Congress (Once Again) Sells Out To Hollywood: Sneaks CASE Act And Felony Streaming Bill Into Government Funding Omnibus
from the but-why? dept
As we warned about earlier this month, it appears that Congress has in fact put two very controversial copyright provisions into the government funding "omnibus" bill that will be voted on later today. As you may have heard, last night Congress worked out a "deal" on both a $900 billion Covid relief/stimulus package and the giant $1.4 trillion omnibus government funding bill, which is being voted on today. There had been concerns raised all month about how -- under pressure from Hollywood -- Congress might try to sneak two dangerous copyright provisions and one trademark provision into the omnibus.
Since the "deal" was announced last night, people have been scrambling to find out what's actually in the fucking bill which is being voted on shortly. It's just come out that, indeed, all three controversial copyright and trademark provisions are in the bill. The CASE Act will supercharge copyright trolling exactly at a time when we need to fix the law to have less trolling. And the felony streaming bill (which was only just revealed last week with no debate or discussion, includes provisions that are so confusing and vague no one is sure if it makes sites like Twitch into felons.
The fact that these are getting added to the must pass government funding bill is just bad government. And Congressional leadership should hear about this.
The full omnibus bill is over 3,000 pages long, so you can search through it for your favorite bit of nonsense. Felony streaming is on page 72. The CASE Act starts on page 77.
There's a reason that copyright is generally controversial. Small changes can not only have a massive impact, that impact can be on the public's ability to express themselves. The idea that two such bills should be jammed through in this manner is a total and complete travesty. People should be mad about this and should hold the Congressional leadership of both parties responsible. This is not good governance. This is sucking up to Hollywood at the expense of the public.
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: case act, congress, copyright, felony streaming, free speech, omnibus, small claims, thom tillis
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Is there any way for the bills to be remove from the omnibus bill at this stage? is Ron Wyden aware about this and if so can he do anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is another page from the why-the-fuck-did-SCOTUS-kill-the-line-item-veto department.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...yes, because if there's one person we can rely on to save us, it's Donald Trump.
Are you high?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Largely because the U.S. Constitution makes no provision for that. A president must either veto or not veto an entire bill.
In this particular case, however, a line item veto would not help because these bits of bad law do not constitute spending line items which could be vetoed, if such a thing were authorized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You seem to believe that the CongressCritters are somehow obligated to represent the best interests of the people of the United States. They aren't. They've been bought and paid for by a corrupt system that allows big corporations to pay for their re-election campaigns. Like most every other institution in this country, their allegiance is to the rich and powerful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you have anything constructive to add, or are you just here to condescendingly state the very very obvious as if it's some deep insight you're bestowing upon people who have never thought of it before?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oooh, "Thad" so upset that he's attacking ally!
Prime example of Techdirt fanboy without least self-awareness, being everything he's accusing of! The ankle-biters are starting to snap at each other!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welp, Time to say goodbye to literally every YouTube channel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well they are saying it wont affect YouTube channels at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://archive.is/Y4del
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
False, This will throw literally everyone on Twitch and YouTube in prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Very unlikely and even Fight for the Future said that its unlikely to throw literally everyone on Twitch and YouTube in prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"unlikely to throw everyone in prison"
Just the ones the current regime finds too controversial.
Police brutality videos are the first that come to mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean like Civil Asset Forfeiture is only used on drug kingpins and terrorists? This is an area where I definitely expect scope creep. if they can't get you for conspiracy and they can't get you for tax evasion, now they'll have another tool to harass people with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tho the bills are likely unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's up to the courts to decide. I hope you're right, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which won't happen until someone actually experiences getting their life wrung through the ringers. As opposed to you know, the courts actually taking the law after it has passed Congress and the President and giving their yay or nay on it. Nope, gotta wait till someone is harmed by it to determine if it is unconstitutional or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Its likely the courts will take up the law after it has passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or else bring a declaratory judgment action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The last resort should never become the first. This is just an excuse to give bad actors what they want and shift blame away from those in government who support them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You clearly get it but just to make it explicit for everyone - if a law depends upon "being trusted to not abuse it" then it is a goddamned terrible law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Psst...
https://archive.is/Y4del
:looks around:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
e-petitions
Say it gets signed by 7% of the US population. Is there anyone in the federal legislature that will care?
