Senators Leahy And Tillis -- Both Strongly Supported By Hollywood -- Ask Merrick Garland To Target Streaming Sites

from the because-of-course dept

As you'll likely recall, at the very end of last year, Senator Thom Tillis, the head of the intellectual property subcommittee in the Senate, slipped a felony streaming bill into the grand funding omnibus. As we noted at the time, this bill -- which was a pure gift to Hollywood -- was never actually introduced, debated, or voted on separately. It was just introduced and immediately slipped into the omnibus. This came almost a decade after Senators had tried to pass a similar bill, connected to the SOPA/PIPA. You may even recall when Senator Amy Klobuchar introduced such a bill in 2011, Justin Bieber actually suggested that maybe Senator Klobuchar should be locked up for trying to turn streaming into a felony.

Of course, this whole thing was a gift to the entertainment industry, who has been a big supporter of Senator Tillis. With the flipping of the Senate, now Senator Leahy has become the chair of the IP subcommittee. As you'll also likely recall, he was the driving force behind the PIPA half of SOPA/PIPA, and has also been a close ally of Hollywood. So close, in fact, that they give him a cameo in every Batman film. Oh, and his daughter is literally one of Hollywood's top lobbyists in DC.

So I guess it's no surprise that Tillis and Leahy have now teamed up to ask new Attorney General Merrick Garland to start locking up those streamers. In a letter sent to Garland, they claim the following:

Unlawful streaming services cost the U.S. economy an estimated $29 billion per year. This illegal activity impacts growth in the creative industries in particular, which combined employ 2.6 million Americans and contribute $229 billion to the economy per year. In short, unlawful streaming is a threat to our creative industries and the economic security and well-being of millions of Americans.

If you've been following these stories long enough, you know where this number comes from. It's from a report put out by the US Chamber of Commerce's "The Global IP Center" and written by NERA Consulting. The US Chamber of Commerce has always been a huge backer of stronger copyright -- mainly because the MPA pays them to be -- and NERA Consulting releases reports for Hollywood all the time. This report is not nearly as bad as some of their earlier reports, but it still makes a ton of assumptions about consumption that seem unlikely to be anywhere close to reality.

Either way, Tillis and Leahy want Garland to get down to doing exactly what Hollywood wants:

Now that have you been confirmed, will you commit to making prosecutions under the PLSA a priority? If so, what steps will you take during your first one hundred days to demonstrate your commitment to combating copyright piracy?

How quickly do you intend to update the U.S. Attorneys manual to indicate prosecutors should pursue actions under the PLSA?

Hurry up and throw streamers in jail!

As if recognizing just how bad this looks, they did include one final point as a sort of nod towards the fact that the DOJ probably shouldn't be going after ordinary everyday streamers.

When updating the U.S. Attorneys manual, what type of guidance do you intend to provide to make clear that prosecutions should only be pursued against commercial piracy services? Such guidance should make clear that the law does not allow the Department to target the ordinary activities of individual streamers, companies pursuing licensing deals in good faith, or internet service providers (ISPs) and should be reflective of congressional intent as reflected in our official record.

Just the fact that they need to include this certainly suggests that they know how dangerous the law they passed was, and how it could easily be misinterpreted and/or abused to go after such individuals or companies.

Hopefully, AG Garland realizes that he's got more important things to do than being Hollywood's latest cop on the beat.

Filed Under: copyright, felony, felony streaming, justin bieber, merrick garland, pat leahy, priorities, streaming, thom tillis

Risky Click: Adding Undercover Cop As Friend Nets Man Conviction For Gun Charges

from the brave-new-world dept

Keep your friends close, but your Facebook friends closer.
- a multitude of criminal defendants probably

Here's the thing about public profiles on social media services: they're public. If you don't want to be immediately arrested for committing criminal acts, maybe steer clear of social media. A multitude of examples can be found here at Techdirt, many of them covered caustically by Tim Geigner.

But it's not just bragging about bad behavior getting people caught. It's not being more selective about who you let into your online inner circle. It's not a new thing but it's only going to become more prevalent. "Friending" people you don't know is pretty much letting cops take a look around your place without a warrant.

A recent Delaware Supreme Court ruling said there's no Fourth Amendment violation contained in government surveillance of a public Facebook account, even if a cop hid behind a pseudonym to get invited into the suspect's social circle. While it does seem like months of lurking to produce only a weapons possession charge is sort of low on the ROI, scale, lurking is a passive effort that only requires the periodic checking of notifications from surveilled accounts.

There's no expectation of privacy to stuff published to social media accounts others can view. Setting it to "Friends Only" may prevent the general public from accessing the contents of your page, but when the passive surveillance is already coming from inside the house (so to speak), there's really little you can argue when seeking to have this evidence suppressed. It's sort of like inviting in vampires and then complaining about the holes in your neck.

