Slashdot Mirror
Administration Seeks To Make Unauthorized Streaming A Felony
wabrandsma writes "From the Washington Post: 'You probably remember the online outrage over the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) copyright enforcement proposal. Last week, the Department of Commerce's Internet Policy Task Force released a report on digital copyright policy that endorsed one piece of the controversial proposal: making the streaming of copyrighted works a felony. As it stands now, streaming a copyrighted work over the Internet is considered a violation of the public performance right. The violation is only punishable as a misdemeanor, rather than the felony charges that accompany the reproduction and distribution of copyrighted material.'"
They might as well make it a capital offense with a mandatory death penalty while they're at it.
Ah yes, the good old cat and mouse game of copyright law, making enemies of consumers. Would this mean multicast streaming is also illegal, even if you're not aware if anyone is watching? Presumably yes, but I'm sure if it is, something else will be found that skirts the law.
Ask me about repetitive DNA
Under the current administration everyone is assumed guilty until proven innocent, so why do they need this?
They only reason they may close Gitmo is to re-purpose it to imprison everyone who is even suspected of humming a tune in the shower without paying the MAFIAA.
It's time you americans rebelled against your corrupt, RIAA owned government. Use those guns you fight so hard to keep to take your country back from the record labels.
This means that streaming a movie from an unauthorised source will be considered a more serious offense than vandalism, trespassing, simple assault and prostitution. Tag this one "overreaction, provoked, lobbyist, bad".
We are all criminals.
Won't this effectively make the posting of YouTube clips on websites / blogs / social media a felony also?
Sheesh.
Surely this is streaming of copyrighted works on the internet? So they are saying this is a misdemeanour today and should become a felony? I suppose there is something similar for Android?
Why not? Everything else is a felony. Heck, let's go the next step and just toss the entire population in jail.
What was the title of that book? Three Felonies a Day? By now, it's surely four or five...
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
The horrible transparency of the administration's agenda is staggering: fuck civil liberties; to hell with consumer rights; let's make civil infractions criminal offenses; let's use jackboot tactics to go after marijuana users; let's viciously and vindictively persecute those who try to expose government and corporate indiscretions by siccing our most petty, pea-brained people on them; let's lie, cheat, steal, bully, badger, and spy on everyone who could possibly be a threat. Essentially, the absolute primacy of government and corporate interests over individual rights. The only ones shittier are the Republicans, but not by much.
I honestly thought Obama would be different. Fuck me, right?!
Bieber spoke out against Klobuchar’s bill, saying the senator should be “locked up—put away in cuffs” while noting he personally thinks it is “awesome” when he sees fans uploading their own covers of his songs.
If Justin Bieber is against it, how can it ever pass?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Traditionally the copyright system was to give authors the ability to impose civil liabilities on those who infringed upon their works. It was incumbent upon them to identify who was doing the infringing and file a legal action. Their lobby has shifted this burden onto the people by criminalizing copyright violations, effective turning our public law enforcement into their own private investigators on our dime.
Sine the general public won't likely accept my libertarian view that we should simply reduce the governments capacity to engage in law enforcement to the point where it /must/ focus only on seriously disruptive crimes. Let me get out of character and propose a TAX. Its only fair after all those who use the service should pay.
How about we say: Any entity that engages in the distribution, sale, or licensing of copyrighted works in the form of recorded music, finished films and movies, software, or long form narratives for a profit shall be subject to the copyright enforcement levy; with the exception of original authors engaging in a single one time transfer of all copyright associated with a work. Entities which meet this criteria shall be required to report what part of their revenues are associated with these activities. The tax rate shall be determined by the GAO estimate of costs incurred by federal law enforcement related to copyright enforcement. The tax rate shall not be less than 1% and shall not exceed 1000% of the revenues upon which it is levied. (And get broad public support) proceeds from this tax level shall be used to provide scholarships to low income college students.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Never happen, Obama already decided it was more profitable to tax it.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
My emails are my works, I never authorised the NSA to stream them anywhere, let's throw them all into jail.