I'm pretty sure that net neutrality got that kind of support and they didn't because child traffickers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: e-petitions
Net neutrality had the support of majorities in both houses of Congress, just not a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"This will throw literally everyone on Twitch and YouTube in prison."
Not everyone. But I really wouldn't want to be a monetized youtube streamer in the US under this legislation. Liebowitz and Hansmeier may be out of the running but if there's one thing the US is in no shortage of it's third-rate immoral copyright trolls eager to take glaring advantage of any law encouraging a certain measure of avaricious opportunistic abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Literally" doesn't mean what you think it means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not exactly
The intention of the bill is target supposed towards websites, not users. This isn’t a defense of Tillis, I think the wording is extremely vague, and the real concern is to which websites are he referring to. but I will say that it’s unlikely mass incarceration for you tubers or streamers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not exactly
The reality of the wording won't necessarily prevent a chilling effect. And websites will lock down the activities of their users if they fear legal repercussions, so whether a user goes to jail is irrelevant in regards to the effect it can still have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not exactly
Its unlikely they will lock down the activities of their users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not exactly
I'm not sure how you can read the minds of every employee of every company that hosts content on the internet to determine the likelihood of them being concerned and deciding to play it safe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not exactly
If they don't they will become liable to the death of a thousand lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not exactly
230 stop that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not exactly
Wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not exactly
"Its unlikely they will lock down the activities of their users."
If they are found liable for the actions of said users? They'll either lock them down, or move their operations to a jurisdiction well outside US law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Courage!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Courage!
Don't sell yourself short though. You're doing a fine job of highlighting your own irrelevance!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not surprised to be honest
Really the government is controlled by two outsider groups:
One is a warmongering, overbloated greed machine that invades others for the sake of the constitution, proclaims that our country is free, but ruins masses of innocents in the process and has entrenched itself into the lives of almost every politician and it acts as a contradiction of the intended principles of the United States of America.
The other is the US military.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
simmuh down now
Don't sweat it...there will always be another loophole.
man is not perfect
nothing man builds is perfect
data wants to be free
just like water always seeks the lowest point, man will always find a way to make a buck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
20 years of your life WASTED railing at copyright!
"but-why?" -- Because creators are valued by civil society, and pirates / thieves are NOT.
Simple fact is that even enjoying, let alone "monetizing", copyrighted products without paying is not permitted.
You're plain WRONG (that copyright is just "a moral question"), Maz, and I'm CORRECT (that it's a Right to be enforced against violators).
Shoulda took my advice last year, Maz, and closed this "blog" while could leave with shreds of dignity. It'll be clear that you were chased out by THE LAW, now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 20 years of your life WASTED railing at copyright!
By the way, those who passed CDA Section 230 are sellouts too, and even worse because an unprecedented immunity to corporations, NOT protecting a Right which is in body of Constitution.
Of course, a corporatist doesn't regard S230 as being bought, because benefits corporations. Just shows how Masnick is biased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 20 years of your life WASTED railing at copyright!
You do not seem to understand that losing section 230, and strengthening copyright will remove all routes to publication other than acceptance by an editor. You should also not that editors only accept a fraction of a percent of the material submitted to them. These bill are nothing other than a large step to giving publishers total control over what is published.
Want to publish a film, get a studio to accept, want to publish music, get signed by a label, want to publish a book, get it accepted by a publisher, anything else, send a letter to an editor. Can't get it published by any of those routes, produce and sell your own copies, but note you will have no Internet sites to help you achieve that because it will be too risky unless it is accepted by an editor, so you are down to hawking your wares on street corner.
In reality the old publishers, labels and studios are not that concerned about actual piracy, but rather are using it to attack legal self publishing, which is competing with what they sell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’m surprised at you, Brainy. Here you are, railing about evil corporations and corporatism and “creators are valued” and all that nonsense, and yet you support corporations being given control of property rights as if they’re “actual persons” (or is it “actual individuals”?). How do you square that circle?
