Harry Reid Wants To Attach Part Of SOPA To Surveillance Reform Bill
from the that-would-be-a-mistake dept
See the update at the bottom of this post.Late last night I started hearing rumors that Senator Harry Reid was looking to slip a little something extra into the USA Freedom Act: a key part of SOPA. As you should know by now, last week, Reid surprised many by moving for a cloture vote on the USA Freedom Act. While still controversial in civil liberties circles, many are supportive of this bill as a good first step in surveillance reform -- including EFF and ACLU -- while others are perhaps reasonably concerned about what the bill actually provides. Yesterday, the big tech companies came out in favor of it.
However, yesterday evening I heard through the grapevine that Reid also had a little "gift" he was planning to add to the bill, and I've spent a big part of last night tracking down any details I could find. Basically, Reid wants to attach a part of SOPA to the bill: the felony streaming provisions. You may recall that this was the dangerous plan that was a part of SOPA and a companion to PIPA (though not directly in it) that would have turned merely streaming infringing works into a felony. This got a ton of attention after Fight for the Future created its Free Justin Bieber campaign, after noting that Bieber came to fame by streaming lots of videos of music he didn't license the rights to. Even after SOPA died, the White House still listed the felony streaming stuff in its big wish list. And, just a few months ago, the Justice Department told Congress it wanted streaming to be a felony too.
The reality is that this would be a pretty big expansion of criminalizing copyright infringement. As we explained years ago, there's a reason why "performance" isn't considered a felony in copyright law. Expanding the criminalization of copyright, especially for something as simple as streaming content puts a ton of people at risk. And yes, according to Harvard law professor Jonathan Zittrain, someone doing what Bieber did would face jail time, which is ridiculous.
So why is Reid suddenly doing this? What we've heard is that it's a "favor" to his friends at UFC -- Ultimate Fighting Championship -- who are based in Las Vegas, in Reid's home state of Nevada. Reid and UFC go back for years, with UFC being big supporters of Reid, and UFC has worked with Reid on a number of campaigns. UFC has also been one of the biggest supporters of expanding and abusing copyright law for years. The organization has sued its biggest fans, has sued streaming sites like Justin.tv (and lost) and even claimed copyright on videos it has no rights to, taken by fans.
So it's no surprise that with Reid and UFC being so chummy -- while UFC has staked out a strong public position to expand copyright criminalization -- that Reid would like to do this "favor" for his friends. But it's a massive slap in the face to the tech industry -- Reid's second such massive slap this year. Remember, earlier this year, after the tech industry had finally, finally gotten a few important pieces (not nearly enough, but a great start) for patent reform to the finish line, Harry Reid got a phone call from the trial lawyers and killed the whole thing? If he actually goes through with this plan, it will be yet another massive slap in the face to Silicon Valley. Perhaps that's the reputation Harry Reid wants. The Senator who gives out personal favors to friends, and stands in the way of innovation. I can't imagine that will go over well in the long run. Furthermore, it's almost as if Reid has totally forgotten what happened around SOPA. I can assure him that those who fought against SOPA have not forgotten.
The last I've heard on this so far is that Reid is still looking for a bit more support to attach this to the USA Freedom Act. Hopefully no one gives it to him, and this idea simply goes back in the trash can where it belongs.
Update: Senator Reid's office has posted a response to this story claiming that this is all spin from "Republicans who want to tank" the USA Freedom Act. That's not actually true. While I'm not going to reveal my (multiple) sources on this, Reid's explanation is not at all accurate. We confirmed this with multiple sources -- nearly all of whom are in favor of the USA Freedom Act. We did hear one rumor that there was an effort under way to get a Republican on board to support this plan, but we didn't report that because we couldn't get detailed confirmation on it. What we're now hearing from others, however, is that Reid's office is trying to point the finger directly at one specific Republican Senator, and we have a request in to his office to see if he wants to comment.
