France Censors Site That Hosts Videos & Photos Of Police Misconduct

Free Justin Bieber: Do We Really Want Congress To Make Bieber A Felon?

from the say-no-to-s.978 dept

Wed, Oct 19th 2011 1:52pm — Mike Masnick

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.

As they point out, Bieber became famous by posting videos of himself singing famous songs on YouTube as a kid. As the campaign notes, this video was a big part of advancing Bieber's massively successful music career -- so you could easily make the case that it was clearly commercial infringement. It was "willful" and he clearly intended to infringe on the Chris Brown song. Clearly it was for "personal gain." As the law notes, you don't have to make money directly from the video for it to be criminal infringement. The law "does not require that a defendant actually realize a commercial advantage or private financial gain. It is only necessary that the activity be for the purpose of "financial gain or benefit." Check. It also has to involve 10 or more "performances" within 180 days. That video has over 35 million views. Check. And did it cause more than $2,500 in losses to the rights holder? Given how the RIAA defines losses, hell yes. Think of all that unlicensed use. If the label licensed the song for 35 million plays, I'm sure it would have cost a lot more than $2,500.

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

84 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Killer_Tofu (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 1:15pm

Don't Tempt Me
Now, I realize that many people don't much like Bieber or his music, but does he deserve to go to jail?

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 ]
- Jay (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 1:43pm
  
  Re: Don't Tempt Me
  ... Damnit... I want to do the right thing, but seeing him locked up for copyright infringement would be too hilarious.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pseudonym, 19 Oct 2011 @ 4:03pm
  
  Re: Don't Tempt Me
  It would not be a great goodness. If the Biebs spent five years in prison, he'd come out even more famous than ever.
  
  Justin Bieber deserves many things, but hard time isn't one of them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Prophit, 19 Oct 2011 @ 6:07pm
  
  Re: Don't Tempt Me
  Why are we even considering criminalizing a civil offense??? More and more civil offenses are being criminalized. No wonder we have the largest prison population in the entire friggen world... that includes all dictatorships, communist and socialist countries, and all fascist countries like Great Britain.
  
  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 ]
  - Nkonya, 20 Oct 2011 @ 12:05am
    
    Re: Re: Don't Tempt Me
    "Why are we even considering criminalizing a civil offense???"
    
    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 ]
  - Killer_Tofu (profile), 20 Oct 2011 @ 6:13am
    
    Re: Re: Don't Tempt Me
    Becoming the joke?
    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 ]
- AINE, 21 Jan 2012 @ 10:17pm
  
  Re: Don't Tempt Me
  HE DOES DESERVE IT HE DID IT TO HIM SELF HE CANT BE A DAD VERY YOUNG AND HE GOT SELENA PREGNAT SO I KNOW ALOT OF PEOPLE DONT LIKE JB BUT HE DID IT TO HIMSELF NOT HIS FANS
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mercy, 10 Feb 2012 @ 2:31am
  
  Re: Don't Tempt Me
  i love jb and his song it is realy ,i mean i enjoy listening to his music's and enjoy watching his video.i also love him and i just want to say that he is realy cool.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rick, 19 Oct 2011 @ 1:59pm

Damn you Congress
No....what's right for the greater good triumphs over one horrible "musician".

The bill is a mess and is well...par for the course for Congress. Follow. The. Money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Atkray (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:01pm

but.

but...

but.... PIRACY!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:01pm

Wait. Waitwaitwaitwaitwait.
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 ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:06pm

Can you say strawman? I knew you could!

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 ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:11pm
  
  Re:
  You didn't read the article, did you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- chad holbrook, 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:12pm
  
  Re:
  Chris Brown doesn't get a say in this. He doesn't own the rights to the songs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:15pm
  
  Re:
  How about 50 Cent?
  
  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 ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:20pm
  
  Re:
  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?
  So you think that whether Bieber deserves 5 years in prison or not depends on a thumbs-up or thumbs-down vote from Chris Brown, and that such a system is okay because "Chris Brown probably wouldn't do that"?
  
  Yeah, that's a good system to support.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:32pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "So you think that whether Bieber deserves 5 years in prison or not depends on a thumbs-up or thumbs-down vote from Chris Brown, and that such a system is okay because "Chris Brown probably wouldn't do that"?"
    