And yes, copyright is a moral question. I mean, do you think of the idea of locking up culture behind a walled garden of property rights for at least three-quarters of a century, such that no one who was alive when a work is created will likely survive long enough to make use of that work when it falls into the public domain (e.g., Michael Jackson’s music), as “morally righteous”?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing cheaper to buy than a politician's integrity
The only question at this point is exactly how much it took to buy those involved, whether it took five digits on a check, four digits, or merely a pinky-promise that if they did this they'd see a little 'bonus' next time 'donation' time comes around.
Still, nice of them to admit that the bills are complete garbage that can't stand up their own, that's probably the most honest they've ever been in their lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the fuck is wrong with you people? Obviously handing everything yhat Hollywood wants to them is more important than anyt, including, hopefully your positions! With a bit of luck, you'll all be out of yours in yhe very near future! Disgraceful performance, yet again, from those entrusted into positions to look out for the people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Making dissenters disappear
Already law in the US is used to disappear people who are too active in their dissent of current establishment, especially those who have footage that embarrasses people in power (from the brutality of the beat officers on the bottom to the candid hot-mix expressions of apathy or cruel disinterest at the top).
It doesn't matter why this content becomes ineligible for public consumption and we've already seen DMCA takedowns used to censor legitimate content. This is going to enable the status-quo police (e.g. all of law enforcement) to go even further and not just demonetize or take down content but silence the creators permanently.
And if this enables the system to do it. It will do it.
And it's worth noting the victims will be stuffed into our prison system which not only has a 33%+ assault rate, but a 20% COVID-19 infection rate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Making dissenters disappear
Who has been disappeared? Can you provide some examples?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Making dissenters disappear
..any conservative's opinion....especially on TechDirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Making dissenters disappear
Huh? You mean how some trolls and assholes get their comments hidden behind a pink wall that I can just click to show?
To be fair, it technically is a disappearance, but one that can easily be reappeared that even a 3-year-old toddler or a geriatric luddite could figure it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt has no obligation to host anyone’s opinion, no matter their political ideology. Don’t like that this blog leans liberal? Go find a blog that leans conservative and leave this blog out of your hatereading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, look the editor is rejecting me. I guess I better go down to the street corner and hope someone will buy my crap then. At least while I still can that is. I'm sure the next Omnibus bill will contain measures about thwarting illegal street corner piracy. Property rights? Heh, only if you can afford to buy them from Congress and Hollywood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Oh, you know the ones...'
And which 'opinions' would those be, because I don't seem to recall many people arguing the merits of lower taxes, smaller governments or such things in the TD comment sections, so if you're going to say that 'conservative opinions' are being hidden by all means list them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Oh, you know the ones...'
"And which 'opinions' would those be..."
By the hidden comments I've read so far apparently the "opinion" that racism is something black people do against white people; wearing a badge means you can do no wrong; the south shall rise again; "the Kenyan Muslim ruint dis country!" and that You Evil Pirates Shall All Burn.
Also, to a great extent among some self-styled Comrades of the alt-right and "conservatives", "conservative" appears to mean a call for government to seize the means of production whenever social media is concerned, because corporations need to prove their utility to the common good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Making dissenters disappear
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Making dissenters disappear
"..any conservative's opinion....especially on TechDirt."
Well, no, conservative opinions are usually read and responded to.
I guess we'll have to remind you people, once again, that thinly veiled white supremacy rhetoric and a string of ad homs followed by an outright falsehood are not, inherently, conservative opinions.
Feel free to actually come up with a conservative comment which doesn't have to rely on manifest lies to make it's case or tries to marginalize every reader inclined to disagree. I guarantee you there will be no flags.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Love the system
Its interesting that all the things we have done to control the gov. have gone.
That they are making the system now.
Some have tried to make the system Viewable to what is happening. there are even groups ouyt there that COUNT the pennies, exchanged.
