Think this would affect SpursTalk?

[GSH]

If this gets passed, there won't be anything to discuss but old posts by KBP. It's tempting to throw in a political commentary, but all I will say is that these are the same people pushing for "net neutrality".

Embedding YouTube Videos May Soon Be a Felony

"Techdirt reports that Senate bill 978 – a bill to amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes – may be used to prosecute people for embedding YouTube videos."

The rest of the story is here - http://www.infowars.com/embedding-youtube-videos-may-soon-be-a-felony/


Before you start the comments that this has nothing to do with the Spurs or SpursTalk, read the whole article and the text of the bill. Sites like this would be a thing of the past. Just linking to articles from other sources would bring criminal charges. And it's not just embedding videos, but linking to them as well. Just imagine this site without the ability to link to articles, or embed videos.

Whether the Senate bill passes or not, they are trying to do the same things with regulation through the FCC. Now might be a good time to call your senator. And to flip off rags like the Express-Snooze while you're at it. You never know what you had till it's gone.

[IronMaxipad]

infowars.....

[GSH]

infowars.....

I guess that means you're attacking the source? Then you might as well attack this one - it comes straight from the U.S. Senate:


To amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
May 12, 2011
A BILL

To amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT.
(a) Amendments to Section 2319 of Title 18- Section 2319 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)-- ...
(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, fined in the amount set forth in this title

Basically, if you embed a Youtube video, and it gets viewed more than 10 times, the owner(s) of the website can be put in jail for up to 5 years. The same goes for links to articles from places like ESPN or the Express Snooze. You can snark at me or at the source of the article all you want. I hope you enjoy the leaner, meaner SpursTalk, if it passes.

[GabeIsGone]

Doesnt this just have to do with linking/embedding without compensation?

If so this may not be as big a deal as it seems. I know youtube is developing software that identifies copyrighted material used in their videos and would compensate the copyright holder appropriately, probably a % of add revenue from the page.

I can see other data streaming services and information centers adopting similar ways to compensate the copyright holders, allowing for continued linking/embedding.

If this has to do with all linking/embedding then ignore what I just said.

Edit: and there is plenty of stuff not under any copyright on youtube or the internet that will not be affected in the slightest.

[lil'mo]

kori and timvp should just fork out the dough so we can keep embedding yotube vids

[GSH]

Doesnt this just have to do with linking/embedding without compensation?

If so this may not be as big a deal as it seems. I know youtube is developing software that identifies copyrighted material used in their videos and would compensate the copyright holder appropriately, probably a % of add revenue from the page.

I can see other data streaming services and information centers adopting similar ways to compensate the copyright holders, allowing for continued linking/embedding.

If this has to do with all linking/embedding then ignore what I just said.

Edit: and there is plenty of stuff not under any copyright on youtube or the internet that will not be affected in the slightest.

The way I understand it

1. If someone embeds a video, and
2. That video gets viewed 10 or more times, and
3. The value of the material to the infringer or the copyright owner is greater than $2,500

the website owner can go to jail for up to 5 years.


What's important is that the website owner never has to make a dime off of it. So sites that don't charge or sell advertising would not be immune. As long as the owner of the source material can convince a court that it was worth at least $2,500 to them, the site that published it is in violation.

It also looks like links would count the same as publishing the actual material. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that's a killer.

If I didn't think it was real, I wouldn't have bothered everyone here with it. This is real legislation. And if it passes, it very well could (and would) kill sites like this. I know that there is a lot of stuff not under copyright. But look at how many stories and videos get embedded and linked to when discussing the Spurs, and basketball in general. All that would have to go away.

[IronMaxipad]

Not saying that it isn't true. But infowars is the same site that said the US Government has had bin laden's cryogenically frozen body for years.. :lmao

[Seventyniner]

So instead of links, we would just have to put a URL with the "h" in "http" taken out, for example? Like this: ttp://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=180843

Then users would have to manually reinsert the h, copy and paste the fixed URL into their browser bar, and navigate directly to the site.

I wonder if this has to do with Google wanting more direct hits to youtube.com, thereby charging advertisers more money?

