Free Justin Bieber: Do We Really Want Congress To Make Bieber A Felon?
from the say-no-to-s.978 dept
We've talked a few times about s.978, the bill from Senator Amy Klobuchar, that attempts to make streaming videos potential felonies. The bill is poorly drafted (at best). It basically just adds "public performance" as a possible felony under the law. That seems simple, but it's way too broad, in an era when all sorts of things can be a public performance. Defenders of s.978 again insist that it's not that bad because the law would only apply to willful "commercial" infringers -- but as we've seen repeatedly, the feds seem to interpret that extremely broadly.Thus, the bill could, in fact, be used against people streaming videos via YouTube for their own benefit. People like... Justin Bieber. In fact, a new advocacy group has kicked off a campaign against S.978 by asking people to help free Justin Bieber.
Game, set, match. Under Klobuchar's streaming felony bill, Justin Bieber likely committed a felony.
Now, I realize that many people don't much like Bieber or his music, but does he deserve to go to jail? Now, obviously, defenders of s.978 will claim that they don't intend to go after the likes of Justin Bieber. But just the fact that they could suggests a massively problematic bill. And, realistically, the problem isn't the Biebers of the world, but the next kids who upload a video of themselves lip synching to some song. This is a massively problematic bill, and hopefully you'll check out the Free Bieber site to help let Congress know that this bill is bad news.
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, copyright, justin bieber, s.978, streaming, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Don't Tempt Me
Wow, the politicians really know how to make somebody question some of their beliefs sometimes.
Alas, I cannot give into some evils, even when they dangle a great goodness for the public in front of me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't Tempt Me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't Tempt Me
Justin Bieber deserves many things, but hard time isn't one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't Tempt Me
This is beyond rediculous. A civil court has more experience handling copyright violations than any criminal court. Get real, folks, we are becoming the joke of the century. The way this is going someone is going to mistake us for Palestine and our government for Israel. Oh, thats right, they already do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't Tempt Me
Because the law makers are captives of commercial interests who would like to use law enforcement to protect their interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't Tempt Me
I thought we have been for at least a few decades now.
Probably just a Po-Tay-Toe / Po-Tah-Toe situation I am sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't Tempt Me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't Tempt Me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damn you Congress
The bill is a mess and is well...par for the course for Congress. Follow. The. Money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but...
but.... PIRACY!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I support PROTECT IP, Beiber gets sent to jail?
...
.......
Way to make this hard for me, Mike. Sign me up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The most important issue here is the rights to the song. You don't think for a second that someone like Chris Brown isn't happy to have his music in front of 35 million viewers?
Let's go a little further - how many of those views came before the copyright holder knew about it? I am betting that the copyright holder was more than happy to let this one go.
Now further down the line, you would have to show intent - was the intent of the Beebs to advance his career, or was he just playing around? Trying to prove purpose would be difficult at best.
It's a nice example of what anti-copyright people will do to protect the people who willfully violate copyright for profit, by trying to hide them behind a big name who would not likely have been considered to be breaking the law anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How about Jay-Z? How about Dolly Parton?
Having the government fight for established artists over up and coming artists is the problem.
Then let's not forget this. Should Muddy Waters be protected from Led Zeppelin? The Rolling Stones from Led Zeppelin? Oh, but when the Rolling Stones sued Verve for doing exactly what they did, that's somehow wrong. Then they sell the right to the song to Nike.
When the song was a folk song in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, that's a good system to support.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now introducing a new law entitled the Bitch Betta' Act Right Act. Under this law, if a woman does something to upset you in some way, you can haul her out of your car and beat the snot out of her. Thing is, she has to have, like, done something TOTALLY bad and stuff. Yeah, TOTALLY bad. We put that langauge in there so the law won't be abused.
Sure, the law could allow for interpretations under which a mild offense would result in the smackdown of a ridiculously hot young woman who happened to be in the car with a raging hardon of a douchebag, but Chris Brown wouldn't do that....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
or the BiBAR Act.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your comment is marked as insightful, yet you seem unwilling to look past the end of your nose on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Does that matter? This law is regards to criminal law, not civil law. If Justin didn't have the rights every time it is streamed, it is a violation. Chris Brown's wishes shouldn't be an issue in pursuing criminals.