    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 ]
    - Greg G (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:52pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Bitch Betta' Act Right Act.
      
      or the BiBAR Act.....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2011 @ 10:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      DH, on a thumbs up from the rights holder, he isn't infringing, is he?
      
      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 ]
      - The eejit (profile), 20 Oct 2011 @ 1:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        See also 50 Cent's blog.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:26pm
  
  Re:
  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?
  
  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 ]
- A non-mouse, 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:39pm
  
  Re:
  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?
  
  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 ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 9:39pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "They don't see 35 million potential fans, they (incorrectly) see 35 million lost sales."
    
    [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 ]
    - PaulT (profile), 20 Oct 2011 @ 1:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "[citation needed]"
      
      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 ]
      - PaulT (profile), 20 Oct 2011 @ 1:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "such a sterling of the short-sightedness"
        
        The word "example" should be there of course... only had one coffee so far this morning :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2011 @ 8:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ""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."
        
        ... 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 ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 20 Oct 2011 @ 8:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ah maturity, thy name is not AC...
        
        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 ]
        
        S, 20 Oct 2011 @ 11:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In a world with justice, you'd be hung in a gibbet until nothing remained but dust.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:53pm
  
  Re:
  So you admit that it's just free publicity, and not starving artists out of their livelihoods?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2011 @ 5:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    It can be one, the other, or both.
    
    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 ]
    - The eejit (profile), 20 Oct 2011 @ 2:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Then please, by all means, explain why the DMCA was even needed. I'm not actually trying to have a go. IT's oh-so-typical of the major content brands to NOT ADAPT, and has been since long before even my father was born. First the phonograph, then the punchcard, then TV, then rahdio, then VHS, then CD, then MP3s, then DVD, now blu-Ray.
      
      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 ]
- btrussell (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 6:03pm
  
  Re:
  No baby videos ever pulled because of music in the background?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 7:43pm
  
  Re:
  Can you say Jammie Thomas-Rasset or Joel Tenenbaum?
  
  Of course not, you dishonest creep.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:06pm

Don't Worry
They won't throw Bieber in jail. You see, he hasn't said anything the government dislikes . . . yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FuzzyDuck, 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:20pm

We just want to piont this gun at you
All these broad laws that they are not intending to use against "normal" people (or so they say), it's a bit like saying:

"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 ]
- freak (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 4:16pm
  
  Re: We just want to piont this gun at you
  http://mimiandeunice.com/2011/09/01/trigger/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Prophit (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 6:16pm
  
  Re: We just want to piont this gun at you
  Boy, you got that one right on.... Its just another patriot act for when they need it to arrest dissidents. I swear there are more Exec orders, laws, and Presidential signing statements that will imprison Americans, or assassinate them without a trial and now we want to imprison a kid for siging a song on the utube???? Give me a break.
  
  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 ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 8:08pm
  
  Re: We just want to piont this gun at you
  Does not Dionysius seem to have made it sufficiently clear that there can be nothing happy for the person over whom some fear always looms?
  
  Source: Cicero.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:20pm

Rarely is the question asked: Is our government learning?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:29pm
  
  Re:
  because the answer is always no. Unless the question is are they learning how to brainwash people and funnel money out of the system and into their own pockets
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:24pm

As the father of a preteen girl, I am now campaigning for this bill. They can rename it the Beiber Behind Bars Bill (4B or BBBB).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:44pm

everyone knows the danger here. Bieber wouldn't even be threatened with being put in jail but the next up and coming artist, performing at home, may well be, simply because he posts on YouTube. everyone also knows the thing that would differentiate the jail time would be whether one of the big labels thought they could make a killing off of that new kid or not. if yes, there would be no cries of 'infringement, lock him up'. if no, the poor bastard wouldn't have a chance. he'd be banged up before his balls had time to drop!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- B Pickel (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 4:19pm
  
  Re:
  sounds like good leverage for a record label...
  