[GSH]

Not saying that it isn't true. But infowars is the same site that said the US Government has had bin laden's cryogenically frozen body for years.. :lmao


Don't know... don't really give a shit. The bill itself is on a US government website. If you think they somehow faked that, then you need to take off your own tin foil hat. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-978

You can't discredit the news just because some lunatic linked to it. But you might ask yourself why the more "reputable" news sources didn't mention it. If this thing gets passed, I'm sure they will tell you everything you need to know - about everything.

Like I said... enjoy the leaner, meaner SpursTalk.

[Kori Ellis]

Well currently, YouTube provides that ability to embed their videos. They can easily just stop that capability, then the videos just wouldn't work on SpursTalk. But that's on YouTube to do.

As for linking to other sites being a criminal charge, that would never be the case. Sites want you to link to them. That's how they get traffic (and thus ad dollars).

However, copying full articles from a website is already illegal -- it's copyright infringement.

[Blake]

I guess that means you're attacking the source? Then you might as well attack this one - it comes straight from the U.S. Senate:


To amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
May 12, 2011
A BILL

To amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT.
(a) Amendments to Section 2319 of Title 18- Section 2319 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)-- ...
(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, fined in the amount set forth in this title

Basically, if you embed a Youtube video, and it gets viewed more than 10 times, the owner(s) of the website can be put in jail for up to 5 years. The same goes for links to articles from places like ESPN or the Express Snooze. You can snark at me or at the source of the article all you want. I hope you enjoy the leaner, meaner SpursTalk, if it passes.

where are you getting the "more than 10 times" from?

how many years in jail can someone be put in for if it's viewed 9 times?

[GSH]

where are you getting the "more than 10 times" from?

how many years in jail can someone be put in for if it's viewed 9 times?

Sometimes it's hard to tell when someone is being serious, and when they are just trying to be a dick. I'll give you the benefit of a doubt.

The "10 times" language is in the bill. The links are in the article - I didn't re-print the whole thing. I don't know how they came up with it. That's just what politicians do.
(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


You guys can joke about this all you want, but it's serious shit. All the great articles that people post and link to. All of the videos that show our favorite plays, or that give us something to laugh about. Nobody will be going to jail over things like that, except for a few that they use as examples. But all that stuff will go away. And 90% of the information you get about the Spurs will come from the local snoozepaper, or whatever you can dig up on your own.

[GSH]

Well currently, YouTube provides that ability to embed their videos. They can easily just stop that capability, then the videos just wouldn't work on SpursTalk. But that's on YouTube to do.

As for linking to other sites being a criminal charge, that would never be the case. Sites want you to link to them. That's how they get traffic (and thus ad dollars).

However, copying full articles from a website is already illegal -- it's copyright infringement.


Kori - that's what I thought, too. But it's not the way this thing appears to be shaking out. What I understand is that it is designed to shut down sites like Drudge, who do nothing but provide links. I know it sounds like something that they couldn't get away with, but there it is.

Maybe a lot of sites won't enforce it, because they really do want the traffic. But, if given the opportunity, do you think the Express Snooze would enforce it against you? I'm just saying.

I don't pretend to be an expert. I called a friend who makes his living off the Internet. He's the one who thinks it is aimed at sites like Drudge. If that is wrong, then maybe it is no big deal. But I wouldn't want to sit quietly while it gets passed, and then find out he is right. The repercussions really would be big.

[Kori Ellis]

No major website/company would allow a law like that. How would they get traffic to their site if no one linked to it? Even the E-N wants us to link to them.

Websites make money off ads that depend on the traffic. If they can't generate the traffic, they'll shut down. The only way you can get significant traffic is by sharing links.

I believe they are going to try to stop people from copying text from their sites (many companies are already doing this by filing DMCAs/lawsuits, etc), but they definitely want links.

As for YouTube, all they have to do is have YouTube disable embedding on copyrighted material. It's a simple fix.

[GSH]

No major website/company would allow a law like that. How would they get traffic to their site if no one linked to it? Even the E-N wants us to link to them.

Websites make money off ads that depend on the traffic. If they can't generate the traffic, they'll shut down. The only way you can get significant traffic is by sharing links.




Maybe I'm wrong, Kori. But I can tell you a whole bunch of sites that say they don't want Drudge to link to them. I think you know that much is true. The problem is the law of unintended consequences.