Another defendant is challenging the evidence cops acquired by browsing his Facebook page as "friends." The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has some sympathy for the arguments raised. In this case, a citizen's tip turned into low-key surveillance, which ultimately turned into federal gun charges. From the decision [PDF]:

After serving time in prison for a previous felony, [Malik] Farrad was released from federal custody in January 2013. Farrad came to the attention of local law enforcement sometime after June 10 of that same year, when “[v]arious confidential informants and concerned citizens” evidently “reported observing Farrad to be in possession of one or more firearms while in Johnson City, Tennessee.” Some time later, a Johnson City police officer named Thomas Garrison, using an undercover account, sent Farrad “a friend request on Facebook.” After Farrad “accept[ed] the friend request,” Garrison was able to see more of Farrad’s photos. “One [photo] in particular” “caught [his] interest”: a photo that showed what appeared to be three handguns “sitting on a closed toilet lid in a bathroom.”

I don't own a handgun so I'm not really up on proper display technique, but this practical demonstration of why the bathroom is the most dangerous room in the house soon found its way to the FBI, which immediately sought a warrant for the contents of Farrad's Facebook account. This turned up some other photos of guns, along with limbs and distinguishing tattoos that seemed to constitute a Facebook approximation of a convicted felon in possession of handguns.

Oddly, no warrant was obtained to search Farrad's residence. This meant the entirety of the prosecution rested on photos of guns pulled from Facebook. The Sixth Circuit opens its opinion by remarking of the unusualness of the case, which certainly isn't going to seem all that unusual in the coming years.

No physical evidence was presented, no witness claimed to have seen Farrad with a gun, and Farrad himself never made any statements suggesting that he owned a gun; instead, the Government relied primarily on photographs obtained from what was evidently Farrad’s Facebook account. To help prove its case, however, the Government called two police officers: Officer Garrison, who testified that criminals are particularly likely to upload photos of criminal deeds soon after committing those deeds, and Officer Hinkle, who testified at length about the similarities between the photos and a real gun, as well as the dissimilarities between the photos and the closest fake gun of which he was aware.

Now, there were ways Farrad could have challenged the evidence on appeal. As his counsel noted during his trial, the photos -- which the trial court found were "self-verifying business records" stored by Facebook -- may not have been evidence of anything. First off, the photos may have been posted when Facebook said they were (October of 2013) but there's no info available anywhere showing when the photos were actually taken. Both Facebook's rep and the investigating officer admitted the only thing Facebook knows is when photos are uploaded. Existing metadata is stripped during the upload process, removing any evidence of where and when the photos were taken.

As the court notes, the prosecution's decision to use only evidence gathered from Facebook raised a host of questions about the sufficiency of the evidence.

As the foregoing helps make clear, there are a few potential theories on which Farrad’s trial and appellate counsel could have challenged his indictment and conviction, respectively. First, could any rational juror have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the photos were taken on or about October 11? (Call this the “date” theory.) Second, could any rational juror have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the item in the photos was not a fake gun? (Call this the “replica” theory.) Third, could any rational juror have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the photos were not altered to suggest the appearance of a real gun? (Call this the “Photoshop” theory.) Fourth, could any rational juror have concluded that Farrad was in fact the person in the photos? (Call this the “lookalike” theory.)

Unfortunately for Farrad, his counsel never developed most of these arguments and actively abandoned the first one on appeal. Instead, his rep focused on the theory least likely to succeed: that the guns in the photo weren't real guns. The court isn't impressed by this theory or Farrad's decision to pursue this one on appeal.

The legal problem is this: Farrad is not the first person in our circuit to argue that what appears in images to be a gun is really a sophisticated replica, though he may be the first to argue it in this particular context. If a defendant is convicted of armed robbery, however, and claims the gun that witnesses saw was merely a convincing fake, reasonable jurors may infer—at least when corroborated by images or the testimony of a witness with law-enforcement experience— that the gun was real.

The court acknowledges the comparison isn't entirely fair. The guns weren't used to serve as a threat in the commission of a violent crime. They were merely pictures on a Facebook profile. But they were particularly detailed photos which aided the prosecution in its quest to prove they were the real thing.

In any event, however, the replica theory falters on the facts, because this is not a case in which a jury was asked to draw a conclusion from a few grainy or ill-lit photos, or asked to guess at an object out of focus or in the distance. Rather, the jury in Farrad’s case saw seven different photos, all from different angles, some remarkably close-up and of seemingly high resolution. And it heard exceedingly meticulous testimony from Hinkle— pointing to, among other things, markings and serrations on the slide, a lever and ridges on the trigger guard, and the shape and position of the firing pin—that both (a) convincingly likened the item in the close-up photographs to a real Springfield XD .45, and (b) discredited the closest non-gun comparator that Hinkle could find.

