Scratch

With ALL the stuff in this world, and they want to pass a bill about YOUTUBE & SONGS???

jfmlove6 wrote:

With ALL the stuff in this world, and they want to pass a bill about YOUTUBE & SONGS???

yes. why, yes they do.

It should be declined. SHOULD. I don't fare to that side that much

It's currently in voting.

Please decline. Please decline it..... PLEASE!!

NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!111
*starts downloading every song I like*
[oh yes, INSERT RAGEFACE]

Last edited by AnimeCreatorArtist (2011-07-21 13:10:36)

GLaDOS2 wrote:

scimonster wrote:

GarSkutherGirl wrote:

It's currently in voting.

Please decline. Please decline it..... PLEASE!!

Yes! Please don't let it pass! I could be.......




shut down..

i dont think that would happen, it probably wouldnt cover educational websites.

08jackt wrote:

i wouldn't worry about it
surely no one's stupid enough to let this pass

If only that was true.....

cheddargirl wrote:

08jackt wrote:

i wouldn't worry about it
surely no one's stupid enough to let this pass

I wouldn't worry about either, but not for the same reason.

The bill only affects those who incur $2500+ in damages. Anything that falls under that would probably be safe and would most likely fall under Fair Use.

but what do they mean by "damages?" if they dont get 2500+ they might just blame you and give you a strike 

The bill isn't directed at Youtube,a s of now, so I don't think it is anything to be worried about. But, if it passes, Google may have to make greater restrictions to Youtube and uploading content such as gameplay videos.

As far as I know, uploading a video of you playing a videogame is not a felony.

imnotbob wrote:

cheddargirl wrote:

08jackt wrote:

i wouldn't worry about it
surely no one's stupid enough to let this pass

I wouldn't worry about either, but not for the same reason.

The bill only affects those who incur $2500+ in damages. Anything that falls under that would probably be safe and would most likely fall under Fair Use.

but what do they mean by "damages?" if they dont get 2500+ they might just blame you and give you a strike 

That is, if the company can prove that the one who uploaded the video results in the uploader gaining $2500+, or if it results in the copyright owner losing $2500+ in profits.

An example of those targeted by the bill: copyrighted music videos uploaded to YouTube
An example of those less likely to be targeted by the bill: video game walkthroughs (that is covered under Fair Use because that content doesn't result in damages).

Granted there's always the chance of someone being off their rocker and ask the website owner to take down the content anyway (analogous to the Namco-Bandai case), but if they don't push through with a lawsuit, you can assume they don't have the proof to pursue you with a valid case and you can just reupload the content. Given that, the only worst thing to come out of that scenario is the annoyance of the video being taken down and having to upload it again.

Last edited by cheddargirl (2011-07-21 14:57:46)

cheddargirl wrote:

imnotbob wrote:

cheddargirl wrote:

I wouldn't worry about either, but not for the same reason.

The bill only affects those who incur $2500+ in damages. Anything that falls under that would probably be safe and would most likely fall under Fair Use.

but what do they mean by "damages?" if they dont get 2500+ they might just blame you and give you a strike 

That is, if the company can prove that the one who uploaded the video results in the uploader gaining $2500+, or if it results in the copyright owner losing $2500 in profits.

An example of those targeted by the bill: copyrighted music videos uploaded to YouTube
An example of those less likely to be targeted by the bill: video game walkthroughs (that is covered under Fair Use because that content doesn't result in damages).

Granted there's always the chance of someone being off their rocker and ask the website owner to take down the content anyway (remember the Namco-Bandai case), but if they don't push through with a lawsuit, you can assume they don't have the proof to pursue you with a valid case and you can just reupload the content. Given that, the only worst thing to come out of that scenario is the annoyance of the video being taken down and having to upload it again.

oh.

scimonster wrote:

cheddargirl wrote:

Granted there's always the chance of someone being off their rocker and ask the website owner to take down the content anyway (analogous to the Namco-Bandai case), but if they don't push through with a lawsuit, you can assume they don't have the proof to pursue you with a valid case and you can just reupload the content. Given that, the only worst thing to come out of that scenario is the annoyance of the video being taken down and having to upload it again.

So 124scratch can just upload his project again?

Yeah. I think I mentioned something like this earlier in one of the Pac-Man threads - since Namco-Bandai hasn't pursued with their supposed lawsuit against 124scratch, we can assume they dropped it.

Last edited by cheddargirl (2011-07-21 16:17:24)