Should stop buying American music, movies and whatever other junk they are selling. Stay on your fucking island.
Administration Seeks To Make Unauthorized Streaming A Felony
Which administration would that be?
For the sense-of-humour impaired, I'm being facetious.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Looks like the content kleptocrats are "getting their revenge in first", as it were.
"rather than the felony charges that accompany the reproduction and distribution of copyrighted material"
Such a thing should always have remained a civil matter between the copyright owners and the infringers, and for the state to get involved and come down more heavily than on even parking infringements is IMHO a perversion of justice.
More corruption, from the world's most corrupt regime.
This is clearly no in the interest of the people. Passing this legistlation, shows clearly who the ruling junta actually represents.
The Republican/Democrat Party is totally corrupt.
Only criminals will have Slingboxes.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
Where's Montgomery Brewster when you need him?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXEglx-or6k
How about coming down with the full weight of the law on perjury? Of course, requires a prosecutor not corrupt to the bone already having committed multiple acts of perjury himself. How about that, Mr General Attorney Eric Holder?
We have enough felons running in the wild and occupying top government positions. How about cleaning up there first, to set an example? Of course, that would require starting with Eric Holder himself.
Of course the government, and in particular the ministry of injustice, wants everybody to be a felon so that they'll be able to better fraternize and tell people "I'm a felon in office, but so are you."
They're actually exactly the same - controlled by the same bunch. Republicans push just as hard as Democrats for the criminalization of everything.
They propose to change (mostly commercial) streaming of stolen works from a misdemeanor to a felony. Nothing becomes illegal that's not already illegal. If you were allowed to stream it, you still are. Fair use isn't changed. The change is to treat streaming the same as downloading.
This bill is going to do nothing but help those Hollywood liberals that are destroying America. You want nothing to do with it.
(just trying to help kill this thing)
I am officially gone from
The Lacey Act makes the violation of any law in any country in the world a Felony, even if the violation of that law is committed by a US Citizen within the borders of the US.
One woman went to jail for YEARS for importing a lobster that was packed in clear plastic packaging, which is a crime in Honduras - even though she had no control over what the lobsters were packaged in, and even though the Honduran Law wasn't even in effect at the time.
"American businesswoman Diane Huang was convicted under this far-reaching provision, despite her unawareness of the supposed Honduran law banning the shipment of lobsters in clear plastic bags. Lack of criminal intent, the Washington Legal Foundation argued on behalf of Huang and her co-defendants, should make the governmentâ(TM)s criminal charges inappropriate. To make matters worse, the Honduran law governing such shipments was not valid at the time of Huangâ(TM)s arrestâ"a fact that the Honduran government pointed out to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Nonetheless, the federal court found Huang guilty in March 2003 and imposed a two-year prison sentence."
The Lacey Act can be used to put anyone in jail for a felony for just about anything they do. Problem solved.
It's too bad that having three parties seriously contest a race always ends up electing the least preferable candidate of the three.
An election generally swings on a major issue or two, or a philosophical difference. It could be abortion, size of government, taxes, whatever. It doesn't matter - the math is always the same. For illustration, let's call the main issue "ogplem". Assume 55% of thewinner- are for ogplem, 45% against. So a pro-ogplem third party has significant support. The three parties will rank differently on ogplem, such as this example:
Party A 3
Party B 7
Party C 8
The 45% of voters who don't like ogplem will vote party A. The 55% who want ogplem will split their votes between B and C. That means A wins - the third party guarantees minority rule.
Proportional representation would fix that. With winner-take-all like the United States, a significant third party always results in minority rule by splitting votes with the major party they are most similar to.
Under copyright laws, if it is not specifically authorised, it is unauthorised.
Did they give SPECIFIC authorisation to do EXACTLY what you did?
See also Aaron Schwartz who "was not authorsed" by using the system in a way that they didn't think was possible. He had the login, he had the access, he had the authorisation to create copies. But not, apparently, the authorisation to make a copy by a script.
Does that make me a felon? (Not counting the number of laws I have inadvertently broken in this screwed up country).