That the guns were real doesn't necessarily impute ownership. This was cobbled together from the array of info pulled from Facebook and this point mostly went unaddressed by the lower court and the appeals court. There may have been more to say on the subject but this question was addressed obliquely by Farrad and his lawyer, which leads to the court affirming the lower court's decision.

This is unfortunate for Farrad since the Appeals Court says it does have a problem with the testimony offered by law enforcement on this particular point. The government's expert on social media surveillance testified that he believed criminals were day-and-date when celebrating illegal acts on social media. He declared more often than not criminals upload photos, etc. to social media sites soon after acts have been committed or ill-gotten goods obtained. When pressed by the defense, he could not state specifically -- or even generally -- how often immediate posts happen compared to delayed posts of photos taken week, months, or years ago.

The Appeals Court says this supposed testimony -- and the trial court's overruling of the defense's objections -- was not a harmless error. Unfortunately, Farrad's counsel abandoned the "date" theory during the trial, in essence making the error harmless by not challenging it prior to jury deliberations. This theory was (again) disavowed by Farrad's lawyer in briefs to the Sixth Circuit, leaving it little choice but to uphold the conviction and sentence. It doesn't like the outcome, but it can only work with what it's given.

The bottom line in this case—that Farrad has been sentenced to serve 188 months in prison because the Government found Facebook photos of him with what appears to be a gun— may well raise a lay reader’s hackles. There are likewise aspects of Farrad’s trial and conviction—the date issue, Officer Garrison’s testimony—that are at least debatably troubling from a legal perspective. Nevertheless, we are not empowered to grant relief based on arguments not made or where errors were harmless.

There are many troubling aspects to this case. With very little effort expended, law enforcement agencies are building cases involving nothing but social media posts. A possession charge used to mean someone being physically caught with the actual, physical contraband in their possession. Now, it's apparently enough to just submit a bunch of Facebook posts as evidence and hope the defense fails to pick the right argument to pursue. What used to be supporting evidence is now the main event, and it all starts with risky clicks by social media users.

Filed Under: felony, friends, guns, social media, undercover police

Congressional Rep Who Introduced Anti-Swatting Bill... Victim Of Attempted Swatting

from the what-is-that-accomplishing? dept

Back in November, Congresswoman Katherine Clark introduced an anti-swatting bill. As you probably already know, swatting is when someone calls in a fake report to police about an ongoing incident at someone's home -- usually something like an "active shooter" or hostage taking or something similar -- in the interest of having police departments overreact and send out a SWAT team to deal with the situation, such as by raiding the home. The bill looks to make it a felony to use the phone system to "transmit false information with the intent to cause an emergency law enforcement response." While I'm not aware of anyone (so far) getting killed by a swatting, it seems like it's only a matter of time.

Either way, given all this, it probably shouldn't come as a huge surprise that on Sunday night, Rep. Clark found herself swatted, leading the Melrose, Massachusetts police to show up at her home, though it sounds like they handled everything carefully and appropriately.

Melrose Police spokesman John Guilfoil said the department received a recorded telephone call with a computer-generated voice at 9:57 p.m. on the department’s business line. The call, Guilfoil said, referred to “shots fired and an active shooter” at Clark’s address.

He said Melrose police officers, but not a SWAT team, responded to the address, spoke with the homeowner, and determined the call was hoax and there was no danger.

Of course, in most cases, it's quite difficult for law enforcement to ever track down whoever called in the hoax report, and it's rare for the callers to ever be caught -- though it does sometimes happen. Of course, if swatters continue to target politicians looking to pass laws against them, expect the laws and the pressure to capture them and "set an example" to continue to ratchet up. I'm sure that whoever swatted Rep. Clark is assuming that it will be impossible to track down who did that, but the higher a target you aim at, the more likely that higher powered law enforcement gets involved -- meaning it gets increasingly likely that whoever did it will be tracked down.

In the meantime, it would also be nice if we started looking at the root causes of swatting, such as the militarization of police departments where that's not even remotely necessary.

Filed Under: felony, katherine clark, swatting

South Carolina Says It's A Felony For Prisoners To Look At Facebook; Sends Many To Solitary Confinement

from the felony-facebooking dept

Dave Maass, over at EFF, has an absolutely insane story about how the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) added a special new level 1 felony charge (for reference: murder, rape, rioting and hostage-taking are all level 1 felonies) for... using a social network while in prison. Yes, these individuals are already prisoners, but this draconian law and even more draconian enforcement means that hundreds of South Carolina prisons are facing extended sentences and long stays in solitary confinement for... posting to their Facebook page. And that's not an exaggeration:

In October 2013, Tyheem Henry received 13,680 days (37.5 years) in disciplinary detention and lost 27,360 days (74 years) worth of telephone, visitation, and canteen privileges, and 69 days of good time—all for 38 posts on Facebook. 

