Press Goes Nuts Over Bieber Baby, But Ignores Bieber's Concerns With Regulating The Internet

from the priorities,-people dept

As pointed out by Harold Feld, it seems pretty messed up that our news media is going absolutely nuts over the story of the potential "Bieber baby," but has all but ignored the story of how the lack of clarity in the proposed SOPA law might mean Justin Bieber would go to jail for his performances of other people's works on YouTube -- something Bieber himself has spoken out against. Let's take a look. A basic Google News search on "bieber baby" turns up... 3,770 news stories: And then let's do a search on "bieber sopa." For that... we get... a grand total of 15 news stories (including one from Techdirt): Which story is actually more important? The one in which the government makes massive regulatory changes to the internet that will create felons out of ordinary people? Or the story about a baby that a pop star may or may not have fathered?

Filed Under: e-parasite, journalism, justin bieber, priorities, protect ip, sopa

Do The Authors Of The Felony Streaming Bills Even Know What The Details Of Their Own Bills Mean?

from the doesn't-sound-like-it dept

After Justin Bieber himself pointed out how silly the various bills in both the Senate and the House (S.978 and SOPA, respectively) concerning making streaming a felony were, the office of the key sponsor behind S.978, Senator Amy Klobuchar's, insisted that Justin Bieber didn't understand the bill. We've been hearing the same thing from a few others, who insist that, at best, the streaming felony bill might make a service provider liable for felony charges, but would not impact an uploader such as Justin Bieber.

After looking over the details, I'm not convinced that's true -- and neither are the folks at Fight for the Future, and some of their legal experts. They've now put up a site called BieberIsRight.org, highlighting the legal problems, and how it appears that Klobuchar and the supporters of SOPA don't even understand their own bills. Part of the claim is that it's only the service provider who would be responsible for the "performance," but that's not supported by the case law. Hell, it's not even supported by Klobuchar's own co-sponsor, Senator Chris Coons, who admitted that it wouldn't just criminalize service providers, but "individuals and sites providing the streamed content."

But the bigger issue highlighted by the site is that there is caselaw showing that "a transmission that ultimately results in a performance to the public is, itself, a public performance." That would suggest that merely uploading to a site that then allows a performance to the public could certainly be interpreted as a public performance. Furthermore, in the case of Bieber, the problem is not that he merely uploaded the videos. I agree that for people who merely upload videos of other people's work, this might not apply. But Bieber clearly was performing the works of others in his videos. The uploading isn't the issue. The performance in the video then combined with the public performance of the infringing video seems like it could easily fall under the law.

Yes, this is a question of interpretations of the law, and a large part of the problem is that the text as Klobuchar and (on the House side) Lamar Smith have put forward, doesn't carefully distinguish, meaning that no matter how many times they insist the law won't apply to people like Justin Bieber, we really won't know that for sure until the courts weigh in -- and the ambiguity, especially given the existing case law, means it's no sure thing. One hopes that the court would give weight to the statements of Klobuchar's staff, but there's no guarantee that they will. Besides, any law that is going to require hunting down the press quotes from staffers to prove that it doesn't mean what it seems to say on its face is, without a doubt, a bad and dangerous law.

So why is Klobuchar so focused on getting it passed?

Filed Under: amy klobuchar, felony, justin bieber, s.978, sopa, streaming

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

from the free-bieber,-jail-klobuchar dept

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.

Filed Under: amy klobuchar, felony streaming, justin bieber

Justin Bieber Sends Cease & Desist To FreeBieber Campaign

from the bieber-fever dept

Apparently Justin Bieber has no interest in being kept out of jail. You may recall that the Fight for the Future folks recently started a satirical campaign against the felony streaming bill (S.978 in the Senate, and a part of the SOPA bill in the House) by jokingly launching a campaign to "free Justin Bieber", noting that the bill, as written, could be interpreted to mean that Justin Bieber could have been guilty of committing a felony with his early videos that he put up on YouTube, which helped to really create Justin Bieber. Those videos meet the standards set in the law for criminal copyright infringement, which drives home just how ridiculous the bill is.

Apparently, Justin Bieber (or, at least, his lawyers) apparently would prefer not to be used to defend against draconian, overreaching copyright legislation. They sent Fight for the Future a cease and desist letter, claiming that such a use infringes on a variety of his rights, including (of course) publicity rights and his privacy rights.

