Slashdot Mirror
New Bill Ups Punishment For Hosts of Infringing Video Streams
halfEvilTech writes
"Two months ago, the Obama administration asked Congress to make illicit online streaming of copyrighted movies and TV shows a felony. Such a bill has now been introduced by two senators. 'Online streamers can now face up to five years in prison and a fine in cases where: They show 10 or more "public performances" by electronic means in any 180-day period; and the total retail value of those performances tops $2,500 or the cost of licensing such performances is greater than $5,000.'"
If every-time a major corporation leaked my personal data (HI Sony!) they were faced with this same penalty. Per record leaked.
Why does an industry that offers so little in terms of value or innovation hold so much power over everyone? Why do we keep allowing these bullies to push us around?
In Soviet Russia, Streams imprison you!
Look, we all know, "copyright infringement is bad". But this is NOT a criminal matter, and in no way should the government/police/Federal Agencies be responsible for dealing with matters of civil law.
(And yes, if this passes, it does become criminal law...which is fucking retarded and a waste of public money.)
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
So they want to take away your right to vote (among other things) for posting as little as a crappy cellphone video of the concerts you went to and want to show friends?
Felony? Seriously?
"Yes, ma'am, I know you were raped, but it's not like your attacker posed a couple episodes of Scrubs on YouTube..."
You're not made of Tuesday!
Does this mean we'll finally be releasing drug offenders to make room for this new scourge of society?
Infringement of $2,500 => 5 years imprisonment, costing the government $113,000. That's a great way to alleviate problems with our overburden prison systems and help us lower government costs.
Will be interesting (assuming this passes) to see if the so-called offenders move off shore. They might get their domain names blocked, but they might avoid prosecution if the law where they stream from does not make this illegal there too. Would also be interesting to see how this would stand up to a 1st Amendment challange as it make the punishment of electronic form of violating the law much more harsh that otherwise.
Chaos maximizes locally around me.
This will be used to squelch free speech and the Larry Flint of the 21st century will be in prison awaiting trial before he gets in front of the Supreme Court.
This could also be used in a copyright dispute with multiple owners (film school students vs their school, CGI hobbyists vs each other, etc.) It is unprecedented to give citizens the ability to create situations where they can send people to jail when they lost nothing but imaginary revenue and occording to several studies actually gained free marketing from the unauthorized streamers.
When you create a scenario where someone can be arrested for replaying something in fair use, and await trial to prove their innocence... it's a travesty of justice.
People with manslaughter get less!
At first I thought this was about people broadcasting pay-per-view games, which makes sense (to some extend, it is not a violent crime, so felony is a bit harsh).
But then I read movies and television shows... Does this mean that if I rebroadcast Escape from Alcatraz on TNT it is a problem, but a pay-per-view soccer match is not?
Load New Commander (Y/N)?
It's not like we already have enough felonies, and felons.
Glad to see Congress and the White House working to add more to the books.
Those wicked online streamers had this coming. Incarceration is not enough, nor is being a second (felon) class citizen.
My only problem with this is that it does not include a possible death penalty.
how you feel.
Please.
If people would put the effort into being involved in meaningful ways, we can stop this.
Nero played the fiddle while Rome burned*, and geeks whine on the internet while America burns... Checkmate.
*Not actually likely to have happened since he wasn't there.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The shows don't make money directly from you watching them. It's about the advertisers.
Let them load the shows with ads every 10 mins and sure they won't mind you streaming it.
Once again proving the Obama Administration is very much in the pockets of the entertainment industry, and that the kind of people who become politicians are exactly the kind of people you wouldn't want as politicians.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Screwed up they are, in America.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I know the Democrats are screwing up here. As a card carrying Dem I'll apologize for my people. Something that would help us help you though is if we could get a more solid base. The Dems are running scared, and they're pandering to Hollywood just to get enough money to fight the good fight. Ideologically I don't think my party wants to put people in Jail for this nonsense. It's an awful comprise. Obama basically said as much about the compromises he's making to get anything done.
Anyway, I've said it before and I'll say it again, stop voting Republican. Yes, the Dems do crap like this. But they at least have to pretend to support the little man. Yes, a 2 party system sucks. Yes, Canada is a better run country than us. But a general goes to war with the army he's given, and the Dems stated ideology puts SOME limitations on the damage they can do. It's a start.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
i hope they try to attack youtube, it may very well be cheaper for google to just buy half the entertainment industry then to get sentenced to whatever
Henceforth the total resale value of any single or partial frame of any broadcast for web use will be set at $2501 or more by the industry, and licensing fees to anyone other than their friends will be set at $5001 or more. Each pixel of each frame will count as a separate public performance (they are after all separated in time). So from this day forth the publication of anything on the web that resembles any 10 pixels in any copyright work will be considered a felony.
