Administration Can't Let Go: Wants To Bring Back Felony Streaming Provisions Of SOPA
from the not-this-again dept
We've been working our way through a paper released last week by the Commerce Department, concerning copyright reform, and will have a much more detailed post about it soon (there's a lot in there), but over at the Washington Post, they're highlighting the silly recommendation to bring back the plan to make unauthorized streaming a felony. This was a part of SOPA and was widely discussed. It wasn't technically in PIPA, but there was something of a "companion" bill from Senator Amy Klobuchar that effectively had the same thing. This got a fair amount of attention when Justin Bieber was asked about the law, and said that Klobuchar should be locked up.It's no surprise that this is coming back. It's one of the points that's been raised a few times since the death of SOPA. As we explained back during the original debate, there are different "rights" associated with copyright law, including distribution, reproduction, etc. For very good reasons, when the government put in sections on what could be considered criminal infringement, they left the "public performance" right off of the list of possible felonies. And that's because it's fairly absurd to consider a felonious public performance of a work. But, because of the rise of streaming sites, and the continued myopia of the entertainment industry, they're afraid that sites that embed works from elsewhere might not be seen as technically violating the distribution or reproduction rights (for good reason), and thus they want to elevate public performance as a felony to try to let the feds go after such sites.
This is misguided on a variety of levels. First of all, it's an attack on secondary liability. A site that is posting embeds of content hosted elsewhere shouldn't be held criminally liable for that content -- especially when that content may change over time and they have no direct control over it. If the original content is infringing, go after whoever uploaded/hosted the original content. Not the sites that merely have an embed. Furthermore, because the lines between reproducing, distributing and public performance can get blurry at times, it's very likely that any increased criminality for public performance will be stretched and abused to cover things that people think should be perfectly legal. As Harvard law professor Jonathan Zittrain explained in detail last year, the streaming provisions could clearly apply to something as simple as posting videos of yourself performing a cover of a popular song you don't have a license to.
Part of the issue is that current copyright law defines a public performance as follows (from 17 USC 101):
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.Note just how broad that is. If you "transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work" for the purpose of having it performed or displayed at a place open to the public, you may be involved in a public performance. It's not hard to see how that might be used to include people posting videos on YouTube.
And, really, this whole idea is misguided. It comes from the entertainment industry's ridiculous belief that if they just keep playing Whac-a-mole with whomever they've decided is the "enemy" this week, it will eventually bring back old business models. Sites that embed streams from elsewhere aren't the enemy. Trying their operators into felons is fraught with all sorts of dangerous unintended consequences. You'd think that, given what happened with SOPA that administration officials would shy away from pushing more such backwards-focused plans... but they just can't resist.
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: copyright, felony, public performance, sopa, streaming
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You know that thunder you just heard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You know that thunder you just heard?
Not something I recommend doing too often mind you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You know that thunder you just heard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You know that thunder you just heard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BG Audio?
Even if its "back ground music" or "audio" from the next apartment over on any side of the video creator, huh?
Tch tch, truly despicable of those dastardly copyright wolves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i couldn't be bother arguing and i just deleted the video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Getting rid of "SOPA"
I'm starting to think that the easiest way to get rid of these bad ideas is to consume as many cheap acronyms and phrases as possible with routine, simple legislation (they'll love how grandiose it makes them sound) so that they are stuck admitting to a representation of the actual content in the title of proposed legislation.
Then again, the L.I.E.T.O.M.E.M.O.R.E. Act might be par for the course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Getting rid of "SOPA"
How about we introduce a law to bring back the constitution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Getting rid of "SOPA"
This really is a tremendous scam from what is proving a sham administration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Setting it down and walking away from it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Setting it down and walking away from it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Setting it down and walking away from it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So
What better way to paint someone as incompetent and unworthy of their job than by portraying them as a person that supported SOPA and now wants to make showing a Youtube video in a public place a felony-level offense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So
However, Californians can oust one PIPA supporter in 2016 when Boxer comes up for election again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So
That is about as unlikely as a dinosaur killing asteroid striking the Earth tomorrow. Sadly, I think the asteroid is more likely. It doesn't seem to matter much what Boxer and Feinstein stand for...San Fransisco and Los Angeles will continue voting for them whether the rest of us don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So
See how fast he backs off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I really do wonder what most of those insufferable jerks would say to events that are happening today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tbe SOPA version would have been a lot different, as home viewing would have been covered.
Which version will be introduced in Congress? We will have to wait and see. But the Klobuchar version, although a terrible bill, would at least not criminalise those who view streaming content in the privacy of their own homes, and save the government from having to build thousands of new jails just to house those who merely view content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Streaming is not a crime.
If copyrights create felonies then copyright is wrong. There's not even the tiniest fucking spec of the public in this ongoing argument. Copyrights, today, suck. Copyright maximalists are scourges on society, the public and progress. If that's not fucking clear by now your heads are so far gone there really is no point.
Next thing you'll tell me is that because I do business with someone then I forfeit confidentiality and privacy. Fuck. Unreal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That is why Klobuchar's bill would have been the lesser of two evils. You would have had to have actually made money to have been committing a felony, so the hobbyist streamers, who made no money, would have been pretty much off the hook. About the only ones that would have been felons would have been sites that either charged a subscription fee, or made money from advertising.
And with the definition of "public performance" in 17 USC 101, that would not covered those who merely viewed the content, becuase it only covers displaying or performing in a public place, and someone's private home would certainly not have been covered by that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Awesome.
