Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
from the not-understanding-the-technology dept
Okay, this is just getting ridiculous. A few weeks back, we noted that Senators Amy Klobuchar, John Cornyn and Christopher Coons had proposed a new bill that was designed to make "streaming" infringing material a felony. At the time, the actual text of the bill wasn't available, but we assumed, naturally, that it would just extend "public performance" rights to section 506a of the Copyright Act.Supporters of this bill claim that all it's really doing is harmonizing US copyright law's civil and criminal sections. After all, the rights afforded under copyright law in civil cases cover a list of rights: reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works or perform the work. The rules for criminal infringement only cover reproducing and distributing -- but not performing. So, supporters claim, all this does is "harmonize" copyright law and bring the criminal side into line with the civil side by adding "performance rights" to the list of things.
If only it were that simple. But, of course, it's not. First of all, despite claims to the contrary, there's a damn good reason why Congress did not include performance rights as a criminal/felony issue: because who would have thought that it would be a criminal act to perform a work without permission? It could be infringing, but that can be covered by a fine. When we suddenly criminalize a performance, that raises all sorts of questionable issues.
Furthermore, as we suspected, in the full text of the bill, "performance" is not clearly defined. This is the really troubling part. Everyone keeps insisting that this is targeted towards "streaming" websites, but is streaming a "performance"? If so, how does embedding play into this? Is the site that hosts the content guilty of performing? What about the site that merely linked to and/or embedded the video (linking and embedding are technically effectively the same thing). Without clear definitions, we run into problems pretty quickly.
And it gets worse. Because rather than just (pointlessly) adding "performance" to the list, the bill tries to also define what constitutes a potential felony crime in these circumstances:
the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted worksSo yeah. If you embed a YouTube video that turns out to be infringing, and more than 10 people view it because of your link... you could be facing five years in jail. This is, of course, ridiculous, and suggests (yet again) politicians who are regulating a technology they simply do not understand. Should it really be a criminal act to embed a YouTube video, even if you don't know it was infringing...? This could create a massive chilling effect to the very useful service YouTube provides in letting people embed videos.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: amy klobuchar, christopher coons, copyright, felony, john cornyn, performance, streaming
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Senators Amy Klobuchar, John Cornyn and Christopher Coons soon to be released statment: "Those song embedding non-fee paying, think they own the world, singing pirates really chap my hide. Who do they think they are??? People with rights and laws that are governed and practiced by common sense? Not after we're done with them."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Exactly zero, because our corrupt elected officials always ignore the very constitution and laws they are sworn to uphold, and which you can bet your sweet aunt Mary's ASS they hold you and I and the general public to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no chilling effect, as the content isn't legal to start with. Embedding could continue without issue, providing YouTube does a better job of assuring that they have rights to the content they re-license to other websites in this manner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why are you so intent on punishing a company that is already cleared by the court system?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not going to be nice on this question: What the fuck is wrong with you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It will be interesting to see individuals trying to use this against the TV shows which routinely steal their viral videos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
you guys keep getting caught up on the fact that policing youtube for infringement is impossible. we know that. hollywood knows that. we know they know. they know that we know. it's been firmly established. it's time to move on...
...to the fact that despite the fact that it's impossible, hollywood still wants youtube gone. if they can't change the law to punish google, they will change the law to punish youtube's users. and if they can't do that, they'll change the law in some other fashion.
and if the law cannot be changed, the law will be ignored and hollywood will take matters into its own hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They never did... that's why they have gov't using YOUR MONEY to police you for their specious claims of copyright. It's all a big circle jerk and we're the jerks paying for it.
Ta,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And while we're fighting the government, the ones that are requesting this are getting off scot free.
Hmmm... Wonder what would happen if we sued the MPAA for just such laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, it makes TONS of sense
*That is until they have no choice but to join prison gangs and learn how to stab someone to death with a toothbrush.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah, it makes TONS of sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yeah, it makes TONS of sense
Ever have the fear that some dope out there came up with the same idea, and thinks it's good thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yeah, it makes TONS of sense
never have, never will
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah, it makes TONS of sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah, it makes TONS of sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yeah, it makes TONS of sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah, it makes TONS of sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Listen, you dolt, the chilling effect will be on those EMBEDDING the links. They will be the ones charged under this bill, not YouTube, and they certainly can't police the videos they're embedding.
Seriously, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually it's the fluorodated water. It's a little known fact that it turns 0.001% of the population into civil libertarians with free market tendencies and nice teeth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Libertarianism happens to people real quick after that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
(Sane by our definition being civil libertarians with free market ideals)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: (Joe Publius)
This bill violates everything a libertarian holds dear. 1st amendment and 10th amendment violations up the wazoo.
Lastly: this would be next to impossible to police, assuming it is enacted, and would not pass constitutional muster anyway. Just like all those sharing cases a few years ago, they are no longer targeting the downloaders or sharers, but the providers of the content or networks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110601/01515014500/senators-want-to-put-people-jail-embedd ing-youtube-videos.shtml#c3390
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet...
What's the difference in getting a movie from the library (yea, you can do that) for free and temporarily downloading one online?
What's the difference between loaning someone a DVD and sending them a copy online?
NONE! It's bs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet...
It's the 70's all over again, and tape decks are going to destroy the world.
Ta,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
24 hours worth of video is uploaded to youtube every 60 seconds , no that shouldnt be hard to police at all. It would just take 3 people per seconds a day working 8 hour shifts 7 days a week. So thats only 259,200 full time jobs. No policing this stuff shouldn't be an issue.
This is where you say they can devise a program to do it for you. If you think this is an achievable task you don't understand what you are dealing with. First of all since we can't make a program that is 100% effective at scanning text I doubt we will be building one any time soon for video. Second what is this program to do, compare a video file in any format with a database of all video every copyrighted in every format?
You can not accurately police that much data, its the copyright holders work if they want to police it they can go right ahead the system is there for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's last years stats. Its doubled to 48 hours of video uploaded per minute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Require each user submitting a video to set up an account, using two pieces of state issued ID to confirm who they are. Each time they want to upload a video, they would be required to fill in a document that states the source of the video, any backgroup music used, and a list of people who appear in the video. If the video promotes anything including links to a website, a model release document would be required for each person in the video.
If the video is news style, taking in a public place of the event, they would have to disclose that information, date, time, location.
Any failure in this documentation would make the poster liable, and YouTube would agree to provide poster information in response to DMCA notifications, so that the legal action can be taken directly with the content provider.
YouTube's legal issues would be resolved, and their need to police content removed. It would be much easier to verify 1 million uploaders than it would be to check a million videos a day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or if the background music is licensed? Is that really my problem? No, it's not.
If I am on a tropical island and I am recording how the waves break against the rocks, and there is music playing that isn't from any device on my person, or owned by me, are you saying that I really have to go to jail for 5 years for posting it on youtube?
What if the manager of the tropical island had already paid for licensing the music for public performance? Are you seriously saying that you will send me to jail?
F-U and your stupid music. I don't need it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The poster is already liable so why the mountain of paperwork?
