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.


Comments Feed

Displaying 211-227 of 227 total comments.

  • thunderchild 10/27/2011 8:42pm

    This bill is just wrong. First of all, doesn’t the federal government have more pressing matters to deal with than this? They’re wasting their time and money for something that is already being addressed. I don’t approve of streaming movies and TV shows on YouTube, but video game footage, music videos, and anything else copyrighted? This is not right. The only industries being hurt are the film and TV, while the video game and music industries prosper. Someone sees a Portal 2 Let’s Play, they like it, they go out and buy the game. Bing! Valve just made $30. Someone watches a music video someone made with shots from Star Trek DS9 to the song “Europa” by Globus, they buy the song on iTunes and go out and buy the sixth season of DS9! Besides, YouTube already has an anti-piracy system, and companies can also ask them to take a video down. This is a classic example of the government poking its nose into other people’s business and hurting more than they’re helping!

  • thunderchild 10/27/2011 9:09pm

    I signed up to comment on just this bill, so how’s that for how much I hate it? YouTube is a US company, yet it has users from all over the world. How do you think they’ll feel when the US says they can’t post the video because of one of their laws even if the person is in Germany? I can see no good in this. Basically, this bill will turn the United States into an uncreative cesspool of poverty, destruction, and no innovation. I have seen so many extremely talented people make covers of songs or make fan films for Star Trek or Portal, and these will be shoved under the boot of the government!!! I’ll bet the sponsors have never even heard of Machinima, let alone VEVO or anything else. I have also seen cool music videos that use footage from copyrighted works, but only snippets, put to copyrighted songs. Is that wrong? This bill is another step towards communism, and anyone who knows anything can see what has happened to commie countries! (Russia, anyone?)

  • bones446 10/28/2011 10:42pm

    Oppose it PEOPLEZ!

  • abbeyroad119 10/30/2011 7:11pm

    I support this bill because it gives credit to where credit belongs. Replication of copyrighted material involves people going through hoops, I know some of them are rediculous but by doing so, they give credit to the original thought. I just wish people would realize that there is work involved to get ahead in life, like jumping through the legal hoops in between point a and point b. So please, could people think about an issue from another point of view other than their own.

  • Singtome 10/31/2011 4:49am

    Since the greedy music business won’t ever listen to “heart” talk lets look at this financially. Lets say this bill was in place before Justin Beiber, there would be a lot of money lost to that because he didn’t just get famous from making his own songs, he got it from doing a cover. When he got famous all you corporate types got income. But if this bill was in place before Beiber than you would have gotten nothing. You are silencing those in America…wait a second what happened to free speech? Your not Americans, we are proud and free. You communists just want to put these laws up to prevent us from having a voice and to gain money cause you have no vision for tomorrow. whats next? Are you going to behead me for thinking differently? You have no right to be in this country so get out I hear China calling for you. As for the people leading this country you have enough on your plate trying to get this country back into its rightful place as number 1.

  • Comm_reply
    abbeyroad119 10/31/2011 9:58am

    Why don’t people understand that you can secure the rights to cover a song. Ever see the disclaimer notice before a football game, it says “This copyrighted broadcast is the property of the National Football League. Any rebroadcast or reproduction without the consent of the NFL is strictly prohibited.” The music business should work the same way.

  • Chunmeista 11/17/2011 3:45am

    As shown, Google opposes this bill. Enough said there.

    I can imagine the Internet as a nation in itself. Its citizenship includes millions, even billions of people from countries across the world. On the internet, people decide what is right and wrong, be it voicing their opinions, or even liking or disliking a comment. It’s simple and true democracy, at its finest. As such, the Internet has an efficient form of self government, where everyone can vote.

    If any nation attempts to censor the internet, I’d say it’s comparable to an act of aggression on another country.

    The Internet is the one true “land of the free and home of the brave,” where the citizens of the world can freely express their ideas and opinions. Let’s keep it that way!

  • Comm_reply
    Chunmeista 11/17/2011 3:47am

    Nevermind, Google has NOT opposed this bill, but has opposed another bill that pretty much deals with the same thing. You get my point.

  • Spam Comment

  • DMSlayer 11/23/2011 12:33am

    You have any idea how many people this will effect, and not meaning for direct pirating, Just circumstance issues…

    It’s one thing if people are making revenue due to these infringements, However those laws are already in place. This Bill needs to be torn up and trashed.

  • Comm_reply
    abbeyroad119 11/28/2011 7:46pm

    The original copyright law lacked enforcement ergo this bill had to be put in place. This bill is not a snowball effect on censorship and freedom of speech this is only protecting the artist/creator.

  • Comm_reply
    CurtisNeeley 01/06/2012 7:46pm

    “this is only protecting the artist/creator.” – - ?

    The Copy[rite] Act has never protected author or inventor rights as is specified in the Constitution.

    I have filed in the Eighth Circuit and asked it be recognized as unconstitutional and DEMANDED the FCC regulate wire communications called “the Internet for disguise.
    Pending before the judges since Sept 19, 2011.

    PDF APPELLANT BRIEF (56 pages)
    PDF APPELLEE BRIEF OF Google Inc (14 pages)

  • Spam Comment

  • Spam Comment

  • CurtisNeeley 01/06/2012 7:30pm

    Making downloading a felony will HALT illegal downloading after the first 10-20 unsuspecting people like you are sent to prison without internet for five years!

    Punishing crimes worked to get rid of drugs, rape, and murder already and will end illegal downloading much quicker!

  • super31jake 01/23/2012 2:02am

    if this bill had gone unoticed and been passed, then i wouldn’t be able to watch my little pony. and if if the government made it illegal for me to watch my little pony, then i’d go march to the capital and do things make che guevera look like a quiet hippy with a picket sign. nobody gets in the way of my ponies, especially not the government.

  • CurtisNeeley 01/25/2012 8:49pm

    Internet wire communications users think these bills needed to be passed to work. SCOTUS ruled the Berne Convention selected by Congress in 1994 is the authority on copy[rites] and ruled this constitutional and not disturbing free speech or anything else. See Golan v Holder, (10-545)

    p12 REPLY BRIEF <<<<


Vote on This Bill

1% Users Support Bill

25 in favor / 2101 opposed

Send Your Senator a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments