Justin Bieber: Senator Klobuchar Should Be Locked Up For Felony Streaming Bill

from the free-bieber,-jail-klobuchar dept

Fri, Oct 28th 2011 1:04pm — Mike Masnick

Earlier today we wrote about how Justin Bieber's lawyers were threatening the folks behind the FreeBieber advocacy project, which highlights some of the problems with Senator Amy Klobuchar's dangerous and ill-thought out bill to make streaming video a possible felony. It appears that his "people" didn't discuss this much with Bieber himself. During a radio interview, the host asked Bieber about the law, explaining how it would make streaming a felony, and his response was that Klobuchar "should be locked up," a point he reiterated a few times.

They then go on to discuss it a bit, and Bieber talks about the importance of being able to upload and stream videos and to perform other people's songs. He talks about how people "need the freedom" to perform songs. He also notes that it's "awesome" when others perform his works. Of course, Klobuchar's office claims that Bieber must have "misunderstood" the bill, but he's right. The bill is "silly," and targets exactly the wrong thing. It's good to see him speaking out on this subject, and it shows how Klobuchar (and the House supporters of E-PARASITE, which also has a similar felony streaming law), need to rethink this bill.

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, felony streaming, justin bieber

105 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Greevar (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 1:10pm

Klobuchar
I'm ashamed that she's my senator. Writing to her would be fruitless too, since it's obvious she's already been bought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 1:42pm
  
  Re: Klobuchar
  Your senator is probably ashamed of you, I imagine. But a vote's a vote.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 3:20pm
    
    Re: Re: Klobuchar
    Did she mention that she was going to pass IP expansion laws before she got elected? Was it one of her campaign points? No? Why not? Could it be because she knew that doing so is a sure way to lose an election?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 28 Oct 2011 @ 4:20pm
    
    Re: Re: Klobuchar
    "Your senator is probably ashamed of you"
    
    Yes, I imagine a lot of elected officials are ashamed of those which they are supposed to represent, sad isn't it?
    
    The constituents do not share in the sick and perverted political aspirations, go figure.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Greevar (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 11:16pm
    
    Re: Re: Klobuchar
    Where did you learn to troll? You suck at it!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 1:54pm
  
  Re: Klobuchar
  Writing to her would be fruitless too, since it's obvious she's already been bought.
  
  More importantly, it would require effort on your part as well as the cost of a postage stamp
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ron Rezendes (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 2:18pm
    
    Re: Re: Klobuchar
    Yeah, because email requires postage!
    
    Did you just get your computer today? Welcome to the interwebz!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rekrul, 28 Oct 2011 @ 2:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Klobuchar
      Yeah, because email requires postage!
      
      Politicians don't respect email. Probably 75% of them don't even know how to check their email. Only actual paper letters get their attention.
      
      It's the same way with TV networks.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ron Rezendes (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 2:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Klobuchar
        You honestly believe the politicians themselves open their own snail mail? It's the same intern who responds to both - one is no more weighted than the other - they are equally ignored unless accompanied by a fat overstuffed envelope with sufficient amounts of money to get their attention.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 3:22pm
  
  Re: Klobuchar
  It's not entirely your faults, she didn't mention that she was going to pass IP expansion laws before she got elected. She likely thought that doing so is a sure way to lose her election.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cisrael882000 (profile), 29 Oct 2011 @ 12:10pm
  
  Re: Klobuchar
  so you're proud of Bieber, but not the first woman Senator from MN who served as a County Attorney and went to Yale? I guess that makes sense in your world.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - New Mexico Mark, 31 Oct 2011 @ 6:01am
    
    Re: Re: Klobuchar
    Someone should notify the Beib... too late, she's already been to Yale.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mpg, 30 Oct 2011 @ 5:32am
  
  Re: Klobuchar
  Thank goodness that Senator Klobuchar is standing up for artists rights. This is about theft - pure and simple. Senator Klobuchar is trying to help artists fight back against theft.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 1:20pm

I do not find the opinion of a 17 year old boy from Canada who has certainly not read the bill and the amendment it would make to Title 17 particularly compelling.