"using two pieces of state issued ID to confirm who they are"
How do i show my computer my drivers license? If I just scan it in what prevents me from scanning a blank piece of paper or a fake id? So now google needs to employ hundreds of thousands of employs to review account applications instead of watch videos.
"much easier to verify 1 million uploaders"
try 30 million, with millions of new accounts being created daily because their old one was shut down for paperwork failure.
Its not like the people couldn't still post infringing videos and that it would still be impossible for google to know until someone points it out. This wouldn't prevent anyone from infringing, you could still spoof the application process and your video would stay up until reported much as it does now.
Like most anti-piracy schemes all this does is make it harder for legitimate users to use the site and does nothing that will actually prevent piracy, make it easier to identify or easier to remove than it currently is.
Who wants using youtube to be harder than renewing your drivers licensee?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The theoretical liablity to the poster doesn't work in reality, because there is no connection, just a really big company profiting off of questionable content and playing in the DMCA gap zone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm always wanting it to be satire and then...sigh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why would people posting their own stuff have to jump through all those hoops? How do you show your IDs to a website anyway.
Also the ability to post things anonymously is essential for democracy for instance for those fighting for freedom in their own countries (think of China or Russia) where revealing the truth can get you killed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> an account, using two pieces of state issued ID
> to confirm who they are.
How do you use state ID online? (Keep in mind that it's a crime in every state to copy or otherwise duplicate a government ID card, so scanning or otherwise uploading an image of one is out.)
> YouTube's legal issues would be resolved, and
> their need to police content removed.
If any of that nonsense were imposed by law on YouTube, its legal issues (and those of the government it would immediately sue) would only be beginning as what you've proposed pretty much flies in the face of 200+ years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
your a dumbass, and it is impossible to convey how much i want to shove my foot up your ass right now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
\end{sarcasm}
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In exactly the same way, it's not YouTube's responsibility to police their site for infringement, it never has been. Since your basic premise that they need to do that is wrong, your entire argument that this is a good thing is also horribly wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is not possible to determine a priori whether a given clip is "licensed" or infringinging or not. It depends on a huge number of inputs, most of which are not at youtubes disposal, and even less available to the user who embeds the clip.
To reduce risk, people err onto the side of blocking or not using content. That's a chilling effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He understands them perfectly fine. He just doesn't care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The damn producers of the content can't even tell/decide what material is infringing and you want some third party to figure this out?? Or, just because someone says it's infringing it should automatically be taken down without any proof or due diligence??
Here's a paper towel...wipe your face off when you pull it out of your ass! Jesus Christ on a cracker - I wish that the sheer stupidity that spews from you was physically painful so I could enjoy the sound of you screaming in agony!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Likely scenario: Trevor is shooting some video with his smartphone of his buddies at a ragin' party playing beer pong. Somebody makes an awesome shot. Trevor uploads the video to YouTube or Facebook. Three weeks later, a jackbooted SWAT kick down the door, shoot his dog, handcuff the guy, and say he is under arrest for criminal copyright infringement by public performance because Lady Gaga was playing in the background of his party video. Five years in prison! Is this reasonable at all! Under this proposal, this can and will happen, as we have seen authorities willing to go to extremes to help the content industries criminalize everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:39am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:39am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This sounds like just one more ploy from the legacy gatekeepers to have Google pay to police their content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you are an idiot
So what you are saying is that LINKING is a crime ? OMFG SHEESH.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> pressure on YouTube to better police their
> video content.
You mean, pressure to do something they've been found not legally obligated to do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:39am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:39am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Moron...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:39am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110601/01515014500/senators-want-to-put-people-jail-embedd ing-youtube-videos.shtml#c3390
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: um...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But what is and isn't an issue with the bill?
I watched minecraft videos before I got the game, and they are what encouraged that. The creator himself stated that if the bill does pass he'd issue a Term Of Service clause allowing players to do place videos of his game online (http://notch.tumblr.com/post/7152523035/bill-s-978)
But game developers that don't have online games can't put out a term of service because it isn't a service but a product, and releasing copyright would allow pirates to steal game code. This bill would simply cheat them out of advertising.
It should be revised to be a bit more specific I think, and give more power to the companies so they can pursue and take legal action against copyright infringement without taking it out of their hands and placing it in the U.S. Governments I would think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dreams Dashed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dreams Dashed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
imho, just because the media is publicly available, doesnt necessarily make every viewing a "public performance"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: iamtheky on Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:44am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How public policy works now
2. When people complain about bad law, raise a boatload of cash on the promise to fix it.
3.... well there is no step 3 because you don't actually DO anything about it, because then what would you campaign on and raise cash for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets talk about the punishment fitting the crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lets talk about the punishment fitting the crime
Now, given that the value of something copyrighted far-and-away exceeds 9 million dollars (in the eyes of some, it's like 25 million or something for a 5 minute copyrighted clip, right?) it makes perfect sense for the jail-time on copyright infringement to be double or triple that of murder/manslaughter.
/sarc...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lets talk about the punishment fitting the crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lets talk about the punishment fitting the crime
You need to throw in killing the family pet. The animal cruelty charge would put them over the break even point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lets talk about the punishment fitting the crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lets talk about the punishment fitting the crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lets talk about the punishment fitting the crime
> homicide with a vehicle
There's no such thing as a federal vehicular manslaughter law. That's a matter of state law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lets talk about the punishment fitting the crime
A serious question: exactly what class felony would this be under this law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember, "performance" is modified by "public".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you claiming that embedding a video would not be considered a public performance? It certainly looks like it would be based on my reading of the law.
That certainly seems to encompass linking/embedding.
But, you know, if you actually wanted to be *helpful* rather than obliquely and vaguely insisting that I got something wrong, you would explain what you actually mean.
Why you never do that, I'll never quite understand. I guess it's easier to insult people if you don't have to explain your statements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
To your point re YouTube and its inference that the Sword of Damocles hangs over the head of those making otherwise ordinary YouTube postings, the best a right's holder could hope for is that Section 506(a)(1)(B) applies, which, of course, requires that the act have been "willfull", a subjective standard that requires actual knowledge (See, e.g., GLOBAL-TECH APPLIANCES, INC., ET AL. v. SEB S. A., decided by the USSC on 5/31/2011).
Read whatever you may wish into my comments, but do understand that they are not made with an intent to "insult".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, this is a big deal if you're running sleezy-payperview-relay.tv (and I suspect that's what this is targeting) but if you're uploading Minecraft tutorials? Probably hard to demonstrate the financial motivation there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That would be scary, but it's a good thing that copyright is completely compatible with the first amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I nearly didn't believe it myself. It even applies if the laws are changed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't Be Silly
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't Be Silly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't Be Silly
Its actually a quote from from Ayn Rand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't Be Silly
But now you've ruined that, haven't you! ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't Be Silly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't Be Silly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cops: MPAA Edition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Cop 2: "What's that squeaking noise coming from inside the house?"
Cop 1: "They may be trying to destroy evidence. Bust down the door"
*Bam*
Cop 2: "Oh, you never want to see that."
Cop 1: "You're both under arrest"
Perp: "What for?"
