Anti-Streaming Bill S.978 could jail individuals for streaming video-games.

Edit history:

ExplodingCabbage: 2011-06-30 10:19:33 am

2011-06-30 09:44:13 am

Hmm, I missed his post. I will reply to it and then post the reply here.

Edit: Okay, I replied.

Here is boogityboy's post, in reply to my original post:

Quote:

Okay so even by that definition, this website would already have members in jail for having posted many videos of upcoming games, such as this very thread right here: http://shoryuken.com/2011/06/29/skullgirls-gameplay-from-revelations-and-ect3/ showing off some skullgirls matches from the game which is being developed for commercial distribution and has not yet been released. Or how about every video posted on this site of street fighter X tekken and all the stream footage we’ve seen of that from recent tournaments.

What you are clarifying still puts this community in some trouble.

My reply to him was this:

You’re right of course that there are many cases in which people will have access to beta copies of prelease games and stream or upload videos of them. I didn’t really consider this when I wrote my previous post.

I still don’t think there is MUCH cause for alarm, for several reasons:

1) Despite what is suggested in the article, I highly doubt that streaming a video of a game would be considered to be a ‘public performance’ of the game. I think most people, including lawyers and judges, would agree that a game isn’t something you can ‘perform’, and that the provision in the law about ‘performances’ is supposed to apply both to live music and theatre and to one-time showings of prerecorded media like films, TV shows and studio-recorded music being streamed without a download option, but NOT to videos of one person’s experience of an interactive medium like a game.

I agree there is some potential to interpret a video of a game as a performance of the game, which is a little worrying, but I think for a court to choose such a perverse interpretation of the law would be unlikely.

2) Even if the definition of a performance DOES cover a video of someone playing a game, remember that under the terms of this bill you still need to be breaching copyright in order for a crime to be committed. You can’t be breaching copyright if you have permission from the copyright holder. Permission doesn’t have to be some kind of formal license or written contract; you just need to be able to convince a court that the copyright holder, or an agent thereof, gave you permission.

That means all it would take to ensure that streaming videos of any given pre-release game would be legal is for one person to ask an employee of the copyright-holding company on behalf of all players for permission to stream videos of their game, be granted that permission, and then quote them on the internet for all other streamers to see. This is a mild nuisance but most games companies communicate at least a bit with their fans and I expect you would always be able to get this kind of blanket permission from them.

3) I don’t know much about the system for initiating prosecutions in the United States, but presumably somebody would need to have your unauthorised streams brought to their attention and then make a decision to prosecute in order for anyone to get into any kind of trouble over this. I’m pretty sure your prosecutors have discretion and would not choose to prosecute a case of video game streaming where there is clearly no harm done, no loss incurred for the copyright holder and no public interest to be served by prosecution.

4) In the unlikely event that charges were brought against somebody for unauthorised streaming of video of a prerelease game, it would be big news. The gaming media would be talking about it, and the developers and publishers of the game in question would know about it. It would be terrible publicity for them to let the prosecution go ahead, and earn them the immediate and enduring hatred of many gamers, and equally they would sense the opportunity for a PR victory by coming to the defence of the streamer. So I would expect the games companies in such a case to speak out publicly and loudly in defence of the charged streamer in such a case. I highly doubt that any prosecutor would choose to continue to press charges in a copyright infringement case where the copyright holders were openly opposed to such charges being brought, or that any court would decline to throw out such charges at the first opportunity.

So in conclusion: you’re right that things aren’t quite as clear-cut when it comes to videos of pre-release games, but there’s almost certainly still nothing to worry about even in that case, and if you’re really paranoid you can just ask the game developers to give you permission to stream videos of the game, and you’ll be fine.

Hmm, I missed his post. I will reply to it and then post the reply here.

Edit: Okay, I replied.

Here is boogityboy's post, in reply to my original post:

[quote]Okay so even by that definition, this website would already have members in jail for having posted many videos of upcoming games, such as this very thread right here: http://shoryuken.com/2011/06/29/skullgirls-gameplay-from-revelations-and-ect3/ showing off some skullgirls matches from the game which is being developed for commercial distribution and has not yet been released. Or how about every video posted on this site of street fighter X tekken and all the stream footage we’ve seen of that from recent tournaments.

What you are clarifying still puts this community in some trouble.[/quote]

My reply to him was this:

You’re right of course that there are many cases in which people will have access to beta copies of prelease games and stream or upload videos of them. I didn’t really consider this when I wrote my previous post.

I still don’t think there is MUCH cause for alarm, for several reasons:

1) Despite what is suggested in the article, I highly doubt that streaming a video of a game would be considered to be a ‘public performance’ of the game. I think most people, including lawyers and judges, would agree that a game isn’t something you can ‘perform’, and that the provision in the law about ‘performances’ is supposed to apply both to live music and theatre and to one-time showings of prerecorded media like films, TV shows and studio-recorded music being streamed without a download option, but NOT to videos of one person’s experience of an interactive medium like a game.

I agree there is some potential to interpret a video of a game as a performance of the game, which is a little worrying, but I think for a court to choose such a perverse interpretation of the law would be unlikely.

2) Even if the definition of a performance DOES cover a video of someone playing a game, remember that under the terms of this bill you still need to be breaching copyright in order for a crime to be committed. You can’t be breaching copyright if you have permission from the copyright holder. Permission doesn’t have to be some kind of formal license or written contract; you just need to be able to convince a court that the copyright holder, or an agent thereof, gave you permission.

That means all it would take to ensure that streaming videos of any given pre-release game would be legal is for one person to ask an employee of the copyright-holding company on behalf of all players for permission to stream videos of their game, be granted that permission, and then quote them on the internet for all other streamers to see. This is a mild nuisance but most games companies communicate at least a bit with their fans and I expect you would always be able to get this kind of blanket permission from them.

3) I don’t know much about the system for initiating prosecutions in the United States, but presumably somebody would need to have your unauthorised streams brought to their attention and then make a decision to prosecute in order for anyone to get into any kind of trouble over this. I’m pretty sure your prosecutors have discretion and would not choose to prosecute a case of video game streaming where there is clearly no harm done, no loss incurred for the copyright holder and no public interest to be served by prosecution.

