Ten Strikes Bill: go to jail for posting kareoke videos?

[MoonWater]

At least that's what many sights are claiming will happen if this new bill passes in congress. Now I don't know if this will be that extreme, but from the wording or quotes I've found in the articles I've read(I haven't read the full text of the bill as I have no idea if I could or where I could find it) could certainly seem to make it illegal to post things like video game or movie reviews that show clips from the media in question unless the bill specifically defines what counts as a violation. My question is though that we already have fair use laws that protect such things(or at least their supposed to, youtube seems to be thinking otherwise.) Now if all this bill really does is crack down harder on actual priates who post full videos, movies and songs online for free without permission then that's all fine and dandy. But could this bill really interfere with fair use laws to the point where video game and movie reviews that show footage could become illegal? Could this bill actually end up making people like The Spoony One, or That Guy With The Glasses, or Channel Awesome, or Blistered Thumbs, criminals? Or is the bill being blown way out of proportion?

here's some links to articles I have read about it however if anyone can help me find a full text of the bill to read it would be greatly appreciated.

The Daily Reveille

Proposed "Ten Strikes" bill stirs Internet pirates and YouTube users - National Internet | Examiner.com

 

[gnomon]

Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

That's a link to THOMAS for both versions of the bill.

Have not read it yet.

 

[fallingblood]

There are always ridiculous bills that are introduced. I haven't read about this one, but it is highly unlikely it will pass.

 

[Mister Emu]

I read one of the versions of the bill and didn't get that impression... but then again I don't speak lawyerese, and was reading it straightforward.

 

[MoonWater]

Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

That's a link to THOMAS for both versions of the bill.

Have not read it yet.

thanks gnomon

 

[MoonWater]

gah, it would be nice if they could give you what the full text of the bill they are editing would read once edited rather than just pointing to the few lines they are going to edit. Oh well. It does look like the only way one could get in trouble is if they are making money off of it, which would not be the case for internet reviewers or kareoke posters. Kareoke posters don't make any money and reviewers that do get it from ad revenue not from the video content itself. So yeah, it looks like this is getting blown way out of proportion.

 

[gnomon]

That's the problem with trying to understand legislation. It references the sections on existing copyright law so you have to go back and read that in order to fully understand what it is the bill would do.

Which is actually one of the means by which radio and TV pundits can get away with accusing legislators who oppose or support a bill based on the narrow language of a bill that merely amends existing legislation. Us laymen are usually left wondering what is going on and how it all really matters.

I don't know copyright law so I'm not sure how amending public performance will actually affect basically online activity. It seems to me that essentially every Youtube video someone uploads for streaming that includes copyrighted material would be a copyright violation because I don't fully understand the fair use clause.

For example, if someone makes their own music video to a copyrighted song and posts it on a streaming site such as Youtube or Vimeo than have they violated the law once that video has been streamed ten times? Would the hosting site be violating the law as well?