S.978 - Commercial Felony Streaming Act

A bill to amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes. view all titles (2)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: A bill to amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Popular: Commercial Felony Streaming Act as introduced.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

Displaying 31-60 of 227 total comments.

XxIDTIBxX 07/01/2011 4:18pm

This Bill can’not be passed. if it is many people will be out of their jobs. Please do not let this pass

bones446 07/08/2011 4:30am

Just 1 million? More like over 1million! I have +1 so I am back and pumped! As I have stated before: bill will most likely fail. That’s my opinion what is yours people? So far 13 people agree and over 1,000 oppose. What are the odds? Not trying to offend anyone, but let’s think about the odds. I oppose, but doesn’t the government have the last word? I believe so, BUT I believe in my opinion (once again not to offend any political party, government or U.S. citizen or foreigner) that we the people have a say in this! If you agree with my wise words as a citizen, then +1 this reply and/or comment. Thank you.

US citizen (username bones446)

IHateAmyKlobuchar2 07/01/2011 11:19pm

Amy Klobuchar your a f***ing idiotthere bigger problems out there in the world and your picking let’s play. Seriously have you ran out of things to do? Let’s play don’t hurt the gaming companies it helps them by making us want to buy the game. They make more money like that. To a lot of people showing off games is a job like AVGN Chuggaconoroy Geewhoa Pokecinema Brain Scratch Cooms and many others who show off the games they love and hold dear. And you know what idiots at congress you should really focus on health care making more jobs and more important things. I’m 13 years old and I even see this is retarded. Too Pokecinema I really hope they see this and put it off.

Keno9988 07/09/2011 9:55pm

I, personally, think this bill is bull crap.

A bunch of YouTube accounts, including mine and other ones (like Criken and gNatFreak,) would be closed down and then them and I would be sent to jail for 5 years. FIVE YEARS??? Come on Congress!

Now I rest my case for this bill to be stopped before almost ALL of American YouTubers go to jail!

The people that support this law should be tortured in the most sadistic manner for them. WATCHING TV SHOWS ON YOUTUBE.

greatumpire83 06/23/2011 1:35pm


I cannot even understand your rambling. “Excessively high threshold standard of proof”? What does that mean? Does it mean a preponderance burden? Because if you consider a preponderance burden “excessively high” then what would you suggest? Put the burden on everyone who is accused to prove that they are not guilty of copyright infringement? This is like Monty Python justice (Can you prove you are not a witch?.

Also the “expensive enforcement procedure”? For who? Defendants? Then yes, I would agree it is expensive. For the companies bringing the suit it is very lucrative.

Secondly, plagiarism is not a crime. So I don’t see why you would be bringing that up.

Thirdly, Circuit Courts loathe these type cases? Which circuit? Are you referring to federal district court? Because you cannot bring a copyright action in state court as it is a federally preempted issue.

Did you steal a legal dictionary and just start randomly combining words?

kenjis9965 07/03/2011 12:27am

Wrote both of my Senators (New Yorker here) asking them to not support this bill. I’m an artist and all for protecting the rights of copyright holders but this bill is WAY too vague and VERY poorly written, This bill will enable “witch hunts” by the RIAA and MPAA on people who honestly havnt really commited a crime. Persons who actually cause economic damage to the industry can already be prosecuted, This bill is unnecessary

Lordbrick651 07/01/2011 10:27pm

This Bill wouldn’t help anyone, honestly.

Game Streams are almost Free Publicity, and that’s good for companies.

This Bill would only cause Harm in my eyes. Stop this bill dead in it’s tracks.

Theroha 07/03/2011 5:17pm

The economy’s in the toilet. Massive unemployment rate. Multiple wars draining what little money we have left. Congress chooses to attack their own constituents instead of taking care of real problems. Once again, the tax payers are the ones being thrown under the bus.

Jeffman12 07/03/2011 1:24pm

Youtube has ability to find which track is playing in videos and then adds link to the description to buy the song on iTunes, either that or the uploader does this. If a song is found in violation of an agreement with youtube, the audio is replaced.

