sfdebris
patreon
I would rather have the disease
🕑 Added 2020-12-21 22:48:33 +0000 UTCSo, the COVID bill has passed, including: a Teddy Roosevelt Library, the US policy regarding the reincarnation of the Dali Lama, instructions for the Smithsonian to build identity museums for women and Latinos, the usual stuff needed to fight disease and undo the economic hardships experienced by Americans. But one thing is a new criminalization of streaming complete with prison time.
This has been soft soaped as only directed towards criminal profiteers, but so far everything indicates that the typically overbroad language means that this applies to anyone who makes money in any way from streaming (because anyone who makes money can arguably be considered to be a commercial streamer). We don't have all the details of the bill, because as usual, no one in Congress reads the fucking things they pass. It was brought in on wheels because it's too heavy to carry. If AOC and Amash both call this bullshit, odds are pretty good it's bullshit.
I wanted to drop this to you now because I need to delve deeper into the issue. I may need to get a lawyer to look it over and advise me; I've lived with the possibility of being sued, but actual time in our overcrowded, broken prison system that, ironically, is flooded with COVID, I can't live with that kind of stress. I would sincerely rather have COVID, at least I would know where I stand and have a fighting chance.
So in the meantime, some of the things I had planned are on hold while I sort this out. I may have to go to the photo-only format like I do for the "discussing" videos. And the disappointing thing is I just acquired the high def versions of TNG and Enterprise, I'd even remade the TNG title sequence in brand new 1080p format (see attached) and was getting ready to do the same with Enterprise and to make a new TOS one. My new thing for the year was going to be doing the series in 1080p format, but it might be pointless if it just winds up being still images.
Like I said, just wanted to give you a heads up that, for the jillionth time, I may have to yank the wheel hard before we smash into something else.
Comments
Justme
It does say that it only applies to stuff not covered by Title 17, and that means Fair Use is still in play. It's going to make a lot more stuff trigger copyright algorithms though, so that's going to hit everybody. But hey, there's good news. If we - and our country - survives the next month, there's going to be a lot of changes in our EB, and a lot more responsiveness from our Democratic congresspeople because they'll have some hope they can get things done. And, there's a lot of rights organizations out there who are cranked up to act too. I know it's just more work, but at least there's potential paths to reversing bad legislation like this.
By all means consult a lawyer if you need the peace of mind, but if I may try to provide some myself: 1) "Streaming" is not used or defined in the actual amendment beyond the title of the amendment. This is the text of the only "prohibited act" (it's actually pretty short if you want to read the whole thing): "It shall be unlawful for a person to willfully, and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, offer or provide to the public a digital transmission service that...". But a "digital transmission service" is defined in the previous section as "a service that has the primary purpose of publicly performing works by digital transmission". You do not provide a "digital transmission service" to the public. This doesn't apply to your work at all, it seems to me, just potentially websites that host it. And even then only ones who primarily designed or marketed their site as a haven for copyright infringement or who have no other commercially significant purpose (as expressed in the language that immediately follows in the amendment). If you want I can PM you some sites I think would fit this - they literally exist just to index and/or host copyrighted content, and it's really obvious (there are also tons of them). 2) What you do is undeniably "fair use". The only reason your stuff gets flagged on YouTube is because they're a private actor free to use any standards they want to police content, and they face a lot of pressure from industry groups, so it's better to err on the side of caution. And it's just too expensive to set up a real appeals process - they don't want to operate their own court system. 3) Copyright infringement can already be a felony under 18 U.S. Code S2319, punishable by 5 years in prison, if you "willfully" (undefined) infringe any copyright for the "purposes of ... private financial gain". If they're going to pursue a bogus charge they can already do it.
