More internet bullshit.

Oh, cool. More reasons to send us to jail for using the internet.

From Techdirt:

Quote :

Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
from the not-understanding-the-technology dept

Okay, this is just getting ridiculous.

Yes, thank you.

Quote :

Supporters of this bill claim that all it's really doing is harmonizing US copyright law's civil and criminal sections. After all, the rights afforded under copyright law in civil cases cover a list of rights: reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works or perform the work. The rules for criminal infringement only cover reproducing and distributing -- but not performing. So, supporters claim, all this does is "harmonize" copyright law and bring the criminal side into line with the civil side by adding "performance rights" to the list of things.

If only it were that simple. But, of course, it's not. First of all, despite claims to the contrary, there's a damn good reason why Congress did not include performance rights as a criminal/felony issue: because who would have thought that it would be a criminal act to perform a work without permission?

The... what? Fuck's sakes.

Quote :

Furthermore, as we suspected, in the full text of the bill, "performance" is not clearly defined. This is the really troubling part.

"If the offense consists of... doing this... other thing... that's like... a thing... we think should be illegal because we don't like or understand it... something about copyrighted works... also performance. Don't do it 10 times."

Quote :

So yeah. If you embed a YouTube video that turns out to be infringing, and more than 10 people view it because of your link... you could be facing five years in jail. This is, of course, ridiculous, and suggests (yet again) politicians who are regulating a technology they simply do not understand.

Let's play a little game of "how this bill could fuck people over in ways lawmakers are too internet-illiterate to even conceive of".

Posting concert video you took? Illegal!
Posting video of buskers and street performers using copyrighted music in their acts? Illegal!
Posting video of your grandmother's 70th birthday with Katy Perry playing in the background? Illegal!
Posting video of cosplay masquerade skits that use music? Illegal!
95% of YTMNDs? Illegal!

Who needs taxpayers and constituents when you could just throw them all in jail for some of the most ludicrous non-violent crimes ever to be thought up by the entertainment industry? Mm. I love the smell of the police state in the morning.

These people really have no idea about the Internet works do they? I mean sure, they probably use e-mail, maybe Skype, and they have campaign websites. Maybe that makes them think they have a good grasp? But they clearly don't understand what it actually means.

I thought I'd be angrier, with the lack of common sense and obviously signs of internet illiteracy in these people. Or maybe it's because I'm so unbelievably enraged, I've just come full-circle.

How about, instead of a bill jailing people for embedding videos watched by a general public every fucking day, let's just get rid of the internet? It'll only set us back a couple of decades, but hey, at least we'd be done with Facebook and Twitter.

Who did these fuckers blow to get elected Senator?

TheIan wrote:

Who did these fuckers blow to get elected Senator?

Wallstreet, like everyone else.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

TheIan wrote:

Who did these fuckers blow to get elected Senator?

Wallstreet, like everyone else.

Once elected Senator, these people then request blowjobs from blowhards, and whoever does it the best gets their idiotic laws passed.

I agree that it's not really legal to go around posting copywrited work on the Internet but... isn't it kind of up to the performers and their companies to enforce that law?

What about programs that simply aren't showing in your country and yet haven't hit DVD for your region yet? Yes, they do exist.

I've never understood the objections to filming gigs. Surely it's free publicity for the band? It's not like you'd watch it on youtube instead of going to see a band.

Silly, silly people.

Hey, you. Weren't you on GAFF?

Me? Yes, yes I was.

Man. Now I'm just waiting for Loki and Charles RB to show up.

Filming live gigs that you need to pay to get into, and then people watching them later for free on You-Tube, is hardly a replacement for going to the gig personally. They seem to be forgetting that regardless of it being cheaper on You-Tube, the seats for such things are painfully limited.

Besides, you can watch many of these live gigs on TV if you've got the channel.

I love the MAFIAA. When you think copyright bills can't get any weirder...

cristina_chavia wrote:

I've never understood the objections to filming gigs. Surely it's free publicity for the band? It's not like you'd watch it on youtube instead of going to see a band.

Silly, silly people.

I don't get it either. Unless they're trying to sell a dvd of a performance, but even then I assume the quality of the picture/audio of most videos uploaded to youtube would make them a minor threat at worst.


I can see why it would be an issue for comedians, but not bands.

The only problem I can see for them is if the band's live performance sucks, and the fans see that before the tickets go on sale.

Raven wrote:

cristina_chavia wrote:

I've never understood the objections to filming gigs. Surely it's free publicity for the band? It's not like you'd watch it on youtube instead of going to see a band.

