Senators Unconcerned About Massive Unintended Consequences Of Criminalizing People For Embedding YouTube Videos
from the shame-on-them dept
This is really no surprise, but the same Senate Judiciary Committee that unanimously approved the PROTECT IP Act, despite worries from internet experts and major media about how it would break the internet, has now also unanimously approved the anti-internet streaming bill that makes it a felony to stream certain videos online -- potentially putting people in jail for embedding YouTube videos or just putting up YouTube lip synching videos.What's really troubling here is that the media and plenty of concerned citizens have directly raised the issues about the unintended consequences of this law. And while Senators Amy Klobuchar, John Cornyn and Christopher Coons continue to insist that (of course) the law is not intended to be used against such people, they have made no move to fix the bill. Even supporters of this bill, who insisted that we were wrong about what the bill allowed, eventually conceded that our argument was accurate and that this bill could be used to put people in jail for embedding a YouTube video or doing a lip synch video.
And that's a huge, huge problem. Of course, no one thinks the bill is for that purpose directly or that it's going to be widely used for such purposes. However, the bill, as written, clearly allows law enforcement to charge people with a felony for that, assuming it meets a few other conditions. But those conditions are pretty minimal (ads on your page? you're in trouble...). The risk here of abuse is a serious risk, and it's incredibly troubling that Klobuchar, Cornyn and Coons failed to change or adapt the bill, and worse that the rest of the Senate Judiciary Committee allowed the bill to move forward in such a broken state. They were clearly made aware of problems with the bill, but directly chose not to make any changes. How do you explain that other than incompetence or corruption?
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
Thats it.
"How do you explain that other than incompetence or corruption?"
A lot from column A, and A lot from column B.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thats it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thats it.
It is an industry buying custom written legislation. They write it and pay for it, congress rubber stamps it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thats it.
I've been getting that same feeling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consider the source...
Arthur C. Clarke said "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Robert Hanlon (I think) said "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Put them together and you get my opinion of the Senate Judiciary Committee: "if it's more advanced than a pencil, it's probably magic and I can't understand it so it should be eliminated." :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not intended, unless...
Unless, of course, such people happen to annoy the government or one of its corporate partners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not intended, unless...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not intended, unless...
Laws will never be abused by government.
Please discontinue your wrong thinking immediately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not intended, unless...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not intended, unless...
Hey, at least it's not President Clark's government. Yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not intended, unless...
Not because iceland is full of terrorist, no one even pretended that that was the case, but because the law allowed them to freeze icelandic assets.
That law was (of course) not intended to do that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not intended, unless...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not intended, unless...
In other words, everyone under 30.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unintended? That's a good one! You should do stand-up comedy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Massive amounts of Both
There are way too many open-ended questions that need to be clarified before this steaming turd can be allowed to pass.
I guess if I put the videos I've purchased in my Cloud locker, The locker services (Amazon, Google, iCloud) can't let me stream it to my device because that could be construed as a felony unless they have paid for the rights to let me stream my content to my devices over their networks. Instead I have to download it and play it on the same device because that isn't a felony.
Bottom line: Technical incompetents should NOT be allowed to judge technical issues. Big companies use CTOs and their organizations to drive technical decisions. Where the hell is our government's CTO?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Massive amounts of Both
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disgusting
Legislators ought to be required to pass basic competency examinations about technological topics before being allowed to pass laws that concern them, but of course, that would leave barely no-one to do so. Bunch of ignorant arse-licking snakes, they all are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Will S.978 Put You in Jail for Embedding Infringing Videos?
Despite the breadth of the public performance right, civil lawsuits against individuals alleged to have infringed it online are rare � Live Nation Motor Sports is the exception rather than the rule. The worry that S.978 will lead to prisons overflowing with people for sharing online videos that happen to be infringing is overblown.
The standard for establishing criminal copyright liability is much higher than civil liability.
Ill stop there. But it is apparent to any rational logical thinking human being that this new bill was crafted to assist in making it easier to bring these cases.
FAIL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Once it is escalated to a felony expect to see several very high profile cases of "ordinary average citizens" arrested tried and imprisoned for 20+ years.
Not quite as effective as a guillotine in the town square, but close.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
a) try and extort them; or
b) lock them up in Gitmo (an exxageration, but upto 5 years in jail and $150k/infringing work seems so fair.)
