Are SOPA Sponsors Violating SOPA Rules? Not So Fast, Says Ars Technica

TheNextCorner writes "Remember how the Stop Online Piracy Act would make streaming of copyrighted material a felony? Many of these lawmakers actually stream copyrighted videos on their websites." However, that's not the whole story. according to a followup at Ars Technica to the tweeted claims about streaming and SOPA. From which: "The Electronic Frontier Foundation tweeted the post, and it was re-tweeted more than 100 times. So are the sponsors of SOPA hypocrites? We're not fans of SOPA, so we'd love to have this story check out. But we're also a news site, so we contacted James Grimmelmann, a copyright scholar at New York Law School, (and judging from his tweets, not a SOPA supporter) to get his expert opinion."

Comments

Not really the point

[Weezul]

The core issue is how SOPA changes the liability structure to permit endless copyright troll lawsuits. It doesn't matter if your users are or aren't infringing if copyright holders can sue you endlessly regardless.

Re:Not really the point

[Anonymous Coward]

The same people who sued to stop the Camp Fire Girls from singing "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" in the woods around a fire as a "public performance" will be making accusations and shutting down web sites en mass. Because all it takes is for a site to be a suspected offender.

Re:Not really the point

[Anonymous Coward]

http://copyrightcommerceandculture.com/2011/05/10/birds-sing-but-campers-can%E2%80%99t-unless-they-pay-up/

Re:Not really the point

[zero.kalvin]

With a quick search, there is this : http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/ASCAP.html I think it is ridiculous...

Re:Not really the point

[Anonymous Coward]

The same people who sued to stop the Camp Fire Girls from singing "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" in the woods around a fire as a "public performance" will be making accusations and shutting down web sites en mass. Because all it takes is for a site to be a suspected offender.

Citation please. That song was written in it's modern form in 1881.

In reference to the Girl Scouts, a source is here: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/ASCAP.html

They cite ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) as the perpetrators. A different source describes the particulars of how they decide who and what infringes: http://woodpecker.com/writing/essays/royalty-politics.html, which specifically says ASCAP has more than 80 arrangements of "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" under copyright. So the song is public domain, but if you infringe upon their arrangement, they are going to get you.

Note on sources: more reliable sources may be available, this is all I had time to find.

Re:Not really the point

[JoeMerchant]

Ever notice that major restaurant chains don't sing the traditional "Happy Birthday to You!"?

AOL Time Warner currently collects about $2M per year in royalties on "Happy Birthday to You", originally popularized more than 80 years ago.

and, won't the world be such a better place when these rights are more vigorously protected? cough, gag

Re:Not really the point

[Culture20]

Did you never wonder why restaurant staff sing their own made up birthday songs?

Re:Not really the point

[hairyfeet]

Bimbo Newton Crosby, what this does is gives the big boys a really nice weapon to shut down the indies. If you'll remember one of the big corps (I think it was Sony, not sure as its early here) finally admitted all the stinks they've been throwing wasn't over IP but over control and as more and more people spend more and more time on the net they are feeling their grip on what the masses see and hear slipping away.

For the first time in history we are seeing artists bypass the gatekeepers completely, going from 'viral sensation' to nationally known artist and this scares the living fuck out of them. They know in the age of YouTube and Twitter and a bazillion other non controlled communication circuits their ability to force artists into assraping contracts where they are basically nothing but cogs and "all your IP belong to us" is becoming a thing of the past.

So all this will do is exactly what you have surmised and allow them to bury anyone who doesn't "play ball" to be crushed by endless trolling. While the big boys have their own law firms the little guys simply won't be able to survive endless lawsuits and will either cave in or go under.

Sadly the only way we have to fight back anymore is massive piracy, there simply is nothing else. Any drops in their revenue they will blame on piracy anyway so boycotts do nothing, as the petitions which have gotten to the point there is actually a petition that says "Please quit ignoring us" prove if you don't have the money to bribe your congressman he sure as fuck isn't going to listen to you, so all that is left is the geeks.

So please geeks, please keep working on anonymous distributed P2P and continue to work to make it so damned simple that Limewire looks like compiling your own kernel. The ONLY way we are gonna get rid of these bastards is to bleed them to death, there is simply no other choices left now. If all your IP laws are unjust and the people no longer have a say at the table the only just thing to do is completely ignore those unjust laws. Does anyone truly believe that if We, The People had any say anymore we would have crap like SOPA or "forever minus a single day" copyright laws?

Re:Not really the point

[jd2112]

So we are safe if we sing it like Shatner?