As to whether major websites/companies would allow a law like that? I guess we'll see. But you might consider the position that a lot of newspapers are in. (You know a lot of them are getting desperate.) They see sites like Drudge as competition. I think that a lot of them believe they would generate their own hits, if only they could get rid of that competition. They think Drudge is making money for "doing nothing", while they are going under. It may sound illogical or desperate to you, but people get that way when they are desperate.

I've said what I wanted to about the subject. But I'll give you one recent example of laws and unintended consequences: My brother in-law lives in San Diego. They passed a law that there could be no fireworks displays, without first doing an environmental impact study. Most of us never imagined such a law in the first place. But the way it is written, there would also have to be environmental studies for outdoor birthday parties, walk-a-thons, etc. Right now, everyone says that they won't enforce the law that way. But you can bet that someone will decide to make an issue, and all of those other activities will get screwed just like fireworks displays.

This law, as I understand it, would allow someone like the Express Snooze to make an issue if you link to one of their stories. You can hope it won't ever be enforced that way - like the fireworks law in CA. Or you can make a call, and try to make sure the law doesn't pass in the first place. My thought is that laws are a lot easier to prevent than to repeal.

Anyway - I appreciate your thoughts and reasoned responses, as always. I swear I don't try to start fights with other people.

[TJastal]

And in Alabama you can't put an ice cream cone in your back pocket. I bet some redneck will flaunt that one, too. Don't tell jjktkk!

[Spurminator]

But I can tell you a whole bunch of sites that say they don't want Drudge to link to them.

I'd be interested to understand which sites don't want Drudge linking to them.

[GSH]

And in Alabama you can't put an ice cream cone in your back pocket. I bet some redneck will flaunt that one, too. Don't tell jjktkk!

You're obviously in the mood for a flame war today. I guess this is your first day out of school for the summer?

I'm not playing. You'll just have to go play with yourself.

[in2deep]

and 'the world is ending May 21'

:rolleyes

[ambchang]

While I understand embedding/C&Ping could be an issue, why would linking be an issue? It brings those sites additional traffic, and thus, potential revenue.

People who comes out with these things are not likely to be people who ever used the net .... just pure idiocy.

[GSH]

I'd be interested to understand which sites don't want Drudge linking to them.


Several of you are being smart-ass, because you assume I'm talking about ideology, since I mentioned DrudgeReport. I'm not. It's about business, and aggregators in general. Advertising revenues are down everywhere, and a lot of print media is in trouble. SpursTalk is a aggregator of news about the Spurs, and basketball in general. Some of you may have noticed that the local print media may be less than fond of this site. It's the same story on a smaller scale.

A lot of the major newspapers believe that Drudge generates "drive-by" readers. They want loyal, repeat viewers, like they are used to from the old days. For the most part, they haven't figured out how to effectively monetize their online operations. And a lot of them still believe that they can somehow duplicate what they have always done, if they can just set the stage properly.

Yes, they like it when someone links to them, and they get a huge boost in traffic. But they know that the next day, the links will lead somewhere else. They want consistent, daily readers - because they can sell that to traditional advertisers, which is all they know.

They also tend to believe that readers who reach their site from an aggregator don't "stick around" to read other stories (and see the other advertising). Right or wrong, they believe it. And a lot of them are naive enough to think that they would get the old-style readers back, if it wasn't for all the damned aggregators. I took 10 seconds to find a link from a publishing site, trying to convince online publishers that aggregators aren't such a bad thing. (They wouldn't have written the article, if a lot of them didn't believe that aggregators are bad.) http://publishing2.com/2008/09/15/drudge-report-news-site-that-sends-readers-away-with-links-has-highest-engagement/ If you really wonder about it, take 10 minutes of your own time to learn a little.

I understand Kori's comments, and where she is coming from - although I think there is more to this issue than link traffic. Some of you, I'm afraid, are just baffled by anything more complex than a gay joke, or an animated gif of boobs.

[Strike]

kori and timvp should just fork out the dough so we can keep embedding yotube vids

Yeah, because they don't burn through enough scratch running ST, do they?

Here's an idea. If this passes and you want to embed vids, you fork out the dough.