It doesn't have to be open to be abused. And I'm telling you NOW that this will be abused so hard it's not even funny anymore. I wish I could walk into the RIAA's office and casually snuff out its existence with a satellite laser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
yeah, kind of self defeating isn't it... you in the building, firing a satellite laser at your location.
Score +1 for rational thinking. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
rational thinking? we needs it not. correct grammar counts for a lot :D
(punctuation, on the other hand, is silly.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The major voice against the current tide of the government has been from the internet, this bill can be used to comfortably target anyone who is internet savvy. It's as though every road had a camera on it and going over the speed limit were a felony. If you have a car, you are now a felon if you being a felon suits the moment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Exaggerate much?
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't see how the value of the public performance to a YouTube poster could be worth more than $2,5000, so that's not an issue. The other criteria is that the fair market value of the licenses for those performances must exceed $5,000. I don't know the value of licenses. Do you?
On top of that, for criminal infringement, there is a two-pronged mens rea element for "wilfulness" since it is a specific intent crime. The government must show: (1) intent to copy, and (2) intent to infringe.
Do you think a teen uploading a video of her lip-syncing to Lady Gaga meets this requirement? I don't.
Plus, consider the fact that it's already a misdemeanor. How many people have been charged with this? Exactly.
The fears are WAY overblown. Give me a break.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Numbers can easily be manipulated. Remember, the AA's wanted 75 trillion dollars from Limewire, even though everyone and their dog can see that that is unreasonable.
"The government must show: (1) intent to copy, and (2) intent to infringe"
Not a problem for someone who would sue dead people and people without an Internet connection.
"plus, consider the fact that it's already a misdemeanor. How many people have been charged with this? Exactly."
If you had read the article you yourself linked, the reason pointed for this is that is little incentive to do it. The changes, supposedly, would provide more incentive to sue, ergo, more lawsuits, ergo, we are STILL concerned.
So, no, the article didn't help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um, how do you manipulate the numbers? The value to the uploader is what the value is. When you upload a video to YouTube, how much money do you get? That's the issue.
Not a problem for someone who would sue dead people and people without an Internet connection.
You haven't addressed the issue. How do you prove that two-pronged mens rea element for a regular YouTube uploader? Saying it's "not a problem" is not an answer.
If you had read the article you yourself linked, the reason pointed for this is that is little incentive to do it. The changes, supposedly, would provide more incentive to sue, ergo, more lawsuits, ergo, we are STILL concerned.
So even though it's a misdemeanor and you can't point to anyone being arrested for uploading a YouTube video, you assume that once it's a felony, the feds will be chomping at the the bit to make arrests? That's not a convincing argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 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:
It sounds like this is more of an issue for the lucky members who are YouTube partners. These are people who have become popular enough to have Google invite them into a revenue sharing arragement based on the number of hits their videos get. Being a hit on YouTube just became a whole lot riskier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You forgot to add all the money that the copyright owners lost WHEN YOU STOLE FROM THEM. THAT MONEY IS VALUE, DAMMIT!
Sound ridiculous? Said owners claimed Limewire owed them $75 million. Seems pretty easy to claim more than $5000 lost.
"You haven't addressed the issue. How do you prove that two-pronged mens rea element for a regular YouTube uploader? Saying it's "not a problem" is not an answer."
If you think the feds can't ignore the law or make it up as they go, you haven't been paying attention. ICE seizures anyone? If they can seize domains without due process, they can provide mens rea easily enough (or skip it, take your choice).
"So even though it's a misdemeanor and you can't point to anyone being arrested for uploading a YouTube video, you assume that once it's a felony, the feds will be chomping at the the bit to make arrests? That's not a convincing argument."
The feds are already chomping at the bit to get arrests. This won't increase their fervor any. The only difference is that IT IS NOW A FELONY. Why? (I'll give you a hint: felons don't share all the rights of regular citizens.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um, no.
The value is what the copyright owner loses because people get their content without paying them for it.
And the courts tend to believe the copyright owner - at least provisionally, subject to rebuttal ... which is difficult if not impossible for the average citizen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Did you intentionally ignore the "or to the copyright owner" part?