Cop 1: "Copyright infringement and public exposure. You shouldn't be having sex with your door open like that."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh, you will get an amen from the choir though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So if Cal Trans builds a freeway...
Jesus, They gotta quit with all this mind boggling,"I have nothing better to do" bullshit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So if Cal Trans builds a freeway...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The key word is targeted. i'll bet there are no protections against its miss use any ware in the bill... but then again isn't that the point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GREAT IDEA!
Start here: http://reid.senate.gov/
Embedded YouTube Video right on his front page.
Then the first video on his 'YouTube' page is from a news agency...
http://www.youtube.com/SenatorReid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where to put people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good grief, people. Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What do you think the Channelsurfing guy did?
Good grief, people. Really?
The law makes that a felony. You don't see this as a problem?
Is your answer really to mock those who point out what the law actually says?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Of course not. They'll go to jail for something that isn't actually illegal (e.g. protected speech), but pisses off someone important. The YouTube link will just be the way they make the prosecution legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I bet Jose Guerena's wife and son aren't laughing much now, as that is what happened in Az last week.
You sound just like whoever started the Drug War with their platitudes about skeptics raising "outrageous" concerns.
I have to ask: When the outrageous happens, will YOU take responsibility for the course of action YOU advocated?
Will you rightfully feel their blood on your hands?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> law to bust the average YouTube user is laughable.
Whether they actually do it or not isn't really the point. Why would you (or any other sane person) not object to a law that gives them that discretion in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
^ This
We've seen law enforcement massively abuse similar laws in the past. I think FUDbuster over there is being ridiculous naive if he thinks this law won't be similarly abused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some laws are inherently more open to abuse than others. They're called "bad laws".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, FUDspreader, not *all* laws can be abused. And the problem here is that the "abuse" is directly in how this law is written. This wouldn't even be stretching the law. It would be applying the law as written.
I'm stunned that you don't see the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The law as written would apply to those who intentionally act to break the law for the purpose of infringing. That does not include the average YouTube user.
Linking already be a criminal act. This doesn't change that. The argument that "they're going to make everyone on YouTube a criminal" is laughable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gotcha.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Are you suggesting that YouTube is NOT a "full-blown streaming site?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
YouTube is a streaming site, sure, but not the type of streaming site that McCarthy was running.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
McCarthy was arrested for posting links to copyrighted material, not for streaming them.
McCarthy's own words:
Feds Arrest Owner of Seized Sports Streaming Domain
“The thing about my site is we never streamed anything, we always linked from other sites like justin.tv, veetle, vshare.tv, zonein.tv and others,” TorrentFreak was told.
So, if someone tells me this law the Senators want to pass won't put anyone behind bars for linking to infringing content, don't expect me to believe it. They've already locked up McCarthy and they didn't even have this law in place to do it. Sounds like the Feds have found out that current law doesn't give them a leg to stand on (piss on) and they want a law put in place after the fact (of the arrest and takedown) to cover their respective asses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And my point is that, as McCarthy's arrest demonstrates, linking can already be criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The real difference is the arrest for linking to (contributory infringement, which should be handled in a civil court, not a criminal one), but not specifically hosting, copying or uploading the material in question.
And my point is that, as McCarthy's arrest demonstrates, linking can already be criminal.
And this new attempt at a changing the law will make practically everyone subject to that same type of arrest and conviction. Have Twitter? Have over 10 followers? Post link to Youtube video you don't have copyright to? Go directl y to jail at the whim of the copyright holder under this law. Prepare to visit grandma in jail, for forwarding that link to all of her friends, of that funny video if which she didn't own the copyrights.
This is all about the "new beating stick" the lawyers will be sending out in their letters. Now along with "Settle for this low price and we won't take all your money. Because even if you are innocent, it will still cost you to defend yourself", will be included "and you might not even be sent to ass-raping prison by us". I certain folks not worried about losing some money in court, might be more worried about jail time for something they're accused of doing, even if they didn't do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But there is such thing as accomplice liability in criminal infringement. I checked on Westlaw and found about 25 recent cases of people being charged with this for internet-related activity. In fact, one of the charges against McCarthy was that he was an accomplice. It's not necessarily a civil thing.
And this new attempt at a changing the law will make practically everyone subject to that same type of arrest and conviction. Have Twitter? Have over 10 followers? Post link to Youtube video you don't have copyright to? Go directl y to jail at the whim of the copyright holder under this law. Prepare to visit grandma in jail, for forwarding that link to all of her friends, of that funny video if which she didn't own the copyrights.
Utter FUD and nonsense. Remember that it has to meet the requirements to be criminal, not the least of which is that it's "willful," which involves a two-pronged test. This will not affect regular users.
This is all about the "new beating stick" the lawyers will be sending out in their letters. Now along with "Settle for this low price and we won't take all your money. Because even if you are innocent, it will still cost you to defend yourself", will be included "and you might not even be sent to ass-raping prison by us". I certain folks not worried about losing some money in court, might be more worried about jail time for something they're accused of doing, even if they didn't do it.
I don't see how this addendum will change things in that regard. Private plaintiffs can already do that under existing law. More FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sounds just like what Homeland Security did here, and ICE did here. Good thing they didn't abuse or make up the law in doing so or things might get out of hand with the authorities making the crime fit the law.
Remember that it has to meet the requirements to be criminal, not the least of which is that it's "willful," which involves a two-pronged test.
Did grandma send the link? Prong One. Will some court/judge/jury in East Texas call that alone "willful"? Prong Two. Prison time for grandma? It's Trident time (no, not the gum, the three pronged version).
This will not affect regular users.
"This will not affect you". How many times will the powers that be say that, and then have been proven to be utterly and completely wrong.
Agendas. Everybody (and every company) has one, and they don't care if it squashes your life into the dirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, except for the trifling little fact that McCarthy has been convicted of nothing. Neither has anyone else who has linked to infringing content.
Essentially, ICE just assumed linking was a criminal activity, with absolutely no case law (nor statute) to back it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Considering that the harm (or even the existence of harm) for infringement is hard to pin down, even from case to case. Making it an offense worthy of incarceration on so low a standard (10 "performances" over 6 months) is pretty ridiculous, even unnecessary. And as been mentioned so many times here that it deserves its own shorthand, the even greater problem is that it could create a chilling effect.
Let's use the ever handy YouTube as an example:
Who would want to post anything there that may refer to any copyrighted media, if due to some misunderstand of the law, or an interpretation of fair use that doesn't jive with the judge can lead to criminal prosecution that could result in jail time? Instead of worrying about that, some would rather just keep their "mouths" shut. What originally is thought to be harmonizing the laws, is now a statutory hurdle against engaging with our own culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There is no abuse of power in the system, i say broader laws. How about this "Its a felony to do bad stuff." You have nothing to worry about because it only goes after people doing bad stuff, not acting in good faith and doing something wrong. No one would ever be arrested for the wrong bad stuff just you know bad stuff. Oh and this law doesn't require the court system, someone just has to say you did bad stuff and the cops will disappear you. Sounds good right? No more bad stuff to worry about. I know everyone hates bad stuff and if only there was a law against it no one would do bad things anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By the way, the Feds will be over to bust down your door for posting anonymously. Whats that you say? Posting anonymously isn't illegal? Good luck with that explanation as a jackboot is pressing your neck to the floor. I'm sure SWAT and the court system will go easy on you once they hear you say that "get out of jail" phrase, because the justice system is always fair, just ask them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
P.S. Did they find anything interesting "in plain view"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
...