Perhaps if one took the time to read the current incarnation of the relevant criminal statute they would quickly realize that blog-o-sphere wailing such as here is viscerally, and not factually, based.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 1:37pm
  
  Re:
  You didn't actually read the article did you? Ironic that you would encourage others to read the relevant criminal status but skip reading the article you're commenting on. Just to catch you up, the article isn't just about his position on the bill. There's also the legal entanglement with the FreeBieber project to consider so the primary point of the quote is to highlight that it's clearly his lawyers, bankrolled by his label, that are behind the legal threats there.
  
  Furthermore, I've read the current incarnation of the relevant criminal status and the wailing seems factually based to me. However, if you have a point that does not simply rely on implying everyone who opposes you is stupid or uninformed by all means make it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 2:29pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It is "statute", not "status".
    
    Were you as well versed re 17 USC 506 as you seem to want others to believe, you would almost certainly express a more nuanced point of view.
    
    BTW, this article has nothing to do with the earlier article about JB's attorneys. Mention of the earlier article is but a passing reference.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 3:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "you would almost certainly express a more nuanced point of view."
      
      Yeah, because those who don't hold your position must do so out of ignorance, right?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - abc gum, 28 Oct 2011 @ 4:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "It is "statute", not "status"."
      
      This certainly proves your point doesn't it.
      Bravo
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 8:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I guess that was a no on having a point that doesn't simply rely on implying everyone who opposes him is stupid. He sure showed me!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 6:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You are such a pedantic, obnoxious mother fucker. It almost seems like you are cheerleading these broader IP laws just to be more annoying.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 8:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The article has two paragraphs and the entire first paragraph, fully half of the article, is devoted to pointing out the incongruity between Bieber and his lawyers. The second half expands on Bieber's actual position which flows directly from the first paragraph's observation that it's incongruous with the stance of the lawyers. Again, are you sure you've actually read and understood it?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 3:29pm
  
  Re:
  "I do not find the opinion of a 17 year old boy from Canada who has certainly not read the bill and the amendment it would make to Title 17 particularly compelling."
  
  Many, if not most, seventeen year old's are more intelligent than most IP maximists, at least the ones I see here on Techdirt.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 3:32pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I must assume you hope you are in the "most" group when you reach seventeen.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 9:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well, it would be dreadful for a seventeen year old to be as retarded as most of those who advocate for stricter IP laws and enforcement policies (or at least most Techdirt advocates). So, yeah, I agree with your statement.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2011 @ 5:15am
  
  Re:
  Adding "from Canada" was kind of crude, but the rest was correct.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 1:22pm

So, it's a felony to...
Upload a video of Senator Klobuchar doing the nasty with a sheep?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 1:42pm
  
  Re: So, it's a felony to...
  Only if the sheep is underage.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 1:30pm

Mike, are you just going to run hit pieces on everyone related to copyright legislation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 1:35pm
  
  Re:
  Yep, that's his mandate. But don't think he's a piracy apologist or anything. 'Cause he's not. He hates piracy and loves copyright. Can't you tell?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 1:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilema
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 1:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yeah, it's a false dilemma to point out that Mike hates copyright and loves piracy. Do you actually read this blog? Point out where Mike approves of copyright or disapproves of piracy. You can't.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 1:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Maybe he disproves of the terrible uses of copyright and approves of the wonderful uses of not using copyright.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 2:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Or, maybe he hates copyright. Can you point to one thing Mike has said that leads you to believe that he doesn't hate copyright in general? Of course not. The way you idiotic sycophants defend this douche bag is so amusing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 3:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ah, your only response is derogatory comments out of anger. Real good way to get any point across.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 3:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually pirates hate it when simple facts like that are pointed out; reality interrupting their delusional fantasy world.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 11:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Reality has a hippie, share-the-love bias. But hey, maybe I've gone sane and everyone else is stark raving mad, too.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 8:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        " Can you point to one thing Mike has said that leads you to believe that he doesn't hate copyright in general?"
        