[Blake]

Sometimes it's hard to tell when someone is being serious, and when they are just trying to be a dick. I'll give you the benefit of a doubt.

The "10 times" language is in the bill. The links are in the article - I didn't re-print the whole thing. I don't know how they came up with it. That's just what politicians do.
(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


Thanks. I didn't read the link and I was just curious.

My thinking on the issue is that youtube already screens the videos uploaded as much as possible and remove the ones that are obvious copyright infringements.

As Kori has somewhat alluded to already, if youtube allows you to watch it to begin with, then the chances are very very good that what you are watching is not any kind of infringement which means there should not be any problem in imbedding the youtube video on another site such as a messageboard.

[spurs777]

waazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Spurminator]

Several of you are being smart-ass, because you assume I'm talking about ideology, since I mentioned DrudgeReport. I'm not. It's about business, and aggregators in general. Advertising revenues are down everywhere, and a lot of print media is in trouble. SpursTalk is a aggregator of news about the Spurs, and basketball in general. Some of you may have noticed that the local print media may be less than fond of this site. It's the same story on a smaller scale.

A lot of the major newspapers believe that Drudge generates "drive-by" readers. They want loyal, repeat viewers, like they are used to from the old days. For the most part, they haven't figured out how to effectively monetize their online operations. And a lot of them still believe that they can somehow duplicate what they have always done, if they can just set the stage properly.

Yes, they like it when someone links to them, and they get a huge boost in traffic. But they know that the next day, the links will lead somewhere else. They want consistent, daily readers - because they can sell that to traditional advertisers, which is all they know.

They also tend to believe that readers who reach their site from an aggregator don't "stick around" to read other stories (and see the other advertising). Right or wrong, they believe it. And a lot of them are naive enough to think that they would get the old-style readers back, if it wasn't for all the damned aggregators. I took 10 seconds to find a link from a publishing site, trying to convince online publishers that aggregators aren't such a bad thing. (They wouldn't have written the article, if a lot of them didn't believe that aggregators are bad.) http://publishing2.com/2008/09/15/drudge-report-news-site-that-sends-readers-away-with-links-has-highest-engagement/ If you really wonder about it, take 10 minutes of your own time to learn a little.

I understand Kori's comments, and where she is coming from - although I think there is more to this issue than link traffic. Some of you, I'm afraid, are just baffled by anything more complex than a gay joke, or an animated gif of boobs.

No need for hostility. You said you could name a whole bunch of sites. I'm genuinely curious which specific sites you know don't want an aggregator with millions of daily views linking to their page.

It has nothing to do with politics, I can't stand Drudge. But if I'm running an online newspaper, I'm selling impressions to advertisers, and the more the better. Yes, I would love to have a loyal base audience. That's why I encourage readers to sign up for email alerts, texts, follow on Facebook, Twitter, etc. I might even charge a subscription for certain content.

The Express-News doesn't want ST reproducing articles on this site because people will read them HERE and not on their site, where they sell advertising. They WANT SpursTalk linking to their site. It creates more traffic. Similarly, DrudgeReport doesn't reproduce articles, it aggregates links.

These sites have the technology to block viewers linked from other sources if they choose to do so. Instead, most of them are using technology to ENCOURAGE people to share links to their articles across the web. "Share on Facebook" "Tweet This" "Reddit it" "Digg it"

I cannot imagine there is such a significant contingent of news providers who want DrudgeReport, HuffPo and other news aggregators taken down that a bill for that purpose would be made. But I could be wrong.

[Mel_13]

If this gets passed, there won't be anything to discuss but old posts by KBP. It's tempting to throw in a political commentary, but all I will say is that these are the same people pushing for "net neutrality".

Actually, it's the major corporate opponents of net neutrality that support this bill.

[jjktkk]

You're obviously in the mood for a flame war today. I guess this is your first day out of school for the summer?

I'm not playing. You'll just have to go play with yourself.

Damn everone shits on tdummy. :lol

[TJastal]

Damn everone shits on tdummy. :lol

Ahh, what a cute little nickname. I wonder if it gets the Chumpdumper seal of approval?

[ChumpDumper]

I've heard better tbh.