James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee,
If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And for what? Money? Great. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt is what your government is using to guide you dear fellow.
The Internet swells and raises the voices of the quiet. It's getting louder, incessant, it's threatening the corridors of power and soon more laws will not be enough.. or we will be made quiet.
So.. roll your eyes and drink your tea.
\r
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh right, it was in regards to anti-terror legislation... about how it would only be used to find and arrest terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's not necessary. All they have to do is convict you a felony, and put you on probation. Then guess what? You can no longer vote, serve on a jury, you can have your passport revoked, your job opportunities destroyed.
All because you linked to that Fox video and made a critical comment on Conryn or his cronies. Wise up fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually I think that they do understand...maybe you live in a police-state?
Or as Wendell Phillips said, "...power is ever stealing from the many to the few…. The hand entrusted with power becomes … the necessary enemy of the people.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Need more prisons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Need more prisons
If it means increasing the bottom line, it will happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Need more prisons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about permissions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about permissions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is a great idea
By the People, for the People...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait until the first arrest is made under this law to an alleged individual 'pirate', and then his attorney questions why Police have not arrested any other persons whom are blatantly flouting the law ie: Youtube embeders Making the court (criminal) question its equity role and the police being accused of malfeasance.
Yes there are some who have stated above that "this will never happen", but please explain why it wouldn't? And lets not quote de minimis non curat lex ok? it would NOT apply since the first time it is, and used successfully as a defence, it would then be used by all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You cannot compete with FREE !!
I have been thinking about this thorny issue for a few months now and have come up with a solution that is so simple i cannot believe the "big content" havent thought of this before.
Streaming is not really an option as most people want to collect collections of films, music, TV programmes ebooks etc, move them to whatever device they want to use them on and only pay for them once.
The "big content" gatekeepers build a site and charge a fee (approx £30 or $50) per month, (I think this is reasonable) for this you the public get unlimited all you can eat internet. the servers link to all the vast amounts of Official and unofficial media from all the torrent sites, usenet and digital lockers etc. This takes advantage of the P2P distribution model with is very efficient and cost effective as the servers only need to keep links to the media. Each month the relevant gatekeepers (MPAA RIAA, BPI, Ebook publishers, software publishers etc) all get a proportion of the total amount collected, based on downloads. to stop the figures being inflated by unscruplious people the download can be confirmed as taking place before it is registered as a completed download.
Based on my (admittedly rough figures) if 10 million people were to subscibe, (a crazy low figure) then the gatekeepers would take in £300,000,000 ($500,000,000) per month. if this was to be done correctly then the MPAA and the RIAA would distribute the money to the artists whose music and films have been downloaded, it could also be broken down further and the original TV networks (BBC, CBS NBC FOX, etc) would get paid for the downloads of their programmes.
This would encourage the networks, film producers etc to put out officially sanctioned copies at high quality, this is a win win for the public and a win win for the lablels and gatekeepers, they get to hold on to their "legacy models" and get into the 21 centuary.
If anyone wants the full physical copy then obviously they can buy a CD/DVD, book, or magazine from the publishers.
Im sure i am going to get flamed and told that this cannot possibly work, but i feel that this is the only way the lables can "compete with Free" and stop Piracy in its tracks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You cannot compete with FREE !!
This cannot possibly work, for one simple reason: Whenever startups have tried similar ideas, Big Content has demanded unreasonable licensing fees (e.g. 50% of their profits).
You might also take a gander at EFF's collective licensing scheme, and Mike's criticism of compulsory licenses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You cannot compete with FREE !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You cannot compete with FREE !!
Yeah, but that's been true since the 1800's. From player pianos, to DAT tapes, the music industry has always tried to kill technology.
Like most other industries, the legacy players are always the last to embrace new technology. This means that embracing new technology must be the job of startups or new players. Unfortunately, they are legally not allowed to do so, and if they try, they're "pirates."
I mean, take another look at your statement:
for this you the public get unlimited all you can eat internet. the servers link to all the vast amounts of Official and unofficial media from all the torrent sites, usenet and digital lockers etc.
This is what you get right now with "pirate" sites. They are pirate sites only because the RIAA/MPAA makes it impossible to build a "legit" site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You cannot compete with FREE !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In Europe we are excluded from quite a lot of Youtube content
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In Europe we are excluded from quite a lot of Youtube content
This is all kinda rich coming from a frenchman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In Europe we are excluded from quite a lot of Youtube content
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then claim that "but we will not target people" for that, and that, and that....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conspiracy to hoodwinkle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop wasting precious time over this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who are 'Supporters' and 'Everyone'
Everyone keeps insisting...
How 'bout you name names?
Seriously?
Who, exactly, says this is just to harmonize civil and criminal law? On its face, that seems a ridiculous statement and I'd like to let them know my opinion and ask how I'm in error.
Who, exactly, is saying this is targeted at streaming sites? I have a few questions for them, too.
Lets see more specifics on who (names please) is saying what. Its not like you're going to run out of page space here.
-jmr
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Senators Gone Wild or Insane: Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Commies passing laws
thug-like lowlifes. Defund the marxist healthcare BS promoted by obama.
Stay the hell away from menial things and start destroying and dismantling a total waste of our taxpayer money. We work too darned hard to have low lifes sucking off the taxpayers teat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time to wake up and smell the coffee
2. Stop the flow of free information amongst the masses.
You all have got to understand, this is not about protecting the artist, composers, or hard working individuals. The internet is the biggest threat to the power elite right now because the slaves have started talking to one another. Do you realize how many videos that are posted on Youtube that have important information about the mechanisms of the imperialists that are block for "copyright infringement"? You will also notice that they never say that the video in question is the copyright of a particular person, no it is copyright of a corporation. You see these people do not care about anything other than to make a fast buck, and to keep us in the dark. The digital technology has made it easier for everyone to be able to share their ideas and opinion over a wide variety of subjects. That is what they are most afraid of, a thinking and informed citizenry. This law is designed to try and counter the information revolution that is being fought by people who are fed up with being programmed my the lame stream media. The music and works in question have been copied and performed thousands of times over even before the internet became a household word. What is being done by the people is no different than what people used to do with cassette tapes and VHS recorders in the late 70´s and 80´s. Why is it such a big deal now? This law cannot be passed, or we are going to open a Pandora´s box that we cannot close.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make everyone into a "criminal" and then selectively prosecute those opposed to your policies along with enough random pleebs to ensure fear of the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digital Rights Management of You Tube Videos
The technology exists so that the responsibility for distributing illegal content can be correctly assigned across the media value chain.
Specifically, !SO/IEC 23000-19 Media Value Chain Ontology (MVCO) published standard, allows for keeping track of content and assigning the corresponding rights to different agents according to the roles they play in the value chain.
Thus there is no reason to be in the dark with respect to who is responsible for illegally distributing You Tube Videos.
