this version of the law if you were not supporting piracy? "Why" is the key question here, and the answer is that if you are opposed to strengthening the enforcement of the current law, you must have something to lose such as piracy or the option to engage in piracy. Even if you were in some kind of gray area about piracy (i.e. you don't participate in it but you aren't for or against it), wouldn't you then also be in a gray area with supporting/opposing the extension of copyright law? I suppose not, since you would then have to think that piracy is not good or evil and so to treat it as evil is in itself evil, except we all know piracy is evil which is why we believe opposing this law is to support piracy. Edit: rewrite

2011-07-03 13:45:00 Author: MMLgamer Posts: 183

---

As we (Sackinima) "work" for machinima, we get to see how they're responding to it. Despite being the biggest uploader of video game content on YouTube, they don't seem that [publicly] bothered by it. I think everyone is pretty confident that this isn't going to happen and if it does, very few people out there are going to conform (I'm feeling fairly rebellious today, too). Besides, the LBP community has the privilege of being right beside Mm at all times. They'd give us permission to do what we do here on the internet. It's part of the fabric of their game (puns ftw). and there's no way they would support this. Activision suing over Blops videos? I'm not too bothered by that... It reminds me of the April Fools joke Moley pulled this year on Sackinima's twitter. He said Sony were suing us for posting so many LBP videos. It didn't take long for Mm to go crazy over reading that and we had to tell them it was a joke! So yep, even if the law does go through (which it won't), we're all safe here my friends. We're all safe here. *Looks up and strokes beard*

2011-07-03 14:55:00 Author: Leather-Monkey Posts: 2266

---

A debate about piracy springing from the misunderstandings of both arguing parties, eh? It's like I'm really on a certain website whose name shall not be mentioned in present company. :B

2011-07-03 15:02:00 Author: SLS10 Posts: 1129

---

BECAUSE IT ALREADY IS ILLEGAL. Not quite. There's some ambiguity in the current legislation which is the reason for this new bill. If you upload copyvio content to, say, YouTube, both you and YouTube are potentially liable, but the current legislation is unclear as to whether those who choose to watch the video are also liable. This bill merely clarifies that they are. However, none of that really matters, since, as thor points out... Uploading a video of LBP on youtube is NOT illegal. It comes under the "fair use" clause of the DMCA. So, I'd suggest you ignore this bill, and just read up on fair use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use) to see what's permitted and what isn't. In practise, you probably don't even need to worry about that. Only YouTube needs to worry, since they're the only party with any significant amount of cash, and thus make a practical target for a lawsuit.

2011-07-03 15:05:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870

---

Looks like a lot of hot air to me I think it more to do with movies and tv shows to stop them being put up online, And it really down to the copyright holders if they want to do anything about it

2011-07-03 15:12:00 Author: jump_button Posts: 1014

---

Isn't this more about live sport being streamed on stuff like justin tv?

2011-07-03 15:13:00 Author: Rabid-Coot Posts: 6728

---

I know not ALL is Illegal, some is, some fall under fair use, whatever, THAT IS NOT THE POINT. The point it stop worrying and panicking and whining and running like chickens with their heads cut off, nothing significant's gonna happen wether this passes or not. Jeez, you people sure like to miss the main point of things around here... (Specially aya whenever he sees a chance to try to look smart in front of everyone. xD) "Aya : Forget the main point I wanna prove a minor issue that really doesn't matter, wrong!"

2011-07-03 15:17:00 Author: Silverleon Posts: 6707

---

Well that dilemma ended shortly. Usually these thread's issues stay up longer. But let's be honest here; no one ever listens to these laws.

2011-07-03 16:05:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551

---

The problem is that we have IP and copyrights in the first place. I won't be surprised if this is taken as trolling, but I'm 100% serious. Just think of all the innovations we could have today, if innovating and improving a product wasn't illegal.

2011-07-03 16:18:00 Author: Voltergeist Posts: 1702

---

Inmate: I killed 30 people while I robbed a gas station, what are you in here for? Me: I recorded myself playing a videogame and uploaded it to youtube. What in the world were that many people doing at a gas station? Gas prices must be good there. Anyways, this law if passed will not affect everything. It only affects people that use copyrighted material for illegal purposes. Self made vids like walkthroughs, reviews, etc I don't think would be affected, unless you don't give credit and use for illegal reasons, which would be the reasons the companies do not want someone using content belonging to them as quoted in common sense.

2011-07-03 19:07:00 Author: Hana_Kami Posts: 393

---

A debate about piracy springing from the misunderstandings of both arguing parties, eh? It's like I'm really on a certain website whose name shall not be mentioned in present company. :B Not sure if that's referring to me, anyhoo, all I'm really saying is that not wanting an extension of a current law or hgarsher penalties, does not mean that one must support whatever that law is protecting. Example: Theft may lead to imprisonment, a change to the law imposes a higher sentence, ie the death penalty. One may oppose that change without supporting theft. So, the parallel is, one may oppose an increase in the punishement of IP infringement, reasoning that is already sufficient, without being a supporter of piracy. it was just too big a leap for me to let slip by lol.