4) In the unlikely event that charges were brought against somebody for unauthorised streaming of video of a prerelease game, it would be big news. The gaming media would be talking about it, and the developers and publishers of the game in question would know about it. It would be terrible publicity for them to let the prosecution go ahead, and earn them the immediate and enduring hatred of many gamers, and equally they would sense the opportunity for a PR victory by coming to the defence of the streamer. So I would expect the games companies in such a case to speak out publicly and loudly in defence of the charged streamer in such a case. I highly doubt that any prosecutor would choose to continue to press charges in a copyright infringement case where the copyright holders were openly opposed to such charges being brought, or that any court would decline to throw out such charges at the first opportunity.

So in conclusion: you’re right that things aren’t quite as clear-cut when it comes to videos of pre-release games, but there’s almost certainly still nothing to worry about even in that case, and if you’re really paranoid you can just ask the game developers to give you permission to stream videos of the game, and you’ll be fine.

Koatl

Edit history:

Koatl: 2011-06-30 12:55:44 pm

Koatl: 2011-06-30 12:55:19 pm

Koatl: 2011-06-30 12:54:14 pm

2011-06-30 12:53:48 pm

Quote from Carcinogen:

Sorry brah, but that tells me absolutely nothing. I wanted to know what a good method of persuasion was, not how to contact a senator by copy-pasting an article through a super official-looking suggestion box that probably leads to a furnace on the other side.

I see.

@ExplodingCabbage: Thank you very much for your time spent reviewing this bill and writing your response. All this shit is way over my head in general, but what you write is pretty clear and makes sense to me.

If it's okay with you, I'm going to private message your response to UltraDavid and the SRK staff, so hopefully they can either clarify things over there and hopefully get some people to chill out. Of course, I will give full credit to you and include a link to show it was you who posted it.

@Everyone: It was not my intent to spread unwarranted fear by posting this, but maybe that's the effect I created anyway. For that, I apologize.

ExplodingCabbage

Edit history:

ExplodingCabbage: 2011-06-30 01:35:15 pm

2011-06-30 01:24:35 pm

Koatl: that's certainly okay with me. I'm just going to edit my post to take out the bit where I accuse UltraDavid of deliberate dishonesty, partly because after discussing this further with people I do think the whole thing is a little harder to understand than I first thought (though everything I wrote in my original post is still correct) and I'm no longer at all sure he was being dishonest, and partly because, well, he's more likely to be co-operative if I'm not accusing him of being a liar.

Edit: My original post is now edited.

Toothache

2011-06-30 01:28:35 pm

Let the music play!

I'm of the opinion after reading this bill there will be little to no impact. The proof of the pudding is whether a case actually goes to court. If and when that happens after this bill passes (if it passes at all), I would not be surprised the way the wording is actually not doing a thing to affect streaming in any way. I for one am not worried.

Chrno

2011-06-30 05:36:57 pm

WOW.

Quote from Kryal:

good luck extraditing me then.

This. Being British aint all bad!

ZenicReverie

2011-06-30 06:38:13 pm

Waiting hurts my soul...

It's sad that this could impact http://virtualapple.org/ and http://virtualnes.com/ and its ilk if this is made law.

Koatl

2011-06-30 11:41:28 pm

@ExplodingCabbage: UltraDavid responded, and it was posted on the headlines of SRK.

Here is the link: http://shoryuken.com/2011/06/30/tolling-the-stream-follow-up-ultradavid-responds/

Again, if anyone doesn't want to go to SRK, I'll post UltraDavid's response here. Also, I underlined a part that I found particularly interesting.

Quote from UltraDavid:

I’m really happy to see such a strong response to my article “Tolling the Stream” about Senate bill 978. If we’re going to do anything about the bill, we have to create as much public awareness of it as possible. Thanks for spreading the word!

As often happens in the law, though, some people have disagreed with or had questions about my interpretation of the law. That’s awesome, it means people are paying enough attention to this legislation that they’re engaging with the text itself.

So one of the biggest critiques of my interpretation, sent to me by Keith Winstein via email and also posted by ExplodingCabbage (no idea if it’s the same person) on Shoryuken.com and SpeedDemosArchive.com, is that this bill only applies to works that have not yet been released. WinCabbage (yeah that’s right) understands the bill to mean that if a work like a video game is already released and on the market, S.978 won’t apply to it. This got reposted on Reddit, check it out if you want.

Let’s go to the text of this bill (heads up, this might get dry heh): ding. It amends two existing sections of law, Section 2319 of Title 18 and Section 506 of Title 17. And you can see that reflected in the way the bill is laid out; under the bolded Section 1 you have (a), Amendments to Section 2319, and then several lines down under the same horizontal column you have (b), Amendments to Section 506. And they do different things.

WinCabbage’s critique refers to the changes in (b) for Section 506. He points out that this part of the bill just inserts the words “public performance” in 506(a)(1)(c) and again in 506(a)(3)(A) and 506(a)(3)(B). To understand what that means is almost like defining variables in a math problem, so let me put it together real fast:

“Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished… if the infringement was committed… by the distribution or public performance of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.”

If a movie, TV show, video game, song, and cetera hasn’t actually been released yet, and you know or should know that it’s unreleased but you stream or upload it anyway, you’re in trouble.

There’s nothing wrong with WinCabbage’s interpretation of the changes by S.978(b) to Section 506 at all, he’s totally right. This bill would make it illegal to perform unreleased copyrighted works. It’s just that he missed the entirety of S.978(a).

Section 2319 incorporates a different part of Section 506 not changed by the above, so to figure out what the full law will say here you have to insert variables into variables. After you do that, 2319 reads, in relevant part:

“Any person who commits an offense [for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain]… shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years… if the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180 day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works; and the total 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 the total fair market value of licenses to offer performances of those works would exceed $5,000.”

This is the part I was talking about in my original article, and I think my analysis of it still stands. And there’s not a word in this section limiting it only to unreleased anything.

