How big of a deal is this PIPA shit?

[Zilong]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...o-gamers.shtml

If a pair of bills on Capitol Hill, called the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP, pass, you could be fined and thrown in jail for streaming (i.e., "performing") your video game speed runs or game play. Just as people post cute pictures and videos of themselves, their pets and their kids singing and dancing to copyrighted works, gamers of all ages routinely post pics and stream video of themselves during game play. All of these things have, for the most part, been considered "fair use" under the law. Tens of thousands of videos currently available online featuring game play from popular games like Call of Duty, Halo, Starcraft and others could be made illegal under these laws.

Since games also rely on the unique and fresh content that gamers create structurally and within game play, SOPA/PROTECT IP would freeze such innovation. Creative new works developed out of the technology of video games could be stifled by these new laws. Machinima, or videos created using in-game tools such as in Red vs. Blue, may never have come about if SOPA/PROTECT IP were in place.

There are also serious "due process" issues with SOPA/PROTECT IP.

Under constitutional due process, if the government prosecutes you, you must have the ability to defend yourself before being penalized; and the prosecution and governing board must be a government body, not a private company such as YouTube, or a ratings entity like the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB). The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) presently mandates that a take-down notice regarding potential infringement must first be sent to the Internet service provider or host, which then must comply, if it wants to retain its so-called "safe harbor" protection. However, the alleged infringer can then send a counter-notice stating basically, "no we're not infringing, here is why." Under the current safe harbor provisions, the service provider is then required to put the material in question back up in 10 days if there is no further action taken on the part of the content owner.

Here, SOPA/PROTECT IP forgo even this slight due process. These bills lack the provisions requiring the providers to put the material back up following a counter notice. Instead, the incentives are for service providers to keep the content down. Furthermore, a court order via a judge could require payment processors and ad networks to cut off service, before sites are convicted of any wrong-doing. The accused would then need to defend themselves. In other words, the impact of the bill is that they are found guilty before their day in court.

The legislation would also allow Internet companies hosting the content to arbitrarily set standards regarding various classes of works and amateur performers and demand removal of content or petition the government to outright block access to websites, creating an Internet government-sanctioned blacklist.

Internet service providers (ISPs) that are part of a corporation which creates content, such as Comcast, could also then use these laws for anti-competitive practices, arbitrarily enforcing/not enforcing potential infringements of their content or their competitors. Where NBC and G4 could be weaponized and empowered... the potential for abuse is staggering.

SOPA/PROTECT IP would also strip the limited defense websites enjoyed under DMCA, and sites could be considered liable for the worst of the worst user, which means that they'd need to penalize all users to protect themselves. Since the bills allow actions against suspected sites, as opposed to just convicted sites, all Internet sites would need to chill the speech placed on them in order to avoid potentially crippling legal responses. Thus companies and sites like Justin.tv, Twitch.tv, Ustream.tv, Tumblr.com, Facebook, YouTube, Google+, Blogger and Wordpress, which used to be immune from prosecution for the content posted on them, would now need to monitor every communication, if they wanted to avoid liability. This will result in a chilling effect across the web.

Further, several experts have warned that the domain name system (DNS) filtering requirements of PROTECT IP would weaken Internet security and stability. The filtering provisions would not serve their goal of lowering piracy, but threaten the security and stability of the global DNS. Further, they would undermine the universality of domain names, which has been a backbone of how the Internet is navigated. The experts warn that many of the tools and stated goals of both the government and business related to prevention of cyber attacks and Internet security would be undermined by these bills.

SOPA/PROTECT IP also relies on copyright holders setting arbitrary standards regarding economic impact and prosecution for various classes of works and amateur performers. Since items posted to the Internet can be accessed immediately and universally, copyright holders could claim every post would be extremely costly.

These bills could impede or block constitutionally protected speech. This point is especially troublesome in the shadow of the great video games speech victory earlier this year, Brown v EMA, where the Supreme Court finally held video games to be such protected speech in their own right.

Since we already have laws covering this area on the books, it defies logic to further burden American consumers in these arbitrary and capricious ways. The ECA stands in opposition to these bills. To lend your voice, check out our free online tools, read more about the subjects or help us fight for our rights, visit: http://theeca.com/video_gamers_rights

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57...opyright-bill/

http://americancensorship.org/

Few of my friends linked these on Facebook, are they just playing Chicken Little or is there a real chance of this bill actually passing and ruining my lifelong goal of downloading all the porn on the internet?

[Zalius]

youd need a really good connection for that

[Xantavia]

Who thought this stuff up? If not for videos like these, there are some games that I never would have heard of or been tempted to try. If it is the game companies, I think they are just shooting themselves in the foot, trying to get rid of free publicity this way.