But HOW much to change YOUR opinion on something? And how many are paying you to change it?
300,000,000+ people in this country, and a good 65-80% are of working age. At $1000 each <$300 billion? And they want to give away $900 billion? TO WHO?
Once you take the $300B away we have allot left over.
But its being told that Each person MIGHT get $600, NOT $1000.
I will bet the debate is based on how many people live in 1 home, that a home with 2 Adult persons, would be getting $1200.
210 million Should be getting a fair amount? Even at $1000 each. But whats left is over 600 billion? With around 500+ federal representatives Thats 1 billion each with change. Isnt it?
WHY give it to the CORPS?
They could PAY themselves to be FAIR and equitable. but thats not going to happen. They think they are getting MORE under the table them JUST SCREWING US DIRECTLY.
But I dont think they thought it out that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Love the system
I REALLY have to ask.
When do the people get a say in HOW, we are governed?
What laws and regs we would like? or need?
Can we get the politics OUT of politics?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When Americans either start protesting in the goddamned streets on a daily basis or enact a nationwide general strike. Direct action gets the goods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
true, but you need ENOUGH people to Stand out/up. to get attention. That or you start breaking windows. Which isnt a good thing either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will this do anything?
Will this actually help stop pirate sites? Or is this basically doing little to nothing but upping penalties?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Will this do anything?
unless you can get Every World wide site to RECORD links to those Downloading. And then PROVE, that they dont have an original copy and are just supplying a Backup.
But consider 230. WHO is responsible? the Site owner, the person who Uploaded the Data, or the Downloader? And IN WHAT country does OUR law over rule THEIRS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Will this do anything?
So basically, this barely changes a thing in the grand scheme of things if it is applied as intended and not used against individuals?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Will this do anything?
"So basically, this barely changes a thing in the grand scheme of things if it is applied as intended and not used against individuals?"
Well, it does give a new lease of life to the chosen business model of a few thousand US copyright trolls. Hansmeier and Steele will be looking out through their bars at the Eldorado unfolding just outside, powerless to partake in the roaring crowd rushing forth, bellowing "Thar's gold in dem dere intarnetz!", suitcases and subpoenas in hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In a sense... they're not wrong. Government funding has always been dependent on them spooning and sucking off Hollywood. Chris Dodd made it very clear in 2012 that he''d go as far as to jeopardize the careers of various people in government as penance for SOPA's defeat.
This isn't to say that this should be the norm. Far from it. The fact that this is how things have always been - the fact that the entertainment industry essentially has the government held to ransom - should be absolutely terrifying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CD Projekt Red: we're going to show the whole world what a disaster developing by crunch can be
United States Congress: hold our beer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, are you aware of this bill?
https://www.sasse.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/54e9d1de-7b2f-4bba-a6cf-79081e0c9ff0/oll20b20 .pdf
Some are saying this would lead to the death of porn on the internet (at least in america) and it's also being added as a rider to the covid bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You do not mess with The Holy Porn
For future reference there's a 'Submit a Story' link at the bottom of the page if you run across stories that you think TD might be interested in.
As for the bill itself talk about batshittery front to back. From utterly insane requirements on sites(24 hour hotline, two hour max takedown times, requirements for a signed approval letter per image, making downloads illegal) to such things as a 'who's in porn' list that I'm sure people would be tripping over themselves to sign up for, requiring sites to do the impossible by matching people against the aformentioned 'I'm in porn but keep it on the downlow' list that bill was very clearly written by someone who's either terrified of the naked body and/or pandering to those who are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
WTF?
I love the must upload a signed consent form for each person in the image that identifies them part. That would kill it overnight all on it's own.
There's even a "platform must host a 24-hour telephone hotline" for content removal requests. (I guess Ma Bell is strapped for cash these days....)
There's even a prohibition on downloads that reads that all images whether in compliance or not cannot be downloaded in a "retrievable data file" format. I guess they want to ban distribution here too. (May as well go big or go home.)
A database for sites to check all uploads against and block anything that matches. (Of persons to never allow depictions of.)