Silence is a state of mime.
So I guess money laundering is considered a misdemeanor....
Or that is embedded in content that is streamed.....
Splendid, yes, yes! In fact, let's lock more people up for non violent crimes! Plenty of room in our prisons, they're not full or anything absurd like that. Oh yeah, and that felony record stain on your person is no biggie, nothing that more crime couldn't wash away. That's not a ongoing problem for people trying to get rehabilitated for committing real crimes or anything like that...
Way to exacerbate all of our current justice's systems problems with something as stupid as this. Civil penalties is all the justice you need for a "crime" like this, it doesn't even rank the same as white collar crimes. So senseless. So you're going to "felonize" middle and lower class people for streaming video but not "felonize" upper class people for recklessly destroying people's wealth and jobs? Really? REALLY?
Gob says, "COME ON!"
The Washington Post article itself says that it's simply a recommendation by a report published by the Department of Commerce.
With any luck, it won't be acted upon. The time to worry is when it starts being pushed as a change to the law, not now.
Splendid, yes, yes! In fact, let's lock more people up for non violent crimes! Plenty of room in our prisons, they're not full or anything absurd like that.
Well, they are full of the wrong people. Those are not proper company for high-ranking officials. So before we start handing out prison sentences for high-ranking government officials violating the constitution and committing perjury, we start filling the prisons with nice people.
When we then prosecute the felons in government, at least they will not be surrounded by murderers, rapists, robbers and other unpleasant entities. Instead, they'll be surrounded by ordinary citizens and will learn about their needs. And once they get released again and go into politics, they'll know who they work for.
Put the index atom at the start of the mp4 file and then you can claim it was intended for streaming even if they download it...;-)
Where everyone is a felon, often for laws they don't know they're breaking and wouldn't ever guess. Land of the free, my friends.
You'd be surprised how many crimes the average person will commit in the course of a week without even realizing that someone might have passed a law against them...
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
May I recommend voting for anything but Democrat or Republican? You'll get screwed either way with one of those two.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I really can't figure out why anybody would still defend or support this administration. I mean, I can understand if you make the argument that they were still better than the alternative (that's at least debatable), but the fact that Obama and his administration are opportunists and deeply dishonest should be obvious to anybody now.
Ouch got modded down. Not sure why as Apple did get preferential treatment by the administration, so either I offended an Apple fan or an Obama fan. Either way, If it is illegal to stream the next logical step is to ban devices capable of streaming. Look at illegal drugs and related paraphernalia, in many jurisdictions, you can be charged just for possessing a bong, whether or not it has ever been used to smoke pot.
Content owners want nothing more than to control who watches what, when, and as long as you can stream and what what you want, whenever you want, they are upset. Whoever modded me down might think I was simply jabbing Apple, but if you look at who is supports all of the DRM and DMCA stuff, time after time, Apple's name is on the list. Does anybody really think if such a law as this were proposed, they would let the iPad or iPhone be listed as being used in the commission of a felony? Of course not, so yes, they would seek an exemption from the administration. If the administration felt that banning sale of the iPad or iPhone because of patent infringement would be harmful to the economy, how would they not also rule that banning their sale would under this new proposal would also not be harmful?
As such, it brings me back to my original post that the logical next step of the proposed bill is to ban devices that can actually stream the content and that Apple will get exempted from it.
Always attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity when it involves the copyright cartel.
Stop downloading, streaming or watching their content. Boycott all that they make. You can end this. Just switch off.
Fair Punishment For Streaming Copyright Works or some derivative there of.
They propose to change (mostly commercial) streaming of stolen works from a misdemeanor to a felony. Nothing becomes illegal that's not already illegal. If you were allowed to stream it, you still are. Fair use isn't changed. The change is to treat streaming the same as downloading.
Except that it seems Youtube doesn't even seem to know what is legal and what is not. I don't post anything to Youtube myself but I know someone who posted a video capture their characters pvping in an mmo. A few weeks later they got an email saying it had been taken down due to copyright infringement.