Of course, as the EFF writes in its response (embedded below), it appears that Bieber's lawyers are clearly stretching the interpretation of various laws... likely hoping that by sending the legal nastygram, it would cause the FreeBieber team to stop. But that's not what's happening. They're standing behind the use of Bieber and the entire effort:

With respect to the privacy claims, we cannot fathom how this political campaign in any way intrudes on any privacy right your extremely public client might assert. As for the purported right of publicity violations, state laws have long recognized that a celebrity's interest in his or her image must be balanced against the public interest in free speech.

Filed Under: amy klobuchar, cease and desist, copyright, justin bieber, privacy rights, publicity rights, s.978, streaming, youtube

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

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

We've talked a few times about s.978, the bill from Senator Amy Klobuchar, that attempts to make streaming videos potential felonies. The bill is poorly drafted (at best). It basically just adds "public performance" as a possible felony under the law. That seems simple, but it's way too broad, in an era when all sorts of things can be a public performance. Defenders of s.978 again insist that it's not that bad because the law would only apply to willful "commercial" infringers -- but as we've seen repeatedly, the feds seem to interpret that extremely broadly.

Thus, the bill could, in fact, be used against people streaming videos via YouTube for their own benefit. People like... Justin Bieber. In fact, a new advocacy group has kicked off a campaign against S.978 by asking people to help free Justin Bieber. As they point out, Bieber became famous by posting videos of himself singing famous songs on YouTube as a kid. As the campaign notes, this video was a big part of advancing Bieber's massively successful music career -- so you could easily make the case that it was clearly commercial infringement. It was "willful" and he clearly intended to infringe on the Chris Brown song. Clearly it was for "personal gain." As the law notes, you don't have to make money directly from the video for it to be criminal infringement. The law "does not require that a defendant actually realize a commercial advantage or private financial gain. It is only necessary that the activity be for the purpose of "financial gain or benefit." Check. It also has to involve 10 or more "performances" within 180 days. That video has over 35 million views. Check. And did it cause more than $2,500 in losses to the rights holder? Given how the RIAA defines losses, hell yes. Think of all that unlicensed use. If the label licensed the song for 35 million plays, I'm sure it would have cost a lot more than $2,500.

Game, set, match. Under Klobuchar's streaming felony bill, Justin Bieber likely committed a felony.

Now, I realize that many people don't much like Bieber or his music, but does he deserve to go to jail? Now, obviously, defenders of s.978 will claim that they don't intend to go after the likes of Justin Bieber. But just the fact that they could suggests a massively problematic bill. And, realistically, the problem isn't the Biebers of the world, but the next kids who upload a video of themselves lip synching to some song. This is a massively problematic bill, and hopefully you'll check out the Free Bieber site to help let Congress know that this bill is bad news.

Filed Under: amy klobuchar, copyright, justin bieber, s.978, streaming, youtube

Record Label Execs Suddenly Upset That False Copyright Claims Can Take Down Videos

from the shoulda-thought-of-that-before dept

We already wrote about how a prankster used bogus copyright claims to takedown the videos of Justin Bieber on YouTube. It turns out that the mysterious prankster didn't just target Bieber, but also got videos by Lady Gaga, Rihanna and Shakira taken down. But what's funny is how some (anonymous, of course) record label execs are suddenly concerned about this process that involves taking down first and asking questions later. The article is a little strange in that it suggests a user needs to have "YouTube Partner status" to make a copyright claim. As far as I can tell that's not at all true. If it were, you'd see tons of copyright holders complaining that YouTube made them jump through hoops to be able to issue takedown notices. Either way, I'm still interested to see if the the labels actually decide to go after this guy. I'm guessing they won't, because the last thing they want to do is set a precedent over the filing of bogus DMCA takedowns.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, justin bieber, lady gaga, pranks, rihanna, shakira, takedowns
Companies: youtube

All Of Justin Bieber's Music Removed From YouTube Via 'Prank' DMCA Claims

from the not-so-funny dept

As a bunch of folks have been sending in a "prankster" was able to remove all of Justin Bieber's videos from YouTube by filing a bunch of bogus DMCA notices. While a lot of people find this amusing for one reason or another, it really highlights a key problem with the DMCA's notice-and-takedown process, which is a "censor now, deal with the consequences later" system. As has been pointed out in the past, it seems like this process is a violation of the First Amendment, in that it involves the shutting down of speech prior to any sort of due process or adversarial hearing. I'm still amazed that the DMCA doesn't allow for at least a notice-and-notice process, giving the uploader/host a chance to respond before the content is removed. In a case such as this, it would have prevented the removal. As for the "prankster," he might want to be careful. Filing totally false DMCA claims can open you up to serious legal penalties, and assuming that Bieber makes a fair bit of money from his videos on YouTube, his representatives probably have decent reason to go after the prankster. And that might not be a bad thing. In the process, perhaps they could establish greater precedence for the ability to punish those who file bogus DMCA takedowns.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, first amendment, justin bieber, youtube

DailyDirt: Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Money can't buy happiness, but if you have enough of it, you can get all kinds of publicity (whether or not you want it). Here are just a few folks that have been named on the various "these people are rich" lists.