An example application that precedes this standard but is entirely compliant, is at www.digitalmediavalues.com. The idea is that users that post content are required to take responsibility for correct rights attribution. So if I am a performer/producer and the work I am performing is in public domain, then I declare so and place any conditions I wish on the performance. Thus anyone who downloads the content must accept my license and would then be cleared of any responsibility should I have been wrong about the public domain status of the work I perform.
Transparency in the value chain is the answer and creating such transparent applications is no longer a technical challenge but rather a question of policy.
Will the so called rights managers accept to switch from managing individual rights to providing a rights management platform accessible to all and anyone, or do they still wish to make rights control an exclusive prerogative.
Marc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Embedding violation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prison
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They don't work for us!!
by Sheila the Watcher
Living without the bonds of TV affords me the luxury of having time to read. As my third book this month, I happened to pick the Leon Uris novel, QB VII, written in the 1970s, when there was still something to be proud about in America, and when there were still enough people around who could remember the horrors of WWII.
The story takes place in post-WWII England, and is about a libel suit brought by a Polish Nationalist doctor (Kelno), a former POW in Jadwiga concentration camp, against a Jewish-American author (Cady) who names him as performing surgeries for German doctors who were experimenting on Jewish prisoners.
This is part of the opening statement made by the defense attorney (for Cady) in the British courtroom:
“ “Well, as a matter of fact there were some Germans, soldiers, officers, priests, doctors, and ordinary civilians who refused to obey these orders and said, ‘I am not going to do this because I would not like to live and have this on my conscience. I’m not going to push them into gas chambers, and then say later I was under orders and justify it by saying that they were going to be pushed in by someone anyhow and I can’t stop it and other people will push them more cruelly. Therefore, it’s in their best interest that I shove them in gently.’ You see, the trouble was, not enough of these people refused.” 1”
When my tears subsided I thought, what an amazing time to be reading this. How appropriate to what is happening in our country now.
Day after day we see headlines about the indignities suffered by air travelers at the hands of TSA agents who are content to place their hands on the genitals of passengers of no matter what ages for their daily ration of bread (read: HFCS, MSG, GMO, etc.). And still the passengers line up for the privilege of being “man-handled” so that they can get to grandma’s house or their next business meeting a little faster instead of saying, “I am a free American and you may NOT touch me without cause,” or even, “I will not ride your airplane if I must be accosted so.”
Day after day we see headlines about some police officer tazering an elderly citizen for asking a question, or throwing the occupant of a wheelchair to the ground to prove that he is handicapped... or killing a veteran for having a gun in his own home. And still we say, “Yes, sir” to the police and skulk away in fear, instead of saying, “Don’t do that to this person!”
Day after day we see headlines about what a potential criminal/terrorist -- someone to be suspected regardless of their actions -- is the person who cites the U.S. Constitution to affirm their rights, or likes a certain political candidate, or has served his or her country in the military, or just wants to be left alone by “the system”, or has the audacity to disagree with the current administration -- or who asks for acknowledgement of the truth instead of ridicule on a point of fact. And still we say, “Thank goodness you’re taking care of my safety and security, because I don’t want to get my hands dirty,” instead of saying, “I have a right to my opinion, to think my own thoughts.”
Day after day we see headlines about the millions cheated out of their homes, loosing their jobs, forced to beg the government for poisoned food that will make their children imbeciles compared to who they could have been so that those who control the money can amass more and more for themselves, reaching orgasm at the thought of how much they have attained and how they can hold the “cattle” as slaves. And still we say, “Thank you for the job as a hamburger flipper so that I can pay you most of my wages in taxes,” instead of saying, “I will take care of my money myself.”
Stand up. Don’t let them grope you. Don’t let them go through your car at a warrant-less checkpoint. Don’t let them search your home without cause or due process. Don’t let them control your money. TPTB’s philosophy is, if you don’t complain, nothing is wrong. Start complaining. Start deciding that you won’t allow yourself -- or others -- to be treated this way.
We are at the proverbial “slippery slope”. From here it will be easy to fall into the same state as was controlled by the German nazis. The slogan of the time was, “Never Forget!” But TPTB are doing everything possible -- dumbing us down, directing thought -- to make us forget so that they can use the same tactics unencumbered by the ghosts of the slaughtered. Don’t allow us and our children to be next. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Just make sure the history you remember is the truth.
Aldus Huxley is quoted as saying (paraphrased) that the ideal situation is one in which the slave is contented with his enslavement. You are an accomplice to your own enslavement. Stop being contented. Stop rationalizing your own enslavement as the best you can hope for.
TPTB know that if you don’t resist, you are theirs to exploit in any way they see fit. Stop complying. Imagine what would happen to TPTB if we all just said, “hell, no” -- no matter how gently they grab our balls.
Through our website, placeofrefuge2012.com, we talk to far too many docile, I-have-a-million-reasons-not-to-take-action kind of people. The time to stand up is now, not as they close the gas chamber door behind you. No football game, airline flight, bus trip, concert, prom, no job, no social group is worth your human dignity -- nor your freedom. Spread the word that we are enslaved by our own volition -- and that it doesn’t have to be so. Stop complying now with that which is, at it essence, wrong. There is no excuse.
“ ...You see, the trouble was, not enough of these people refused.”2 ”
1 QB VII, by Leon Uris, Copyright 1970. Bantam Books edition, published 1972, page 295
2 Ibid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They don't work for us!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They don't work for us!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
on a side note, I was talking with a group that was registered with BMI many years ago and the thing that surprised me was that BMI was geared more towards the writers and not the performers. So does a person in that Karaoke bar have the writers permission to sing their song in public? Things could have changed in the past 20 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obvious Attempt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Media control
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Rule:
The real crime is thinking you own something you didnt make or produce.
I did a remix for Sony, they bought it from me, never released it, and then hit me with a CEASE AND DESIST from me putting my own work up on YouTube. I keep putting it up btw. (keep wasting your resources)
FACE THE MUSIC CEOs: Its time to give up your CEO parking spots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Free Speech
Last link (before Google Books bans it also]:
http://www.iuniverse.com/Bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=SKU-000190526
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
embedding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: embedding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: mystic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawmakers at all levels suffer digital illiteracy
http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2011/05/digital-illiteracy-still-plagues-law.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You wont belive this..but its a fact ....in israel
And give 2 finger prints and photo for facial recognition, and go into the the first in the world ridiculously unsecured databank that every police officer can access.
The guy in the government that did this(an uneducated member of a criminal party called kadima-political pary who's leader is going to jail for massive fraud(billions) and the secretary of treasury who is doing time now for stealing (among other things) from a children funds!!!!