I don't get it either. Unless they're trying to sell a dvd of a performance, but even then I assume the quality of the picture/audio of most videos uploaded to youtube would make them a minor threat at worst.

The thing is that half the time, looking for a song on Youtube I get only live versions, because the actual songs get, well, censored, if you will (I get a lot of "this video contains content owned by ______ and is not available in your country"). It's the shaky videos recorded on a phone that I am graciously allowed to see.

Fuck you up the ass with a proxy, record companies.

grmblfjx wrote:

The thing is that half the time, looking for a song on Youtube I get only live versions, because the actual songs get, well, censored, if you will (I get a lot of "this video contains content owned by ______ and is not available in your country"). It's the shaky videos recorded on a phone that I am graciously allowed to see.

Every time that happens it makes me want to go and illegally download the song out of sheer spite.

grmblfjx wrote:

Raven wrote:

cristina_chavia wrote:

I've never understood the objections to filming gigs. Surely it's free publicity for the band? It's not like you'd watch it on youtube instead of going to see a band.

I don't get it either. Unless they're trying to sell a dvd of a performance, but even then I assume the quality of the picture/audio of most videos uploaded to youtube would make them a minor threat at worst.

The thing is that half the time, looking for a song on Youtube I get only live versions, because the actual songs get, well, censored, if you will (I get a lot of "this video contains content owned by ______ and is not available in your country"). It's the shaky videos recorded on a phone that I am graciously allowed to see.

Fuck you up the ass with a proxy, record companies.

I can understand objections to filming stuff at gigs because sometimes that can be disruptive. I mean, if I went to a concert I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to see a ton of little cellphone lights in the audience.

I'm with grmbl: personally, I don't like to watch shaky cellphone videos with awful sound quality. If I'm gonna watch live footage I'd rather watch something recorded professionally.

On topic:

cristina_chavia wrote:

I've never understood the objections to filming gigs. Surely it's free publicity for the band? It's not like you'd watch it on youtube instead of going to see a band.

Silly, silly people.

Because gigs are how bands make most of their money. DVD recordings of the gig? Merch, sold at said gig. Ever had a conversation with fans about who's a better "album/recording" band and who puts on better shows? Yeeeeaaah, the one with the better shows is probably making more money. Handicam shit on youtube not only spoils the show, but also eats up a portion of the gig's DVD sales.

Besides, when you're a mainstream band that's at least got one song annoying the crap out of people with radios once in a blue moon, it's not like you need the publicity. There's getting known at any cost, and then there's giving away what you can sell.

Malganis wrote:

I don't like to watch shaky cellphone videos with awful sound quality. If I'm gonna watch live footage I'd rather watch something recorded professionally.

Nooo, I don't want to see live at all. Except stand-up comedy. If we're talking about music, 99 times out of a hundred I don't want the live version, I want to hear the version that made me like song in the first place. Fuckers.

grmblfjx wrote:

Malganis wrote:

I don't like to watch shaky cellphone videos with awful sound quality. If I'm gonna watch live footage I'd rather watch something recorded professionally.

Nooo, I don't want to see live at all. Except stand-up comedy. If we're talking about music, 99 times out of a hundred I don't want the live version, I want to hear the version that made me like song in the first place. Fuckers.

But, a lot of bands are genuinely better live, or at least comparable. That being said, it's something of an affirmation knowing that they didn't just throw the album you love so much together clowning around in a studio. Knowing that it's actually performable.

Yeah, I get that. Maybe I'm just too OCD for that- live versions sound different, have different emphasis, people play around and get creative, and while I can respect that, I liked the song the way it was.

I know what you mean Grumbles. I don't like hearing live recordings either. The sound quality is often shit. When you're at the show, you don't notice those things, but when you're listening to it at home, you want the sound clear.

The last time I went to a concert, the music was so loud I couldn't hear the singing, and my ears went numb from the volume. I prefer the recorded version so I actually know what I'm hearing (and can adjust the volume).

That said, I like live performances in smaller venues where the music doesn't have to be so loud in order for people to hear it.

I like classical music better live, as well taiko drum performances. I normally prefer recordings though.

Lapin wrote:

I know what you mean Grumbles. I don't like hearing live recordings either. The sound quality is often shit. When you're at the show, you don't notice those things, but when you're listening to it at home, you want the sound clear.

Yeah, that's a good distiction. Actually hearing a band live is one thing, but not on youtube, please.

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

I like classical music better live, as well taiko drum performances. I normally prefer recordings though.

Yeah, taiko, I can see that. Anything drum-heavy has more atmosphere, live. These guys were fun to see, too:







(....aside from the getting-the-audience-to-go-HEYHEYHEY part. You can skip that. >.>)