The thing about internet piracy is that there are three types of pirate. 1. Those who download because they can’t afford something but would pay if they could. A lot do when they can. 2. People who want to demo a product, determine if they like it to make informed decisions. They tend to delete whatever they downloaded once they obtain a legitimate copy or find themselves dissatisfied. 3. Those who never planned on buying the product and won’t, regardless.

Nothing can be done about group 3, this bill may make some think twice, but won’t stop a thing. It’s stupid to target them anyways, don’t represent significant loss of revenue. This just makes the taxpayers have to pay for the legal process and added incarceration instead of companies.

awesomeificationism 07/01/2011 11:58am

Even the bill you proposed is a little out of order. YouTubers make their living off of making videos, and people like Toby Turner, who also acts and does shows outside of YouTube, make most of their money from gameplay. People on YouTube that upload videos with copyrighted music are only cited if the company picks their video and therefore the rest of the people that are uploading videos could go to jail now because their videos weren’t picked to be either muted or deleted?

newbienomsfewds 07/03/2011 12:46pm

okay, sorry, hate to be spamming here, but another thing is, YouTube is WHY I buy the music! I find the artist on YouTube, listen to their songs, and then, once I have the money, I buy the song so I can listen to it anywhere, with no need of internet.

mw3rider 07/13/2011 4:52am

this is just wrong im not proud of this law i watch lets play and walkthroughs all the time and if places like machinima roosterteeth get bankruptso will youtube i spent about 20,000 dollars on items that i heard and saw from YOUTUBE plus doesnt the government understand that artists and gaming companies can stop this today but they dont cause they like free advertising and this makes me wanna move to another country it sickens me that the government thinks about doing this this is embarassing

KenDPrim 07/03/2011 12:30am

So essentially this bill is telling us, we have no freedom of the press for people that post video game reviews, no freedom of speech or expression for those that casually play the games or post walkthroughs for games online, we can’t sing karaoke, nor will we be able to have any sort of videos on youtube whatsoever? This bill is completely Unconstitutional, and the fact that our congress is even considering this bill makes me lose faith in the government. There are certain small companies that make a living off of videos made with clips from video games, such as Rooster Teeth, or Machinima. So if our congress wants to put people out of a job as well as limiting our freedoms, go right ahead, I can say without a doubt they will be met with resistance every step of the way.

Zabuza825 07/01/2011 2:27pm

Under the PROTECT IP Act (which I oppose as well) the government has a right to shut down all copytight infringing websites. In the way it is worded this would apply to YouTube, DailyMotion, Megavideo, and any other video sharing website. Why do they need to make it illegal twice?

asdasd123123 07/03/2011 6:52am


FloridaDem11 07/02/2011 6:02pm

This bill would help only those who are already living a lavish lifestyle, whom have ads sprinkled on the websites anyways; where as it would squelch freelancers, people who live off livestreaming, and websites like JustinTV.com. In short the bill would do MORE HARM THAN GOOD.

KaizerKid 07/04/2011 3:34pm

This bill is wrong. With out the ability to post music on the internet freely,the internet will slowly die. Without Youtube,I’m positive that music and game sales with drop severely.

CaptainObvious 07/11/2011 4:53am

The law as worded is vague enough to include all forms of copyrighted works including games, video, music, books, pictures and other works.

“Public performance” is vague as well, and could be used to define basically any small gathering of people, watching any suck work.

The judiciary does not have the time or the resources to patrol the internet to find all potential infringement (potentially hundreds of thousands or more based on how vague the law is) or to bring each individual to court.

Some companies have a “Lassiez-Faire” approach to streams of this kind, not to mention major labels and companies actually putting such works on the internet to gain publicity for the product.

This bill is essentially a ham-fisted approach to get government to do the litigating for the Big Labels. Once someone is convicted of criminal copyright infringement, there is direct precedent on the civil lawsuits sure to follow.

BobbyisYoda 07/04/2011 10:59pm

I am right there with you in the boat: I signed up just so I could vote against this absurd bill.

Inkling 07/09/2011 5:05pm

You know what this will be like? The Pirating law. The government will huff and puff but not a single fuck will be given.