I've heard of an even worse case where someone posted a homemade video taken outside somewhere and it got taken down for copyright infringement. In that case I believe it was the sounds of birds chirping in the background that did it.
For those who don't realize it, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," in Hammurabi's code and the OT is actually a restriction against unjustly harsh retribution. How? Well, look at policies like this to see the truly draconian.
Never stream any movies or music ever again. Stop using YouTube, Spotify, Grooveshark, Pandora, MySpace, Last.fm, Hulu, Netflix, Vimeo, Vevo and a myriad of other streaming services since even 1 piece of content could cause you to unintentionally commit a felony. If I'm not seeing the artist/performance live, or they aren't paying me to watch it, then it is only prudent I insure that I don't consume any of it. Also, if for some reason my 'viral video' of some event makes it on TV without my consent, then I want the CBS/ABC/FOX/WB/NBC producers and executives prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for unauthorized streaming of my content.
I'm not too familiar with the internal politics of many countries. One might say that the Republican party is an uneasy coalition between the constitutionalist, freedom based Tea Party types on one hand and and the old "moral majority" types on the other. They don't like each other and don't agree on much, but they form a coalition politically. On the other side, most Democrats may not be race baiters, but the race baiters unite with those who have communist leanings and historically even with the segregationalists to form the Democrat coalition.
How is that fundamentally different from the coalitions you are speaking of? I'm not saying it's the same, I'm honestly wondering how it's different.
What brand of "faggot" exactly do you think there is in US politics is going to do anything differently?
I mean you should be able to stream for your own personal usage, but streaming to "the Internet" should be the equivalent of whatever penalty is given to someone selling pirated movies on the street corner, period.
I know it is so easy to want to decry this and claim our rights and freedoms are being violated, but I truly do not believe that anybody has a right to take someone elses work and redistribute it without permission. I am tired of the people advocating for the "right" to take a copyrighted piece of work and share it will millions of people. You do not, and never will, have that right. You did not invest millions into making the product, pay for the redistribution rights and therefore your rights and freedoms are NOT being violated here, you should be clearly penalized for breaking that law.
Please stop lumping these kinds of articles with "Freedom of Speech" or Human Rights. Its is incredibly retarded to associate this with stealing digital content. It would be the same as someone pleading that stealing a car is their human right or Freedom of Speech, but you are NEVER going to win a court case for stealing a car using those arguments. Nobody goes online and cries about how their human rights and freedoms were violated when they are thrown in jail for stealing a car.
And let's put it this way, you would only ever lend your car to family and close friends but you are not going to freely share your car with strangers, so the law should allow you to share content with friends, but not millions of strangers. I think that in all these laws there needs to be a physical analogy associated with digital content. No one was ever fined for lending a DVD to a friend, never. However make a million copies of that DVD and send it to a million people, you are clearly in violation of the law.
As long as the law is explicit about personal fair use versus mass distribution then I have no problems with it and neither should you. Sharing a streaming service with millions of strangers should be rightfully fined, to argue otherwise is pretentious and entitled and to claim it freedom of speech is retarded.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Put 'em on the bench with the father-rapers.
It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.
The society we live in has been turned into a prison with guards at every exit. They search you before you can leave and they might not let you leave. Sounds like prison to me.
I imagine that multicast streaming of the encrypted video data is fine, as long as the keys are sent unicast.
Do you have any letters or certificates, or any legal document giving you permission to use any, even one, of the hundreds or thousands of patended devices you own?
Both copyright and patent law exhaust the exclusive right to make private use of a lawfully made good after the first sale of such a good. This means that the only "letters or certificates" you need are evidence that the good was lawfully made and possibly a receipt.
It started being pushed the moment Commerce issued the report. I don't see what's wrong with giving your own recommendation to your elected representative and senators: "Please do not let Commerce's recommendation become law."