While WinCabbage is right that S.978 would apply to unreleased works, it would very much also apply to works that have already been released. And really, when you think about it, his analysis doesn’t pass the smell test. Does it seem likely that the entertainment industry would lobby for and the government would consider passing a bill that only makes streaming unreleased material illegal? I mean what, they wanna jail you if you stream an advanced copy of the new Harry Potter movie before it comes out, but once it’s out, they say stream away and don’t worry about it? That doesn’t seem very plausible.

Another critique I’ve gotten is that I was wrong when I said that public performances have never been criminally illegal before. On my website Will Stout says, “You mention that copyright infringement has only ever been handled by civil law and that you can’t be sent to jail, but Section 2319 of Title 18 says that copyright infringement is punishable by jail time.”

This is a little simpler to debunk, since that’s not actually what I was saying. I said, “There’s never ever been a criminal penalty for an unlicensed performance of a copyrighted work.” Yes, infringement against other exclusive rights granted by copyright has been criminalized and punishable by jail for a long time, but the public performance right itself has not. So some people already go to jail for copying or distributing copyrighted works, but nobody’s ever gone to jail for just performing it. That’s the big new thing in Senate bill 978.

And now, a common question. I don’t make $2500 per half year streaming or uploading things, so am I safe from this bill? Answer: not necessarily. Remember the other clauses that detail other ways you can be implicated here: “The total economic value of such public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner would exceed $2,500,” and “The total fair market value of licenses to offer performances of those works would exceed $5,000.”

So if the copyright owner feels like your 10 or more streams or uploaded videos over the course of 180 days are worth more than $2,500, you’re boned. And it’s hard to know how much the fair market value of a license to stream tournament footage is because that kind of license is so very rarely granted by most companies, but it has a huge range. I know one video game company that sometimes licenses the public performance right for free, but I know another that has asked for orders of magnitude more than $5k. The copyright holder has a strong input on the boundaries of what is illegal here. If it’s able to ask a fair market price for a performance license of more than $5,000, then you’re breaking the law.

Another common question: what if I’m streaming for free and not trying to make any money, am I safe then? That depends. The bill would be built into a law that already applies only when an offense is committed “for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.” But what does that phrase mean?

Obviously people who are trying to make a business are implicated. People who are trying to support their hobby or charity etc by making money are also implicated, since the law doesn’t require profit, only that the purpose of the performance include financial gain of any kind. Even people who don’t necessarily intend to make money might be uploading, streaming, or embedding on a site that has advertisements, and the very presence of those ads could imply that the purpose of the performances is financial.

So here’s a scenario. You’re uploading replays to YouTube and then embedding them on your personal website, which has some small set of ads to help you recoup your expenses without making a profit. Over the course of 180 days you make at least 10 videos, and you make way less than $2,500 on your ads. But the copyright holder for the game you’re using would have been able to charge $5,001 for a license to legally upload the copyrighted audiovisual work in their game. Are you breaking the law? You bet.

I also just want to mention again that I’m not trying to be too alarmist here. I want to strike some kind of note between building a reasonable amount of appropriately directed opposition and causing a panic. I do not, repeat, do not think it’s likely that the government would spend much time pursuing game streams and videos that the copyright holders themselves tend to ignore. What this bill is really after are things like streaming live pay per view or uploading films to thousands of viewers.

The major issue for more reasonable people who want to stream or upload other kinds of copyrighted works is the uncertainty. Are you willing to risk jail time on the off chance that your Ocarina of Time walkthroughs draw the ire of the federal government? I mean, I’d definitely think twice. And as for more popular streamers, casters, and uploaders, are you still willing to try to make a business out of this or support your hobby? Would any sponsors be willing to back a streaming organization that at any time could (probably not, but could) get shut down for illegality? I think this bill could lead to a massive chilling effect at both the smaller individual levels and the larger more popular levels. Again, I would hate to see that happen.
Of course, this all goes away if the video game copyright holders grant us licenses, especially some kind of a blanket license or easily accessible and obtainable individual licenses. That would be rad, and maybe it would happen, it’s just never happened before.

Just after I finished writing this, I saw that Capcom corporate officer and senior vice president Christian Svensson responded to my initial article (which is awesome) with some good news. He says in part, “If this legislation comes to pass I’m sure we’ll figure out ways to support folks whose efforts and intentions have historically been helpful. Our community team will likely take center stage in facilitating those activities.” That’s great! He also agrees with me that he “[doesn't] believe the government is likely to take proactive action on criminal merits without the prompting of an IP holder.”

But he also notes that there have been times when Capcom’s interests have been hurt by streams and uploaders and that there may be some cases in which legal action is a possibility. And keep in mind that this is just one of dozens of video game copyright holders whose rights we regularly infringe. Who’s to say whether they’ll all be as good about working with the community as Capcom? Once again, it’s the uncertainty and the very steep penalties associated with it that make me most uneasy.

Anyway, thanks for paying attention. If nothing else, I’m happy to have helped gotten a conversation going about this bill. Please let me know if you have any more questions or comments! Believe me, I’ll ramble on about this as long as you’ll let me.

So it seems SDA would be safe, as there are no ads, but there is the problem with the charity marathons. Assuming UltraDavid is right. I'm not sure if he is, but I'm also not sure he isn't.

@ExplodingCabbage: UltraDavid responded, and it was posted on the headlines of SRK.

Here is the link: http://shoryuken.com/2011/06/30/tolling-the-stream-follow-up-ultradavid-responds/

Again, if anyone doesn't want to go to SRK, I'll post UltraDavid's response here. Also, I underlined a part that I found particularly interesting.

[quote="UltraDavid"]I’m really happy to see such a strong response to my article “Tolling the Stream” about Senate bill 978. If we’re going to do anything about the bill, we have to create as much public awareness of it as possible. Thanks for spreading the word!

As often happens in the law, though, some people have disagreed with or had questions about my interpretation of the law. That’s awesome, it means people are paying enough attention to this legislation that they’re engaging with the text itself.
 
