Apparently, there's a bill on the drawing board in the US right now, the aim of which is to prevent people from uploading entire movies and TV shows to streaming services such as YouTube. This is certainly understandable, but the problem is that the people wording such legislation either don't know or don't think about how the internet works. Thus, the wording of this bill has all sorts of secondary repercussions.

Here are the offending bits:
‘(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if--
‘(A) the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works; and
‘(B)(i) the total retail value of the performances, or the total economic value of such public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner, would exceed $2,500; or
‘(ii) the total fair market value of licenses to offer performances of those works would exceed $5,000;’; and

One way of reading this is that any YouTube video containing copyrighted material getting more than 10 hits in 180 days is cause for a fine and/or a jail sentence.

But what is "copyrighted material"? Aye, there's the rub. This is where the intention behind the bill breaks down. Because footage of a video game, or a video of your seven year old daughter singing Lady Gaga's "Poker Face" in your living room, using her hairbrush as a microphone, also falls under the heading of "copyrighted material".

Basically, if this bill is passed into law, wave goodbye to YouTube, and any other video site you might use that streams user-uploaded content.

Here's a link to the bill itself, and here's a YouTube video explaining more about the bill.

Copyrighted material has always been quite well defined. The difference here is that previously it was up to the rights owner to enforce their copyright, whereas this suggests that it is now possible (and perhaps required) for a third party to enforce it. However, while the seven yr old singing a coyrighted song may be able to be able to be classed as infringement, section B there means that it couldn't fall within the bounds of this bill, unless people were accessing that video as a substitute for watching the copyrighted version, to the point that it had cost them $2500 in sales.

Personally, I think their aim is to make it the responsibilty of Youtube to police their content.

Well quite frankly, it would only be fair if Let's Play videos fell under this category, since they allow you to get the experience of the game for free (well... Not really, but if you want LP, you probably won't buy the game)

Copyright law has long since ceased to be about protecting the creations of individuals. Now it's all about kowtowing to the demands of giant corporations whose fingers are in many pies. I think first we need to question the validity of the claims these companies make to these copyrights given that in many cases they have themselves violated copyright law in the same material that they're claiming ownership of.

I'm not sure I follow you here. Could you elaborate on "them violating copyright law" bit?

You probably won't buy this game anyway, this is why you watch LP videos.

This regulation is pure bullshit for me. What will be next? Screenshots? reverse engeneering anyone?

Yeah, but game producers don't see the point. This is the reason why so little DEMOS are published these days.

Producers KNOW their games SUCK and they don't want to pass a demo nor let people watch gameplays.

They think the less people know their game sucks, the more will buy it.

Which is stupid. But I can't find any other explanation why in the 90's every game had a demo, now, almost none.

But it wasn't a crime against Valve. That's my point above. It would only be a crime against valve if the person that uploaded the content, cost valve over $2,500 by virtue of the fact they broke the copyright, or if that content was in itself able to be licensed for over $5,000 (for a single performance, i.e. concert). This law has specifically accounted for small-fry uploads. It has to actually be costing a company in sales as a result of the infringement before it can come into play.

They would say that for example 1000 views on youtube is 1000x60 dollars loss. I'm sure they will.

They are counting their losses by piracy the same way. One download = 60 dollars less for a company.

Which is total bs.

They always have crazy legislation...they had a few that would shut down small farms, farmers markets and backyard home gardens

Their tyranny knows no bounds

With unlimited corporate money in politics, the globo corps/bankers decide our laws.

I've watched quite a few LP videos for Civilization V. It's a very nice way to learn the game, by watching how the "pros" do it. Not to mention a lot less boring than reading walls of text.

Unpaid royalties on a massive scale by the big four. Essentially they've violated their own contracts rendering their claims to the copyrights void, which is in turn further compounded by them suing people for allegedly infringing on said copyrights.

All in all it looks like a situation that should, by any reasonable standard bring them down to earth and stop the increasing extremity to which copyright law is being taken. But naturally I don't think it will for one second.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/artists-lawsuit-major-record-labels-are-the-real-pirates.ars

There are some games I never would have bought if I hadn't watched a LP video. The latest LP video I watched was Amnesia: The Dark Descent. I only watched the first couple of LP videos and I liked what I saw so I bought the game. I never would have bought the game if I hadn't watched an LP of it.

How do we kill this bill?