Meir shitrit did it by himself (it was like watching sadam hussein give a speech, because the rest of the Israeli government weren't attending (most of them are corrupt to the bone, the former president is a convicted rapist, the last prime minister is going to jail for unbelievable fraud ,- the guy cost the country billions)
if you fail to comply you will not get a PASSPORT and id , which means you cannot leave the "country" or get health care among other things,
Information experts from big companies said clearly that this is a gross mistake since every data base can be hacked and probably will which leaves 7 million people in the risk of going to jail' half of the government are going to jail and the Innocent citizens have to give finger id like criminals, this is unbelievable , at the beginning shitrit even tried to enforce mandatory PRISON TIME for those who refuse to give finger prints and go into an unsecured to be hacked country crossing data bank, this is not a government this is NOT a democracy , this is like a bad night mare, i still cant believe it he passes the pilot for the law with NO OBJECTION just because the rest of the government were to lazy to attend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHAT??!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Porn Bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beyond stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dam I'm Guilty of Whooppee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
perhaps the process is geared at something else
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
basics in question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
performance felony issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yeah right
-LEGIØN-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Myopic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jail for using Facebook!
These Senators need to be locked up every one that reads this should call them and further more call your congress or senators office and tell them to call these idiots out on the floor! We put them up there to repsent us it's time they do there Fu*king jobs... Work for us not against us to put us in jail for enjoying our freedoms!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Madness control by money!
These there are dumb post it on your facebook or tweet it that we need to call these dummy's on Monday then call your local officials and make sure they don't vote on this madness!
John Cornyn Texas Republican
Amy Klobuchar Minnesota Democrat
Chris Coons Delaware Democrat
It's clear that we are working with dumb people here not party lines! What has happened is the movie studios have got to these guys with political contributions = $$$$ and once again big business is working against the people that put these yahoos I'n office!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facebook will they put my child in jail!
Why don't these worthless people go catch some bank robbers, rapist, druggies, gangbanges that make it so dangerous that me and my 7 year old daughter can't take a walk in the park at 5:30 in the afternoon in most big city's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Embedded
of power in our government;but it's not.
Here is a new word from The Washington Post's Mensa Invitational where once again readers are invited to take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or changing one letter, and supply a new definition.
The following was one of the winners:
Ignoranus : A person who's both stupid and an asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
americans are sheep
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:ok
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even Russians would not guess the such shit >
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have got to be kidding!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TubeTruthers.com Alternative to Youtube's New Policies?
Where not the alternative but where sure as hell here for those who feel Youtube is out of control!
Started on 5/28/11 TubeTruthers.com was my way of giving something back to all the Tube Truthers of the now fascist community known as YouTube. Disgusted with account cancellations, and people having to create back up accounts, has now forced me into this work full time. With the help of wonderful friends and people coming to together for a common good, i present TubeTruthers.com.
Let this be our home, until the time comes when you and i meet on the front lines of the coming ground war. For now, feel free to express your truth and help us get the word out, that we finally have a home where Censorship and Bullshit does not apply. Lastly, the world must know, there are a group of Tube warriors who take there spare to to share a message for your own good. All that we ask is for a few minutes of your time to share that message with you.
Stories:
Alex Jones protest banned from Youtube?
Demonstrators led by Alex Jones chant “treason” in response to federal government threat to close down Texas airports
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Alex Jones’ spontaneous decision calling on Texans to protest the government’s egregious threat of a federal blockade if the Texas Senate passed an anti-TSA groping bill resulted in hundreds of protesters storming the Capitol in Austin yesterday afternoon.
""vid was removed by the youtube nazies(Google).
As we reported yesterday, the TSA and the Department of Justice resorted to financial terrorism by threatening a federal blockade that would have closed down Texas airports if the Texas Senate had followed the House in unanimously passing a bill that would have made TSA groping in the state a felony.
“There’s never a dull moment at the Texas Legislature. The House and Senate were going about their regular end-of-session business on Wednesday when loud screams could be heard coming from the rotunda. Outside the chambers, a group of mostly men and a few women were screaming, “Cri-mi-nal! Cri-mi-nal!” and “Treason! Treason!” reports the Texas Tribune.
The quickly arranged demonstration was announced during Jones’ radio show just hours beforehand. Next time around, there would be 50,000 protesters in attendance, he promised.
Media reaction to the event was mixed, with some accurately reporting the protest and others resorting to the usual brand of sneering arrogance we’ve come to expect from the corporate press.
Despite the fact that the intimidation tactics of the federal government, which will surely backfire as a massive shot in the arm for the states’ rights movement, scuttled the anti-grope bill in Texas, there are numerous other states that are already debating or preparing to introduce similar bills.
The feds cannot keep relying on mafia-like behavior to preserve the ability of their criminal army of minimum wage perverts to molest children, at some point down the line lawmakers will have the guts to stand up and say no, and at that point a wave of TSA resistance will sweep legislatures across the country.
Watch more videos of the protest below
click the link to watch and read it all.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/rage-against...pitol.html
Links:
http://www.infowars.com/g overnment-orders-you-tube-to-censor-protest-videos/
http://www.hidden.me/2011/05/government-order s-youtube-to-censor-protest-videos-about-corrupt-judge/
Akyas Easu Founder of TubeTruthers.com
For information on Youtube
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Post a fan art on DeviantArt + getting 10 or more views = 5 years in prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes it would count !
"I DON'T WANT ANY PROBLEMS" wow you are a mam-be pansy!
CRIMINAL OFFENSE. I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING ALL THIS. I DON'T WANT ANY PROBLEMS. PLEASE ADVISE.
get up off your ass grow some balls make some phone calls and tell these idiot what your going to do if they put this bill in! like your going to go out and tell the world and make sure they never ever get reelected!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Kankel bracelets!
I cant wait my very own Kankel bracelet! Ill even post a you tube video on how to get it off YEA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice to have a voice of reason weigh in on the matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyhype is owned by the people trying to pass this bill
Trying to calm people down and talk them in to excepting bigger government and more laws!
FUDbuster that make you a moron!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyhype is owned by the people trying to pass this bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FUDbuster works for Copyhype!
FUDbuster works for copyhype.com he is all over the internet
spamming the news story's on this trying to down play it!
FUDbuster is a employee for the media company's that want to
take more of our freedoms and get in our pocket books1
Shame on you FUDbuster...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FUDbuster works for Copyhype!
Terry Hart might be slowly becoming a copyright maximalist, but he does have the right to express his opinion. If FUDbuster says that his info is valid, we should see why or why not. But calling FUDbuster a "moron" just for showing us the information doesn't show anyone why it's good or bad.
Let's have more discourse and less personal attacks, alright? ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FUDbuster works for Copyhype!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay and FUDbuster work for the crooks that made this bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Six Principles of Global Manipulation
Six Principles of Global Manipulation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fF3TQ0lJnU
Anti-Qur'an Strategy of the Bible Project Wheeler-Dealers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1wXgXwj3MI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
embedding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid thing is, the Chinese will still keep banning Hollywood movies and they'll still be available for sale in pirated form in any market, and what's Hollywood going to do about it? Except make double sure we pay every penny to Chinese copyright holders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
S978
http://www.law.cornell.edu/u scode/718/usc_sec_18_00002319---B000-.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read the bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright enforcement is simply just a lost cause anyway.
People nowdays strongly believe in "free entertainment", and if anybody is going to make it a felony to embed infringed media, then it will infringe people's rights. Infringing peoples rights to freedom should be a felony, not infringement of copyright. And again, copyright laws are now a lost cause anyway.