So one of the biggest critiques of my interpretation, sent to me by Keith Winstein via email and also posted by ExplodingCabbage (no idea if it’s the same person) on Shoryuken.com and SpeedDemosArchive.com, is that this bill only applies to works that have not yet been released. WinCabbage (yeah that’s right) understands the bill to mean that if a work like a video game is already released and on the market, S.978 won’t apply to it. This got reposted on Reddit, check it out if you want.

Let’s go to the text of this bill (heads up, this might get dry heh): ding. It amends two existing sections of law, Section 2319 of Title 18 and Section 506 of Title 17. And you can see that reflected in the way the bill is laid out; under the bolded Section 1 you have (a), Amendments to Section 2319, and then several lines down under the same horizontal column you have (b), Amendments to Section 506. And they do different things.

WinCabbage’s critique refers to the changes in (b) for Section 506.  He points out that this part of the bill just inserts the words “public performance” in 506(a)(1)(c) and again in 506(a)(3)(A) and 506(a)(3)(B). To understand what that means is almost like defining variables in a math problem, so let me put it together real fast:

“Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished… if the infringement was committed… by the distribution or public performance of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.”

If a movie, TV show, video game, song, and cetera hasn’t actually been released yet, and you know or should know that it’s unreleased but you stream or upload it anyway, you’re in trouble.

There’s nothing wrong with WinCabbage’s interpretation of the changes by S.978(b) to Section 506 at all, he’s totally right. This bill would make it illegal to perform unreleased copyrighted works. It’s just that he missed the entirety of S.978(a).

Section 2319 incorporates a different part of Section 506 not changed by the above, so to figure out what the full law will say here you have to insert variables into variables. After you do that, 2319 reads, in relevant part:

“Any person who commits an offense [for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain]… shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years… if the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180 day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works; and the total 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 the total fair market value of licenses to offer performances of those works would exceed $5,000.”

This is the part I was talking about in my original article, and I think my analysis of it still stands. And there’s not a word in this section limiting it only to unreleased anything.

While WinCabbage is right that S.978 would apply to unreleased works, it would very much also apply to works that have already been released. And really, when you think about it, his analysis doesn’t pass the smell test. Does it seem likely that the entertainment industry would lobby for and the government would consider passing a bill that only makes streaming unreleased material illegal? I mean what, they wanna jail you if you stream an advanced copy of the new Harry Potter movie before it comes out, but once it’s out, they say stream away and don’t worry about it? That doesn’t seem very plausible.
 
Another critique I’ve gotten is that I was wrong when I said that public performances have never been criminally illegal before. On my website Will Stout says, “You mention that copyright infringement has only ever been handled by civil law and that you can’t be sent to jail, but Section 2319 of Title 18 says that copyright infringement is punishable by jail time.”

This is a little simpler to debunk, since that’s not actually what I was saying. I said, “There’s never ever been a criminal penalty for an unlicensed performance of a copyrighted work.” Yes, infringement against other exclusive rights granted by copyright has been criminalized and punishable by jail for a long time, but the public performance right itself has not. So some people already go to jail for copying or distributing copyrighted works, but nobody’s ever gone to jail for just performing it. That’s the big new thing in Senate bill 978.
 
And now, a common question. I don’t make $2500 per half year streaming or uploading things, so am I safe from this bill? Answer: not necessarily. Remember the other clauses that detail other ways you can be implicated here: “The total economic value of such public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner would exceed $2,500,” and “The total fair market value of licenses to offer performances of those works would exceed $5,000.”

So if the copyright owner feels like your 10 or more streams or uploaded videos over the course of 180 days are worth more than $2,500, you’re boned. And it’s hard to know how much the fair market value of a license to stream tournament footage is because that kind of license is so very rarely granted by most companies, but it has a huge range. I know one video game company that sometimes licenses the public performance right for free, but I know another that has asked for orders of magnitude more than $5k. The copyright holder has a strong input on the boundaries of what is illegal here. If it’s able to ask a fair market price for a performance license of more than $5,000, then you’re breaking the law.
 
[u]Another common question: what if I’m streaming for free and not trying to make any money, am I safe then? That depends. The bill would be built into a law that already applies only when an offense is committed “for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.” But what does that phrase mean?

Obviously people who are trying to make a business are implicated. People who are trying to support their hobby or charity etc by making money are also implicated, since the law doesn’t require profit, only that the purpose of the performance include financial gain of any kind.[/u] Even people who don’t necessarily intend to make money might be uploading, streaming, or embedding on a site that has advertisements, and the very presence of those ads could imply that the purpose of the performances is financial.

So here’s a scenario. You’re uploading replays to YouTube and then embedding them on your personal website, which has some small set of ads to help you recoup your expenses without making a profit. Over the course of 180 days you make at least 10 videos, and you make way less than $2,500 on your ads. But the copyright holder for the game you’re using would have been able to charge $5,001 for a license to legally upload the copyrighted audiovisual work in their game. Are you breaking the law? You bet.
 
I also just want to mention again that I’m not trying to be too alarmist here. I want to strike some kind of note between building a reasonable amount of appropriately directed opposition and causing a panic. I do not, repeat, do not think it’s likely that the government would spend much time pursuing game streams and videos that the copyright holders themselves tend to ignore. What this bill is really after are things like streaming live pay per view or uploading films to thousands of viewers.

The major issue for more reasonable people who want to stream or upload other kinds of copyrighted works is the uncertainty. Are you willing to risk jail time on the off chance that your Ocarina of Time walkthroughs draw the ire of the federal government? I mean, I’d definitely think twice. And as for more popular streamers, casters, and uploaders, are you still willing to try to make a business out of this or support your hobby? Would any sponsors be willing to back a streaming organization that at any time could (probably not, but could) get shut down for illegality? I think this bill could lead to a massive chilling effect at both the smaller individual levels and the larger more popular levels. Again, I would hate to see that happen.
Of course, this all goes away if the video game copyright holders grant us licenses, especially some kind of a blanket license or easily accessible and obtainable individual licenses. That would be rad, and maybe it would happen, it’s just never happened before.