In June 2014, Walter Brown received 12,600 days (34.5 years) in disciplinary detention and lost 25,200 days (69 years) in telephone, visitation, and canteen privileges, and 875 days (2.4 years) of good time—all for 35 posts on Facebook.

In May 2014, Jonathan McClain received 9,000 days (24.6 years) in disciplinary detention and lost 18,000 days (49 years) in telephone, visitation, and canteen privileges, and 30 days of good time—all for 25 posts on Facebook.

Why so harsh? The SCDC says that it's a separate felony for each day that an inmate uses a social media site (oddly, you can do as much as you want in a single day and it's just a single felony -- but new day, new felony). And, of course, "social media" is defined broadly as well:

South Carolina adopted a Level 1 social media offense [PDF] to punish “Creating and/or Assisting With A Social Networking Site,” defined as: “The facilitation, conspiracy, aiding, abetting in the creation or updating of an Internet web site or social networking site.”

SCDC defines “social networking” very broadly, covering everything from YouTube and Twitter to blogs and email, although all of the cases EFF reviewed [PDF] involved Facebook. Investigations are conducted by corrections officers and inmates are convicted during disciplinary hearings that often last mere minutes.

Since the policy was implemented, SCDC has brought 432 disciplinary cases against 397 inmates, with more than 40 inmates receiving more than two years in solitary confinement [PDF].

There's a lot more to Maass's article, and it's well worth reading. He also takes Facebook to task for helping the SCDC takedown prisoners' Facebook profiles. Facebook has set up an easy form, which can lead to widespread abuse, and it doesn't appear that Facebook does much, if anything, to check to see if the accounts actually abuse the company's terms of service. There are lots of problems with the criminal justice and prison systems in the US, and there may be legitimate reasons to limit access to social media for prisoners (though that seems like a stretch in many cases). But to make it an additional felony and to lock up people for years because of it? How is that not cruel and unusual punishment?

Filed Under: felony, scdc, social media, solitary confinement, south carolina, south carolina department of corrections
Companies: facebook

More Power For Bad Cops: NYPD Head Supports Raising 'Resisting Arrest' To A Felony

from the only-a-felon-would-resist-arrest-because-resisting-arrest-is-a-felony dept

Here's a horrifying statement:

Asked whether the penalty for resisting arrest should be increased from a misdemeanor to a felony, [NYPD Commissioner Bill] Bratton said he supported the idea.

“We need to get around this idea that you can resist arrest,” Bratton reiterated to reporters after the hearing. “One of the ways to do that is to give penalties for that.”

The most half-baked "weapon" in any policeman's arsenal should never be raised to the level of a felony. "Resisting arrest" is the charge brought when bad cops run out of better ideas. This truism runs through nearly every law enforcement agency in the country. When you take a look at videographers and photographers who have been arrested for exercising their First Amendment rights (and backed by a DOJ statement), you'll see plenty of "resisting arrest" charges.

When a San Francisco public defender tried to head off a detective who wanted to question and photograph her client without her permission, she was arrested for "resisting arrest."

When someone has been brutalized by the police, the words "resisting arrest" are repeated nearly as frequently as the mantra that accompanies every taser deployment and baton swing ("stop resisting"). Resisting arrest is a dodge that makes bad cops worse and marginal cops bad.

Turning resisting arrest into a felony shouldn't happen anywhere. But perhaps especially not in New York City. A WNYC investigation turned up these damning statistics. (via Vox)

WNYC analyzed NYPD records and found 51,503 cases with resisting arrest charges since 2009. Just five percent of officers who made arrests during that period account for 40% of resisting arrest cases — and 15% account for almost 3/4 of such cases.

If resisting arrest was a legitimate charge, the distribution would be much more even. But it isn't. It's a charge that's used most by abusive cops -- and law enforcement agencies know it.

Many policing experts consider charges of resisting arrest to be the best broad measure of use of force in arrests. The department has tracked charges of resisting arrest as a way of identifying officers who may use excessive force, said a former senior department official who insisted on anonymity because he still works in law enforcement.

To turn this into a felony is to grant bad cops a longer leash -- and allows them to do much more damage. Not only will the victims of excessive force have to deal with injuries and psychological trauma, they may also find their futures severely disrupted by a felony charge that will follow them around for years.