        Why should someone else do your research for you? If you want to troll, the least you could do is educate yourself on other's positions.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 29 Oct 2011 @ 4:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That would imply potential empathy, clearly something this AC lacks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 1:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not a regular reader? Mike is pretty clear about not supporting piracy. Take this for example: "Assuming they're guilty, they certainly don't deserve any sympathy..." a few articles down the page: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111023/22062816484/just-as-valve-shows-that-you-can-compete-with- piracy-russia-russia-starts-cracking-down-piracy.shtml
        
        Try pointing out Mike saying he hates copyright in general?
        
        And what you are saying is still a false dilemma.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 2:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL! The thought that unless he explicitly says it then it must not be true cracks me up. You idiots will jump at anything to protect your Pirate Leader.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Greevar (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 11:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And you'll persist in taking anything he says that isn't "hang the pirates!" as support of infringement. Only fools deal in absolutes. There's a difference between supporting something illegal and opposing unjust portions of a law that are directly involved in it.
        
        You're just delusional and aching for something to pin the "pirate supporter" flag on his head that you start seeing "evidence" everywhere.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 2:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's a false dilemma to pretend there's only two options. That's what false dilemma means. Try reading the linked material next time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 2:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm not saying there's only two options. I'm saying that Mike hates copyright and that he loves piracy. It's not an either/or thing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 2:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So your saying that you don't understand how words work?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 2:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike loves piracy. Mike hates copyright. One does not necessarily follow from the other (for example, one could hate piracy yet also hate copyright). There's no dilemma in play, false or otherwise. You Mike-apologists are really stretching the bounds of reason here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 7:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So you love Mike and you hate Mike? You Mike-obsessives are really stretching the bounds of Mike here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ben (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 11:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Won't somebody please think of the Mike!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        freak (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 2:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Show us where he loves piracy then.
        
        We know he hates copyright. We've seen him post that he does not approve of piracy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 2:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You admit that he hates copyright! You're halfway there...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        freak (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 3:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You can't hate both piracy and copyright?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 4:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why can't someone hate all the stupid parts about copyright and still not hate all of copyright?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        freak (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 4:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No reason at all.
        
        When I say I hate copyright, that's what I mean, since there are parts of copyright I don't mind.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 11:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Prove your assertion, you disingenuous fuckwit of a slimeball.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 1:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Here's a quote from Mike himself, from an older article:
        
        "I've pointed out time and time again that I don't, in any way, condone unauthorized file sharing. I don't participate in it, and I don't think people should do so, though I certainly understand why many do."
        
        So reading that quote, how can you still say Mike "loves piracy"?
        
        Read it, read it again, read it a third time. Pause. Realize that it is just one of MANY examples that proves you completely and totally wrong. Realize that repeating what you do over and over in every single article every single day DOES NOT make what you say right and will not make it come true if you keep saying it over and over and over like a broken record.
        
        What will it take to get you to stfu and quit saying the same incorrect thing over and over? If we give you a cookie will you go away? You know, there's this thing, it's called Google (but there are other options available), they let you make your own blog. Where you can rant to your hearts content if you want. And others can read what you write. You can hate on "freetards" all day long and praise Buddah about things like E-PARASITE and all kinds of other nonsense. Why don't you just go do that? Make your own blog and get lost.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 4:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You can read it a thousand times. It's on par with a drug dealer saying "he doesn't love crack", but he happily makes his living off of it.
        
        Mike doesn't condone piracy, but his business ideas depend on it. If piracy went back to being a lower level thing, everyone would be back to buying and selling music and movies, and the whole "sell the scarce" thing would go back to being what it is, a nice add on to a great existing business.
        
        It's also amazing to watch Mike stand up for the rights of pirate sites, and to support them as they play the old "we don't host it" game of chicken with copyright holders. He encourages them in their actions, and pretty much endlessly supports the infrastructure of piracy.
        
        He may not condone piracy in and of itself, but without it, he's just another random blogger.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 29 Oct 2011 @ 4:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Mike doesn't condone piracy, but his business ideas depend on it."
        
        Which business models? The one where he runs a blog you can comment on for free? The models he points out on a regular basis that require people to pay for things?
        
        Citation needed yet again, peabrain.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 8:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It does not depend upon it, but it is clear that his views are based exclusively on classic economics theory.
        
        The problem, however, is that ours is not a society built on just economic theory. There is much more that enters into discussions of policy and laws reflecting public policy.
        