Just after I finished writing this, I saw that Capcom corporate officer and senior vice president Christian Svensson responded to my initial article (which is awesome) with some good news. He says in part, “If this legislation comes to pass I’m sure we’ll figure out ways to support folks whose efforts and intentions have historically been helpful. Our community team will likely take center stage in facilitating those activities.” That’s great! He also agrees with me that he “[doesn't] believe the government is likely to take proactive action on criminal merits without the prompting of an IP holder.”

But he also notes that there have been times when Capcom’s interests have been hurt by streams and uploaders and that there may be some cases in which legal action is a possibility. And keep in mind that this is just one of dozens of video game copyright holders whose rights we regularly infringe. Who’s to say whether they’ll all be as good about working with the community as Capcom? Once again, it’s the uncertainty and the very steep penalties associated with it that make me most uneasy.
 
Anyway, thanks for paying attention. If nothing else, I’m happy to have helped gotten a conversation going about this bill. Please let me know if you have any more questions or comments! Believe me, I’ll ramble on about this as long as you’ll let me.[/quote]

So it seems SDA would be safe, as there are no ads, but there is the problem with the charity marathons. Assuming UltraDavid is right. I'm not sure if he is, but I'm also not sure he isn't.

ZenicReverie

2011-07-01 01:27:11 am

Waiting hurts my soul...

Okay, so I read through all that legal mumbo jumbo because I was tired of being told what to think about this, and I've come to conclusion that it doesn't affect my streams (so long as justin.tv doesn't start giving me ad revenue). I'm tired though, so I may have misread something.

Public performances is only applied to 506 of Title 17 subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (3) and subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1). (1)(C) is as EC pointed out, only for unreleased works. (3)(A) further defines the term “work being prepared for commercial distribution” (3)(B) only applies to movies.

In Section 2319 of Title 18 we change some terms by adding ‘public performance’ to the list of rights a copyright owner has and adding clauses (4) and (6) to the already existing (1) and (3) listed in Section 106 that apply to Section 2319.

For ease here they are:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
~~(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;~~
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Sounds like (4) might be cause for concern, and possibly (2) and (5) if they're ever added, but it's not the case yet. But, what it means to perform a video game has yet to be defined.

The new part that has all the nasty sounding consequences, and includes the term public performance only currently applies to: (b) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1)(A) of title 17— "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; "

So, if you're doing the streaming for commercial advantage or private financial gain, then you are going to be hurt by this if you don't have copyright owner permission. Last I checked, non-profit charitable organizations don't count as private financial gain. Commercial advantage will probably never be a reason unless you or the company you work for are producing a competing product.

So, there are implications, but the main limiter here seems to be "private financial gain." (3) the term “financial gain” has the meaning given the term in section 101 of title 17;
'The term “financial gain” includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.'

So, in my humble (layman [note that I'm not a lawyer, nor am I certified to give legal advice]) opinion, so long as you're receiving nothing of worth, through donations, ad revenue, or what have you that someone can place a value on, then you have nothing to worry about for now.

However, if you want someone to be able to send you a game because you're streaming the first in a series and they really want you to continue with it, then you should fight this bill. How to fight it I'll leave it up to those who wish to.

Oh, and I didn't bother going through the limiting conditions of copyright, but if you feel like it here's a link (starts at 107 and goes until 122): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html

Okay, so I read through all that legal mumbo jumbo because I was tired of being told what to think about this, and I've come to conclusion that it doesn't affect my streams (so long as justin.tv doesn't start giving me ad revenue). I'm tired though, so I may have misread something.

Public performances is only applied to 506 of Title 17 subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (3) and subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1). (1)(C) is as EC pointed out, only for unreleased works. (3)(A) further defines the term “work being prepared for commercial distribution” (3)(B) only applies to movies.

In Section 2319 of Title 18 we change some terms by adding ‘public performance’ to the list of rights a copyright owner has and adding clauses (4) and (6) to the already existing (1) and (3) listed in Section 106 that apply to Section 2319.

For ease here they are:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
[s](2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;[/s]
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
[s](5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and[/s]
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Sounds like (4) might be cause for concern, and possibly (2) and (5) if they're ever added, but it's not the case yet. But, what it means to perform a video game has yet to be defined.

The new part that has all the nasty sounding consequences, and includes the term public performance only currently applies to: (b) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1)(A) of title 17— "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; "

So, if you're doing the streaming for commercial advantage or private financial gain, then you are going to be hurt by this if you don't have copyright owner permission. Last I checked, non-profit charitable organizations don't count as private financial gain. Commercial advantage will probably never be a reason unless you or the company you work for are producing a competing product.

So, there are implications, but the main limiter here seems to be "private financial gain." (3) the term “financial gain” has the meaning given the term in section 101 of title 17;
'The term “financial gain” includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.'

So, in my humble (layman [note that I'm not a lawyer, nor am I certified to give legal advice]) opinion, so long as you're receiving nothing of worth, through donations, ad revenue, or what have you that someone can place a value on, then you have nothing to worry about for now.

However, if you want someone to be able to send you a game because you're streaming the first in a series and they really want you to continue with it, then you should fight this bill. How to fight it I'll leave it up to those who wish to.

Oh, and I didn't bother going through the limiting conditions of copyright, but if you feel like it here's a link (starts at 107 and goes until 122): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html

Paraxade

2011-07-01 01:29:02 am

If I'm understanding this right then this would affect speedrun bounties too. Other than that and the marathon, though, it doesn't sound like this would have TOO much of an impact on SDA. But hopefully it won't pass so it'll have no impact. :/

ExplodingCabbage

Edit history:

ExplodingCabbage: 2011-07-01 03:36:43 am

2011-07-01 03:26:17 am

Zenic - you're correct that

Quote:

The new part that has all the nasty sounding consequences, and includes the term public performance only currently applies to: (b) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1)(A) of title 17— "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; "

but you fail (I think) to note something important: any breach of 506 (a)(1)(A) is already punishable by a year's imprisonment. All this bill would be is increase the maximum available sentence to 5 years for certain specific breaches of 506 (a)(1)(A), and even in those cases I doubt any court would ever impose more than 1 year maximum for a video game streamer. (In fact I doubt a court would impose a custodial sentence at all, but that's besides the point if we're discussing only the impact of this bill.)