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only one attempt need slip under the radar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know, because priorities.....
Professional criminals.. err, bankers, etc: promotion, raise, bonus, or severance package.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You know, because priorities.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You know, because priorities.....
All because "wah - those are my arts!! It's popular and they have an ad. wah." and so try to make as many possible routes to any possible creativity as narrow and controlled as possible. Brilliant! How could that possibly fail? Crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You know, because priorities.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To transmit: every router on the internet now is an illegal device
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Double standard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Double standard
Imagine if our government were as intimate with its people. ... mind blown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If to "communicate" is to be criminal I can see a lot of people receiving mail from Team Prenda & Associates soon after the law goes into force.
Router multicasting would be illegal since transmission to the "public" which is not defined can be any group of people.
Illegal performances happen everywhere every single day in America, it will be a tsunami for all those street performers and other less known artists that have always depended on the inefficiencies of the system to make a living and know idiots in congress want to take it all away.
An efficient copyright system is asking people to accept that there is an efficient monopoly that is possible without a bad outcome.
It will never happen, it harms more than it do good and eventually it gets destroyed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Quote:
Wikipedia: Multicast
Some would call that aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement others would just view it as a simple way at transmitting information to a number of devices at the same time.
The law above as written doesn't make a distinction it is purposefully vague about the definitions to encompass as much as possible, that is why is poorly written it will make just about anything illegal, it would open the door for more abuse and it will happen, copyright trolls are probably stunt supporters of such bills.
Also WiFi is not multicasting, multicasting is the protocol used by routers wireless or otherwise.
Wikipedia: IP Multicast
It also could possibly be used to criminalize personal streaming to inside ones own home or used to in other areas to stop competitors or just plain censorship.
Would a doctor giving a lecture about some disease be a criminal for using material he collected elsewhere that is under copyright?
Would educators be able to show anything to students at all without being afraid of lawsuits?
I don't think the people who create those laws care or bother in the least to even think about those issues, because if they did they would notice that copyrights are monopolies and those are powerful tools that used without clear restrictions become instruments of harm instead of good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spot On
Most artists are poor today because they cannot promote and distribute their work to potential buyers, cannot gain access to the means, without giving away most of their work's value to the oligarchical media pirates.
It reminds me of cruising up the Rhine River, a castle around every turn, each built where some thug could string a chain across the river and thereby impede traffic until the ship captain paid a tribute. Like they say, behind every fortune is a criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What About 17 USC 107?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And if the coming bill is anything like Klobuchar's bill, it will only apply to large-scale for-profit streamers, and not the hobbyist streamer who only does it for the love of the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other than that it's just another case of politicians being politicians. Or morons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Bad Part
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need to be lucky every time....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IF SOPA RETURNS, AND WINS, WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS WE WON'T BE ABLE TO DOANYTHING
HERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT COULD HAPPEN:
A KID DOES A COVER FOR A SONG THE LOVE, THEIR PARENTS THINK IT'S CUTE, SO THEY PUT IT ON YOUTUBE, AND THEN THEY WILL GET ARRESTED FOR DOING SO.
YEAH.
NO MORE LET'S PLAYS EITHER. MARKIPLIER WILL BE GONE, CRY WILL BE GONE, TOBYGAMES WILL BE GONE
ARTISTS ON DEVIANTART WON'T BE ALOUD TO DRAW FANART ANYMORE
TUMBLR WON'T BE ABLE TO HAVE BLOGGERS
STUFF WE LOVE WILL GO AWAY FOREVER IF SOPA WINS
AND FOR ME, THIS IS BAD, LOT'S OF STUFF HERE IS WHAT KEEPS MY HEAD FROM DECIDING TO DIE, BECAUSE THIS IS HOW I TALK TO FRIENDS IF I NEED HELP
DON'T. YOU. DARE. LET. THIS. HAPPEN.
IF YOU SPREAD THE WORD, THIS MAGICAL COMPUTER/LAPTOP/IPAD WILL BE GONE FOREVER.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Petition
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-sopa-2013/LMzMVrQF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've been so revolted by the actions of the copyright cartels, I no longer buy music. Haven't bought anything since sue'em all started. Nor am I planning to.
The end result has been a lost customer for my part. Someone who used to have no issue with plopping down $500 or better a year on music has been turned into a non-customer.
Yes, alienating your customers with actions they don't like has repercussions. I will no longer be able to make a dent in their income as I provide no income any longer into their pockets. There are still others that are buying on the market who have yet to make known their displeasure.
When it reaches bankruptcy level events then I imagine we'll see changes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh-No Mr Bill!
If I recite a copyrighted poem in the park in front of a group, I can be charged with a felony? Good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Appalling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama: Technologically Tone-Deaf
Oh yes, and make Wall Street less regulated and wealthier, and the Police State including the Military more controlling of the rest of us.
Obama's self-satisfied nincompoops haven't advanced one iota any of the plans to enhance this nation's technological foundations, create greater democracy, or even run government better and with more transparency. In fact, quite the opposite.
When the history of this Presidency is written, it will be one long litany of disappointments and betrayals, across the board but especially where change would have been easiest and most productive ounce for ounce, in a revived and freed up technology sector -- and an enhanced democracy. Too bad for America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obama: Technologically Tone-Deaf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streaming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Streaming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
... BACK TO THE CORNER WITH DIS SHIT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think this has nothing to do with Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHAT ARE YOU DOING, CONGRESS?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]