Say someone records a video of a concert and uploads it to Youtube. Tickets to the concert cost $50. 50 people watch it. Got a calculator handy? Mine tells me that's $2500.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're right. I should have said that too.
Say someone records a video of a concert and uploads it to Youtube. Tickets to the concert cost $50. 50 people watch it. Got a calculator handy? Mine tells me that's $2500.
Why do you assume the value of a concert video on YouTube is the same as the value of a ticket to the concert? That makes no sense to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright makes no sense to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't. But you can bet that copyright owners will, and then they'll go and add ripple effects and make 50 views @ $50 each somehow equal to tens of thousands in damages.
This entire bill doesn't make any sense to me. Neither does all of copyright law. If only laws had to make sense, we'd never need to worry about them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The courts usually accept the owner's asking price to be the value.
The fears are WAY overblown. Give me a break.
They are not and greed and evil don't deserve breaks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We're talking about the actual value of the performance. If I upload a song to YouTube of me singing a Black Eyed Peas song, what's the value of that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whatever the copyright owner says it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually if you have a million people viewing your YouTube video, ASCAP can come after you. The price per stream is really high, ask any internet radio station.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, the actual value! You mean the government and the copyright holders are going to stop making stuff up like they always, always do? Gosh, I guess we really don't have anything to worry about!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hmm. I would argue that very much depends on the situation, but given a video that gets lots of views, and has ads on it, sure, that argument would not be hard to make.
On top of that, for criminal infringement, there is a two-pronged mens rea element for "wilfulness" since it is a specific intent crime. The government must show: (1) intent to copy, and (2) intent to infringe.
Easy on both accounts. Intent to copy: they did the embed/lip synch or whatever. Clearly the intent was to copy. Intent to "infringe" again it depends on the situation, but again, it's not hard to make that argument. "Everyone knows that these works are copyrighted, and by embedding it on their site, which has Google ads, making it a commercial play, clearly they intended to infringe for their own commercial benefit..."
Not hard at all.
Do you think a teen uploading a video of her lip-syncing to Lady Gaga meets this requirement? I don't.
But what about the guy lipsynching to her video, embedded on his blog with Google ads, that gets hundreds of thousands of views?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who cares about lip synching?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who cares about lip synching?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who cares about lip synching?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who cares about lip synching?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You missed an important piece, Cover songs. If you sing happy birthday and a million people watch it on you tube, you are now a felon. The ASCAP types can come after you also if I read the law correctly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So make sure all the windows are closed and you sing Happy Birthday very, VERY softly at any family birthday gatherings lest "THEY" hear you ... and be sure that camcorder is off so no one can share your family singing "Happy Birthday" on the everyone-is-a-felon-Inet.
Stop the world. I want to get off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you think people who upload video of them singing "Happy Birthday" intend to commit a crime by doing so? There is that intent element that must be proved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I admit I hadn't considered the embedding a video on a site other than YouTube. That's a good point.
(See, it's easy to admit when you've made a good point.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I finally figured it out. The democrats are going to selectively enforce this against any republican. If you can't vote you can't vote for the other side. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anything that They say is
Everything, if you consider how the law is written.
[ 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:
*waits on tenterhooks...tenterhooks!*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
When you are dealing with an industry that claims 6 figure losses for uploading 30 songs, nothing is impossible
"Do you think a teen uploading a video of her lip-syncing to Lady Gaga meets this requirement?"
By the time this question is answered in court this teen would have been arrested, sent to jail, paid tens of thousands of dollars in bail and legal fees. not to mention the psychological stress.
[ 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: Re:
That's right. The test is not whether the belief is objectively reasonable. The test is whether the defendant really believes the law does not proscribe his conduct. See United States v. Moran, 757 F. Supp. 1046 (D.Neb. 1991).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Translation: I recommend that everyone just bend over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There's an old saying, "You can't get fucked unless you assume the position".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Um, no. I recommend people get their information from less biased sources, look at the text of the bill, consider the high mens rea that must be proved, and decide for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, yes, lawyers and shills that are paid by the legacy content industries who have repeatedly ratcheted copyright law to absurd levels that were never intended are not biased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have any evidence that Terry Hart is "paid by the legacy content industries"? If not, I don't follow you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This site has become a joke.
The articles are transparent hyperbole and fear mongering misrepresentations.
The comments here to intelligent observations by ACs read as if they were all written by a 12 year-old.