I replied to UltraDavid's new article on his personal website here, where I first saw it: http://www.dpgatlaw.com/news/2011/6/30/response-to-responses-to-tolling-the-stream.html

Then he deleted my comment.

So I replied here: http://shoryuken.com/2011/06/30/tolling-the-stream-follow-up-ultradavid-responds/#comment-14808

This was my reply:

As I already explained in my post on SDA and in my further comments on your previous shoryuken article, S.978(a) is basically irrelevant to the question of whether streaming would be criminalised because it doesn’t create any new offences. All it does is introduce a new penalty of up to 5 years that can be applied for particular breaches of 506(a)(1)(A) (more precisely, those consisting of 10 or more performances whose retail value is over $2500 or for which the cost of licenses would have been over $5000). But ALL BREACHES OF 506(a)(1)(A) ARE IMPRISONABLE ALREADY. 2319(b)(3) permits a sentence of up to a year’s imprisonment for ANY violation of 506(a)(1)(A).

In response to your scenario of the YouTube uploader being prosecuted, two points. Firstly it all depends on whether videos of games are a breach of copyright or not. You talk as though it has been established as fact that they are, but it seems perverse to me to suggest that they would be, since a video of a game is not a copy of the game, in whole or in part. And I don’t know of any case law indicating that videos of games are a breach of copyright.

But let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that they ARE a breach of copyright. Let’s consider a scenario that is ALREADY possible, and will remain possible if the bill doesn’t pass.

So here’s a scenario. You’re uploading replays to YouTube and then embedding them on your personal website, which has some small set of ads to help you recoup your expenses without making a profit. Over the course of several years, you make at least 1 video, and you make way less than $5 on your ads. The copyright holder for the game you’re using would have been able to charge $10 for a license to legally upload the copyrighted audiovisual work in their game. Are you breaking the law? You bet. And you could be sent to prison for up to a year.

You see? The potential issue with streaming for profit being criminal ALREADY EXISTS. It has NOTHING to do with this bill because the bill will not introduce ANY NEW OFFENCES except for those relating to pre-release games. You are seriously and embarassingly misleading hundreds of people by continuing to suggest otherwise.

So let’s recap on the entire impact of this bill on game streaming.

Firstly, if streaming a video game doesn’t count as a breach of the game’s copyright, you’re fine and nothing in the bill, or indeed in any existing law, can touch you. Whether it counts or not is unclear to me, but maybe someone more knowledgabe can provide evidence or argument one way or another.

Assuming it DOES count (the worst case scenario), there are two consequences of this bill.

Firstly, 978(a) would mean that the maximum sentence available to be imposed on streamers who are making at least a significant amount of money would INCREASE from 1 year’s imprisonment to 5 years’. Since the old 1 year maximum would almost certainly never have been appropriate for a video game streamer in the first place, and since you will be no more likely to be prosecuted for streaming games after this bill passes than before, essentially this will not affect you in any way whatsoever and you can ignore it.

Secondly, 978(b) would introduce a new offence of unauthorised streaming of videos of PRERELEASE games, even if this was not done for profit. If you wanted to be incredibly scrupulous about ensuring you were on the right side of the law with regards to this, you would be wise to ask someone from the dev team for the game for permission before streaming, or try to get them to publicly grant a blanket permission to all streamers. But if you don’t, then whilst you’ll technically be breaching the law, there’s no way anyone would waste time prosecuting you.

And that’s all.

By the way UltraDavid I don’t appreciate you deleting my comment (which was along the same lines as this one) on the copy of this article that you posted on your site, http://www.dpgatlaw.com/news/2011/6/30/response-to-responses-to-tolling-the-stream.html. You pretend to call for open discussion on the one hand, but on the other you delete a comment on your site pointing out your errors to avoid embarassment. Shame on you for the hypocrisy.

Zenic - you're correct that

[quote]The new part that has all the nasty sounding consequences, and includes the term public performance only currently applies to: (b) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1)(A) of title 17— "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; "[/quote]

but you fail (I think) to note something important: any breach of 506 (a)(1)(A) is already punishable by a year's imprisonment. All this bill would be is increase the maximum available sentence to 5 years for certain specific breaches of 506 (a)(1)(A), and even in those cases I doubt any court would ever impose more than 1 year maximum for a video game streamer. (In fact I doubt a court would impose a custodial sentence at all, but that's besides the point if we're discussing only the impact of this bill.)

I replied to UltraDavid's new article on his personal website here, where I first saw it: http://www.dpgatlaw.com/news/2011/6/30/response-to-responses-to-tolling-the-stream.html

Then he deleted my comment.

So I replied here: http://shoryuken.com/2011/06/30/tolling-the-stream-follow-up-ultradavid-responds/#comment-14808

This was my reply:

As I already explained in my post on SDA and in my further comments on your previous shoryuken article, S.978(a) is basically irrelevant to the question of whether streaming would be criminalised because it doesn’t create any new offences. All it does is introduce a new penalty of up to 5 years that can be applied for particular breaches of 506(a)(1)(A) (more precisely, those consisting of 10 or more performances whose retail value is over $2500 or for which the cost of licenses would have been over $5000). But ALL BREACHES OF 506(a)(1)(A) ARE IMPRISONABLE ALREADY. 2319(b)(3) permits a sentence of up to a year’s imprisonment for ANY violation of 506(a)(1)(A).

In response to your scenario of the YouTube uploader being prosecuted, two points. Firstly it all depends on whether videos of games are a breach of copyright or not. You talk as though it has been established as fact that they are, but it seems perverse to me to suggest that they would be, since a video of a game is not a copy of the game, in whole or in part. And I don’t know of any case law indicating that videos of games are a breach of copyright.

