Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Bill Ups Punishment For Hosts of Infringing Video Streams

Posted by Soulskill on from the legality-is-in-the-eye-of-the-rightsholder dept.

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.'"

13 of 278 comments (clear)

  1. WTF? by MrQuacker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:WTF? by CRCulver · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The industry does offer something in terms of value. Intellectual property is sadly a cornerstone of the US economy.

    2. Re:WTF? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They have the money right now. This is a life-and-death struggle, but as we've seen with other industries throughout history that have been surpassed by newer technologies, not even artificial life-support by governments can buy much more than a temporary stay of execution. The Japanese government during Edo period banned firearms (despite Japan at one point being the largest manufacturer in the world) to prop up the Shogunate. They got an awfully rude awakening when Admiral Perry sailed into Tokyo Bay and shot a few cannons off.

      I suspect, in twenty years, RIAA, the MPAA and all these ever-increasingly harsh laws will be history. They had their century or so of necessary economic scarcity and its done. At some point the government will realize that there's about as much use in propping these guys up as there would have been in banning flintlocks and cannons to keep fletchers employed.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:WTF? by erroneus · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's the last industry that we own in the US. Everything else has been sent out of the US... everything including technology. Intellectual property and control of the world's money is all that's left. Once that's gone, then end of life in the US as we have known it will end pretty quickly with it.

    4. Re:WTF? by yarnosh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That only answers the question of why they are still around, not why we let them push us around. I think people might be falling for the flawed principle of intellectual property. Once upon a time, nobody would give a second thought to redistributing, copying, sampling, sharing intellectual works. Now it is (or could be) a felony to show an NFL game at your bar without express written permission. Sad.

    5. Re:WTF? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is true that it is about our only export. And it is falling fast.

      No it's not, and no it's not.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    6. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Whether you download/watch it or not, the fact that you did not pay for it means you are a lost sale - and that lost sale will be counted as part of the piracy bill.

      In fact I'm sure they get their figures by taking the total population of earth, estimating what % have a dvd player, then subtracting sales from that - the remainder are clearly pirates because they didn't buy the movie.

  2. My official stance on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  3. Re:Consequences... by geekoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    since anyoen who fires up a bittorrent is considered distributing, everyone is at risk.

    OTOH, maybe everyone should just do it and watch the imploding court system force them to remove this law.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  4. Ugh by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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/
  5. the good thing about a felony is higher burden of by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1, Interesting

    the good thing about a felony is higher burden of proof then other non felon cases and trial by JURY.

  6. Re:I'd support this... by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Riiiight, because most folks have a couple of million lying around to hire some land sharks and keep them on the payroll for a decade or more right? Hell a friend of mine was running a little ISP and got screwed blatntly by one of the big boys who said "just try and sue us". Even his lawyer said ultimately he'd win, no doubt but it would cost a minimum of 1.5 million and a decade, maybe a decade and a half, for them to use up all their appeals and drag it to the highest courts.

    You see the thing that makes the corps "better than you" in the eyes of the law (which is written by lawyers natch) is that they can afford legal teams that do nothing but smack guys like you around all day. Unless your last name is Buffet or Dell you can't afford justice even if you are right, simply because they can drag it out forever. So unless you can get a lawyer who'll go for class action (in which case the lawyer gets 99% and you get a coupon towards your next purchase) you are SOL dude.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  7. Happy birthday, criminal! by currently_awake · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.