  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 ]
  - Dennis S. (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 11:45pm
    
    Re: sounds like good leverage for a record label...
    Sadly such a scenario would not surprise me at all.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:53pm

Except that someone who uploads a video to YouTube isn't engaged in a public performance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 2:56pm
  
  Re:
  "It defines illegal streaming as streaming ten or more times in a 180 day period. Furthermore, the value of the illegally streamed material would have to be greater than $2,500, or the licensing fees would have to be over $5,000."
  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 ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 3:04pm
  
  Re:
  That depends on whose determining what is or isn't a public performance. In my mind, and I'm not saying I believe this, but I'm looking at it from the "let's screw them all" side of this, a video available on Youtube could be considered a "public performance" because it is viewable by anyone/everyone. Not just to the guy at home, but to the girl on the bus who is surrounded by strangers who may hear the vid or glance at it over her shoulder, etc.
  
  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 ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 3:16pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No, I mean the uploader isn't performing anything, public or otherwise.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 3:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Ah, this is true. My mistake.
      
      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 ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 3:48pm
  
  Re:
  Except that someone who uploads a video to YouTube isn't engaged in a public performance.
  
  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 ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 3:51pm
    
    Re: Re:
    YouTube is engaged in public performance of its videos. Bieber, or anyone who uploads, isn't.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 4:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Ok...? So why is Youtube the one in trouble here? Why is the law not targeting the person uploading the video?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Casey, 19 Oct 2011 @ 5:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        YouTube is not on the hook either way. They are insulated from liability by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, provided they comply with notice-and-takedown requirements.
        
        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 ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 6:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This law wouldn't change one bit what is legal or illegal. Youtube is still liable for any infringement outside the scope of the DMCA safe harbor provisions. Uploaders are still liable for any reproduction or distribution of infringing material in the same way they would have been liable since online video was invented. S.978 doesn't affect that one way or another -- Free Bieber is either a campaign borne out of complete ignorance or FUD.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 6:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wrong, the law writers are saying that it doesn't affect YouTube uploads one way or another but that's not the end all be all interpretation of the law. The only way to know for sure is to let it pass, let someone upload a video onto youtube, get arrested under the law, and have it go to court and eventually be ruled on by SCotUS. Then and only then would there be a definitive answer to the question 'Does the law affect YouTube uploads one way or the other.' At best all anyone can say is that it's not supposed to do that and it's not intended to do that which seems good enough for me, after all how often is a law ever interpreted to mean something different from what it was intended to do or what the framers of the law wanted it to do...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 8:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Then you don't really need S.978 to clarify and make it criminal not civil what the laws mean by "(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times." do we now?
        
        Something is changing or those idiots wouldn't be pushing for this ridiculous appendage.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 7:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Not what the law says.
      
      To perform or display a work �publicly� means �
      
      (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
      
      (2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.
      
      Source: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 20 Oct 2011 @ 7:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Look at number 2 and tell me that doesn't apply to streaming video.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kamen (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 3:18pm

The idea of Justin Bieber getting Ass pounded in prison is truly wonderful. It's like a magical Koala bear crapped a crack flavored rainbow in my brain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 3:22pm

So if I illegally download some of Bieber's current videos and freely distribute them, I'm helping the government against a felon, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ASTROBOI, 19 Oct 2011 @ 3:24pm

A new Volstead act?
Thats what it sounds like. Want to know how far "public performance" can be stretched? They ruled that showing videos to prisoners on little tvs in their cells was a public performance and so the warden had to stop picking up a few movies at Blockbuster every week to play on the prison closed circuit. I forget what state this happened in, but it really happened! The Volstead Act promised to include reasonable exceptions that just about everybody wanted but instead it prohibited everything because the noisy WCTU members wanted it that way. And we know how well that worked out in the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 3:40pm

Justin Bieber would NOT do well in jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fb39ca4 (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 3:45pm

Suddenly, I want S.978 to pass :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 3:51pm

FREE JUSTIN BIEBER

Bumper sticker politics at its most pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Casey, 19 Oct 2011 @ 4:04pm

Keep in mind...
One other thing to consider, regarding "Free Bieber": it is my understanding that the PROs have agreements with YouTube, so if tomorrow's Bieber -- willfully or not -- engaged in public performance, s/he would not be liable, as those uses are covered. Outside of YouTube, bets are off.