But let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that they ARE a breach of copyright. Let’s consider a scenario that is ALREADY possible, and will remain possible if the bill doesn’t pass.

So here’s a scenario. You’re uploading replays to YouTube and then embedding them on your personal website, which has some small set of ads to help you recoup your expenses without making a profit. Over the course of several years, you make at least 1 video, and you make way less than $5 on your ads. The copyright holder for the game you’re using would have been able to charge $10 for a license to legally upload the copyrighted audiovisual work in their game. Are you breaking the law? You bet. And you could be sent to prison for up to a year.

You see? The potential issue with streaming for profit being criminal ALREADY EXISTS. It has NOTHING to do with this bill because the bill will not introduce ANY NEW OFFENCES except for those relating to pre-release games. You are seriously and embarassingly misleading hundreds of people by continuing to suggest otherwise.

So let’s recap on the entire impact of this bill on game streaming.

Firstly, if streaming a video game doesn’t count as a breach of the game’s copyright, you’re fine and nothing in the bill, or indeed in any existing law, can touch you. Whether it counts or not is unclear to me, but maybe someone more knowledgabe can provide evidence or argument one way or another.

Assuming it DOES count (the worst case scenario), there are two consequences of this bill.

Firstly, 978(a) would mean that the maximum sentence available to be imposed on streamers who are making at least a significant amount of money would INCREASE from 1 year’s imprisonment to 5 years’. Since the old 1 year maximum would almost certainly never have been appropriate for a video game streamer in the first place, and since you will be no more likely to be prosecuted for streaming games after this bill passes than before, essentially this will not affect you in any way whatsoever and you can ignore it.

Secondly, 978(b) would introduce a new offence of unauthorised streaming of videos of PRERELEASE games, even if this was not done for profit. If you wanted to be incredibly scrupulous about ensuring you were on the right side of the law with regards to this, you would be wise to ask someone from the dev team for the game for permission before streaming, or try to get them to publicly grant a blanket permission to all streamers. But if you don’t, then whilst you’ll technically be breaching the law, there’s no way anyone would waste time prosecuting you.

And that’s all.

By the way UltraDavid I don’t appreciate you deleting my comment (which was along the same lines as this one) on the copy of this article that you posted on your site, http://www.dpgatlaw.com/news/2011/6/30/response-to-responses-to-tolling-the-stream.html. You pretend to call for open discussion on the one hand, but on the other you delete a comment on your site pointing out your errors to avoid embarassment. Shame on you for the hypocrisy.

andrewg

2011-07-01 10:08:30 am

Maybe UltraDavid streams TV shows and Movies often... heh

ZenicReverie

2011-07-01 10:17:25 am

Waiting hurts my soul...

I was just commenting on what the bill adds. I agree that there is already a possible 1 year punishment. But, now things get more severe and easier to prosecute due to the new clear cut definition of retail value of $2,500+ or if obtaining a license to stream would cost $5,000+. So, if you're receiving anything you can already possibly be charged for 1 year, but now if you're making over $2,500, then you can now possibly get 5 years. I say possibly because no one (to my knowledge) has been charged with copyright violation a taken to court for posting or streaming a video game. The 1 or 5 year is the maximum as well, so someone can get less, especially for minor infractions.

I honestly don't think it'll happen because it's not worth the bad press to take someone into open court to sue them for playing a game. It's free advertising for the game as well, so it really isn't a bad thing. I know some Youtube videos receive cease and desist orders every now and then, and Youtube will enforce them if you don't take down the videos willingly, which will prevent this particular scenario from ever going to court. Youtube doesn't want to risk it, but I still don't think it's worth it to the company because court costs a lot; on the other hand, cease and desist letters (or DMCA claims) are relatively inexpensive, and usually get the job done.

We really won't know more until precedent is set in court to determine if streaming a game or recording a video of personal play is considered copyright violation. It's been said by a few people that this is a personal creation and changes the work enough to make it a new piece of work copyright to the creator of the video/stream; however, in less places there are those who say a video of a game is merely a derivative of the work, and the copyright to the video is still owned by the game's copyright holder.

I was just commenting on what the bill adds. I agree that there is already a possible 1 year punishment. But, now things get more severe and easier to prosecute due to the new clear cut definition of retail value of $2,500+ or if obtaining a license to stream would cost $5,000+. So, if you're receiving anything you can already possibly be charged for 1 year, but now if you're making over $2,500, then you can now possibly get 5 years. I say possibly because no one (to my knowledge) has been charged with copyright violation a taken to court for posting or streaming a video game. The 1 or 5 year is the maximum as well, so someone can get less, especially for minor infractions.

I honestly don't think it'll happen because it's not worth the bad press to take someone into open court to sue them for playing a game. It's free advertising for the game as well, so it really isn't a bad thing. I know some Youtube videos receive cease and desist orders every now and then, and Youtube will enforce them if you don't take down the videos willingly, which will prevent this particular scenario from ever going to court. Youtube doesn't want to risk it, but I still don't think it's worth it to the company because court costs a lot; on the other hand, cease and desist letters (or DMCA claims) are relatively inexpensive, and usually get the job done.

We really won't know more until precedent is set in court to determine if streaming a game or recording a video of personal play is considered copyright violation. It's been said by a few people that this is a personal creation and changes the work enough to make it a new piece of work copyright to the creator of the video/stream; however, in less places there are those who say a video of a game is merely a derivative of the work, and the copyright to the video is still owned by the game's copyright holder.

HTL2001

2011-07-02 09:18:20 am

I notice a bunch of people are saying as long as you don't make money its fine. This is not the case, the bill is intended to go after people streaming movies/tv on streaming sites, along with other intended uses. But using that as an example, the streamer is not MAKING money but is causing DAMAGES to a certain amount

While most videogaming streaming would probably not get you CONVICTED, this law could certainly be used to harass uploaders who show bugs / publish bad reviews etc. Imagine how much you could claim you lost from a bad review!