The protests following the clearing of the officer involved in Eric Garner's death, followed shortly thereafter by the murder of two NYPD officers by a civilian, have turned the NYPD against the public. Bratton's support of this abhorrent idea makes it clear he's willing to put more power in the hands of his worst officers. However bad he feels the situation is now, this action will only make things worse. The answer lies in greater accountability from the NYPD, not additional punishments for members of the public.

Filed Under: bill bratton, felony, nypd, resisting arrest

If The DOJ Gets Its Way, Tweeting Out A List Of The 'Worst Passwords On The Internet' Will Be A Felony

from the because-our-prisons-aren't-at-maximum-capacity dept

Retweet if you want to go to jail! And not regular county jail, but federal prison!

Under the DOJ's CFAA proposal, this article (and this tweet linking to it) could be a 10 year felony. That's insane. http://t.co/njE8368lxU

— Nate Cardozo (@ncardozo) January 20, 2015

In case you can't read/see the tweet, it says:

Under the DOJ's CFAA proposal, this article (and this tweet linking to it) could be a 10 year felony. That's insane.

(The link goes to a Techcrunch article featuring SplashData's list of the "worst passwords on the internet.")

The DOJ has offered up its preferred version [pdf link] of the CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) -- under the ridiculous name of "Updated Law Enforcement Tools" -- and it indeed would make this sort of thing an instant felony.

Here's the wording change that does it [strikethrough for deletions; bold for additions]:

(6) knowingly and with intent to defraud willfully traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information, or any other means of access, knowing or having reason to know that a protected computer would be accessed or damaged without authorization in a manner prohibited by this section as the result of such trafficking; if—

(A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; or

(B) such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States;

The DOJ removes intent and replaces it with feelings. Sharing a list of common (and stupid) passwords could be construed as "willfully trafficking" passwords while "knowing" a "protected computer" could be "accessed without authorization."

And that thing about federal prison I opened the post with? That's the way the DOJ wants it. The CFAA currently allows for misdemeanor charges under certain circumstances. But this proposal does away with that. Instead of a misdemeanor-to-3 year sentence range, punishments start at 3 years and escalate to a 10-year cap. Unless, of course, your hacking is part of the commission of another felony, in which case the government proposes it should get to double dip (at minimum). Here's Orin Kerr's take on that part of the proposal:

Under the proposal, breaching a written restriction is a crime if the user violated the written condition in furtherance of a state or federal felony crime, “unless such violation would be based solely on obtaining the information without authorization or in excess of authorization.” On one hand, this might seem kind of harmless, or at least redundant: The proposal makes it a felony to break a promise on a computer in furtherance of a felony. One wonders what the point is: Why not just punish the underlying felony?

But the real problem is the double-counting issue. Federal and state law is filled with overlapping crimes. Congress might enact three crimes that do the same basic thing, giving prosecutors the choice of which to charge or allowing them to charge all three. State criminal codes often mirror the federal criminal code. That raises a question: If Congress makes it a crime to commit an act “in furtherance of” a different crime, does the existence of overlapping crimes mean that a person’s conduct violates the first crime because it was “in furtherance of” the second? This is a particular problem because every state has unauthorized access crimes a lot like the CFAA. We saw this in the Auernheimer case, where prosecutors argued that the misdemeanor federal unauthorized access alleged in that case should be a felony because it was “in furtherance of” New Jersey’s nearly identical state unauthorized access law.

As if we didn't have enough people in prison already, the DOJ proposal mandates felony charges and provides prosecutorial options to ensure very few defendants walk away with short sentences.

The proposal also asks users to perform mind-reading when accessing anything computer-based.

(6) “exceeds authorized access” means to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the such computer—

(A) that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter; or

(B) for a purpose that the accesser knows is not authorized by the computer owner;

Going back to the Weev case, Andrew Auernheimer obviously knew AT&T would not "authorize" his access of supposedly private information, even if all he did was alter URL components to achieve this. Now, companies' security failures can be weaponized against those who discover them -- making it highly unlikely that flaws and holes will be pointed out to those who can actually close them. Why risk a few years in federal prison (remember: no misdemeanors) just because some entity decided to shoot the messenger rather than thank them for their help?

Filed Under: cfaa, doj, felony, obama administration, passwords

White House Admits That It Still Supports Parts Of SOPA: Wants To Make Streaming A Felony

from the because-of-course dept

Last week, we wrote that Senator (and still for the next few weeks, Majority Leader) Harry Reid was looking for ways to push for a piece of SOPA, making streaming a felony, into law. The story we'd heard from multiple sources was that he was looking to attach it to the USA Freedom Act. His office came out and denied that claim vehemently. Still, multiple sources insisted not only that it was true, but that Reid was still looking for other vehicles to push that through. And... just days later, the White House responded to some (somewhat pointless) White House "We The People" petitions by... announcing that it, too, wanted to turn unauthorized streaming into a felony. This was in response to two separate petitions, Stop SOPA 2013 and Stop SOPA 2014. Neither petition made much sense, as SOPA has been long dead since early 2012. There was never any specific bill in either 2013 or 2014. And yet, Alex Niejelow, the chief of staff to the IP Czar (a position that is in limbo, as the new czar has been nominated, but not yet approved), used those petitions as an opportunity to reiterate that the White House, like Reid, supports making unauthorized streaming a felony.