Not until he's been dead for 70 years...

Not until i've been dead for 70 years.

Re:Not really the point

[SuricouRaven]

I, however, *am* encouraging outright piracy. Mostly out of spite. Unfortunatly I don't believe it'll actually harm labels or studios in any significant way. Remember that the highest grossing film of all time is still Avatar, a science-fiction film aimed at the teen-to-twentyfive mostly-male demographic that also happens to be the most inclined towards piracy. If piracy couldn't sink Fern Gully in Space, well... recruit more pirates.

Re:Not really the point

[thomst]

hairyfeet opined:

Bimbo Newton Crosby, what this does is gives the big boys a really nice weapon to shut down the indies.

For the first time in history we are seeing artists bypass the gatekeepers completely, going from 'viral sensation' to nationally known artist and this scares the living fuck out of them. They know in the age of YouTube and Twitter and a bazillion other non controlled communication circuits their ability to force artists into assraping contracts where they are basically nothing but cogs and "all your IP belong to us" is becoming a thing of the past.

Sadly the only way we have to fight back anymore is massive piracy, there simply is nothing else.

The ONLY way we are gonna get rid of these bastards is to bleed them to death, there is simply no other choices left now.

Here's the problem I have with your exhortation: indiscriminate "massive piracy" will not only harm the IP plutocrats of the RIAA, it will also adversely impact the very independent artists you claim to support - and it is them, and not the Sonys of the industry, who will be harmed the most. That's because the warez kiddies who do the vast majority of unauthorized downloading are unlikely to make any distinction whatsoever between music the rights to which the RIAA members control, and those recordings which are directly owned and controlled by independent artists themselves. Instead, in their enthusiasm to embrace "stick it to The Man" as a valid excuse to download every popular tune they see, they will gleefully end up harming the innocent along with the guilty.

It's very difficult to make a living in the music industry as an independent artist. And I mean VERY difficult. Every dollar in income you have to sacrifice puts you a dollar closer to being forced to hang up your guitar for good. And, while that's especially true for independents early in their careers, it is, to some extent, true of all independent musical artists. Downloading their music without their permission, and refusing to pay them for it is NOT "sticking it to The Man". It's sticking it to the artist him/herself ... and that's Not A Good Thing, especially if that artist is one whose music you like and would like to hear more of.

I know it's popular here on /. to maintain that artists "should" regard recorded tracks as pure loss leaders, and be content to make their money strictly from live performances. And that's fine, if you're Lady Gaga, or some other top-tier artist. But independent musicians - and, again, especially those who are just starting their careers, or who have, after struggling for years, finally released a hit record - don't pull in the big bucks for performances. Touring is expensive: transportation for you, and your band and crew, lodging for all of you, food for all of you, concert promotional costs (You didn't think those posters advertising that concert you think will be so profitable printed themselves, did you? Or posted themselves on all those walls, windows, and telephone poles?), liability and property insurance (On Pink Floyd's first U.S. tour, their van was stolen in Texas, and they lost all of their instruments, including Rick Wright's heavily-customized Hammond organ, their giant - and very expensive - gong, and all their guitars and amplifiers - and, as a result, they had to return to England, because they couldn't afford both to replace their gear and continue to pay for a tour that had been only marginally profitable for a band that, at that point, wasn't at all well-known here in the States.), merchandise (tee shirts aren't free - and neither is having your band's name and touring information printed on them), and so on. By the time you finish paying for all that - and much of it has to be paid for in advance - even a show in a decent-sized venue, at a relatively high per-ticket price (which you have to split with the concert promoter/venue owner, btw), to a sold-out audience is likely to make you exactly enou

Re:Not really the point

[tragedy]

The really awful thing about that is that the actual music to "Happy Birthday to You" isn't copyrighted, or at least shouldn't be under copyright. The melody is from "Good Morning to All", which was written in 1893. According to Wikipedia, the combination of the "Happy Birthday to You" lyrics and the "Good Morning to All" melody first appeared in print in 1912 and was copyrighted by people who clearly weren't the true originators in 1935 and, due to the various copyright extensions, won't fall out of copyright until 2030.

Now, the lyrics consist of 4 lines, only one of which is unique, and only barely, since it differs from the other three only by replacing "to you" with "dear ____". And there are only 5 actual words (aside from the person's name, which is clearly not a copyrightable part of the song). So, "Happy Birthday to You" is a clear example of a song that doesn't deserve to fall under copyright. If it ever went to court, the defendant would probably win, but very few people would ever fight it because the expense and effort involved wouldn't be worth it versus caving and handing over the protection money.