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 ]
Alex, 19 Oct 2011 @ 4:26pm

Citizenship
Wasn't Justin living an Canada as a Canadian at the time he put up the video? Seems like this law would not have applied to him at all. I don't agree with it, but he's not a great example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 8:03pm
  
  Re: Citizenship
  How not, ICE can make Spaniards liable, Swedish and British people criminals what makes you think they wouldn't get Bieber if he ever stepped foot on American soil?
  
  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 ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2011 @ 5:44pm

Senator Amy Klobuchar, this idiot from Minn. is up for reelection in 2012, lets all give money to her opponent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
misterdoug (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 10:59pm

Forget Justin Bieber
People seem to be overlooking the fact that the only qualification is the value of the copyrighted material. If you posted a funny photo on your website and it was reposted by thousands of other people, could I make them felons by offering you $2500 for the rights to it? I'm not even sure any money would have to change hands. We could just be in cahoots. Of course you could always state that the photo was in the public domain. Or not. That would put you in an interesting position, wouldn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Schmoo, 20 Oct 2011 @ 2:21am

It's quite clear that jailtime for Beiber is a popular desire, but it's got to be above board - we'd hate to see him released on appeal.

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 ]
Glenn, 20 Oct 2011 @ 4:32am

Inquisitor
So, how long before copyright infringement becomes a capital crime? (Or, said another way, just how stupid are the people being elected to represent us in Congress?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ahow628 (profile), 20 Oct 2011 @ 5:27am

Whoa, whoa, whoa...
So Justin Bieber ISN'T in jail? Way to ruin my birthday, guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AINE, 21 Jan 2012 @ 10:26pm
  
  Re: Whoa, whoa, whoa...
  HEY THEY RUINED UR BIRTHDAY NOW ILL GIVE U A PRESENT ........JB IS SO GAY JAY Z SAID EXCUSE ME MAM CAN I HAVE UR AUTOGRAPH O SORRY JB I HEARD A GIRLS VOICE
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AINE, 21 Jan 2012 @ 10:26pm
  
  Re: Whoa, whoa, whoa...
  HEY THEY RUINED UR BIRTHDAY NOW ILL GIVE U A PRESENT ........JB IS SO GAY JAY Z SAID EXCUSE ME MAM CAN I HAVE UR AUTOGRAPH O SORRY JB I HEARD A GIRLS VOICE
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AINE, 21 Jan 2012 @ 10:26pm
  
  Re: Whoa, whoa, whoa...
  HEY THEY RUINED UR BIRTHDAY NOW ILL GIVE U A PRESENT ........JB IS SO GAY JAY Z SAID EXCUSE ME MAM CAN I HAVE UR AUTOGRAPH O SORRY JB I HEARD A GIRLS VOICE
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2011 @ 8:39am

Singing a song
Singing someone else's songs for no commercial gain whether streaming on you-tube or anywhere else purely for entertainments' sake should not be a crime. WTF people? Surely there are bigger fish to fry out there. Like the assholes who want to annihilate all life in the free world, even our cats and dogs.

"{Good Golly, Miss Molly}".. Oh.. I couldn't say that? What? It infringes what? Who? "Bullshit"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CarlWeathersforPrez, 20 Oct 2011 @ 6:28pm

How would the US prosecute a Canadian citizen who had not entered the country? Interesting hypothetical though, does a crime committed on foreign soil where it is legal equal a felony in the US?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- prophit, 20 Oct 2011 @ 7:58pm
  
  Crime on foreign soil if its legal there and not here is the question.
  Well,funny you should ask. Once they globalize us or at the very least regionalize us, yes, it will be enforceable. That is what it means to lose your sovereignty.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 20 Oct 2011 @ 10:55pm
  
  Re:
  According to the US government and its lobbyists in recent cases, yes. According to reason, no.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freeman, 22 Oct 2011 @ 1:53pm

Ah...America, Land of the Free...um..err...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 3:43am

Site Temporarily Unavailable
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 ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2013 @ 4:29pm

he deserves it hes such a loser who thinks hes cool
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2013 @ 4:35pm
  
  Re:
  jk..jk no i dont think so lol!! just kidding
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
christenson, 6 May 2021 @ 2:07pm

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 ]