Bill S.978

[Narnia]

A recent bill moving through the US Congress called S.978 will make posting lets plays and other similar creative works to the internet illegal.

First off, could someone with some understanding of legal stuff please help to explain in layman's terms if my interpretation (that it will make let's plays and other similar videos illegal unless you get specific permission to post the video) is correct or if what I've heard is false/exaggerated.

Second, if this information is correct, I have an idea of how this problem could be corrected and I would like feedback on whether it would work or not.
If memory serves, if I buy a legal copy of Adobe After Effects, Flash, Blender (yes I know blender is free), Maya, Vocaloid, or other similar programs and create an artistic work of art with them (like a video or a song or something like that) then I will own the rights to song however the company that made the program will still own the rights to the program that made it. Is this correct? If so, why don't they insert a similar provision into the law that in essence says that you can do that with games? Thanks

Third, if my idea is sound, could someone more fluent in lawyer-ize make a suggestion on how this would be written? Thanks


Some more info on the bill:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-978
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib7-vSrp6y8

 

[GoodGame]

Pretty silly, as "Lets Plays" are obviously fair use, in that it is commentary on a published work.
I don't see it being used to shut down "Lets Plays" directly, though a company might try to threaten it. The company would have to demonstrate that the video is effectively stealing the game, which it isn't.

Is it stealing video game cutscenes?

 

[Narnia]

Pretty silly, as "Lets Plays" are obviously fair use, in that it is commentary on a published work.
I don't see it being used to shut down "Lets Plays" directly, though a company might try to threaten it. The company would have to demonstrate that the video is effectively stealing the game, which it isn't.

There are two lines of thought on that matter, one is that it falls under fair use guidelines as a (some legal word I don't know how to spell) work for that very reason. The other train of thought is that it steals the graphics, musical score, and audio effects that belong to the game's producers. This have never gone to court because video game companies generally don't care if anyone posts game footage online (in fact many companies like it as they see the attention as free advertising).

You bring up a good point on the second part also, what about intro clips which often contain cut-scenes/sections of songs/etc. What about videos where they for example swapped out the audio and video of two films for comic effect, or do something similar? I've scene some really funny videos on YouTube where they took the audio from one film like LOTR and inserted it in place of the audio in a commercial for a different film like POTC. Would it become a felony to create those too? I don't have a problem with allowing them to use it against people who are pirating entire movies or songs (and I even don't have a problem with it being used to prosecute people who leak footage of games which have not yet been released as that can prevent their owners from making money) , but I've already seen a lot of YouTube videos which obviously fell under fair use guidelines but were taken down for some reason. I have been introduced to not only numerous video-games by finding them on YouTube but I've also found many song artists and movies by seeing scenes/hearing parts of their songs on videos I've watched on YouTube. Will they be arrested also? If they gave some more specificity of what exactly constituted as fair use as to alleviate this issue, I would not have a problem with this law, but it is too wide and that is my concern.

Finally, I've heard that some record companies use computer algorithms to find videos with their music and then automaticly send "please remove this video" letters to YouTube when they find videos with their music in them. Is this true? If so, would this law mean that in order for it to actually be used the copy right owner would have to take each and every offender to court and not be able to just use an automated system?

 

[GoodGame]

Finally, I've heard that some record companies use computer algorithms to find videos with their music and then automaticly send "please remove this video" letters to YouTube when they find videos with their music in them. Is this true? If so, would this law mean that in order for it to actually be used the copy right owner would have to take each and every offender to court and not be able to just use an automated system?

Automating such a thing would definitely be feasible.

 

[mdwh]

The biggest concern I think is that it moves something from being a civil issue into being a criminal issue.

Yes, the question of whether videos of gameplay is fair use or copyright infringement is unclear - but the DMCA sets out how things can be handled. You can either play it safe (if they complain, the video gets taken down, and that's that), or challenge it by going to court. Admittedly, with the absurdity of people being fined millions for a few mp3s, even a civil issue can be very severe - but it's still not a criminal case. With this law, you have no way to play it safe, and if it's deemed to cover what you uploaded, you're looking at a criminal record and prison time.

I also don't like the bit about it only applying to works costing more than a certain amount. I mean yes, in theory it's good that it restricts the law. But the upshot is that larger companies are protected more than smaller ones and individuals. If I stream something expensive, I face prison time - but if they illegally streamed my content that was of lower cost, or even free (as in beer), they can get away with it. It's a bad idea to base the law on the value, if it's only going by the value that the copyright holder chooses to set - it's rewarding them for making the cost higher.

It would be better if the value was judged independently, rather than simply what the licensing fee was (similar to how say, if someone caused me criminal damage, I can't just make up an arbitrary cost). But it would be hard to do this with copyrighted material.

If memory serves, if I buy a legal copy of Adobe After Effects, Flash, Blender (yes I know blender is free), Maya, Vocaloid, or other similar programs and create an artistic work of art with them (like a video or a song or something like that) then I will own the rights to song however the company that made the program will still own the rights to the program that made it. Is this correct? If so, why don't they insert a similar provision into the law that in essence says that you can do that with games? Thanks

I'm not sure that's analogous. In the former case, you're using a tool, and when you distribute your work, it doesn't contain any of their work. It's no more copyright infringement than it is when I use someone else's paintbrush to create a work.

Where things can get sticky is if say, you were writing a song that includes samples (even just instruments), or use "stock" textures for a 3D model. There, copyright law most certainly does apply - you have to follow whatever licence it is released under, and there is certainly no provision in law to protect you, just because you made a new work.