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, criminalization, felony streaming, harry reid, justin bieber, over criminalization, streaming, ufc, usa freedom act
Companies: ufc, zuffa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I think we need a new rule for lawmakers. If you add in provisions on a bill, it has to, in some way, relate at least to the name of the bill.
Making something done rather commonly a felony sounds like the opposite of freedom to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
coat-tailing
It looks like things never change in Washington, and now SOPA has been reincarnated as part of a surveillance reform bill. And if it doesn't work this time, there's always the next. And the next. Until it finally gets through the back door.
I don't know if there is a word for it, but does anyone know what it's called when a failed bill gets reintroduced as a minor part of another (usually unrelated) bill in order to assure its success of getting passed into law?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The road to infamy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Say it ain't so?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: coat-tailing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: coat-tailing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Say it ain't so?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Let's just kill music
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So let me see if I have this right
He's sold out to a bunch of idiotic, worthless punks and thugs who specialize in producing and disseminating "entertainment" where alleged adults beat the crap out of one another?
We clearly need politicians with higher standards.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Let's just kill music
No technical means exists to do that. (And after thinking about it for a few minutes, I'm hard-pressed to devise one, because ultimately it comes down to a trust mechanism, and pretty much every one of those we've got has intrinsic, deep flaws that render it unsuitable for this purpose.)
For example: Netflix. How can anyone verify that Netflix actually holds the rights to stream film XYZ? We can't just take their word for it, not with THESE consequences. Moreover, if we verify it today, how can we re-verify it tomorrow? (After all: circumstances change.) How is this going to scale across the N films that Netflix servers and their M customers? And how will this work when fake Netflix sites (many of which already exist, thanks typosquatters and domainers) manage to trick people into streaming from them?
If they have any sense, Netflix, Hulu, et.al. are going to have to jump on this immediately.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Let's just kill music
[ link to this | view in thread ]
2016 is 'right around the corner', Mr. Reid!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Source?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Let's just kill music
They're not. Which is probably the point. I suspect their preferred endgame is to have it so that only a handful (to maintain the illusion of competition) of "official" services are able to stream anything, and any other services are deemed as infringing by default. Doesn't matter if any new service is better or only deals with independent, public domain, CC or amateur content - not on the list? You're shut down immediately.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Say it ain't so?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So let me see if I have this right
Politicians with high standards are the problem, not the solution. The higher their standards are, the better corruption scales upwards.
What you need instead are principles. You don't want politicians who are expensive to buy. You want those who are not for sale.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
no different to the rest of the copyright laws! 99% of them have been put in place because the studio bosses became best friends of members of congress, but not until and only for as long as needed, just to get the idiotic rules in place that we are supposed to acknowledge every minute!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: coat-tailing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Good grief, you need some new material.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: coat-tailing
And I suppose you really don't need the last part.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is such a ridiculously, simplistic generalization that I am a bit surprised is presented here. Of course, it does not help anyone trying to understand issues to try and incite some measure of a moral panic by linking to long ago debunked articles such as "JB could go to jail".
Why not say what you really mean? You do not at all like copyright law and as a matter of principle are opposed to anything that makes any part of it even a bit broader than it currently stands.
BTW, to the best of my knowledge all activities that comprise civil infringement can, if sufficiently egregious to meet criminal law requirements, can be prosecuted by the DOJ (the fact you do not hear about such prosecutions in any significant number should tell you something). See: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01847.htm
The language from SOPA that seems to cause such pain was a proposal to enable in one additional circumstance the possibility of a felony prosecution, as opposed to just a misdemeanor prosecution. IOW, the act can already be prosecuted. What would change is that a wider range of sanctions could be imposed. Hardly a "sky is falling" scenario.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: coat-tailing
I don't know if there is a word for it, but does anyone know what it's called when a failed bill gets reintroduced as a minor part of another (usually unrelated) bill"
I think it should be called a Poison Payload.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: coat-tailing
Which is why I would support various measures (too many and too long to list off here) aimed at restricting the breadth of a given bill and at making sure that the legislators have no excuse for not knowing exactly what they're voting on. But getting that implemented would be more of an up-cliff than even an uphill battle.