The bias and zealotry that was once latent, has exploded into full blown lunatic fringe behavior.
Mission accomplished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nothing but a bunch of freetards.
[ 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:
...but I didn't speak out because I'm not a freetard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have no direct evidence. But the content industries have no evidence that copyright is required to promote the progress or the creation of new works, nor that this bill will do anything to slow down copyright infringement.
RIAA, MPAA, and BSA "studies" are transparent hyperbole and fear mongering misrepresentations.
The comments here to intelligent observations by ACs read as if they were all written by a 12 year-old.
The wording on this statement is ambiguous. If you mean that the comments made by many Anonymous Cowards read like they were written by pre-pubescent children, I'll agree with you. Notice I'm not an Anonymous Coward. I'm not afraid to give my name and who I represent (no one but myself). I'm clear that I know my position on copyright is not mainstream, and I'm perfectly OK with that. If you want to call me a lunatic, go for it. I feel more like the little kid saying that the emperor is naked.
Judging all of TechDirt by what a few commenters like myself post is either a clear sign that you're afraid Mike is making an impact, that you can't refute his points, or that you are playing some kind of political or PR game and trying to make him look bad by what I say. I could care less about those kind of games - I care about reality. And I think Mike cares enough for free speech that he won't censor me, even if short-sighted people somehow think we're linked (we're not, as I've had maybe 2 or 3 indirect interactions with him in the years I've been reading).
Well, enough of this pissing match. Back to work for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We did and our eyes are still bleeding so hang on...
High? Really? This coupled with the new "guilty by accusation" standards means it will actually be easier to not only threaten people, it will actually make it more likely that those accused would face potential felony charges even if it were later to be found that evrything they embeded turned out to be fair use...
The jury took about 5 minutes of dilberation to come to the conclusion that this law is the product of Industry capture and not from a requirement to protect the people from the evils of potential copyright infringement.
Note: The 5 minutes was required to wipe the blood out of our eyes so we could see well enough to post a response...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I did, and concluded that supporters of this bill want people to bend over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
... in which Terry Hart sets up a total strawman that no one has argued ("The worry that S.978 will lead to prisons overflowing with people for sharing online videos..."). No one made that argument. We were quite explicit that this won't lead to massive charges. Our problem is that it absolutely *could* be used to charge someone for such things, and nothing in Hart's analysis goes against that.
That's amazingly troubling. All the supporters of this bill seem to say "you're crazy!" and then eventually admit "well, sure it could be, but no one would do that."
It's astoundingly troublesome that people think it's okay to pass a bill that could very clearly be abused, and then just trust the system not to abuse it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ 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: Re:
.By virtue of posting the video online, you are infringing already;
.Ads are shown that generate revenue for Youtube and/or the postee;
.In each case, there is a profit to be made.
.Seeing as the RIAA can manage to make a multiplatinum-selling album a loss-leader, it can asdjust the numbers to show that this made more of a profit.
If you cannot see that, then I think you need a refund on your Law degree tuition fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sounds an awful lot like, "If you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about." .....
Except it's more like, "Most people have nothing to hide, so shouldn't worry about random mandatory police raids and searches of homes for potentially infringing material."
"What's infringing today?" ..... "We'll let you know as soon as we find it, we know it has to be here somewhere."
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And the looting of the economy by the banks is just hype to, according to the banker's PR bagmen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's it? A single comment from an anonymous commenter is all you have to bolster your contention that supporters of the bill agree with your argument? At a minimum you should amend that sentence to begin "Even a single, anonymous commenter posting on Techdirt...."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But that's not the Techdirt way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It always amuses me when some anonymous commenter attempts to call out another anonymous commenter for being anonymous. What a hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or do like lucidrenegade and register multiple accounts so that you cam pretend to be multiple people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
An important point that was overlooked relates to the fact that courts serve as a check on legislative power. Moreover, courts have over the last several hundred years developed rules, doctrines, policies, etc. that are used by them in matters of statutory interpretation. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the absolute worst will befall us merely because something "could" happen.
Apparently I place far greater faith in our judicial system than many of those who decry the proposed bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anything that can...
Rule MW1 says "If a law can be abused, it will be."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, this bill certainly seems to prove that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess that will go away, then whats the use of You tube if you can't share the wacky videos on there? so You Tube will also go away (or be used a LOT less)
I wonder what Google (You Tube) has to say about this?