DamainK 06/30/2011 11:48pm

Major bull! This is just like in the past where they tried banning alcohol and that led to riots, and the same is happening here. It’s just another way to try to stop illegal downloads like in the 90’s! If you support the original artist, we just pay them anyways for the OST (original sound tract) or just buy it on iTunes. Free-ware like Limewire/Frostwire shut down now, so the music industry doesn’t really have that much of a treat since they make money from music videos and so forth. Doesn’t the military use streaming to communicate to Family members over seas?

MopeyJoe 07/05/2011 9:42am

For the 12 of you in favor of this bill, think about this:

If your little child decides it would be funny to post a video of him/her singing Twinkle Twinkle Little Star on youtube, you’re going to have to explain to your child why that was wrong as the authorities take them away to federal prison.

cappiman 07/03/2011 5:45pm

Congress please look over this bill or just scrap it, and work on the economy. Bill S.978 will probably be denied due to human rights, since it will deny our rights for freedom of speech, with this being so due to reviews being shot down, commentaries being denied, and not only that it will put Disk Jockeys out of Business, Radio stations, and Big named stream sites such as Rhapsody, and what not. Along with the fact that due to this law you will have to put people in jail causing the TAX PAYERS more money due to 10 year old children being in jail for posting any Anime Music Videos or commentaries that include video games, now I can understand movies. But all this is basically free advertisement for the companies.

tonygottlieb 06/23/2011 7:42am

The “substantial” civil penalty you’re referring to is an excessively high threshold standard of proof and expensive enforcement procedure to be effective, to obtain redress or more importantly to create a deterrence. Also, it is the same set of standards used for piracy as it is for plagiarism. It is too high a bar and the Circuit Courts appear to loathe these type cases.

S.978 may be the wrong approach but it is certainly for the right reason.

Kirk007 07/03/2011 4:38pm

This bill is down right criminal yes lets punish someone who streamed a video or showed a video game worse then a rapist or drug dealer.
I looked at the money trail and it’s down right sicking and any congress person should be ashamed of themselves to be supporting such an awful bill backed by corporate payoffs.
Personally I feel internet copyright violations should not even be criminal matter they should only be a civil case.
This bill must be blocked not only is it unfair and opressive it’s down right embarrassing.

noahcho 07/03/2011 4:33am

Does this mean that artists on youtube won’t be able to make covers of copyrighted songs?

teenagedirtbag 07/03/2011 12:42pm

this entire bill is invalid.
music is a freedom of speech to artists and emotions of others.
for someone to seek relevance in a song, giving and acknowledging complete credit to the artist/composer, also the stating of “no intent of copyright infringement” being added, what is the controversial issue here?
it’s like music is a crime now.
shouldn’t our country be worried about bigger things like the legalization of marijuana (which should be legalized)?
all natural things in this country are wrong.
this is just ridiculous.

gabriziel 07/01/2011 12:42pm

this is just an other way of forcing people to do what they want, even to extends that have nothing to do with this. i disagree but i doubt they listen to anyone who doesn’t have money like they always have.

sctartaglia 07/03/2011 3:59am

This bill should not be past. I don’t think you guys are educated enough to know that most of this is good advertisement for these companies. If i want to buy a game i go to the internet and look at a review of it if they give good reviews i go and buy it. This will also waste more tax dollars trying to prosecute these people for streaming videos games. Please review this bill. I dont condone people actually pirating, but if the person actually bought the game to stream it on the internet, its good for that company. Lets not waste more money that we don’t have. DON’T PASS THIS BILL

RAVaught 07/03/2011 12:14pm

This bill is taking entirely the wrong approach to the issue. First, discovering music or other media through venues like youtube work as free advertising. Artist that otherwise might not get heard gain audience exposure without incurring the cost.

Second, as long as people are not making money or taking credit for the copyrighted work, then what’s the concern. If you want your music to sell, make better music. Most people I know gladly pay for single songs that are good, regardless of where they heard them first.

This bill is akin to saying that playing a CD in your car for four of your friends who have not purchased the CD should net five felony charges. One for public airing of copyrighted material and four for listening to it. Our prison and court systems simply can not handle any more of a burden than they already have. We are already near our national deficit ceiling and they are wanting to add more burdens to the national budget. Who do you think will pay for that?

Vote on This Bill

1% Users Support Bill

25 in favor / 2102 opposed

Send Your Senator a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments