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 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

Feds Response To Rojadirecta Demonstrates How S.978 Can Be Abused To Put People In Jail

from the in-their-own-words dept

We've had a bunch of posts about the potential unintended consequences of the anti-streaming law S.978 from Senators Amy Klobuchar, John Cornyn and Christopher Coons, and how it could be used to put people in jail for up to five years for merely embedding videos from YouTube, or for lipsynching. Supporters of the bill keep trying to claim this isn't true, and point out (accurately) that this is not what the bill is targeted at. It's true that this is not the target of the bill, but could it be used that way? Absolutely.

Supporters of the bill again point to the key provisions that would make the embedding of a video liable under the law, to claim that my statements are an exaggeration. Specifically, they highlight that a public performance (i.e., embedding of the video) is only a felony if "(1) it is willful (knowing and intentional) infringement (2) for commercial advantage or private financial gain (3) involving 10 or more performances within 180 days (4) that cause more than $2,500 in loss to the rights holder." As some supporters of the law state, embedding YouTube videos does not meet that threshold.

That's incorrect. The public performance is clear. Embedding on a website qualifies as a public performance due to the ridiculously broad and vague description of what constitutes a public performance under the law. Now, on to the other points. We can now support many of them (the ones that supporters of the law claim are impossible to show) with the Justice Department's own words, thanks to the recent filing against Rojadirecta's petition to retrieve its domain.

First up... willful infringement. The government opens by claiming that to establish "willfulness" you only need to show that the defendant "recklessly disregarded the possibility" that embedding the video might by infringing. Not only that, but it even suggests that all it needs to show is willfulness in the "intent to copy," rather than the intent to infringe.

Although the Second Circuit held in 1943 that willful intent in the criminal copyright context need only be shown as to the intent to copy the works, and not as to the intent to infringe the copyright... recent decisions in the Second Circuit in civil cases have made clear that "[t]he standard is simply whether the defendant had knowledge that its conduct represented infringement or perhaps recklessly disregarded the possibility."

Got that? The government believes that if you had willful intent just to copy the content -- as everyone does if you embed a video -- then willfulness can be established for criminal cases. If they bring in the standard for civil cases, then all they have to show is that you didn't pay attention to see if the video was covered by copyright law, and thus "recklessly disregarded the possibility." In other words, the government makes it clear that the bar here is low. Very, very low. Pretty much anyone who embeds a video has taken a proactive step. Willful? Check.

Next up is the big one. Personal or financial gain. This is the one that supporters of the bill insist is why my points are not valid. But, again, let's see what the government itself has to say in the Rojadirecta filing, in proving financial gain. Here, the government makes it clear that even if you don't get direct financial gain from the video, if you put any ads around it, even the automated AdSense ads that earn nothing, they have enough to nab you for financial gain:

As an initial matter, Title 17, United States Code, Section 506(a) "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.".... Moreover, courts have held that "[f]inancial benefit exists where the availability of infringing material 'acts as a "draw" for customers.'" ... It appears that Puerto 80's revenue and profitability are directly dependent upon increases in user base and enhanced Internet traffic to the website. Thus, even if Puerto 80 does not directly profit by receiving payment from the sites to which it links that stream the content, in at least some sense, Puerto 80 apparently benefits financially from making available copyright protected works on the Rojadirecta website.

So there you have it, in the government's own words. If you have any ads on your website, they can claim that the embed "acts as a draw," and they've got enough to prove financial gain. It apparently doesn't matter if you earn pennies from it, or if the money that comes in doesn't even cover your basic costs:

the Government's investigation has revealed that the CEO of Puerto 80, the owner of the Rojadirecta Domain Names, has in fact received thousands of dollars since at least October 2005 from Google AdSense, a free program that allows website publishers to earn revenue by displaying advertisements that are likely to be relevant and of interest to users of those websites.