Nullius in verba
I wonder how this would effect slingbox and other personal streaming? And is this because the movie industry is scared of amazon and some others possibly setting up movie vaults to stream movies like they now do music?
Intellectual property laws are incompatible with Libertarianism.
no jury will fall for that carp
The license fees for public screenings probably just went up.
the good thing about a felony is higher burden of proof then other non felon cases and trial by JURY.
Same damn reason corporations in general are running everything. In the past few decades, "capitalism" and "free market" has been twisted by those with lots of money and a vested interest in having as much power as possible to mean unbridled, unregulated, free reign to do anything they want. When someone tries to inject some common sense into the conversation, they get called Communists (the Cold War buzzword) and/or Socialists (its modern bogeyman equivalent), the FTC, FCC, and other organizations tasked with looking out for us get emasculated and de-funded, a bunch of flag waving and chants of "freedom!" happen, and people vote and act against their own self-interest. All the while, those very rich people get to pay 15% capital gains tax on most of their income while the rest of us pay way more, and those corporations that are screwing us over pay little or no tax in the name of "creating jobs" all the while planning how to more efficiently cut our salaries and benefits and ship our jobs overseas.
What you are describing sounds like fascism. At least Mussolini made the trains run on time. In the US, they can't even do that.
I am really truly disgusted that Obama would support this. I voted for Obama once in 2008 in the final election (but for Kucinich in primaries). I am a progressive and now i feel duped for having voted for what is a conservative pro corporate, anti worker president who apparently loves being ass kisser of Republicans and surrendering to their poor and working class hating, billionaire worshipping ways. The difficulty in 2012 is that there is no one else for a progressive to vote for, we have two conservative candidates running against each other. One can vote Green, but they have no chance of winning, but its better than not voting. People do need to vote , even for the greens, to show them that they are there and that progressives are out there, rather than to give the impression we don't care. I voted for Obama, and basically am greatly disappointed about what has basically turned into a conservative, fascist, war mongering, corporatist president. He would do far less damage if he would run under the Republican party where his ideas are more at home and stop polluting the Democratic party with his corrupt policies. It seems like what he says in speeches is just enough to try to appease progressives but then he turns around adn stabs us in the back in another attack on our rights such as this, or attacks on social security and medicare, continued failures in enacting a public option for health care and making universal health care a reality, and more tax breaks for the wealthy. I get the feeling he loves surrendering to the Republicans in tax cuts for the rich and more attacks on common people.
I think the only thing that might force Obama to take progressives seriously, rather than ignore them, a mass defection of progressives to the green party that would cut into his support base and threaten his chance of winning. That desperately needs to happen. An example of him ignoring progressives is that while he invited Republicans who want to continue to let the poor die while insurance companies rake in massive profits, he excluded advocates of medicare for all from the health care debates. He also started out with a proposal that was already conservative, the idea of the exchanges were the republicans own ideas from the 90s, leaving himself the only negotiating room was into conservative territory. This is all relevant to internet rights and fair use of copyright and having decent, non fascist copyright laws, since the same thing applies, it keeps selling us out to republicans and corporations.
it is also time to look at election reform to implement proportional representation so we are not stuck with the two party system, such as like they have in Europe, so minority parties like the greens can have representation, and that we are not locked into two parties. Currently we have an extremist conservative right wing party, the Republicans, that wants to scorch the earth and kill the poor, and we have a centrist party, the Democrats, that is where the Republicans were ideologically, 40 years ago. Its been said that Obama is more conservative than Richard Nixon or Eisenhower. Sad, but true.
Once again you have proved to me that I was wrong in supporting you (both in time and financially). It doesn't matter who we elect here as either party is beholding to special interests above all. And, hell, it is almost always the same ones - those that pay well. The only "change" I am seeing is the change I am going to keep in my pocket and never donate to any national political group or candidate in the future.
Here on /. people complain about companies that "lock" you into their ecosystem. (Hi, Apple!) But you willingly let yourself be locked into the **AA ecosystem.
Back in the day we weren't totally dependent on being entertained by moving pictures on a screen. Most of the time we made our own entertainment.
I still live that way. I watch a one or two Netflix movies or TV shows a week, go to the real movies about once every couple months. TV is a bunch of crap, if it's good I'll Netflix it later. I have LOTS of time to create things, build things, walk the dogs, hang out with friends and family. I wish I had musical talent so I could play an instrument, but no luck there. If I had to totally give up the moving pictures on the screen, I could do it. Sometimes weeks go by when I don't sit in front of the TV. Sometimes I go days where I don't even sit in front of a computer. Okay, that's rare, but it happens. But I try to limit my browsing every day so I can actually go live my life, and then generally only when taking a break at work (Hi!).