(The other "solution" to such unrelated-provisions legislation would be the line-item veto, in some form - whether by the executive in signing, or by members of the legislative voting in for or against. But that A: just moves the problem and B: in the executive case is plausibly argued to be unconstitutional.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 2016 is 'right around the corner', Mr. Reid!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to story
First, what you’ve reported isn’t true – Senator Reid isn’t secretly planning to attach anything to this bill. He wants an open amendment process where both sides can vote in a transparent manner on changes to the bill, and he wants the process to be concluded in a reasonable amount of time so that we can proceed to an up-or-down vote on the final bill.
Second, Senator Reid’s top priority for this bill is to limit NSA’s ability to do bulk data collection and institute FISA court reforms, which the tech and privacy and civil liberties communities strongly support.
There’s significant Republican opposition to the bill, and consequently, what you’ve been hearing through the rumor mill is just an effort by those opposed to NSA reforms to blame someone else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Perhaps because that's not what is meant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Like much of the US I'm ready to see some of these dinosaurs get tossed out on their kiester.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Response to story
That's where this comes in. When you destroy the belief in what is said are the facts, you destroy the chance to be believed when you really need it. That belief is no longer there, so I'm afraid with all the underdealings we've seen in the past by Harry Reid, I frankly don't believe this responce.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Response to story
Let me be the first to say This
and also: this
People lie, actions don't.
I think this former President said it right the first time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Response to story
We have posted an update pointing to your statement and also explaining that your version of the story is not supported by what we found from our sources.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Response to story
The opening sentence - "First - what you've reported isn't true..." leads the reader to believe that you aren't considering making unauthorized content a felony.
However, the only thing you seem to be concerned with as far as the next part of the sentence "Senator Reid isn’t secretly planning to attach anything to this bill." is the matter in which you want to "attach" the provision.
Read the comments - the problem isn't secrecy - the problem is the ridiculous notion of making it a felony.
Spin indeed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's just kill music
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Response to story
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Response to story
I am not with Techdirt, but I have put Techdirt's domain in the headers of my comment to show that anybody can do it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's just kill music
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
A felony charge for something as trivial as streaming content to viewers online is just another blanket attempt at removing the right to vote from more people and more proof that the government is merely a lapdog for major corporations and not serving the people of this nation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
A felony charge for something as trivial as streaming content to viewers online is just another blanket attempt at removing the right to vote from more people and more proof that the government is merely a lapdog for major corporations and not serving the people of this nation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
A felony charge for something as trivial as streaming content to viewers online is just another blanket attempt at removing the right to vote from more people and more proof that the government is merely a lapdog for major corporations and not serving the people of this nation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
A felony charge for something as trivial as streaming content to viewers online is just another blanket attempt at removing the right to vote from more people and more proof that the government is merely a lapdog for major corporations and not serving the people of this nation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Following up
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Response to story
If he is, then that pretty much gives lie to the statement that "Senator Reid’s top priority for this bill is to limit NSA’s ability to do bulk data collection and institute FISA court reforms" -- how can that be his top priority when he's willing to attach what amounts to a poison pill to the whole thing? It takes something that has some measure of support and makes it completely unacceptable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Following up
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Source?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Response to story
Understand that confidence in your truth-telling ability is now at a point where I'm willing to believe some random half-whispered conjecture in a back alley in the middle of the night before I'll believe you. That's because experience has shown that the former is far more likely to be accurate than anything you have to say.
Thus any assertion of truth on your part really is extraordinary, and as such, it requires extraordinary proof.
I'm waiting for it. (And no, vague mumbling statements here and press releases from your spokesliar won't suffice.)
Proof or GTFO.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Response to story
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sources
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You know what I'm not seeing?