• Justin Bieber made $53 million last year, making him the highest paid teenager. Just wait until he starts licensing his hairdo... [url]
• James Patterson was named the world's highest-paid author by Forbes. A Harvard professor described the experience of hearing Patterson give a talk to MBA students: "It was like listening to a can of Coca-Cola describe how it would like to be marketed." [url]
• Politifact rates Warren Buffett's statement that the rich have a lower tax rate than the middle class as "true." Warren Buffett has been saying this for a while, but maybe even though he's rich, people will listen to him, but not actually hear what he's saying. [url]
• To read up on building up your own business, check out some interesting entrepreneurial articles on StumbleUpon. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: james patterson, justin bieber, money, rich, warren buffet

James Earl Jones Reciting Justin Bieber Lyrics On TV... Copyright Infringement Or Not?

from the did-you-license-that-song? dept

Julian Sanchez points us to an amusing bit of TV where the great actor James Earl Jones recites some Justin Bieber lyrics while a guest on the Gayle King Show. So here's a simple question: is this copyright infringement? Did the Gayle King Show properly license the lyrics from the copyright holder? Perhaps it did, but we've seen music publishers get pretty worked up about various websites posting lyrics online and have heard stories about books not being able to be published because they quoted snippets of lyrics without a license. In fact, given how litigious publishers have been of late, you'd have to think that King's show almost certainly had to go out and "license" the lyrics for this little snippet. Of course, none of this makes any sense. It's silly to think that you should have to buy a license just to have James Earl Jones amusingly read lyrics from Justin Bieber... but, it is the state of today's copyright law.

Filed Under: copyright, gayle king, james earl jones, justin bieber, licensing, lyrics

Screaming Justin Bieber Fans Using Camera Phones To Capture Snippets Of Movie Premiere Berated For Piracy

from the cultural-divide dept

We've pointed out many times that the laws, especially around things like copyright, simply don't match up with the basic cultural norms of what it means to be a kid today. Remember, for example, the woman who was arrested and spent two nights in jail because she used a camera to capture a few very short segments of the movie Twilight, because she was trying to capture her sister's birthday party (with the movie showing being a part of the event). Now, TorrentFreak points us to an unintentionally hilarious article written by a woman who appears to make her living as a Marilyn Monroe/Anna Nicole Smith impersonator, complaining about how a bunch of Justin Bieber fans were thieves because they dared to film snippets of his new movie (wait, Justin Bieber has a movie?!?) at a special VIP Premiere ($30 a ticket!) with their camera phones.

Bieber fans watched the film and screamed with glee at the sight of him on the big screen, but many were also committing a crime. The crime was committed when they began taping the film for their own use. Since most of the audience consisted of teenage girls with their parents, I am left to wonder what parent lets their child commit a crime? Even scarier ,what kind of parent lets them do it in public?

Also I wonder how can Justin's fans call themselves true fans by stealing from the star?

Just what they "stole" from Bieber is not made clear, of course. Of course, there seems to be a bit of a cultural divide here. The Bieber fans aren't stealing anything. What they're doing is sharing with their friends. They're not sharing the movie, of course. I'm sure the screaming crew of Bieber fans are all begging their parents to take them to the theater (probably multiple times). What they're sharing is the experience of going to see the film. Filming a snippet and sending it to friends is a way of letting their friends know "hey, look, I got to go to the Premiere!" or something along those lines.

Of course, thanks to rampant lobbying by the MPAA, such filming is a crime. But this sort of situation just serves to underline why it's stupid to consider just any filming of a movie to be a criminal act. The screaming teen girls at the Bieber movie were not "pirating" the movie in any sense. They were trying to share a cultural experience. It seems pretty bizarre that doing so actually does put them at risk of being sent to jail for a few years.

Filed Under: cameraphones, justin bieber, movie, sharing