        I do not disagree with his economic analysis of issues. I simply disagree that economic theory should be the sole basis by which policies such as patents and copyrights should be measured.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 11:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        At least he stand up for his beliefs that includes not only himself you on the other hand only stand up for yourself apparently.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 29 Oct 2011 @ 2:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Point out where Mike approves of copyright or disapproves of piracy. You can't."
        
        Point out where he approves of piracy.
        
        Difficulty: articles that merely suggest that piracy need not be a problem or support the position of sites accused of piracy don't count.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 11:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I do, do you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2011 @ 4:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        he has repeatedly said he does not approve of piracy because its against the law. he's also said he does not approve of stricter copyright. What he has done was point out study after study that shows that the law is have a disastrous effect on the economy and the creative industry and its going in the wrong direction.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 1:40pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Three! Three trolls that haven't read the article! Ah! Ah! Ah!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - heyidiot (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 1:57pm
    
    Get a room...
    ...you two!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btr1701 (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 4:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    > He hates piracy and loves copyright.
    
    LOL! So now it's a moral failing not to 'love copyright'?
    
    This shit just gets better and better.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Greevar (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 11:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's practically a Monty Python sketch! *shrill voice* I don't like copyright!!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 1:38pm
  
  Re:
  Which person is this a 'hit piece' on exactly? Did you even read it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 5:06pm
  
  Re:
  Only if you promise to come in and bitch about every single one of them!
  
  Smooches!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 1:41pm

This is good to see. If there's one group who can fight the old data delivery industries deep pockets for the support of ordinary citizens it's celebrities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe Publius (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 1:56pm
  
  Re:
  I seriously don't know if you're kidding or not. Maybe it's just the fatigue of a long work week.
  
  Either way, you made me laugh.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Atkray (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 2:29pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I think he is expressing the hope that beebs will start some sort of campaign where the artists speak out against crap like PROTECT IP, ACTA, and E PARASITE.
    
    Unfortunately the young lad is probably even now being "educated" about speaking out.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 4:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      He's looking at his wallet.
      
      You're not seriously so stupid to think that Justin Beiber would come out against this bill are you?
      
      LOL.
      
      Does he give away his albums for free?
      
      No?
      
      Well guess what? That's cuz he likes being PAID for them.
      
      You people are seriously about as sharp as a marble.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Greevar (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 11:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He just did you dipshit. He exhibited his disdain for the bill by suggesting the author of it should be locked up. It doesn't get much clearer than that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 2:28pm

IP maximists try to claim something to the extent of "stricter IP laws are what the American public want". If this is true then give me a single example of a politician running for office while publicly declaring that if he gets elected, she will expand IP law and s/he will expand its enforcement. It doesn't happen. Politicians know that this is a sure way to lose an election. The American people are against our strict IP laws and the are against making those laws, and its enforcement, even stricter.

I want a representative government, darn it, and substantially redacting IP law is what a representative government ought to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 2:30pm
  
  Re:
  (or, if you give me an example of a politician that consistently ran under those pretexts, I'll give you an example of a politician that lost that election).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 2:32pm
  
  Re:
  I didn't vote for these IP laws. Our politicians didn't tell us that they were going to expand IP laws before getting elected because they know darn well that doing so is a sure way to lose an election. So why are they suddenly expanding IP law? Abolish these laws!!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 2:44pm
  
  Re:
  I can only surmise you did not closely examine Obama's published policy statements during the 2008 presidential campaign. If you had then surely you would have voted for another candidate.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Killercool (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 3:03pm
    
    Don't know about the guy you're replying to, but...
    I did vote for another candidate. He lost, now I'm stuck with this crap...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 9:20pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I would be interested in a citation.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 9:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      and here is a citation of Obama wanting to shorten patent lengths early during his elections.
      