The EFF and FFTF are sending me emails to contact my Senators (little good that'll do. I'm in California.) now suddenly OPPOSING the Freedom Act, thanks to the Beiber poison pill.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Response to story
YOU DID NOT SAY HE WAS NOT GOING TO DO IT.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Response to story
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Following up
'I am not, and will not, be introducing any text from, or similar to, that found in the SOPA bill, to the US Freedom Act.'
See, simple as that, and the issue would be resolved in a matter of minutes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
oh so he does not want to SECRETLY pass it he wants to PUBLICLY pass it!
GO #### YOURSELF.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I mean its not like the law applies to congress already (hello insider trading), but they could pass such a thing to try and make us feel that they might actually put the idiots who voted them into office ahead of the huge piles of cash and hookers they get from their corporate sponsors.
Hell I'd even settle for every bill & "amendment" having to be filed separately and them having to answer 5 questions about it before they are allowed to vote on it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
He needed some click bait.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Let's just kill music
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Following up
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!! HHHHHHAWWWWWHHHHHH!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
And...? That's the whole problem.
Indeed, any streaming law would have to target those who produce and send the streams, because courts in multiple jurisdictions have found that merely viewing a stream is not any form of copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
He also didn't define USA, EFF, or ACLU, and didn't explain who Justin Beiber was. I'm sorry, should he have explained these things too?
"Know your audience." Techdirt assumes its readership has a basic understanding of the internet and some internet-related terms. They defined UFC because the numerous cord-cutters from this website might not know what it is. But even my Mom remembers SOPA from when the internet went dark for a day. Why don't you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's just kill music
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=sopa
Search for 4 letters, and you could understand the answer to the question you're asking. All but one of the first page of Google results gives you the relevant answer, something that's been at the forefront of tech news since it first came about.
I can understand why people might need help understanding concepts, complex arguments and nuanced positions. But acronyms that consist of 4 f*cking letters, while you're typing your paragraph long complaint on the very medium that will tell you what it stands for if only you looked? Stop being a lazy moron, and seek the knowledge you claim to desire.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Randaza ows UFC ????
[ link to this | view in thread ]
To once more explain the error, virtually all aspects of civil infringement can be prosecuted as a criminal action if the additional prima facie elements of the criminal offense are proven, with mens rea being one that is particularly crucial. Currently, only a few types of infringement can be subject to both misdemeanor and felony punishments. All the language that is twisting your skivvies would have done is add streaming to that very short list. Given the paucity of prosecutions for criminal copyright infringement, the impact upon society at large by such an amendment would certainly be less than miniscule at most.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Response to story
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just wondering - what reason have you supplied for people not to believe that this is what you're engaged in? No citations, no name, no attempt to take ownership of words. Not even a link to what you "recall (he) received" in a previous response, just an expectation that your words should be taken at face value.
Why do your comments deserve any sort of credence?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Above is a link purportedly "explaining" why something is deemed to be non-criminal. The author completely ignores several comments to that article traversing the article's author's understanding of criminal copyright infringement (with citations). Moreover, mention is made that the prima facie elements of a criminal offense are greater in number that for civil infringement (means rea...state of mind...is typically one that does not need to be shown in the context of a civil action), an important point that is nowhere mentioned in either that article or this one.
If the author here wants to have credibility when expounding on what copyright law actually entails, it would behoove him to do more than "fly-by" research that does not stand up to even modest scrutiny.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The sources provided here appear to be thin.
Preferably, it would be nice to see a draft of the bill voted on this week. It would be easy to see whether any additional amendments made it into what was voted on or not.
This is a case whether I think Techdirt should have a follow-up of some sort.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And this is what you consider "accurate commentary" that deserves credence. What a crock.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We've Seen This Before
That particular representative was ousted in a bi-election the following year. Surely he had been given millions by his friends in Las Vegas for his work in ensuring everyone continued coming to them instead of going online, so that surely soothed his pain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]