Niejelow carefully tries to frame the plan as not going after individuals for uploading videos, but the language choices are deliberate here:

To be clear: We are not advocating for, and do not support, Congress enacting criminal sanctions against people who upload their own, non-commercial performances of other artists' works on Tumblr, against the content creators making your favorite mashup on YouTube, or against the users of these services -- like many of you who signed this petition -- who watch and listen to this digital content.

Rather, we think the law should deter the large-scale willful reproduction, distribution, and streaming of illegal, infringing content for profit. We think it is important to combat this type of activity because of the negative impact it has in diminishing the drive and economic incentive to produce the great movies, sporting events, and music that we love and that account for millions of American jobs and billions of dollars contributed to our economy annually.

Almost everything in those two paragraphs is misleading -- sometimes extremely so. As Harvard law professor Jonathan Zittrain helpfully explained back in 2011, the move to make unauthorized streaming a felony, changed the law in subtle, but dangerous ways. It's true, of course, that merely uploading a file would not be considered an offense under that part of the law (it may violate other aspects of the law), but it could still be problematic. Here was Zittrain's discussion, specifically in response to the question of whether or not Justin Bieber could have gotten in trouble for uploading videos of himself covering songs:

No one is saying that the public performance is occasioned by the mere act of uploading or downloading a file -- so a huge part of that analysis is going after straw men. The question is whether placing a file onto YouTube and configuring the placement so that it can be streamed -- indeed, intending that as the only reason for the file being there -- results in a performance as it's streamed to lots of people. Sadly that answer could be yes. Here's the definition of a public performance under 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.

So, the argument would go that Bieber falls under clause (2) -- he's transmitting a performance to a place open to the public ("YouTube") or perhaps simply to the public directly, "by means of any device or process."

The fact that YouTube might also be liable for performing the work (or may or may not have a license if the license is just for it) is irrelevant; you can have more than one party deemed responsible for an infringement. Indeed, think about embedding the video on your own page -- would it matter if the page were served from your own server in your home (the easiest case for liability) or from a third party hosting service with whom you'd contracted, or who let you put it there? Surely putting the stuff on a rental server wouldn't be enough to "launder" liability for the person who put it there. (Again, ignoring whether the third party server could itself be liable, too; this starts to implicate the DMCA safe harbors.) YouTube contributors have their own little home pages on the service, in which their videos are embedded. So, yes, those videos are likely public performances.

Of course, they try to get around this by claiming they don't want this to impact "non-commercial performances." But, the definition of "non-commercial" is pretty fluid. Did you put ads on your upload? Uh oh. Did the video go viral and allow you to do something that made money? Uh oh.

Or how about the "large-scale" aspect. Well, we embed plenty of YouTube videos on this site. Would that make us "large-scale"?

And then there's the "negative impact" argument. Really? What is the actual negative impact from people streaming these works? As we've shown, the actual output of basically all of these industries is rapidly increasing. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of a negative impact at all. It's especially bullshit to slip in "sporting events" in there (but, again shows how sporting organizations, including UFC and MLB, have been key to lobbying for this change), when the sporting events industry is thriving at unprecedented levels, and many of the major sports leagues (especially MLB) have shown that when you make a really good premium product, people will pay.

In fact, literally the day after the White House appeared to be arguing that streaming has created a "negative impact [that is] diminishing the drive and economic incentive to produce great... sporting events," PwC came out with its latest analysis of the sports market in North America, showing that it's nothing but up, up and up for sporting events in the US. If people streaming these events online has diminished the economic incentives, someone forgot to tell, well, everyone. If your job is to be in charge of understanding "intellectual property" in the US, shouldn't facts like this have a role? Here's PwC's data (2014 is estimated, as of October), and it shows a pretty steady upward trend, especially on "media rights," the only part really likely impacted by any streaming: Furthermore, if you look at the full report [pdf] PwC predicts continued massive growth, especially in media rights, but we won't show that because it's speculation.

But, basically, the argument that sports events are somehow facing negative incentives to put on great events because some people are streaming unauthorized versions just doesn't make any sense at all. It makes the claim that such a law is needed incredibly suspect, and hints strongly at the simple fact that this is nothing more than an attempted government favor to certain lobbyists.