I am betting that the copyright holder was more than happy to let this one go.
As I said, this is criminal law. The federal prosecutor is the one who decides whether to stop prosecution, not Chris Brown.
Now further down the line, you would have to show intent - was the intent of the Beebs to advance his career, or was he just playing around?
Playing around when he first posted it? or playing around as he saw his career take off and continued to not take down the video? The violation is ongoing every time it is streamed without a license.
trying to hide them behind a big name who would not likely have been considered to be breaking the law anyway.
Other's have been considered to be in the wrong for doing the similar things with other's music (e.g. Prince). Is it not considered breaking the law because he's a big name?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You might be right, Chris Brown might be happy to see his music in front 35 million viewers. As for his label? Not so much. They don't see 35 million potential fans, they (incorrectly) see 35 million lost sales.
Let's go a little further - how many of those views came before the copyright holder knew about it? I am betting that the copyright holder was more than happy to let this one go.
So if you "make it" before the copyright holder notices the infringement, they'll let it slide. Otherwise, off to prison with ya. And that makes sense how?
Now further down the line, you would have to show intent - was the intent of the Beebs to advance his career, or was he just playing around? Trying to prove purpose would be difficult at best.
Now you're just making stuff up. As has already been noted, they don't need to show intent. Hell, they don't even need to show profit for it to be considered commercial infringement!
It's a nice example of what anti-copyright people will do to protect the people who willfully violate copyright for profit, by trying to hide them behind a big name who would not likely have been considered to be breaking the law anyway.
Your post is a nice example of what industry shills will do to prop up their failing businesses, by trying to push through horrible legislation so poorly written that it can be used to imprison normal, everyday people who would not likely have been considered to be breaking the law anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[citation needed]
"So if you "make it" before the copyright holder notices the infringement, they'll let it slide. Otherwise, off to prison with ya. And that makes sense how?"
The very basis on which companies like YouTube can run copyright material and get away with it... it's called DMCA. Until the copyright holder notices, nothing has "happened".
"Your post is a nice example of what industry shills will do to prop up their failing businesses,"
Too bad I am not an industry shill, just someone who can see the reasons why you have copyright, and why their needs to be laws to help enforce it in the internet age.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Really? After reading here for this long, you really need a citation to show how the industry's figures erroneously assume that every infringement is a lost sale? Try every single story that examines their figures and their methodologies.
"The very basis on which companies like YouTube can run copyright material and get away with it... it's called DMCA. Until the copyright holder notices, nothing has "happened"."
So, you're saying that YouTube should pre-vet every video and remove every single possible copyright violation before it's allowed to stream? Meaning that not only would they be indulging in an impossible task, but Beiber's videos would never have been seen, never got him noticed and therefore lose all the money he's made for his label thus far?
Thanks for such a sterling of the short-sightedness often criticised here. If you treat services like YouTube as criminals who are "getting away" with playing copyrighted material, then you also lose the huge benefits they offer the industry as well. You can't have both.
"Too bad I am not an industry shill"
One day, you'll stop acting like one. On that day, you will also stop being accused of being one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The word "example" should be there of course... only had one coffee so far this morning :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
One day, you'll stop acting like one. On that day, you will also stop being accused of being one."
... and when you stop acting like a pirate with a whole collection of pirated material on your computer, I can stop calling you a miserable freetard.
Come on Paul, grow up. I don't work for "the industry". Can you not accept that individuals might actually agree with them? Is it that hard to understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you wanted to be honest, you would note 2 things:
1. I did not call you an industry shill. I merely commented that you act like one. I'm not accusing you of anything, merely noting how one-sided and defensive of the industry every comment you make tends to be.
2. Explain, apart from criticising the moronic policies of the entertainment industry (that actively block my legal purchases and make the resulting product less useful as well as eroding my rights), how do I act like the person you're describing? Is it the way I support new business models and pay for them? Is it the way I dare to say when the industry's doing something damaging to itself, whether it affects me directly or not?
