As far as I know, video games are the output of computer code, which is not subject to copyright (the code itself is, but not what the code produces).

Most LPers who have been hit with copyright claims so far have either been nailed because of issues with the music, or from malicious and fraudulent claims.

Yes, this could be an issue for people who like to upload videos of themselves singing, but this was already an issue.

I don't think this bill is a good thing, but I don't think it affects LPs, at least LPs of older games.

Natsu wrote:

Quote: As far as I know, video games are the output of computer code, which is not subject to copyright (the code itself is, but not what the code produces). That doesn't make much sense to me. That's like saying I can make the same game as someone else, using different code, say a different langauge. Then I could sell it.

You can. And it's been done. However, you can't copy the code, you need to design your own code from scratch, reverse-engineering it. Even just having access to the original code can get you in legal trouble.

And as Greg mentioned, you will still run into serious trouble by using trademarked (not copyrighted, trademarked) characters such as Mario, Link, and Spiderman. Also, I'm not sure where level designs fall under the law, but I'm certain that if there are protections available, they're filed.

So, yes, you won't run into any copyright issues recreating Super Mario Bros. in Flash. But you've probably got some other legal issues.

Quote:

I hope that gets brought up as an argument. What is their argument against LP's?

I haven't seen one, except that it's "streaming video". It's mostly just people trying to scare up support by interpreting the law as broadly as possible, and operating under the assumption that game footage is copyrighted.

It's still a bill to fight, mind.

Blackout wrote:

I guess they could angle it as slander if someone does a particularly negative LP...

Fair criticism is not slander. Opinion is not slander.

The biggest claims a company could make against an LP is misappropriation of trademark (VERY unlikely to pass muster unless the person doing it does something really blatant with a trademark like try and pass Mario off as their own) or through the music (The performance of a piece of music is copyrighted, and likely what the law is trying to stop. It's pretty clear 8-bit music isn't a "performance", but what about Guitar Hero songs, or the song a major artist agreed to record for a video game? This would be one for a court to decide, honestly.)

Fighter_McWarrior wrote:

But realistically, Congress is a bit busy dealing with shit that matters to concern themselves over this.

This is not something insignificant, you know. Digital piracy is a real concern and a serious threat to copyright laws. This is several milti-billion dollar industries being undermined. That is a very large chunk of this nation's economy. It certainly needs to be addressed.

We all hate how certain groups are extremely overzealous in protecting their IP rights, and how they try and go places they probably shouldn't have the right to go. We all believe that as end users, we have certain rights that these groups are trying to chip away at. But I hope we can all agree at least that artists should have some right to control distribution of their work.

Hacker wrote:

Can someone explain to me how LP's cost companies money? At least with newer games that are for consoles that still exist... Furthermore, how is some kid playing through castlevania on an LP making money that the company is not?

It's not about money. If you hold copyright, you hold the rights to distribute your work how you see fit. That means not allowing it to be distributed at all, if you so choose.