Remember their names come election day folks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless there's a Techdirt ticket, I doubt that the future opponents of these Senators would vote differently. Where's Wyden on this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It truly sucks if you business depends on embedding copyrighted video clips from a third party, claiming to only be an innocent blog operator or website owner. It would get rid of the "didn't know, didn't check" excuse that has left so many offenders to build their businesses without risk and without having to actually pay for the content they use.
The wild west phase of the internet is quickly coming to an end, as the cowboys couldn't control themselves. The Sheriff is coming to do it for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think that is boils down to the simple fact that he is upset that another one of the holes used by free speakers and those who choose to practice it is getting blocked up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The freedom phase of the internet is quickly coming to an end, as those in power felt threatened by it. The movie and recording industry is coming to do it to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If enforcing copyrights is so burdensome, and the laws that exist or are being suggested are so ultimately pointless, then loosening, curtailing, and shortening copyright is the way to unburden everyone.
More law is not better law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Abolish copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's what we thought, too. Turned out that we didn't get the last laugh, tough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've been hearing about this for like 5 years now. Must be like when people say that "xxxx will be the year of linux on the Desktop", or "Browser Y version Z will be the ultimate browser that will kill off Firefox for good!". You know, one of those unlikely events that people are always saying will happen but never do.
But there's still hope for you: Duke Nukem Forever was eventually released. So dream on! Never give up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Seriously if you think these enforcement actions are so meaningless, what's with all of the drama?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Think about it this way: you are trying to "win" the war on drugs by arresting every dirty junkie you find half dead on the streets, instead of grabbing the drug lords. For every junkie you arrest, they get 10 more addicted. You solved nothing and have to feed thousands more in your decaying prisons. Yay justice!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 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: Re:
But if you go for the "street-level" offenders (as the analogy goes, the filesharers), you still haven't gotten the supply to go down.
Go for the mid level offenders (admins and third parties), and you haven't stopped the ones in charge.
Go for the kings (ISPs, etc) and they're usually insulated and not even close to touchable for liability. Then you have new kings step up to consume the vacuum.
No matter which level you go for, it's going to take more money than intended and it will be an expensive battle regardless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The laws being passed recently in reguards to IP are alot like passing laws that say it is illegal to eat, drink, have sex, sing, quote history, and sleep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The intent of this law (and a few others in the works) is to shore up the system, and make a change in the way the public perceives the product. They are shifting the risk / reward benefits of sharing in various fashions to being higher risk, something fewer people will naturally take.
This is just another way to make clear in legal terms what is and what is not acceptable, and making it easier to move forward with prosecutions or civil cases knowing that there is clearer law on the subject.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
LOL you think you can stop us? Really? we understand the web better than the corps. or the gov... we can route around and you will still be happy hugging yourself thinking you won, and guess what NOTHING changes...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, what will hapopen to the next Dem or Repub who violates copyright on an ad campaign? Will they be arrested and tried?
Somehow, i think not. And before you say that that wouldn't happen, I refer you to John McCain's campaign of 2008.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Use the crappy law(s) crappily
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Use the crappy law(s) crappily
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, the real problem is that once passed, this law will be used to threaten all those people into taking down videos that should fall under fair use. People will start getting notices that say "Illegal streaming is a felony. Take down this video or you'll be arrested." Or even more likely, "Illegal streaming is a felony. Take down this video and pay us $2,000, or we'll have you arrested."
Also, the bill says that the value of the streamed works must cost more than $5,000 to license. Is there a single piece of music or video that you can actually get a license to stream for that little? Doesn't that make every any streamed, copyrighted content automatically qualify under the bill?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FUD.
Got an example?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Let's see how law that's actually in effect fares - here's a search result page for 'dmca abuses':
http://www.google.com/search?q=dmca+abuses&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox& ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Got a Time Machine?
We can't pull an example showing the abuse of this law until after it passes... Or we could just cut the head off the bill right now and save us a whole bunch of time and money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A DMCA Takedown because some guy decided to include a 26 second clip of a documentary in his critique of the documentary.
