About Senate Bill 978.......you know, that new copyright bill?

Hey folks, I found this article by Nilay Patel on 'This is my next site' and I wanted to know what you guys thought:

http://thisismynext.com/2011/07/06/senate-bill-978-youtube-video-game-lets-play-videos-illegal/

Here's a few quotes for those who'd like them:

"Okay, so now that we know people who intentionally stream unauthorized content for money are criminally liable for something, let’s see exactly what’s going to get them in trouble. It’s spelled out in the next section of S.978 — the one that has everyone all in a tizzy. (Remember, this section is being inserted into 18 U.S.C 2319 (b).)

(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if–

(A) the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works; and

(B)(i) the total retail value of the performances, or the total economic value of such public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner, would exceed $2,500; or

(ii) the total fair market value of licenses to offer performances of those works would exceed $5,000;"

"It’s (2)(A) that’s causing all the trouble here; people are calling it the “10-strikes” law. It’s fairly harsh, since it doesn’t distinguish between full-on game run-throughs or little clips of scenes — it’s just any 10 streams, whether it’s 10 people watching one video or one person watching the same video 10 times. But remember, you’ve got to read this in the context of the law it amends: the rule only applies if you willfully infringe a copyright for commercial advantage or personal financial gain. In extremely simple terms, it means you’re liable for criminal copyright infringement if you:

Know copyright law forbids unauthorized streaming;
Decide to infringe someone’s copyright anyway;
For commercial advantage or personal financial gain;
By streaming 10 or more copyrighted works without permission;
During a 180-day period; and either
Consumers buying access to all those streams from the copyright holder would spend a total of $2,500 or more; or
You’ve made $2,500 or more illegally streaming those works; or
The fair market license fees to those streams total more than $5,000."

And some opinions of his own(a second quote has some good news for Minecraft lovers):

" It’s also rare for a criminal copyright case to go forward without a corresponding civil case brought by the copyright holder, and I don’t think gaming companies are going to go after their biggest fans because a new criminal law was passed. Hell, they could all be suing fans under the much stricter civil copyright law for posting unauthorized videos right this very second, and they’re not doing it. Why would they risk such an intense backlash by starting now? Anyone want to go after JuneyBug and tiniestbit here?"

"In fact, all this hoopla could result in some good news: Minecraft developer Notch has said he’ll add a clause to the Minecraft user agreement specifically allowing user gameplay videos if S.978 passes, and that he expects most other companies will follow suit. That would be wonderful — game companies explicitly granting users the rights to make gameplay videos would be a huge step forward, and exactly the sort of private contractual agreement that our intellectual property system favors. I’d love it if Notch just went ahead and added that clause regardless of what happens to S.978 — it would set a terrific precedent for the rest of the media industry.

All that said, I’d much prefer it if S.978 died in committee; I think it’s a terrible idea to create additional copyright liability of any kind before we balance the system and make it easier and clearer for people to assert their fair use rights. That’s the fight worth having, don’t you think?"

Well, what do you guys think?

I'm all for disciplining people who actually do make knowing attempts to violate laws, but it should be much more in proportion to the crime; i.e. if someone was caught pirating a video game for profit, then they should payback whatever profit they made, plus perhaps another couple hundred dollars or so, or a few pirated CDs for profit, then whatever they made + the total cost of the CDs.........and not this "5 years in jail and a $250,000 fine" bull; THAT kind of crap only helps greedy lawyers, corrupt record executives, and the RIAA.