Your problem seems to be that you section the world up into 2 halves - those who support everything the industry does without question and "pirates" - and then assume that everyone who doesn't march in lock-step must be a pirate. One day, you may realise that there are many other types of people out there, and attacking everyone who dares criticise the industry gets you nowhere.
As I said, on that day, you might actually learn the real positions of the people you attack, and actually get somewhere, instead of spending your days attacking figments of your imagination as you do now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Really, the Beiber should have permission to use (license) for these videos. I have no doubt that he has that permission now, otherwise some wise ass from the legal department would have taken action.
In current youtube terms, if you got that many views on a video, they would be offering you an ad partnership and paying you for your content, which would tip things towards being commercial, and that would be simple.
In normal terms, the DMCA rules would be more than enough to get the video taken down, which would mean it would never get up to the level of a criminal action.
Criminal proceedings are not likely to ever be the first step here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The pattern will continue, sadly, and the rest of the world suffers for the sake of a few dollars more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course not, you dishonest creep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't Worry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We just want to piont this gun at you
"We just want to point this gun at you (that we are allowed to fire), but trust us, we will not shoot you."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We just want to piont this gun at you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We just want to piont this gun at you
Civil court would take care of this just fine by making him pay the author of the song what would be due to him if he had paid the license..... or the cost of the license, this is beyond ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We just want to piont this gun at you
Source: Cicero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Talent scout : We saw your youtube videos and we'd like you to sign up with us
Kid : mum, should i?
Mum : i don't know this deal doesn't seam fair
Talent scout : sign with us kid, or you'll be going to gaol(jail)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sounds like good leverage for a record label...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In other words, simply thinking about or quoting a song ten times could make you a political prisoner, and you know how much the industry loves to slap ridiculous price tags on thin air.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Public performance has become a term that can be easily twisted to suit whatever meaning someone wants it to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
However, by uploading a video, that could be seen as facilitating a public performance. Which could reap all that entails (legally) in the eyes of some.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually quite a few groups, including ASCAP and PRS, have indeed pushed to declare that a YouTube video is legally a public performance (just like they do with ringtones and Guitar Hero).
Moreover, the senators behind this very bill have explicitly stated that one of its purposes is to crack down on streaming videos. And the definition of a "performance" in the bill is extremely vague.
So in fact, despite the seemingly common-sense assumption that a YouTube video doesn't count as a performance, that is exactly what this bill is targeting.
[ 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: Re:
What I'm saying here is that YouTube has licenses with Performance Rights Organizations, meaning that Bieber (or, more accurately, a future Bieber), would not be liable, as these uses are covered ;and subsidized by YouTube).
The other license for an underlying composition is a synchronization right, which requires a negotiation with a publisher. But the proposed legislation doesn't touch that: it only applies to the public performance.
[ 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:
Something is changing or those idiots wouldn't be pushing for this ridiculous appendage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Source: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A new Volstead act?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bumper sticker politics at its most pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep in mind...
The synchronization rights are another story, but the proposed legislation only deals with public performance. Hopefully, Content ID and the ability to choose to monetize will make penalties irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Citizenship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Citizenship
He could even be dragged of a plane that made a brief stop in American soil, the American government has a long history of jailing business people from other countries, like software producers, cassino owners and so forth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forget Justin Bieber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's just get this ridiculous bill killed quickly so that we can quickly move on to the far more fitting and important mental-anguish class-action suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inquisitor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whoa, whoa, whoa...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whoa, whoa, whoa...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whoa, whoa, whoa...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whoa, whoa, whoa...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Singing a song
"{Good Golly, Miss Molly}".. Oh.. I couldn't say that? What? It infringes what? Who? "Bullshit"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crime on foreign soil if its legal there and not here is the question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We apologize for the inconvenience. Please contact the webmaster/ tech support immediately to have them rectify this.
error id: "bad_httpd_conf"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arrest Justin Beiber!
This is the Arrest Justin Beiber bill... so, Merrick Garland, please go do it!
(and Streisand the snot out of this streaming bill!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]