Now say you're some guy with a good lawyer who would find a way to prove monetary damages and mens rea, because for all the words the law provides, sometimes it does come down to has the best lawyer. Heck it doesn't even have to go to court if the letter is convincing enough.
If I were that guy, I'd think, "Why threaten someone with a club, when there's a bazooka handy?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Go to chillingeffects.com Look at ALLL the DMCA takedowns that were used to chill free speech.
Imagine that done with domains.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I bet you believe in the Easter Bunny too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Carry over
Shadow16nh, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 4:59pm
This article grossly misrepresents the implications of the proposed bill.
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."
I'll stand by the alarmist every time when intentional infringes are anybody with a regular cam or web-cam, making public performance with music they bought & making a living doing so. The same can be said for any service or performance art that uses music.
It's bad enough Happy Birthday is copyrighted. And yet, only enforced in a public.. or I mean private restraunts. This bill effectively reaches in to a private home and says you cant work for yourself.
I was going for joking levity in a stressful time when I mentioned the cam-girls and yet your basically saying go strip elsewhere, we want a clean internet neighborhood. Boggles the mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Carry over
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Carry over
ICANH
OPEFO
RSANI
YRIGT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Carry over
You inserted the word "and" where you should have used "or";
...where the total retail value of the performances exceeds $2,500 or the total fair market value of licenses for such use must exceed $5,000
Show me even a single copyrighted work where the license to stream it is less than $5,000.
That's like saying that a cable company will only prosecute unauthorized people tapping into their service if the cost to pay for that same service exceeds $10.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arguing...
BOTTOM LINE..laws have always been an abuse. They are non-sensible and as mike points out all the time NEW laws by this point are not needed! Its an abuse of power by this point but I am not going to argue with you..it just is, blow it out your ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arguing...
Right. Ignore the man behind the curtain. Ignore what the government is doing. Nothing to see here, citizen, move along!
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Arguing...
You go and soundboard to a bunch of ninnies instead of writing congress. Going outside getting up with what you feel is the right thing.
P>S> For sure your useless points on this forum will get the law out in the open. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Arguing...
It called campaigning, and campaigning can make a difference.
You go and soundboard to a bunch of ninnies instead of writing congress.
Writing congress? Are you kidding? Now, that's a real joke! (Unless you send a lot of cash along with your letter.) I'd rather do something more effective, thank you. Something that I get the feeling that you're, for some reason, trying to discourage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Arguing...
Writing to congress is not working because...your not doing it...you can't claim how something does not work when your effectively proving this by NOT doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arguing...
Umm, yes, I am.
You think this has subject matter?
Yes. Next question.
Writing to congress is not working because...your not doing it...you can't claim how something does not work when your effectively proving this by NOT doing it.
Now you're just being plain dishonest. I don't know how you claim to know otherwise, but I have written to my congressional representative many times as a matter of principle. That's how I know how ineffective it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arguing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arguing...
I get that man, if that works for you just keep repeating yourself. I gave real advice. I'm going to go actually do something. Remember..repeat yourself, otherwise its not true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arguing...
For something so ineffective, you sure are spending a lot words preaching against it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arguing...
Should've stuck with that statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arguing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arguing...
And he DOES NOT answer you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arguing...
Particularly if you didn't put a lot of money in the envelope along with your letter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arguing...
Okay, I am laughing really hard at this point. I actually spilled my tea. Well actually alot of people have campaigned online. It has actually worked and worked well. It is one of the resons we are in this shitty situation. You see, the current president of the united states took the election by having a huge presence online.
Simple words in a blog do have meaning. They educate people to what is going on. They fill in the blanks that the big news outlets gloss over. They put people like you in their place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arguing...
Um...they do not listen and they do not give on damn about anything a peon has to say. Some staffer reads your letter and if it gets acknowledged at all, it's with some stupid form letter some hack wrote up to make it look like your Rep. actually got your letter/email. Learn it, live it love it.
And get out and vote the bastards out of office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arguing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't worry
Move along, nothing to see here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RICO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair Use accounts for 18% of the US Economy
Over IP protectionism has the potential of devastating the entire US economy and with REAL losses not with theoretical phantom losses that the RIAA likes to claim.
http://www.ccianet.org/CCIA/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000000354/fair-use-study-fina l.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quick and Easy Fix
Politicians never care about any one else unless it effects them. So make sure it effects them in a very real and negative way, like it does for the rest of society, and maybe these corrupt bastards will change their mind. Start tossing them and their families in jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Quick and Easy Fix
That's why they avoid arresting such people. It's called "selective enforcement", and it's used to keep bad laws on the books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Quick and Easy Fix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Quick and Easy Fix
Congress is insulated from the bills they make.