ZenicReverie

2011-07-02 09:44:47 am

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from HTL2001:

I notice a bunch of people are saying as long as you don't make money its fine. This is not the case, the bill is intended to go after people streaming movies/tv on streaming sites, along with other intended uses. But using that as an example, the streamer is not MAKING money but is causing DAMAGES to a certain amount

While most videogaming streaming would probably not get you CONVICTED, this law could certainly be used to harass uploaders who show bugs / publish bad reviews etc. Imagine how much you could claim you lost from a bad review!

I think you're overreacting. Reviews are protected, and copyright material can be used in them to illustrate points so long as the majority of the context isn't given away. Unless Youtube overreacts as well, those will be untouched.

Worst case scenario is since YouTube and other service sites are the ones profiting the most, they'll be the ones sued. I would hope game companies learned from the backlash the RIAA received and not go after individuals that really aren't gaining much of anything from promoting their games. Of course, that still means losing the ability to stream games, but again, the current law already says they can bring 1 year of jail time (for each charge), and that hasn't happened to my knowledge. Do you really think game companies are going to start now just because the maximum jail time is now 5 years?

[quote="HTL2001"]I notice a bunch of people are saying as long as you don't make money its fine.  This is not the case, the bill is intended to go after people streaming movies/tv on streaming sites, along with other intended uses.  But using that as an example, the streamer is not MAKING money but is causing DAMAGES to a certain amount

While most videogaming streaming would probably not get you CONVICTED, this law could certainly be used to harass uploaders who show bugs / publish bad reviews etc.  Imagine how much you could claim you lost from a bad review![/quote]
I think you're overreacting. Reviews are protected, and copyright material can be used in them to illustrate points so long as the majority of the context isn't given away. Unless Youtube overreacts as well, those will be untouched.

Worst case scenario is since YouTube and other service sites are the ones profiting the most, they'll be the ones sued. I would hope game companies learned from the backlash the RIAA received and not go after individuals that really aren't gaining much of anything from promoting their games. Of course, that still means losing the ability to stream games, but again, the current law already says they can bring 1 year of jail time (for each charge), and that hasn't happened to my knowledge. Do you really think game companies are going to start now just because the maximum jail time is now 5 years?

Anonymous52555

2011-07-02 01:04:18 pm

Metroidvanias are God Tier

Oh no SDA is worried about this too.

First I can guarantee that this won't pass. Just because of how the US government works. Not to mention everyone on the internet is freaking out about it and calling their senators and representatives. Not to mention if it does pass this will be the most vague bill in history that has passed the US government.

Second, We have Fair Use. This let's us do the stuff that you guys think will get taken away.

So if this bill chances, which I am 99% sure it won't, You can still stream games, and if you get in trouble, take it to court.

HTL2001

2011-07-02 01:53:55 pm

Quote from ZenicReverie:

I think you're overreacting. Reviews are protected, and copyright material can be used in them to illustrate points so long as the majority of the context isn't given away. Unless Youtube overreacts as well, those will be untouched.

Quote from Anonymous52555:

Second, We have Fair Use. This let's us do the stuff that you guys think will get taken away.

I do hope that I am overreacting. But this wouldn't be the first law that messed with fair use (DMCA and backup/new format copying)

Like I said, people wouldn't actually go to jail in the cases I pointed out, but they could be harassed by threats of applying this law to them to coerce them into taking the material down anyway.

level70steve

Edit history:

level70steve: 2011-07-02 02:04:28 pm

2011-07-02 02:02:40 pm

My controller is yours.

Okay, does this have any impact on Fair Use copyright laws in 17 U.S.C. section 107?! This bill would create confusion as to which law has to be followed.

Anonymous52555

2011-07-02 03:25:24 pm

Metroidvanias are God Tier

From My understanding when you play a game you are adding your own creative aspect to it. Like when you make something in Paint, does microsoft own that? No you do. So don't you own your own speedrun of your game? Yes so this will not effect gaming at all. What this law is meant to do is prevent straight up streaming and posting videos of copyrighted material that you have not added any creative aspect to. Like just straight up uploading Green Lantern to the internet.

DJS

2011-07-02 03:37:59 pm

torch slug since 2006

I dont have the energy to read a book, is this law only for US or everywhere?
Im guessing it would be everywhere

Anonymous52555

Edit history:

Anonymous52555: 2011-07-02 03:40:10 pm

2011-07-02 03:39:46 pm

Metroidvanias are God Tier

Bill S.978 is Just the US
Fair Use is Everywhere

DJS

2011-07-02 03:41:24 pm

torch slug since 2006

Sweet

ZenicReverie

2011-07-02 03:49:17 pm

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from DoC `:

Okay, does this have any impact on Fair Use copyright laws in 17 U.S.C. section 107?! This bill would create confusion as to which law has to be followed.

section 107 - 122 continues to limit the reach of copyright; as long as you can claim something from these laws you have a good chance of defending yourself should it come to that.

tomatobob

2011-07-02 03:55:46 pm

You still have to prove what you were doing falls under Fair Use, though, and any publisher who gives enough of a shit to even bother with this is going to have a better legal team than you. Also more money which probably matters more.

Of course this all depends on publishers caring about streams enough to go after people in the first place, and I really don't see them suddenly caring because of this.

Anonymous52555

2011-07-02 04:04:24 pm

Metroidvanias are God Tier

You make it sound like our government is corrupt. Even if they have a better legal team, Just certain obvious things can make you win a case.

However if the creator of the copyrighted material wants something taken down, it will be taken down. Can't stop that. However with gaming that rarely happens

thwak

2011-07-02 04:21:59 pm

Quote from tomatobob:

You still have to prove what you were doing falls under Fair Use, though, and any publisher who gives enough of a shit to even bother with this is going to have a better legal team than you. Also more money which probably matters more.

Of course this all depends on publishers caring about streams enough to go after people in the first place, and I really don't see them suddenly caring because of this.

So just make sure you don't stream games made by rock star, got it.

As far as this law goes, I hope it's rewritten to be more specific but it doesn't worry me as much as other high profile bills. This law is basically just to stop people from streaming PPVs and movies online. I highly doubt law enforcement is going to go after SDA streaming trio the punch for charity.