Even where sports streaming does occur, it tends to be in situations where the leagues themselves have made it nearly impossible to legitimately pay for access in the first place, with idiotic concepts like blackout rules. Want to massively decrease unauthorized streaming of sporting events? Make better services and drop blackout rules. No need to turn hosting a webpage with some embeds into a felony.

Either way, it seems clear that the White House (and some in the Senate) still don't realize that all of SOPA was a bad idea, including the ridiculous plan to make unauthorized streaming a felony.

Filed Under: alex niejelow, copyright, felony, harry reid, ip czar, justin bieber, petitions, sopa, sporting events, sports, streaming, we the people

Epiphany: Rep. John Conyers Realizes Mid-Hearing That His Copyright Position Contradicts His Stand Against Overcriminalization

from the when-reality-sets-in dept

It's hard to imagine looking at the absurdly excessive copyright penalties on the books and thinking, "Hey, maybe these should be a bit higher." But Congress has shown itself to be exceedingly imaginative when it comes to cranking up copyright, so perhaps it is no surprise that in yesterday's hearing on those penalties—covering statutory damages and criminal sanctions—a number of witnesses and Representatives alike seemed to think that those remedies are insufficient.

More surprising, though, was an unexpected moment of clarity from Michigan's Rep. John Conyers, a staple of the Judiciary Committee's reform hearing process and a reliable supporter of ratcheting up copyright enforcement capabilities. Conyers broke the first rule of copyright exceptionalism club by actually talking about the fact that this discussion would seem pretty unreasonable—even by Congressional standards—in areas outside of copyright.

Specifically, Conyers referred to the very real problem of overcriminalization, which absolutely afflicts copyright policy. This, after all, is the area of law that has made us an "Infringement Nation," routinely racking up millions of dollars in hypothetical damages throughout the course of an average day. Conyers generally pushes back against this overcriminalization, but here he is arguing for misdemeanors to be made into felonies—what gives?

If you can't see that, here's the key clip, though it helps to watch the video:

Conyers: Mr. Assistant Attorney General, what else can we do besides addressing the felony streaming issue? It seems like... uh... once we get that going... uh... {long pause}... Well, it seems to me like there's an underprosecution. Normally, I... {pause} come to the committee complaining about overcriminalization. {Looks around} And now I find myself in the awkward position of saying... uh... let's make a felony of somebody's misdemeanors. Can you give me some comfort in some way? {awkward smirk}

David Bitkower, the witness from the Department of Justice, basically says that from the DOJ's perspective there is no overcriminalization problem, which is unsurprising. Then Nancy Wolff, a witness from the law firm of Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard, adds that the ridiculously high damages helps plaintiffs force defendants to settle. Finally, Public Knowledge's Sherwin Siy notes that Conyers's question was spot on: our current excessive penalties do encourage certain plaintiffs to pursue non-meritorious claims, and that's something to be concerned about.

You can see on Conyers' face that he was looking for some resolution to his cognitive dissonance, but he couldn't find it. Copyright exceptionalism is simply inconsistent with fact-based policy—so when it comes time to reconcile the two, you're going to have a bad time.

Let's hope this moment was a lawmaker beginning to see the light. As EFF lays out in our brand new copyright whitepaper, "Collateral Damages", excessive and unpredictable penalties can chill free speech and stifle innovation. On such an important issue, it's encouraging to see lawmakers breaking from the standard script.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright remedies, david bitkower, doj, felony, house judiciary committee, john conyers, nancy wolff, overcriminalization, streaming

Kansas Legislative Committee Pushes Bill That Would Make It A Felony To File False Complaints Against A Police Officer

from the a-short-bill,-broken-all-over dept

How can you tell if an introduced bill is a bad piece of legislation? Well, there are several indicators to look for -- overly broad language, written as a reaction to a recent tragedy -- but when a bill is referred to as the "retaliation bill" by a large majority of the press, the problems are right there on the surface. (h/t to Techdirt reader Rekrul)

The Kansas legislature's Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice recently introduced a bill with some very chilling implications for citizens.

The bill, titled "filing false complaints against a law enforcement officer," was introduced in February by the Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice and moved quickly to the Taxation Committee before ending March 13 in the Committee for Transportation and Public Safety Budget. In its one-hour Tuesday hearing, according to the legislative research department, only one person spoke in favor of the bill while eight others, including legislators and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, spoke against it…

According to the bill, a complaint over a law enforcement officer that a department finds to be false "shall be closed immediately and the law enforcement agency shall seek criminal prosecution against the complaint for perjury." All complaints would be submitted with a signed affidavit that included the time, date, place and nature of the offense. Current law requires that law enforcement departments review all complaints, whether anonymous or signed.

This bill, currently stalled, would make it a felony to file a false complaint against a police officer, something that used to be handled via civil litigation. And there would be no option for filing anonymous complaints, which would further discourage the reporting of alleged police misconduct.

