"URGENT: Congress Wants To Make Streaming A Felony."

[EldritchTaranis]

Help keep our forums, blogs, tweets, vlogs, etc. "URGENT: Congress Wants To Make Streaming A Felony."

http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/ten_strikes



Do you want your blogs, vlogs and forums? Sign the petition to help prevent from using them. Follow the link, follow the steps and it should be easy to sign. They already have an automated letter made, so all you need to do is sign it and they send it to congress along with the other letters. BTW: You can change the automated letter if you want to.

(I am going to ask and admin if I can use the link to put in my signature.)

[Melamphoros]

Help keep our forums, blogs, tweets, vlogs, etc. "URGENT: Congress Wants To Make Streaming A Felony."

http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/ten_strikes

Do you want your blogs, vlogs and forums? Sign the petition to help prevent from using them. Follow the link, follow the steps and it should be easy to sign. They already have an automated letter made, so all you need to do is sign it and they send it to congress along with the other letters. BTW: You can change the automated letter if you want to.

(I am going to ask and admin if I can use the link to put in my signature.)

I'll be honest, this just seems like scare-mongering to me and the link you provided doesn't provide sources for there outrageous claim. Do you have a link from an actual news source (like say The Associate Press)?

[Asch]

I'll be honest, this just seems like scare-mongering to me and the link you provided doesn't provide sources for there outrageous claim. Do you have a link from an actual news source (like say The Associate Press)?

This.

More facts please? Banning streaming sounds like a logistical nightmare if nothing else. I guess the cable companies would be happy though.

[EldritchTaranis]

I'll be honest, this just seems like scare-mongering to me and the link you provided doesn't provide sources for there outrageous claim. Do you have a link from an actual news source (like say The Associate Press)?

This.

More facts please? Banning streaming sounds like a logistical nightmare if nothing else. I guess the cable companies would be happy though.

Well I am trying to find the Bill but I think this is it:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...?bill=s112-978

I'll post another link if I find one of the whole Bill or a recent Bill concerning this topic.

[Asch]

Well I am trying to find the Bill but I think this is it:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...?bill=s112-978

I'll post another link if I find one of the whole Bill or a recent Bill concerning this topic.

If that is the bill in question then it's only going to apply to copyrighted materials accessed and disseminated without permission.This wouldn't apply to Vlogs unless they're using pirated material (generally speaking a reviewer is allowed to use a certain amount of footage) etc. So Netflix and the like would be fine. It still has to pass committee, make it to the floor, and face a vote, none of which are guaranteed to happen.

[EldritchTaranis]

If that is the bill in question then it's only going to apply to copyrighted materials accessed and disseminated without permission.This wouldn't apply to Vlogs unless they're using pirated material (generally speaking a reviewer is allowed to use a certain amount of footage) etc. So Netflix and the like would be fine. It still has to pass committee, make it to the floor, and face a vote, none of which are guaranteed to happen.

Yet reading it myself, it can easily become corrupted depending the person defining "COPYRIGHTED." If I post a video talking about my beliefs, someone has written a book on it, it may sound like I am paraphrasing the book even though I didn't read it and...BAM! I get years in prison. Then again, I am a skeptic and it can't be helped. But I don't want that to me or anyone I know or anyone in particular. It can easily go against the rights of freedom of speech. But I might be exaggerating. Who knows?

[Asch]

Yet reading it myself, it can easily become corrupted depending the person defining "COPYRIGHTED." If I post a video talking about my beliefs, someone has written a book on it, it may sound like I am paraphrasing the book even though I didn't read it and...BAM! I get years in prison. Then again, I am a skeptic and it can't be helped. But I don't want that to me or anyone I know or anyone in particular. It can easily go against the rights of freedom of speech. But I might be exaggerating. Who knows?

I doubt that would happen even corporate sharks are limited by the law and copyright law has faced litigation and precedent in the past particularly in the digital age. I'm no expert on copyright law but I would be very surprised if such a suit were even possible.

[Melamphoros]

Yet reading it myself, it can easily become corrupted depending the person defining "COPYRIGHTED." If I post a video talking about my beliefs, someone has written a book on it, it may sound like I am paraphrasing the book even though I didn't read it and...BAM! I get years in prison. Then again, I am a skeptic and it can't be helped. But I don't want that to me or anyone I know or anyone in particular. It can easily go against the rights of freedom of speech. But I might be exaggerating. Who knows?

No offense, but you're sounding a bit hysterical here. Copyright is clearly defined by U.S. Law and the situation you described does not fall under it. There is also such a thing as Fair Use that has been defined in court case after court case.

After looking around the internet, this bill will not change copyright law. All it would do is reiterate the fact that just because you posted a movie/song/TV show on youtube (or a similar site) without the copyright holder's permission, you are violating the existing law. And really it all depends on whether or not the copyright holder is willing to press charges.

[Asch]

After looking around the internet, this bill will not change copyright law. All it would do is reiterate the fact that just because you posted a movie/song/TV show on youtube (or a similar site) without the copyright holder's permission, you are violating the existing law. And really it all depends on whether or not the copyright holder is willing to press charges.

It looks like it may also increase some of the penalties - if a person is found guilty - but that is all.

[EldritchTaranis]

I doubt that would happen even corporate sharks are limited by the law and copyright law has faced litigation and precedent in the past particularly in the digital age. I'm no expert on copyright law but I would be very surprised if such a suit were even possible.

No offense, but you're sounding a bit hysterical here. Copyright is clearly defined by U.S. Law and the situation you described does not fall under it. There is also such a thing as Fair Use that has been defined in court case after court case.

After looking around the internet, this bill will not change copyright law. All it would do is reiterate the fact that just because you posted a movie/song/TV show on youtube (or a similar site) without the copyright holder's permission, you are violating the existing law. And really it all depends on whether or not the copyright holder is willing to press charges.

It looks like it may also increase some of the penalties - if a person is found guilty - but that is all.

Now that light has been shed, I see how it can be less of a scare.

[[Sorry, I normally never jump into politics, unless something like this catches my eye.]]