Translation: Watch YouTube at work, go directly to jail. Of course, it won't matter because YouTube would be gone. Immediately. With the possibility of felony charges against everyone in that division, such a site simply cannot afford to continue operating. Neither can the sites that are authorized by the networks. After all, they're authorized in only certain regions, and streaming to someone outside those regions, even accidentally, is the same as any other unauthorized streaming. Goodbye Hulu. Goodbye Netflix, goodbye Amazon video on demand, goodbye XFINITY TV, and so on. This is what big media wants, BTW.
Oh, and you know that Slingbox? If streaming is a felony and someone guesses your password or whatever, you might be guilty of a felony. Better unplug it. Or at least that's what the "You wouldn't stream a car" ads are going to say.
Excuse me while I mock the people who came up with this scheme derisively. Apparently, they would like us to roll technology back to the 1970s. I don't think a clue bat will do it this time. To try a power grab like this right after SOPA went down in flames suggests that these people are completely out of touch with reality. The only thing that will fix this is a massive "right sizing" of the Department of Commerce.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
How is that fundamentally different from the coalitions you are speaking of? I'm not saying it's the same, I'm honestly wondering how it's different.
The coalitions are cross-party, and governments can be formed with more than one party.
For example, the largest party may get 42% of the votes at an election, while three others can muster 52% combined. If they are more politically aligned than the bigger party, they may enter a coalition, and assume government.
Where the members of a coalition disagree, they must come to a consensus.
This might mean voting for something they are against, in order to keep the government afloat, or to get the other parties to budge on an issue they feel even stronger for. The alternative might be to cede the government to the largest party, and presumably getting none of their cases through.
While more complicated, it does prevent the larger parties from steamrolling the smaller ones.
You would seriously propose voting Republican to seek more lenient sentencing standards and a "softer" stance on crime?
Let's face it, this is one area with broad, bipartisan support -- Democrats love anything that protects Hollywood, and Republicans love anything that protects businesses in general or that shows a "tough" stance on crime. No one but the most marginalized fringe of either party would consider a vote against stronger copyright without their constituents baying at the door, like we had with SOPA, and even then it was the strong business opposition that swayed them, not the people.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Translation: Watch YouTube at work, go directly to jail.
If it is like Klobuchar's bill, it will ONLY apply to those who SEND the streams, NOT to those who VIEW them. And Netflix and others will not be affected, as the law would ONLY apply if viewers were in the United States. Streaming to viewers OUTSIDE the United States would not be covered under this law. So Netflix streaming to viewers outside of the United States would not be affected.
We make it a felony to be a member of an internet task force without having a sense of justice? A felony for what? Making Brad Pitt slightly less rich?
So basically just YouTube.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Any time one popular video springs up, scores of copycats rip it off and repost it for links. So, you've got to wade through tons of crap to find anything.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Maybe it might be a good thing for Sergey and Larry to go to jail. They have the resources to make the government look stupid and tie them up for years in court.
They also have the resources to embarrass the hell out of these politicians.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Like you don't get screwed voting libertarian?
They're using their grammar skills there.
Until you "stream" the video from your computer to the computer screen, thus becoming a distributor ;-)
it is very much in Youtube's interest to not know what's legal and what's not. Their safe harbor depends on it. As far as they are concerned, as stipulated by law, it's illegal if someone says it is, unless and until the poster says otherwise under (effective) oath.
Until you "stream" the video from your computer to the computer screen, thus becoming a distributor ;-)
Nope. Streaming to your computer screej in your home is NOT a "public performance". Under 17 USC 101, You have to be displaying it a public place. Your computer screen in your home, or somwehere private deos NOT count as a "public performance". So VIEWING the content in your home is NOT a "public performance" under 17 USC 101.
Yes, thank you for your technical description of the obvious. Can't take a joke?
The NSA is streaming all of my content to their servers and I didn't authorize it.
The Official Site of 1337 Pwnage
I mentioned this one one figure skating forum,where some people do watch "illegal" streams of sporting events, particularly US nationals, where people on the west coast don't want to wait for the tape delay Some people there think I am paranoid when I mention that some streams of their favourite skating events might dissapper. Some people are going to need a lot of convincing about this.