      "His proposal is to change the patent term from 20 years to 7 years."
      
      http://hallingblog.com/obama-%E2%80%93-change-pharmaceutical-patent-term-to-7-years/
      
      A lso see
      
      http://ipwatchdog.com/2009/06/27/obama-administration-wants-short-biologic-exclusivity/id=428 3/
      
      Surprisingly, here is a more recent post
      
      "Obama's recently announced deficit reduction proposal includes the reduction in patent lengths for brand name pharmaceutical drugs from 20 to 7 years."
      
      http://progressiveproselytizing.blogspot.com/2011/04/pharmaceutical-patent-lengths.html
      
      (actually, it's not surprising, he's re-running for election soon. He'll likely change his tune if he gets re-elected).
      
      In 2007 he strongly suggests creating reform that will reduce the scope of ridiculous patents and allow for an easier, cheaper, and more efficient invalidation process
      
      "Giving the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) the resources to improve patent quality and opening up the patent process to citizen review will reduce the uncertainty and wasteful litigation that is currently a significant drag on innovation. With better informational resources, the Patent and Trademark Office could offer patent applicants who know they have significant inventions the option of a rigorous and public peer review that would produce a "gold-plated" patent much less vulnerable to court challenge. Where dubious patents are being asserted, the PTO could conduct low-cost, timely administrative proceedings to determine patent validity. As president, Barack Obama will ensure that our patent laws protect legitimate rights while not stifling innovation and collaboration."
      
      http://www.patenthawk.com/blog/2007/11/smoking_obama_1.html
      
      Again, Obama knows that people don't like our current IP system because it's too restrictive and grants way too many frivolous and publicly unacceptable monopoly privileges.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 9:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (yet, here he is/was, trying to make pro-IP negotiations like ACTA and TPP in secrecy. Of course, now that he must re-run for election, he'll likely back away from these negotiations for the time being and has been. They'll spring right back up if he gets re-elected. He knows darn well that these negotiations are not good for his election strategy).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - cisrael882000, 29 Oct 2011 @ 6:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, you have all misread this. No one is taking a position that patents terms shoudl be reduced from 20 years. The 7 year term referenced in all these articles is for the exclusivity of data used to achieve marketing approval from the FDA ... in order to get approval to market a drug in the US it costs about $1b to do the clinical research and trials necessary to convince the FDA that it works and is safe. This data cannot be relied upon by your competitors for 7 years. Seems fair that the company that did all the work and made the investment doesn't see it immediately turned over to others that didn't.
        
        Obama did sign a bill recently that will improve the patent process and hopefully improve patent quality leading to less litigation. We can all agree on that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 29 Oct 2011 @ 7:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Obama did sign a bill recently that will improve the patent process and hopefully improve patent quality leading to less litigation. We can all agree on that.
        
        We can all agree to hope for that. Whether it actually happens remains to be seen. So far...
        
        New Patent Reform Law Already A Good Thing... For Patent Attorneys
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 10:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "in order to get approval to market a drug in the US it costs about $1b to do the clinical research"
        
        $1 billion? That's a bold face lie and you and they know it.
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110626/17115214866/priced-out-your-medication-must-be-all- that-expensive-big-pharma-rd.shtml
        
        and I'm not sure how you're reading the articles but Obama was proposing to shorten the effective monopoly length. I remember seeing it on the news, and when the pharma companies opposed it, he later changed his mind and dropped the issue.
        
        and that's not to mention that big pharma refuses to allow independent auditors to audit their costs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 10:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why do IP maximists continue to repeat lies over and over, expecting others to believe them? Do they really think we're that naive and that this actually helps them persuade others of their position?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 10:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Obama did sign a bill recently that will improve the patent process and hopefully improve patent quality leading to less litigation."
        
        That's already been discussed here on Techdirt a few times. We're already aware of this bill and the fact that it will likely do little to actually help fix the problems and may even make it worse in some respects.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 7:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I regret I did not bookmark the policy paper when I read it last evening. During the campaign such papers were issued on a host of matters, and the one relevant to the subject included in its title "innovation and technology". The last few paragraphs outline the position on this issue, which paragraphs were most certainly written by a specific academic who lifted the language from her prior publications and pasted it into the policy paper.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 8:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I now recall that the academic's name is Beth Noveck. Her academic credentials are in the areas of social studies and comparative literature, and yet she has not the slightest reluctance to wax poetic on the law and process associated with patents. Despite the lack of any relevant credentials in either technology or patent law, she sits in the Technology Office of the Executive Office. Small wonder that the Executive Office seems off kilter in this subject matter area.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 28 Oct 2011 @ 2:28pm

perhaps Bieber has simply realised what damage the bad publicity of the C&D against the 'FreeBieber' advocacy project is going to do to his image?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 3:11pm

He's 17, shouldn't he be in school. Send him back to Canada. He's not a U.S. citizen and can't even vote. Send him north.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 3:13pm

"Klobuchar's office claims that Bieber must have "misunderstood" the bill..."

