Originally Posted by MaidLatte
The link I posted was before I saw yours lol.
I have a question then! Regardless of his in-depth knowledge (or lack of as Noe said lol) on it, is some of what he said true? This possible S.978 bill is an amendment of the Section 2319, so they're just adding to it? So would one have to meet all the requirements of both to be punished?
I think this is too vague at the moment for the panic that it is getting. A "Public Performance" has room to argue unless they narrow it down and say exactly what they mean by a "public performance."
A concert I went to a recorded with my camera? Yes, that is a performance that was held in public posted without consent.
A video of me playing Black Ops in my room? No, that is *I guess* a performance held in private that I posted for the general public to see.
Too much room for debate I find.
The fact is all law is subject to interpretation. You perceive playing Black Ops in your room as a private activity. A court will see your post on YouTube as a public performance; this is established in case law.
In fairness, I did not watch the video at length; I read the poster's comments below the video.
He is correct in that this is an amendment to an existing section of the U.S.C. The danger, however, is the change from civil liability to criminal liability for activities such as streaming. I have read the text of the bill and yes, streaming is as directly covered as it can be by the exact words "public performances by electronic means."
Also, he is correct in stating all of the criteria in subsection b must be met. I have never seen a copyright claim where the total damages did not exceed the values set forth in sections B and C.
Streaming is not the wildcard; "fair use" becomes the wildcard. Because there is no precedent, no one really knows what would happen. But the risk is very clear and do you really think that smaller publishers will risk 5 years in jail and a felony on their records just to post some gameplay videos?