Considering how Newgrounds Audio Portal has created a "loophole" to the copyright laws by having completely original music from the Creative Commons that is free, but 100% legal to download, theoretically people might just boycott iTunes if Newgrounds gets extensively advertised and will make Newgrounds Audio Portal music the new standard for pop music. I say, we repeal copyright laws and keep steaming legal, because YouTube has already been ruined by Warner Music Group blocking videos, and some people think YouTube has been subverted because of that. Who's with me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright enforcement is simply just a lost cause anyway.
Now the trick is to get Tom Fulp and gang to actually advertise the site to this end.
Today's modern music brought to you by the site that gave you Charlie the Unicorn (albeit the youtube upload made it popular without permission... ironically enough)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright enforcement is simply just a lost cause anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright enforcement is simply just a lost cause anyway.
other thought was that it was the crowd that called out the re-poster in YouTube and it was handled that way thankfully. Though I think Newgrounds didn't get the view count I may have because of the tard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright enforcement is simply just a lost cause anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FIDDLING WHILST ROME BURNS
It's time to get rid of these bozos entirely and put people in who can do the people's business, starting by protecting us from our own government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People who upload innocuous covers to YouTube and those who may link to them elsewhere will be absolutely unaffected by it.
People who upload innocuous covers to YouTube and those who may link to them elsewhere will be absolutely unaffected by it.
Read the bill more carefully and you’ll see that the “…10 or more public performances…” stipulation is only applicable in conjunction with one or more of the subsequent provisions.
You fail to note that this law only applies to *intentional* infringements where the total retail value of the performances exceeds $2,500 and the total fair market value of licenses for such use must exceed $5,000.
Please check your facts more thoroughly in the future before allowing yourself to take an alarmist stance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: People who upload innocuous covers to YouTube and those who may link to them elsewhere will be absolutely unaffected by it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: People who upload innocuous covers to YouTube and those who may link to them elsewhere will be absolutely unaffected by it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hows that hope and change working out for you America?
The more non violent offenders you can jail=an easier job of keeping "inmates" in line. I notice that no one has brought up private prisons as a reason for jailing people for such petty reasons as streaming content. Why aren't these people more interested in securing the border, and kicking out illegals?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair Use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The drums...
The Drums are getting louder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clarification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Singing a copyrighted lyric and quoting from a movie = 5 years in prison. Even though the prisons will be full, there are secretly located FEMA death camps near you that comes with FEMA coffins.
Make Jesus your savior and start hiding in a cave, preferably a cave of Church Rock in Utah.
Don't fight the govt, trust Jesus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Apparently looking up for answers and not doing what we've done for the past hundred years with civil disobedience and going hand in hand (with prayers mind you) solves nothing. /sarc
The hiding under a rock is just classic lulz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only the beginning
And for now, you must be enriched for embeding the video, but like I stated, the government usualy has a motive. This will open the door for amendments to come later when no one is watching.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only the beginning
And for now, you must be enriched for embeding the video, but like I stated, the government usualy has a motive. This will open the door for amendments to come later when no one is watching.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike's irresponsible, outrageous falsehoods
You've gone completely nuts on this one. If you even done even the most Basic research, you'd realize that this legislation does NOT criminalize any behavior that wasn't already criminal. It simply takes the most egregious cases of conduct that were already misdemeanor crimes under 17 U.S.C. 506(a)(1)(A), and raises them to felonies in particularly egregious cases. So, under this bill, the public performance of copyrighted works is only a felony if (1) it is willfull (knowing and intentional) infringement (2) for commercial advantage or private financial gain (3) involving 10 or more performances within 180 days (4) that cause more than $2,500 in loss to the rights holder. It is clear that none of the parade of horribles you trot out would meet all these conditions, nor would any prosecutor try to claim they did. So which is it: (a) you actually have no idea how to read legislation, (b) you think a willful, commercial infringer who causes more than $2,500 in damage shouldn't be subject to criminal liability, or (c) you are deliberately misleading your readers about this legislation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike's irresponsible, outrageous falsehoods
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike's irresponsible, outrageous falsehoods
He is deliberating misleading readers, which he does on a variety of topics. But what you will soon learn is that when he's caught in a lie or utter fabrication, he simply responds that he's merely a blogger, thinking that somehow absolves him from accuracy or even good faith.
His claims are absurd and he knows it. But the true impact of the bill doesn't suit his agenda, so you get insane headlines and crazier assertions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
American artists are suffering...
We do not watch TV anymore. Just Netflix movies. We get news from WRH, RawStory, BlackListedNews, etc. We used to buy a lot of American music CDs by listening to some songs in YouTube and then going to Amazon to buy the CD but now people are afraid to load American artists songs to YouTube, fortunately a lot of EU songs are getting loaded to YouTube and we find ourselves buying a lot of EU artists CDs from Amazon. This problem is self feeding because now Amazon sees that we like EU artists and they send us everyday recommendations of CDs by EU artists. Then we go to YouTube and find if we like the recordings and buy EU artist music from Amazon perpetuating the problem for US artists. The media executives do not understand the internet model and then they want to kill it. They are pathetic!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is bullshit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why
porn is more disgusting then video games
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unmitigated Stupidity and Greed.
Imprisoning citizens for non-violent, petty violations (often unwittingly so), is asinine, inane, an demonstrates a complete alienation of human rights in lieu of the interests of large corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Youtube
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
really
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
really
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
Btw, just for the record, this is probably the most BSFULL thing I have heard this year. I would make a bill that Justin Bieber videos couldn't be uploaded, but noooooOOo!! Five year old girls will run to my house with torches and pitchforks as angry villagers!...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
S.978 short honest opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fear campaign is total BS.
#2 Rights to post video either already exist within or can be added to Gaming licenses issued with purchased games. Can also be added to form letters included with free games sent to reviewers. Zero effort by game companies.
Sorry but this campaign of twisted half-truths relies on your legal ignorance. Google Public Performance and Copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fear Campaign is Total BS
#2 Rights to post video either already exist within or can be added to Gaming licenses issued with purchased games. Can also be added to form letters included with free games sent to reviewers. Zero effort by game companies.
Sorry but this campaign of twisted half-truths relies on your legal ignorance. Google Public Performance and Copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Real Fear for copyright violate is true
Basis for protest -- traditional separation of civil (property, contractual, and mental considerations) from criminal matters (actual or potential physical harm, force and loss of liberty against persons or harm to the community).
Even most laws on robbery is punished primarily on the basis of harm to community (banks) or on actual or potential physical harm to persons during commission or escape from the felony.
P.S. Actually for remixes etc, I think that law allows 30 second clips without violating copyright. I am sure that is limited to 1 clip from each performance per each of your means of distribution (webpage, CD, etc). But consult a lawyer or at least google copyright law from professional and college sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NO
I understand taking down movies, and television programmes, because you would have to pay a decent amount to buy / watch a film. Taking down programmes on YouTube could also be understandable, because you would have to watch advertisements, which could get businesses some money.
Please rethink these VIDEO GAMING rules. Thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Strike this bill down it is ridiculous!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't believe this
Why be in jail when I'm young? This is stupid!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RETARDED!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
saw it coming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: saw it coming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the bill
You have been brain washed by the schools the Democrats want you to be good little zombes and so do so
some of the republicans this is not a party line deal... Although the Democrats will take more freedoms away just look at what they want to take you moron!