It's right there in the Constitution.
But when they are private citizens...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Quick and Easy Fix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Quick and Easy Fix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Quick and Easy Fix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh how I'd be ashamed if I were American.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Last free place
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Last free place
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Explanations are useless - only (not) voting/donating counts
Our only effective tool is that while RIAA/MPAA etc, can (and do) provide money to politicians to helpo them campaing for (re)election, they can't actually get them (re)elected. They need us - but only our votes and donations.
So - if we want this stopped, we need to make politicians aware of the price for actions on behalf of "industry". send them, and copy their party, and email saying basically "if you keep this up, I will not cote for you and your party, will not donate to you or your party, and will tell my family and friends to do the same".
If the RNC or DNRC and the offices of the relevant politicians get enough of these, they'lll stop.
Otherwise - why would they not keep doing it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Explanations are useless - only (not) voting/donating counts
They cannot lobby if no-one actually pays them for goods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Explanations are useless - only (not) voting/donating counts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Explanations are useless - only (not) voting/donating counts
That's my choice.
You cannot be sued simply because you've stopped purchasing a certain product. I will not purchase a DVD with a movie or TV series (and I've purchased a TON in my day) again. Done. Over.
How can that be a reason to garnish my wages? Besides, taxes have already done that... Now they'll want to rob me for NOT buying??? Where does the infringement on civil rights end?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Explanations are useless - only (not) voting/donating counts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Explanations are useless - only (not) voting/donating counts
No, but they can buy the next politician that does get elected. And the cycle continues...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apologies for Typos - my dyslexia is shoing up ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not THOSE streamers!
It's the uploading 'streamers' NOT those who share the link!
Doh! Lol!!
smh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless you define those two words quite broadly, neither. It's the unholy trifecta of ignorance ("The internet is a series of tubes"), arrogance, and contempt (I maintain it's not enough that legacy industry lobbyists are donating a lot of money; the human psyche rejects self-identifying as evil, so even if they're voting in line with what their corporate donors want, they've made a justification for it, and that justification is almost always "they don't know what's best for them").
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thus, incompetence. One cannot be competent in an area one is ignorant of.
the human psyche rejects self-identifying as evil, so even if they're voting in line with what their corporate donors want, they've made a justification for it
That's still corruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Felony
Any argument or reasoning after that is just beside the point. A fscking felony. Right, yeah, because it's a danger to life and limb. Yeah because that's really justified.
Sorry, will not listen to any smoke, mirrors, weasels, wordsmiths or jujumen who can get behind such a travesty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Challenge Lets find a guilty Representative under this proposed law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incompetence or corruption?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...unlike any of the senators who actually signed it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not corruption or incompetence
It's neither corruption or incompetence; it's a lack of an organized & interested constituency. Youtube (and its clones) are at no greater risk than they previously were; the cable and satellite industry have a protection; and the ISPs have the Safe Harbor to protect them. Even Lessig knows that if Congress passes this, the Supreme Court won't overturn it.
It's not corruption, it's just that not everyone can see unintended consequences so clearly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not corruption or incompetence
Not corruption? I'd buy sea side property here in Utah on that. Incompetence you can draw your own conclusion on your respective representatives. So the problem may be neither corruption or incompetence and in one word in your conclusion, the blind. Will-full ignorance on the part of the electorate that is supposed to covering our asses is a dam sure fire way to burn the country around you as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not corruption or incompetence
Wouldn't that be incompetence, then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have a sinking feeling that you're actually serious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
OMG. Having fun! It's criminal!
Seems to me that's flattering to whomever the songwriter/singer is/was. And now it's a crime to enjoy it and share it - along with a few grins and giggles. Nice... (sarc)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just trust us...
Look up "Three Felonies a Day."
The argument, "Don't worry, there are too many of us for them to prosecute us all." Would you feel okay if you knew there was a murderer shooting people at random in your city, because "Hey, what are the chances?"
We don't have a justice system. We have a legal system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]