Think of all the things you could do if you weren't so concerned with being entertained by moving pictures on a screen all the time. Think of the **AA pockets you will not be lining if you choose to make your entertainment, or how many artists you will help if you choose to see more live entertainment instead. How much time do you spend watching TV shows and movies? If it's more than 10% of your waking hours, you are wasting your life.
When your mom, your dog, your wife, your husband, your sister, your brother, your friend, your cat, your dad, etc. dies, how much time could you have spent with them that you spent watching TV instead?
Face it, the fact that you are complaining about this issue shows that the **AA already has you by the balls. Don't give them a chance to squeeze, just get out of the grip. Life is short. Go out and live it.
How does this affect people who embed, for instance, YouTube videos on, say, their blogs? Would this apply to them too?
If I am arrested for DWI, that is a misdemeanor? But, if I use bittorrent to watch a copy of a show broadcast last night that my DVR failed to record, I just committed a felony?
Things I can do that will get me in less trouble than pirating a movie:
Shoplifting the movie
Shoplifting the movie and stabbing the manager on my way out
Executing neighborhood pets in the street while neighbors watch
Dealing small amounts of drugs to children
Well, at least now I have some options for the weekend that will get me out of the house. Thank god I'm not hurting the country by stealing a movie
thank you.
So what happens when someone streams CNN on justin.tv or ustream?
Many people are starting to cancel their cable service as the bills have started to become excessive and the content has gotten crappier. (or maybe it's just seems like it as I get older)
I really want to start a Cable TV service over the Internet , as in IPTV.
http://www.videotechnology.com/tv/ Try the space bar to change channels.
All the technology is in place for this already, and I know how to get legitimate content licenses.
So yesterday I spoke on the phone briefly with Steve Wozniak who expressed a slight interest. I really need to get sponsors and a few people with some pull to make these things happen.
I also am planning on starting an Open source project for an Alternative to Google TV (Android) called Amorphous OS, that's based on Linux.
http://www.dnull.com/~sokol/amorp/ I gave a talk on this 10 years ago, since then we have done some experients but I could really use some help on security and Object models.
We need the Open Source community to step up and own this technology otherwise we'll all be left out again like the Phone Companies and Microsoft did to us in the past.
I think an open source alternative to Google TV / Apple TV could easily find it's way in to Televisions if the effort is put in to such a project.
Few people realize that most of these BlueRay players, and Set top boxes such as TiVo are based on Linux already. What remains is the next layer up.
X windows is unacceptable for some things, and things like KDE and other windows managers just aren't consumer friendly.
Android's model of Apps is really out dated. Even Java Applets are more advanced in that they don't get "Installed" and "upgraded" or "updated"
I want to take this to another level for the way applications are build, offered, managed and secured.
I believe that Amorphous OS can be the way to do this, with Micropayment it could even make the Open Source Model profitable and still remain open.
Anyone with any real interest can reach me at videotechnology.com
John
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
We, the people, do NOT want this.
The fine is imposed when the cost of licensing such performances is greater than $5,000. In time, the cost of licensing will of course go up simply due to inflation. After the first year a movie that would license at $5000 would then license for $5300. But the fine is still at $5000.
In 5 years a movie that would $5000 would now license for $6691.
In effect the fine is being imposed for smaller and smaller infractions.
As soon as Biden was put on the bill for VP, pretty much everyone on /. knew what that meant in terms of how the Justice Department would be used and what might entail for us w/ regard to the Copyright industries if they were in fact elected. Now here we are.
Take a good long look at what this administration has done for the Content industries and ask yourself is this is where we, the customer, want to be. Using the DOJ as domestic policing arm for Content Corporations isn't exactly what I'd call ethical. As a previous poster pointed out above,
Why does an industry that offers so little in terms of value or innovation hold so much power over everyone? Why do we keep allowing these bullies to push us around?
Simple. The general populace can't afford the fight. Money is speech in this day and age, and we are giving it hand over fist to the people who would like you to be billed every time a song is played and every time a movie is shown. To a degree it is already that way, but these people want to take it to the extreme, and are willing to purchase it any way they can to insure their failing economical model is subsidied through law and the fracturing of Internet traffic.
The content industry won't be happy until a significant portion of your paycheck gets handed over to them, regardless of whether you're part of the audience or not. They only have 1 interest at this point: Insure that their fiscal levels of income maintain at record levels regardless of the quality, or quantity of the content they output.
By all means, keep handing over the money though. We're the ones who are supporting them after all!
don't give money when they call and indicate that this is a reason why. On election day don't vote for him and only vote for people that actually represent you.