In addition, officers would be allowed to view the complaint and any related evidence before making a statement, giving accused officers a chance to craft narratives before issuing statements that might be contradicted by the evidence submitted. The complaint's lack of anonymity would give accused officers the name, address, phone number, etc. of their accuser, something that could easily lead to harassment. (Of course, law enforcement agencies could strip this information before presenting it to the accused officer [the bill contains no stipulation to do so], but how many here believe that would actually happen -- or that the information couldn't be accessed otherwise?)

Also problematic is the fact that the bill stipulates that "no other law enforcement agency" can open an investigation on a complaint if another agency has performed an investigation and found no evidence of wrongdoing. This would keep all investigations "in-house," which greatly contributes to the likelihood that complaints will be found false (and subsequently, result in felony charges against the filer). This would prevent agencies like the FBI and DOJ from investigating closed complaints to see if anything was missed or covered up. This stipulation would further insulate police from accountability.

The bill is so bad even the attorney for the local police union (the entity that usually works hard to restore bad cops to their former positions) found the wording somewhat problematic.

The one person who testified in favor of the bill Tuesday was Sean McCauley, an attorney for the Kansas chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police and the Kansas State Troopers Association. While he had reservations about allowing departments to pursue charges for unfounded or minor allegations, local FOP President Sgt. Tyson Meyers did see some value in the bill.

"I'd like to protect officers against false allegations," he said, stating officers can be subject to administrative leave following a complaint or suffer from a tarnished reputation even if the allegation is proved to be false.

"At the same time, we should police our own and have the integrity to monitor our department."

He also added that it was a bad idea to limit complaint investigations to one department, noting that previous investigations by outside agencies had led to the rooting out of bad cops who otherwise would have gone unpunished.

As it stands now, the bill is effectively dead. The coverage of the bill has been universally negative, and after its nearly one-sided showing during its floor appearance, no further discussions on the bill have been scheduled. The question remains as to why such a bill, loaded with negative side effects for the public, was ever introduced, as well as who exactly is behind it. The committee page lists several names, but the bill's sponsor is the committee itself, rather than a certain legislator. Safety in numbers applies to bad legislation, it seems. The bill seeks to out anonymous complainants, but has been shepherded into the public forum by no one in particular.

Filed Under: complaints, felony, kansas, law enforcement, police, police abuse

Obama Says James Clapper 'Should Have Been More Careful' In How He Lied To Congress

from the ridiculous dept

Many of us are still quite disappointed that James Clapper has kept his job as Director of National Intelligence after flat out lying to Congress over whether or not the NSA spied on Americans. There have been increasing calls from within Congress to have Clapper investigated and possibly prosecuted for the felony of lying to Congress, but there appears to be no movement there at all. Not only does the Obama administration seem to want to protect one of their own, but it's also made it clear that something like that would make it look like Ed Snowden "won" and they can't allow that sort of thing.

CNN's Jake Tapper finally got President Obama to "address" the issue in an interview, and the best that Obama could muster was that Clapper "should have been more careful" in how he lied to Congress:

“I think that Jim Clapper himself would acknowledge, and has acknowledged, that he should have been more careful about how he responded,” Obama told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “His concern was that he had a classified program that he couldn't talk about and he was in an open hearing in which he was asked, he was prompted to disclose a program, and so he felt that he was caught between a rock and a hard place.”

I'm wondering if anyone else charged with a felony for lying to Congress will now be able to use that excuse: yes, yes, they should have been more careful in how they lied to Congress.

As for the "rock and a hard place" claim, that's also simply untrue. Clapper knew full well the question was coming and also knew full well that he could easily respond by saying a variety of things, such as "I can only fully answer that question in a closed hearing." Clapper knows he can do this because he's done it many times before. In fact, he did it just this week when asked another question by Senator Wyden about the NSA's activities. He specifically said that he was uncomfortable discussing such details in an open hearing but would be happy to discuss them during a closed session. And, in fact, Clapper had done similar things in previous sessions, as is clear from the correspondences between him and Wyden that pre-dated the hearing where he lied.

For example, take a look at a letter Clapper sent in 2011 to Senator Ron Wyden, in which he states: "the questions you pose on geolocational information are difficult to answer in an unclassified letter." He was able to do that in 2011 and no parade of horribles followed. It did not reveal any "sources and methods" of classified intelligence. He easily could have done the same thing in 2013 when asked.

There was no rock. There was no hard place. Clapper didn't need to "be more careful." He lied. Which is a felony. And the President is excusing it because he doesn't want Snowden to "win."

Filed Under: barack obama, felony, james clapper, lying to congress, nsa, ron wyden, surveillance