[6souls]

I believe Rockstar is one of the sponsors. They absolutely hate their products be streamed and/or modded. The Machinima staff have mentioned in the past of getting nasty letters from them hosting the GTA4 mission vids.

[aduidarnenye]

Most companies, however, wouldn't prosecute the people streaming their games because it's basically free advertising. So I don't think that game streamers have to worry.

Torrenters might have to worry though.

[Cantih]

are they just playing Chicken Little or is there a real chance of this bill actually passing

Not chicken little.
In the Judiciary Committee hearing today, except for one person from Google, the hearing is stacked with nothing but the groups who helped draft the bill and want it passed.

Basically, get your house representative and senators on the phone line ASAP.

[Zilong]

odds of presidential veto?

[Uzor]

I'd say 0 chance of presidential veto.

That being said; I don't think game streamers for the most part will have to worry. I do believe Blizzard, among others, see game streaming as free advertising. I believe most game companies (there are exceptions, of course) only mind if you stream beta/alpha game play. I think the main aim for this bill is to take prevent video streaming of copyright material from websites like Megavideo, Gorillavideo, Putlocker etc.

[hey]

the bills allow actions against suspected sites, as opposed to just convicted sites

Pretty much all you need to know.

Yes, it is a big deal.

[*Shinzon*]

I'd say 0 chance of presidential veto.

That being said; I don't think game streamers for the most part will have to worry. I do believe Blizzard, among others, see game streaming as free advertising. I believe most game companies (there are exceptions, of course) only mind if you stream beta/alpha game play. I think the main aim for this bill is to take prevent video streaming of copyright material from websites like Megavideo, Gorillavideo, Putlocker etc.

The problem is the law doesn't discriminate. There's no provisions under the bill to make distinctions between what kinds of materials can be streamed. It lumps everything together and basically says that if you stream anything with any copyrighted material, the owner can come after you, the website that facilitated your upload and your ISP.

[Zeb]

^Pretty dumbed down review of the bill from a gamer side

This bill is S.978 that failed to pass this summer. It's been redone but is worse than 978.

Personally, I think the bill is aimed more at streaming TV (including sports) and Movie sites. But I can see companies like Activision trying to ruin someone for a Youtube video if someone posts some content before a games official release.

[Uzor]

The problem is the law doesn't discriminate. There's no provisions under the bill to make distinctions between what kinds of materials can be streamed. It lumps everything together and basically says that if you stream anything with any copyrighted material, the owner can come after you, the website that facilitated your upload and your ISP.

Yes, I know. But most game companies likely don't care if you stream their games. There are exceptions, of course, but those are the retarded companies. I don't think anyone has ever streamed someone playing a game as a substitute to playing the game yourself. If anything, watching gameplay videos makes me want to play the game myself. As was said earlier; most gameplay videos are free commercials.

The only exceptions that may make game companies take content down is if it paints the game in bad light, or if it's an unreleased game.

[Norellicus]

This bill is basically the new incarnation of "Hatch's hit list" from a few years back. It's heavy handed and completely ignorant of the ways in which the use of existing work creates inspiration.

To be clear, this doesn't just open up a broad spectrum copyright case in courts; it actually makes infringement a felony. Congress is putting copyright infringement on equal terms with murder.

[Cantih]

The trouble is there is a difference between what the legislation aims to do, and what it allows to be done (and who gets to do it).
And it is a staggeringly big difference.

To put it in metaphor, it's like letting a bill collection agency hire Patrick Bateman when they also never have any intention of keeping an eye on how he gets the job done.

[hey]

Congress is putting copyright infringement on equal terms with murder.

The bill is bad enough on its own merits, you don't really need to make things up to attack it.

[Uzor]

The trouble is there is a difference between what the legislation aims to do, and what it allows to be done (and who gets to do it).
And it is a staggeringly big difference.

To put it in metaphor, it's like letting a bill collection agency hire Patrick Bateman when they also never have any intention of keeping an eye on how he gets the job done.

That is true. Since blizzard, for example, isn't allowed to go after the content and only a specific department of the government (if I understood the bill right), said department could just go "Oh, look, gameplay video! *remove*" even though Blizzard doesn't care - or even if it's Blizzard sanctioned gameplay.

Either way, I truly hope this bill doesn't get passed.

[Brutala]

The US government never fails to amaze me, and I'm from the fucking Balkans where fist fights in parliament are a common thing, so that's saying a lot!

[Kurokikaze]

This is fucking terrible.

[Acevalefor]

Who stands to gain from this bill? I see it as nothing but a corporate sweep with lots of heavy handed punishment. What will it do to help the businesses that are advocating it?

[Talint]

It's funny. This bill is total intrusion of the government. And you'll never hear the republicans complain about this bill (like they should).

It will ultimately depend if these companies get enough money to lobbyists and politicians.