2011-07-03 21:24:00 Author: MuddledMuppet Posts: 115

---

Won't someone please think of the video game critics?!

2011-07-05 00:56:00 Author: abyssalassassin Posts: 717

---

Everyone seems to have missed the main point here, even Silverleon. Firstly - as I understand it - we are not yet "The United States of Earth" - so this only affects people living under US Jurisdiction. But we all know how much America loves to play at being the worlds (corrupt) police-man - so that's forgivable. But the main point here is the line "so long as the performance in question is valued at at-least $2,500 USD". If you were to start 'charging' people to watch your Sackinima, and what was it again - 10 or more public performances between 180-days - totaling a value in excess of $2500... then you 'might' be considered to be breaking the law (in America). Now how many people make more than $2500 from their LBP youtube videos? Hmm? Copyright owners are only concerned if there is money being made and they think that they could get some of it.

2011-07-05 01:55:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970

---

But the main point here is the line "so long as the performance in question is valued at at-least $2,500 USD". If you were to start 'charging' people to watch your Sackinima, and what was it again - 10 or more public performances between 180-days - totaling a value in excess of $2500... then you 'might' be considered to be breaking the law (in America). Except that big companies might argue that their losses amount to a value in excess of $2500. Remember those people who file-shared some mp3s and got sued for $80.000 per track? Edit: And for those who say it's just the US and doesn't concern them: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/03/us-anti-piracy-extradition-prosecution

2011-07-05 12:31:00 Author: Rogar Posts: 2284

---

lets argue it this way... Intelecual property (IP) is what copyright is protecting (mostly because you can make money off IP but whatever) If i use MS paint (microsoft's IP) to make a drawing (My IP) I can sell that drawing because it is my OWN INTELECTUAL PROPERTY! If i use LBP (Mm's IP) to create something amazing... Lets say Mythicos, my LBP1 series Mythicos is MY IP. I don't sell it. I put a video of it online. Nobody has the god ****ed right to sue me for putting MY OWN GOD **** IP ONLINE!!! That is all. Thank you.

2011-07-14 13:28:00 Author: poorjack Posts: 1806

---

IT's not just your IP.... It's constructed out of a patchwork of other people's IPs... Kinda like when someone remixes or samples a song to make a new track out of it. Which makes things unbelievably complicated legally.

2011-07-14 13:47:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

if it in no way resembles the original product?

2011-07-14 14:03:00 Author: poorjack Posts: 1806

---

TL;DR version: No. (http://thisismynext.com/2011/07/06/senate-bill-978-youtube-video-game-lets-play-videos-illegal/) This bill is designed to address websites that hijack broadcast material (read: TV) and stream it on the internet. In other words, to satisfy the needs of a growing market of consumers who are fed up with exorbitant home cable television costs, and instead turn to the web to stream that content to their PCs. While it may be broadly worded, you need to keep in mind that the party that owns the content would need to sue the individual under federal law. That means the company would need to a) make clear they don't want their content (i.e. their game) recorded and put up on the web and b) track down every individual and prosecute them under the law (a challenge unto itself) and c) meet the federal requirements for copyright infringement (trying to make a profit off it.) If this law were to pass today, it would simply mean that owners of any copyrighted content would have the right to sue if their content was hosted or streamed or made available in accordance with existing copyright standards that applies to other mediums. This will not affect games like Call of Duty (from which you can upload gameplay videos from the game itself) or LBP, where the developers applaud the millions of game videos uploaded showcase their content and, in turn, actually promote their product. Where I see this law having any impact at all are those sites that host broadcast TV recordings, such as sporting events or the latest season of Real Housewives of Orange County. It's not meant to make all game content on YouTube illegal. The article itself now shows an update saying as much: [Update: This Is My Next (http://www.thisismynext.com/)'s Nilay Patel has published an extensive break-down of S.978 (http://thisismynext.com/2011/07/06/senate-bill-978-youtube-video-game-lets-play-videos-illegal/), and it looks like the bill, if passed, wouldn't actually change much of anything for the majority of people who don't profit from their YouTube videos. "Some of the outcry here is a little overblown, as the text of the bill isn't quite as bad as you might think."] Click that link if you want the dirty details. And there's this: In fact, all this hoopla could result in some good news: Minecraft developer Notch has said he’ll add a clause to the Minecraft user agreement (http://notch.tumblr.com/post/7152523035/bill-s-978) specifically allowing user gameplay videos if S.978 passes, and that he expects most other companies will follow suit. That would be wonderful — game companies explicitly granting users the rights to make gameplay videos would be a huge step forward, and exactly the sort of private contractual agreement that our intellectual property system favors. I’d love it if Notch just went ahead and added that clause regardless of what happens to S.978 — it would set a terrific precedent for the rest of the media industry.

2011-07-14 14:47:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239

---

I don't see why companies would care if someone violated a copyright in something like an LBP level; if anything, it's free advertising, and it happens far too often for it to be effectively dealt with anyway.