If you disagree with me, you must not have understood me, because mine is the only possible rational position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 29 Oct 2011 @ 12:04am
  
  Re:
  I remember that being used in the late 1920s in Germany...And in the early 1920s in Russia...See the problem with that logic?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PrometheeFeu (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 4:08pm

Great... Now I have to agree with a kid whose achievements involve garnering the adoration of 12 year old girls... Thanks a lot!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 28 Oct 2011 @ 4:38pm

I find it interesting how some people so easily dismiss the opinions of others based solely upon prejudicial tidbits of little to no consequence.

He's a seventeen year old Canadian and therefore does not have a right to an opinion - Amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 29 Oct 2011 @ 10:33am
  
  Re:
  He's a seventeen year old Canadian and therefore does not have a right to an opinion - Amirite?
  
  Being 17 has nothing to do with it.
  
  Kidding!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
FUD packer, 28 Oct 2011 @ 4:58pm

Sock Puppets
Pretty sure the contrarian ACs are all the same guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 8:34pm
  
  Re: Sock Puppets
  What else is new?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 5:08pm

It sounds like this one should have been from the department of "saving face".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abby, 29 Oct 2011 @ 7:56am

Copyright/piracy
Yaawwnnn...why doesn't everyone take a nice long nap and GROW UP?
Get off this site and go march for ALL rights promised by our Constitution!
Angels dancing on the head of a pin:@.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cisrael882000 (profile), 29 Oct 2011 @ 12:14pm

Reading the bill is always a good start
Setting up a business to profit from streaming someone else�s works is already a federal misdeamor in the U.S. Senator Klobuchar�s bill simply makes streaming huge amounts of copyrighted material for a profit a federal felony. At a time when sites like megavideo are making millions by stealing and streaming thousands of high-quality videos � including 437 of Bieber � raising seriousness of this crime is a necessary deterrent.

Current law already requires criminal intent - willful infringement of a work � the U.S. Attorney General would certainly not determine this in the case of a tween singing a cover in his bedroom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 8:48pm
  
  Re: Reading the bill is always a good start
  Moreover, in addition to the point you make, the act would have to involve "competitive advantage or private financial gain", a term that is defined within 17 USC 101.
  
  The ordinary YouTube video certainly does not come even close to meeting the prima facie elements needed to pursue a criminal prosecution.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 11:04pm

Liar!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gmiddle, 31 Oct 2011 @ 8:47am

The purpose of this legislation is not to go after your friends and family who try to enjoy and recreate the music they love. The bill is an effort to go after those who try and use the professional work of the music industry unfairly and are trying to make money off of these unfair practices. Please read the bill and do not believe the hype. Here's a blog post about it: http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2011/ ... -campaign/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 12:41pm
  
  Re:
  The purpose of this legislation is not to go after your friends and family who try to enjoy and recreate the music they love. The bill is an effort to go after those who try and use the professional work of the music industry unfairly and are trying to make money off of these unfair practices.
  
  Yeah, don't worry. These kinds of laws never get abused.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
kcmind (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 12:24pm

Those of you who feel skeptical of this bill's merits need to read it more closely. Punishing willful infringement that is done for criminal purposes is nothing new in the United States. All Sen. Klobuchar is trying to do-and I thank her for doing it-is elevate the punishment for illegal streaming, which has become a problem in today's technology-centric culture. Please, if you are one of many echoing Justin Bieber's remarks, I urge you to research the tenets of the bill, S. 978, more thoroughly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Nelson, 4 Nov 2011 @ 11:32am

Justin Bieber for President!!!
Maybe he can run as a third-party candidate under the AmericansElect.org banner!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]