Okay, so let's start at October 2005, and the domain was seized on February 1, 2011. By my count, that's 73 months. Note, carefully, that they claim "thousands" of dollars earned from AdSense. Not even "tens of thousands" of dollars. At most, then, they seem to be saying he earned $19,999 (though, I would imagine they'd round up in that case). But to give the government the benefit of the doubt here, let's take that number as the absolute maximum. That would mean, at a maximum, Rojadirecta earned a whopping $273.96 per month. For a popular website. I can tell you from first hand experience (and Techdirt gets less traffic than Rojadirecta) that it costs a hell of a lot more than that in basic bandwidth costs to run a site that gets this kind of traffic.

To claim that this is "financial gain," is laughable. But, apparently it's good enough for the feds in this case. And the government's own filing clearly supports my claims -- which supporters of the bill claimed were laughable -- that the government can and will claim that any advertising, no matter how little, represents financial and personal gain. Financial gain? Check.

Okay. Involving 10 or more performances in 180 days. While I'm sure some videos don't get that many, this is not a high threshold to reach -- especially if the feds themselves view the embeds a couple times. 10+ performances? Check.

Finally, that cause more than $2,500 in loss to the rights holder, again this is incredibly easy to show. Given the industry's history of massively exaggerating its "losses," combined with the feds seeming willingness to completely take the industry's word on such losses, does anyone legitimately believe that the feds won't have an easy claim of $2,500 in "loss" to the rightsholder, should they wish to go after someone? $2,500 loss? Check.

So, there you have it. Using the Justice Department's own words, it's not difficult to see how S.978 can be abused to go after a very large number of people who embed a YouTube video that includes some infringing content (which can include an awful lot of videos).

Filed Under: amy klobuchar, chris coons, copyright, criminal, john cornyn, rojadirecta, s.978, streaming

Tons Of YouTube Users Putting Up Videos In Protest To S.978

from the good-for-them dept

We've been talking a lot about Senate bill S.978, from Senators Amy Klobuchar, John Cornyn and Christopher Coons, which would adjust the criminal copyright statutes to make some forms of linking/embedding/streaming a felony for which people could face 5 years in jail. As we've noted from the beginning, the really scary part is the ignorance of people supporting this bill, in ignoring how it could make tons of people liable. They insist that there's no problem here because (a) the bill requires the streams/embeds to be for commercial purposes and (b) because the "value" has to be greater than $2,500. What they ignore (despite plenty of people pointing it out) is that it's not hard for people to show that something is done for commercial purposes. If you have ads on your site, even if they make you pennies, you're "making money." And the "value" of the work can easily be estimated or exaggerated at over $2,500. Again, no one is claiming that the feds are suddenly going to go after your average YouTube embedder, but the problem with this change to the law is that it could be used that way. Federal prosecutors have made use of ambiguous or questionable laws like this in the past, such as attempts to misuse the CFAA bill, which is designed for those who break into computer systems, against people like Lori Drew who was mean to a teenager on MySpace.

We've noted that the bill is getting more attention of late, and it appears that the YouTube community has awakened to the problems with it. If you now do a YouTube search on s978, there are a rapidly growing number of results, with plenty of people speaking out against the bill, in part due to claims and some videos from YouTubers related to worries from video gamers.

Tragically, going through a bunch of the videos... nearly all of them gets the facts wrong in some manner (sometimes getting nearly all the details wrong). I worry about that, because it allows politicians to brush aside the very real concerns about the unintended consequences of the bill. Also, some of the incorrect statements seem to lead to people saying that the bill won't pass because "something that stupid can't pass." And, indeed, no bill is going to pass that will force all these people to take their videos down or to fine them for old videos as some have suggested. The risk is in how the bill could be used by federal prosecutors to go after people embedding certain videos, and then using the letter of the law (though clearly not the spirit) to go after people.

It's good to see so many people speaking out, but it would be better if they spoke factually about the bill, rather than running with some of the wilder assumptions that people seem to be making.

Filed Under: amy klobuchar, christopher coons, copyright, felony, john cornyn, protests, s.978, streaming, video gamers