I'm not paying for the network, the program, the Net connection, the bandwidth, or the phone. I paid for my time, computer, monitor, table, and apartment already. Enough. Ok, I pay monthly for a half-dozen Net connections, still working on ways around that.
Revolution is paying big corporations for exactly nothing, and inventing decent ways to do everything.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
keep this up and that takes care of the *creating jobs* the congress-critters have failed to do.
I'm an avid watcher of Shoutcast TV and I've been trying for years to figure out how to stream stuff myself.
Does anyone have any notion as to how the law will affect Shoutcast? I would hate to see it go.
I disagree. I think 'we' do have the money.
For kicks, say there's 1,000,000 'downloaders' (term used within the context of copyright infringing downloading). That number is much higher, though it's probably also getting lower due to e.g. NetFlix - which has 23,000,000 subscribers (though this does include Canada). But I digress.
1,000,000 then. Let's say each one of them put forth $10 toward a fund each month. $10/month isn't much for unlimited music/movie downloads, I think?
1,000,000 * $10/month = $10,000,000/month.
$10,000,000/month * 12 months/year = $120,000,000/year.
Which politician can't 'we' buy for $120,000,000 per year, exactly?
And keep in mind that this isn't just $120,000,000 at campaign time. This is $120,000,000 for each year they're in office. If they're in it for just 4 years, that's a sweet near-half-BILLION Dollars.
Again, which politician can't 'we' buy with that?
The real problem is that 'we' are not that organized and 'we' don't actually want to spend the $10/month to pay off a politician to have things swung in favor of 'us'. Instead, 'we' pay $7.99/month for a limited, not-entirely-current, relatively low quality time-delayed, streaming service such as NetFlix, or 'we' just don't pay anybody anything and play the victim game, among many alternatives.
Your grandmother has a birthday, the family gathers around and sings to her and video's it. The video gets uploaded. Because no royalties were paid for this public performance it's therefore an unauthorized distribution. How many people have to watch/download this before they get arrested? There are two sets of laws- those for the poor and those for the rich. The laws protecting the rich have much higher penalties.
It its time for someone to start collecting videos of Senators and congressmen and CEOs singing Happy Birthday in public. And then point out they also broke they laws they are so happy to vote for.
Eddie Mouch had a hand in this.
a bunch of brain-dead idiots get modded +5 (Insightful) for their infantile gurgling. No one is surprised.
"Outdated business models" is code for "I don't like paying for things, but want them anyway"
If it doesnt fit, you must acquit!
This should be a civil, not a criminal matter.
Thanks for placing this on par with murderers, rapists, and violent crimes.
I suppose this comes from the "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" clause in the Thirteenth Amendment.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
So what is considered a public performance? I have a server where I stream my music from. Is that a felony? What if friends also have access?
I'm gonna be honest, it's getting a bit too dangerous to even listen to music. I'd like to find a new pastime - is there an RIAA-like organization harassing people who weave blankets?
or else!
If you're a banker, you can rob $TRILLIONS, steal whole counties worth of homes, fund genocide, take down governments, delete pensions. I'm sure that if you also pirate video streams there's some way to forgive that, too.
--
make install -not war
it's a wholly owned subsidiary of the right. Seriously. The Koch bros et al funded it from day 1 though their think tanks. Didn't you ever wonder where all the money came for the facilities and organization for those 'spontaneous' tea party rallys? I hate to break this to you, but you're being manipulated. Artfully, skillfully manipulated.
:(.
And it's not hero worship. He's better then McCain, and that's all we can hope for what with all the derp out there
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
...and grandchildren of artists who recorded songs 60 years ago. They're entitled to an undeserved life of comfort based on modern, perpetually-temporary copyright terms! After all, what do you want them to do - go get a job or something?
Finally. As a software developer, I'm in favor of anything that provides a deterrant to people stealing my work (IP, of which movies are an example). Seems to me everyone has gone crazy just because they like getting stuff free.
wow watching a pirate stream might be a felony now. this crap has to stop. its gotten to the point of stupdiy i cant stand to see. i hope someone with a iq above 1 these sees this and goes wtf and votes it down.
I wonder if this can happen: if at a certain point, a critical mass of folk just decide: 'You know what? As much as I enjoy that Movie/TV/Music, it's just not worth the hassle of being treated like a criminal'.
/irony
"Shaka, when the walls fell."
I used to think that the next civil war in the US would be about resources.
Nah.
It's going to be over the rights of the individual vs the rights of the corporation.
... by your friendly Prison Industrial Complex; pushing the notion that incarceration is a fix for every social ill. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison%E2%80%93industrial_complex
"Democracy." It's just a slogan.