2011-07-18 01:48:00 Author: metsfan1025 Posts: 181

---

I don't see why companies would care if someone violated a copyright in something like an LBP level... In practise, many of them don't. From this interview (http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/940/940711p2.html) back in 2008... There were three issues; one was negative and two were positive. The negative one was how hard it was to get worldwide legal harmony, because different countries have different laws around copyright infringement. We knew that people would be creative, and that there would be references. It was hard getting the right balance on a worldwide angle. But then there's been these two mad positives; one was the high quality of the levels, including the infringing ones. The other point is the number of IP owners who came up to us and said please whitelist us ? we'll never ever ask you to pull infringing stuff. I can't say who that is, but those two things really shocked me, I think it shocked [the IP holders], who were like, hang on, my IP's being represented and it's being represented really well. The IP holders have to have last say over the representation of their brand, and that's fair enough, so we've always got to have a method for people misusing a brand, but what's been really lovely is how well represented so many brands are.

2011-07-18 12:07:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870

---

Does this mean we cant make For example "Ironman" or "X-Men" levels in LBP without copywrite issues.

2011-07-18 15:15:00 Author: craigmond Posts: 2426

---

lets argue it this way... Intelecual property (IP) is what copyright is protecting (mostly because you can make money off IP but whatever) If i use MS paint (microsoft's IP) to make a drawing (My IP) I can sell that drawing because it is my OWN INTELECTUAL PROPERTY! If i use LBP (Mm's IP) to create something amazing... Lets say Mythicos, my LBP1 series Mythicos is MY IP. I don't sell it. I put a video of it online. Nobody has the god ****ed right to sue me for putting MY OWN GOD **** IP ONLINE!!! That is all. Thank you. You forgot the fact that the EULA specifies anything you create and upload is technically not your anymore.

2011-07-19 09:39:00 Author: Silverleon Posts: 6707

---

Firstly - as I understand it - we are not yet "The United States of Earth" - so this only affects people living under US Jurisdiction. But we all know how much America loves to play at being the worlds (corrupt) police-man - so that's forgivable. Nah. There wouldn't be a rock in the Atlantic that isn't named US, that's an old wives' tale, no. You forgot the fact that the EULA specifies anything you create and upload is technically not your anymore. And that anything can be viewed at any time.

2011-07-19 12:57:00 Author: Tecnoguy1 Posts: 206

---

Does this mean we cant make For example "Ironman" or "X-Men" levels in LBP without copywrite issues. You still can, you just can't post it to YouTube :/

2011-07-19 15:46:00 Author: zzmorg82 Posts: 948

---

You still can, you just can't post it to YouTube :/ Nope, you can post it to youtube as well. You just can't use it for financial gain, and even then there's more specific criteria. There's a ton more detail about what the bill would do if it were passed into law in the article link (http://thisismynext.com/2011/07/06/senate-bill-978-youtube-video-game-lets-play-videos-illegal/) I posted.

2011-07-19 16:44:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239

---

This guy explains alot about the bill and how it won't really affect anything. [Link] (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3738-S-978-and-Operation-Rainfall)

2011-07-21 20:11:00 Author: CYBERSNAKE Posts: 280

---

This guy explains alot about the bill and how it won't really affect anything. [Link] (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3738-S-978-and-Operation-Rainfall) So did this guy on the earlier comments. (What so because I don't have a website, my points are invalid now? xD)

2011-07-23 22:21:00 Author: Silverleon Posts: 6707

---

*Looks at avatar* Well... ****

2011-07-23 23:47:00 Author: theswweet Posts: 2468

---

im not sure if this was stated, but if you record your gameplay it is in fact considered a unique experience, and, as of now, is considered legel, as long as you are doing something to make it unique, cutscenes, on the other hand are not. unless you show yourself playing the games. it is modified enough to be ok. this rule will stop that

2011-07-24 00:16:00 Author: dragonights Posts: 209

---

Nothing will change...No fan is ever going to be fined for doing a guitar cover of a song or something.

2011-07-24 04:00:00 Author: Smokeeye123 Posts: 66

---

This will never pass. The game dev's lawyers will step in and stop it. Also, from a public POV, jail sentences and fines would be extreme. Also, more vids normally means more sales. The entire game review industry would crash, game magazines would close and all sorts. Therefore, It will NEVER pass...

2011-07-26 11:57:00 Author: Unknown User

---

Perhaps it's time to update the OP with the more informed info?

2011-07-27 22:42:00 Author: SSTAGG1 Posts: 1136

---

Can I work at Sackinima?

2011-07-29 19:54:00 Author: Unknown User

---

(is this a necro post?) anyway, the game industry will be affected, but they aren't the reason behind the law, its mostly movie makers and musicians. seeing as if you see a movie or hear a song you get the same experience, where as in a game watching a playthrough isnt as good as playing ya know?

2011-08-11 12:05:00 Author: dragonights Posts: 209

Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.