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.'"

Comments

WTF?

[MrQuacker]

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?

Re:WTF?

[MightyMartian]

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.

My official stance on this

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I'd support this...

[hairyfeet]

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.