The right to own a gun, violent video games,, 4x4 off roading it's bad for the environment,, hunting,, fishing the list goes on,, we need to be perfect little city zombes!!
Look what Obama took this year! Your Internet freedom look it up it's gone! The government took over the Internet so those off you that say you will download anyway too bad they will just SHUT YOUR SERVICE OFF! Search filters can search 40 million IP Address per second so don't tell me they can't catch you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i think you only reach war To be honest with it .
There are a lot of people that love to watch youtube videos of games .
why dont you all make a law to never make a law like this ever again ?
Why being stupid and ruin million careers ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Videogame walkthroughs/playthroughs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Impassable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this bill will kill
North America = 272.1 Million users
Europe = 476.2 Million users
Asia = 922.3 MILLIONS OF USERS
while people say oh this is only in america though youtube is american. Youtube get 1,586,000 daily website hits 100 Million Worldwide Daily Video Streams and about 63 million unique visitors per month. I can see a problem allready... what will happen to spotify,youtube,facebook,twitter,ustream
alot of bad choises have been made and it seems like we never learn even afterwards. this bill needs configuration i get the idea of stopping livestreams of movies and tv-shows but there must be a line.. there is a line and the current bill is ignoring it and thats when people goes crazy might end up in jail, and what was a great father sharing his daughters talent her cuteness a great father who is so proud that he puts his memory up on internet might be just that man who ends up in jail because of this bill..
sending good people into jail creates more villains.. more villains seems like this is going backwards.
i hope you will realise the stupidity of this bill and care about your people all you need to do is to find that fine line which is imposible to find when there is bigger matter of greed and selfishness and thats when you have lost the spirit of humanity!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: this bill will kill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: this bill will kill
Remember Napster? That was the first provider that was widely known for the "take-down" that happened due to other companies. It's a sad sight to see, seeing more DMCA's causing websites to disappear from google's search to now law-makers furthering the grip upon 'fair-use' with jail-time for embedded videos on popular up-streams like Youtube. We're not talking about bootleggers here hustling the streets, we're talking about your average joe, a person who could be as young as 12 getting "jailed" for having a game-video on youtube. They are also working with(and have been for some time) your ISP providers on what you download on the internet, now will they do that the same for uploads as well?
Youtube is chock-full of censorship garbage. It's the main reason why i've stop uploading my own walk-throughs on youtube personally. Ever since the discovery of getting paid for so many hits on a video(everyone and their mom knows about this by now),youtube has been in a downwards frenzy since and that's when the DMCA's really started coming out the wood-work's. You-tube is no longer about "you" the user, the consumer, and the player. It's about censortube, and this bill adds icing to the ugly cake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This Bill is absurd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pointless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously?
Also, jailtime? Seriously? For watching a movie online? That's plain ridiculous. Spending thousands of dollars or five years in jail is illogical for just watching a movie. You have to share a jail cell with a murderer or molester... For watching Iron Man 2 on your computer.
Don't pass the bill, people. Be logical and use your heads, see that this is just plain stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thisbullshit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This bill sucks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
let's play video's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We're not stealing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what the f**k
congress are you f**king kidding me your making a bill on the biggest bullsh*t ever i mean if you aprove this bill i can tell and you can tell the suicide rate will go throught the f***ing roof look do not aprove this bill i beg of you if you do the'll be more riots in this country than ever before all of the game companys will fall apart and the jail will fill up like a bowl of water. But i know you hate to see people in the jail but dont aprove the bill and we can all just go back doing what we were doing before this silly bill came up please
-jordan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And I mean, Violent revolution.
Simple as that.
This is the gov't cozying upo to their corporate masters, just so they can keep their jobs of being slavedrivers- somthing that should've been stopped yesterday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
About performing...
Are they talking about actually posting the actual copyrighted thing itself as their own, or your own version of it (i.e. you singing lady gaga, or your own drawing of mickey)
Either way, if it's not for profit I don't understand why they need to make a law against that specific part (if that's what they mean)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your a Idiot mr dumb European you lost all your freedoms you can't even wipe your own Ass! It's a fact that you did lose your Internet freedoms you can't even afford a nice hamburger or a t bone steak! I come there every year on business it sucks big monkey balls I would kill my self if I had to live there! And the Muslims you speak about firebombed a whole area of a city when I was there a burnt like 60 cars.. They run the show wile you white people live in fear.. So us Americans don't roll over and let inbread pig F****ing Muslims run our show. You European only have access to have of the stuff on YouTube and the net lol and lazy Amercans are next we are to lazy to take a stand so it's all going down the drain.. We got to comfortable with our freedoms!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Videos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bill S978
dude if god lets us be free why would u take tyhos privalages
off
your not god to take off those privalages man
and look if we do wrong its not your problem its our problem we will pay not you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the hell is wrong with our government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is ridiculous!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proof enough that your country is fucked up
So if a war veteran posts a video on youtube that has a song from a band in it that he didnt have permission from to use. They would send him to jail?
Holy Jesu what the fuck is wrong with your country?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Embedded Question
The bill for ridiculous copyright issues... Most people tend to find more composers from this whole deal.
I may not be a big shot, but I know limitation to the cyber world could cause something bad to happen to the general mind of its citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if you have other ideas i would like 2 here them email me at erianeady@yahoo.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet Screwed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Over-Control
These "bills" are not in the favor of the consumer but for the big-wigs at the top who get thousands upon thousands a dollars a year who are more worried about someone uploading a barbie tune in a 10-flash video clip of an online game and similar hogposh than more important, concerning matters like jobs (that they have been gladly diminishing these past 5-6 years).
Not only is this bill backwards beyond belief, but also a promotion to an early death-sentence to many game companies if it is allowed to past. Why bother playing a game, when you cannot even upload video-content of your own game-play without going to jail for it? That would severely put a damper in all the "fan-site" and would in-defiantly kill the video-game industry.
This is nothing more than an further attempt at internet censorship and control while taking away and violating the rights of the American citizenship by treating them as criminals. Youtube has already undergone several censorship methods and routines, now the law-makers are trying to pass bills to further the crunch on free-speech and fair-use on the internet.
I am fully against this bill 100%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YOUTUBE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While the leaked Trans Pacific Partnership IP chapter is not as sweeping as ACTA, it does require signatory countries to criminalise copyright infrinment, either for "commercial purposes", "financial gain", or if it is "prejudicial to the copyright owner"
It is that last one that could be troubling. It could mean that Congress could be forced, later on, to amend S978 to specifically make viewing the videos illegal. The "prejudicial to the copyright owner" clause will ultimately have to be decided by the courts.
Oc course, enforceability of any law against viewing videos could be difficult, as people could start using proxies in non-TPP countries to hide their activities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
embedded you tube
All the little people will be hurt by this. They have the power to stop this law, but there is a reason why they are little. They seldom use the power they have. Mostly they are sheep. They keep giving in to the big guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please review at mycampaign2014
[ link to this | view in chronology ]