Oh look, at least it doesn't affect 230. (So we're good right?)
This bill is ridiculous. Most of the porn industry would just move out of the US's jurisdiction as a workaround.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wonder how those calls to a porn site are going sound around 2 AM.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"This bill is ridiculous. Most of the porn industry would just move out of the US's jurisdiction as a workaround."
Most of the platforms will have to do that, if even a tenth of the gibberish floating around congress actually passes.
I can only imagine, hypothetically, something similar happening (over a far slower time scale) when we first found out the hard way that messenger immunity, private property, burden of proof, and free speech were unavoidable requirements for a civilized society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Is the US trying to become the first country cut off from the Internet as every Internet company moves elsewhere and decides that having any users in the US is too risky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Possibly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can not find any info that its being added as a rider to the covid bill.
It does not seem its being added.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've seen this covered on Ars Technica - for now, the biggest takeaway I have from this is the question, "Wasn't SESTA/FOSTA supposed to solve all these problems?" with a huge sarc mark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone do a quick scan??
Look at titles,
There is a trade agreement in there,
Look up Nepal and China.
This thing is Full of allot of BS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's already against the law to host infringing content for download, the streaming bill will make it harder for startups who might want to compete with twitch.
I think the porn bill is aimed against websites that host video clips , it would be impossible to even make a complete list of all the people who appear in a million videos made years ago.
There's no imdb for adult films. Maybe the porn websites, ll all move to Canada or Mexico.
The supreme Court has ruled adult films are legal this just
puts extra costs on any porn websites
There's 1000s of people employed just streaming video games
and sometimes games have music as part of the soundtrack
Twitch has received 1000s of dmca notices on music played in games from the dmca
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Very true about porn sites moving to Canada, Mexico, or whatever.
It is also true about one pirate site in the Netherlands offering popular US channels, that operates much like your cable company would, in that you have to pay more if you want more channels, albeit less than you would to your local cable company.
Since they operate out of the Netherlands, that site is not subject to any laws in the United States, as their company, and their servers are all in the Netherlands.
And they have been operating for over 10 years and are not subject to any American laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If Hollywood keeps going down this rabbit hole, they're going to run into an unintended consequence -- their content is going to increasingly get ignored and the media market is going to get ever more fragmented. Siloing yourself to the point where you're criminalizing the action of people talking about your product flies in the face of open source approaches that are simply more economically successful.
Of course this will also have a depressive effect in general on our economy as interaction effectively also becomes criminalized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once Again
The copyright Industry got their way, thanks to DEMOCRATS and RINOS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turnabout is fair play after all
If that's the way you want to go with it then no, no true democrats supported any of this, just ones claiming to be democrats, 'democrats in name only' if you will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Once Again
I love persons with 1 sided opinions, and Miss the Other opportunities to see the truth.
500 idiots in the congress and the reps control 1 of them. And you think it was the democrats?
WOW, interesting idea.
Dont think about the Group incharge, paying off a few demo to get it thru the vote?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The new felony streaming bill is written similar to DMCA 512
DMCA 512 also requires some kind of financial gain, meaning you have to be making money.
If that requirement were not in there, nearly the entire US population would be subject to criminal prosecution
The most common "crack" people use are to circumvent Product Activation in Windows, Flight Simulator, or Office, so they can continue using their legally purchased copy if they change any hardware in their computer.
Doing this for personal use does not violate the criminal sections of DMCA 512 becuase it is not being done for financial gain (making money).
That is why, for example, when I go to Mexico and I use the VPN on my home computer network, to bypass gepographic restrictions and be able to listen to iHeart while I am down there on road trips, and not be violating the DMCA because I am not doing for any purposes of making money.
Some people here think that I am breaking the DMCA by using my VPN to listen to iHeart, while I am driving in Mexico, but I am not, because I am not doing it for any kind of financial gain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, with Biden wanting to revive TPP, the requirement that it be for financial gain would have to be eliminated, as would the requirement that it only be for those who be for distribute content for financial gain would have to be eliminated as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]