Re:Not really the point

[hairyfeet]

Actually I've toured the south a few times myself and known several indie bands and most of us put our stuff on P2P, thanks anyway. you know why? Because fans will STILL happily buy your CDs at the shows, along with the T-Shirts, caps, mugs, keyrings, mousepads (those were my idea BTW) and anything else to help out the band because guess what? they are FANS and want to see you get ahead.

BTW I probably shouldn't share this trick, as we were raking in the cash with it, but what the fuck, sharing is caring right? Indie guys, want to make a fuckton of money and sell out your swag? The magic word is "raffle". We would go to a local pawnshop in whatever town we were at, but a cool cheap guitar or bass, me or the guitarist would play it for 3 or 4 songs and at the end of the show we would all sign it and anybody who bought a piece of swag had their name in the drawing for the instrument.

Not only did audiences eat it up but we ended up with several hardcore fans that showed up at nearly every gig simply because they won something that made them feel closer to the band. We'd always let them sit with the wives and GFs and they were happy to hang up posters or post on FB or anything else that got out the word, simply because it made them feel like a winner.

It works, its cheap, makes you a hell of a lot more than the guitar costs, and creates really loyal long lasting fans. Last gig I played even though i wasn't with that band anymore and hadn't been in 5 years i had a guy show up and bring nearly 30 friends, all of whom bought swag, simply because 'hey man I still have that bass i won in Memphis, remember me?" so he and his buds got to hang out with the wives and GFs while we played and we had a beer afterward. Its a great way to get long term fans

. I hereby release this to the world as GPL, if you use the idea just give the old hairyfeet a little credit now and then, kay? Who knows one day i might be your opening act, or you may be mine. peace fellow bass players and never forget to show the ladies we bass players are ALWAYS good with our fingers!

USA is going nuts for Hollywood

[Anonymous Coward]

Go on america; keep on going, keep listening to the 1 % to try to get the rest of the world to do your bidding..

This is one of many steps that have been taken to make the USA look silly & this will only be one more step towards the downfall of the usa..

I used to be a big fan of the country; but i'm getting more & more convinced that the usa is nuts... & getting more & more so :)

in 10 years the usa will be disconnected from the internet.. at least; the free internet the rest of the world will enjoy.

Those who oppose this in congress..

[skr95062]

I have been so opposed to SOPA due to the shift in who has to scan and check.
The content companies got what they wanted with the DMCA.
They then found out it was to much of a problem for them to check.
Bad enough they did not know what others inside the same content holder were doing. (VIACOM v GOOGLE)
Now they want to shift the responsibility over to the internet operators, eliminate safe harbor.
In addition this gives the government even broader powers to shut down "infringing" internet sites, remove or change DNS.
Some of these are legal in the country that the sites operate in.
The US/Content companies are yet again trying impose there will on the rest of the world.
Now several prominent members of congress have come out against it.
This includes the former speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi.
Hopefully enough of them will realize this is bullshit and come to there senses.

I doubt it, but there is always hope.

Unconstitutional. Period.

[CanHasDIY]

According to the Fifth Amendment, no person (which includes corporations) can be deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without being convicted ina court of law.

Oh, wait, I forgot that the Constitution, which used to be the supreme law of the land and could only be superceded by a 2/3 majority vote by the states, is just a goddamn piece of paper.

As you were.

Congressmen get the benefit of the doubt; we don't

[Fred Ferrigno]

The lawyer says it's not a problem because the representatives are "unlikely to be willful infringers". They're public officials and everyone knows them. Therefore, no one is really going to take an infringement case against them seriously.

But what about the rest of us? What about some random kid posting the same sorts of videos to YouTube? Will there be anyone to say he's unlikely to be a willful infringer as well? Or will he just get sued straight away? Maybe he could hire an attorney, go to court, and spend months or years trying to prove he had a good-faith belief his actions weren't infringing. Or maybe he'll be scared into settling by some troll looking to extort money.

Re:I don't has list

[Bratmon]

Here ya go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Supporters

Doesn't check out.

[nilbog]

Claiming that they are infringing unknowingly is a nice idea, except for the fact that these guys ARE SPONSORING THE VERY LAW WHICH THEY ARE BREAKING. To claim that they are breaking the law unknowingly is claiming that they don't understand the law they are passing. This is a far more frightening prospect.

Also, what sort of law includes ignorance as an excuse for breaking it?