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.'"

Comments

Why not?

[blackicye]

They might as well make it a capital offense with a mandatory death penalty while they're at it.

Re:Why not?

[WGFCrafty]

Won't happen. Then all the private corporations running prisons won't get money.

They're trying to build a prison for you and me to live in.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those private corporation using prison labour is basically the US reintroducing slavery by the back door, mostly same color as last time too
it is illegal to import goods made by slave or prison labour....

Re:Why not?

[lennier1]

Tell that to the people in Gitmo.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

...those we know about so far: Bradley Manning has been in prison without sentencing for 1167 days.
- 27 days into court martial.
Jeremy Hammond has been in prison without sentencing for 519 days.
Julian Assange has been detained without charge for 973 days.
- 413 days at the Ecuadorian Embassy.

Re:Why not?

[bfandreas]

Welcome to the eSports scene.
There are a lot of unofficial tournaments for a lot of games. So that could possibly become a felony. Let alone all those YouTube Let's Plays which are also a thing.
I'm sure they intend this for video/music, but as always our lawmakers are a decade behind everybody else.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is a prime example for the overcriminalization in the US. What should be a civil case where some corp should sue a private citizen becomes a thing with a DA and a possible prison sentence.
And people wonder why prisons are overflowing...

Re:Why not?

[LordLucless]

I suggest you learn a fact or two instead of repeating bullshit.

Good advice. I suggest you take it:

As for Swedish law, there are no provisions preventing prosecutors from interrogating suspects abroad. Doing so is, in fact, a routine matter. An example: In late 2010, at roughly the same time that Ms. Ny decided to issue a European Arrest Warrant for Assange, Swedish police officers went to Serbia to interview a well-known gangster suspected of involvement in an armed robbery.

In a radio interview last Friday, a Swedish professor emeritus of international law, Ove Bring, confirmed that there are no legal obstacles whatsoever preventing Ms. Ny from questioning Assange in London. When asked why the prosecutor would not do so, Professor Bring responded that ”it’s a matter of prestige not only for prosecutors, but for the Swedish legal system”

Re:Why not?

[PRMan]

Are you honestly that naive? Do you really think the Brits would have 6 people watching him 24/7 for over a year because of some odd misdemeanor rape charges for a broken condom that don't exist in any other country? Think about it. What you are being told is not the truth in this case because it clearly doesn't make sense at face value.

Re:Why not?

[bfandreas]

That propably is also one of its intended purposes. But I reckon the law will be broadly termed, as per usual, so it will catch some unintended fish in its nets.
Laws like this are usually written by lobbyists and introduced into the house by some congressman. Depending on which lobby is writing it you can assume that it will not take other interests into consideration.

Frankly the US and UK legislative has gone far beyond a joke. Some time ago I decided that it propably were best to follow whichever law makes sense and keep a low profile. Try as you may you will always be in violation of some law or provision. Best to ignore them altogether and get on with your life.

Re:Why not?

[Bengie]

Mandatory minimum sentencing. Just another word for REVENGE! There is no justice.

Re:Why not?

[rtb61]

Easy to make streaming a felony simple requires that the person who did not copy the copyrighted work is now legally liable for the person who did copy the copyrighted work. The analogy is if you saw someone rob a bank, you are now the person who robbed the bank and are required to prove you are not. To stream is to watch a copy being produced upon someone else's computer and they have expressly given you permission to do so, nothing more nor nothing less. You do not take legal liability for their actions except in the delusion of the currently totally corrupt US government. Basically they are now stating you are guilty of any crime you witness, regardless of what you do, until you can prove your innocence.

Re:Why not?

[bfandreas]

Try as you may you will always be in violation of some law or provision.

Maybe, but the real question should always come down to whether a jury will convict you.

You mention the UK, that make me think you are actually a UK citizen like me (sorry if I am wrong). In our case we are pretty lucky in terms of still having some semblance of a legal aid system that allows us to actually go to court if we think we broke the law but they jury would agree with our reasons for doing so and getting the state to pay for our defence. The problem with copyright law though is that most of the population eligible for jury duty (that includes me) actually supports it. Without copyright law you would be able to take other peoples digital works and then sell them as your own, that is simply not right.

There are a million problems with copyright law as it stands but throwing it all in the bin and having nothing in its place would be no better apart from for people who just want free access to everything and have no money to pay for it. The only time I think we can get rid of copyright law completely is when we also do away with the concept of money.

See, this is where I think you are wrong. For copyright to exist you only need a law that defines the concept and limits its duration and point out that companies can transfer licenses. The rest is best left to civil law. Criminal law is for clear-cut crimes. You leave the grey areas to civil law. And copyright is at the moment not only grey but also very very muddy.

Copyright was introduced to have a framework how a creator can benefit from his works and to control its distribution. Afterwards it was supposed to be transferred into the public domain because that's what defines culture. Cultural heritage was always produced by somebody. Now they turn this into a rent-seeking scheme and by my definition of culture which belongs to everybody we now have corporate ownership of everything that was produced during the last 50 years. Or to put it bluntly: our culture hasn't progressed any during the last 50 years. Now we pile criminal law on top of that.

In my book furthering of our culture is much more important in the long term than the revenue of BMG/Universal/Sony/whoever in the next financial quarter. This overstatement of the copyright holder's rights have resulted in quite a lot works that simply have been lost either by destruction or by not being released anymore. If such a long copyright(which is a granted priviledge, an exception of the default which is public domain) is to be upheld then there should be strings attached. Like the copyright holder demonstrating that he is preserving the work for the time when it enters the public domain.


I repeat: copyright is a priviledge and should be treated as such.

Incorrect Priorities

[StoneyMahoney]

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".

Re:Incorrect Priorities

[serviscope_minor]

This means that streaming a movie from an unauthorised source will be considered a more serious offense than vandalism, trespassing, simple assault and prostitution.

Well in the last case, good, since it shouldn't be a crime. For the rest, yeah it's fucked up.

In the land of a million laws

[korbulon]

We are all criminals.

Re:In the land of a million laws

[korbulon]

We are all criminals.

1 - Turn all citizens into criminals. 2 - Be the one in charge to decide which citizens to prosecute. 3 - Make your position inheritable. 4 - Construct large pyramidal tombs in the desert to be remembered forever.

5 - PROPHET!

YouTube...?

[beaverdownunder]

Won't this effectively make the posting of YouTube clips on websites / blogs / social media a felony also?

Sheesh.

Why not?

[bradley13]

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...

A sort of betrayal

[korbulon]

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?!

Re:A sort of betrayal

[korbulon]

Look, I never thought he would be the messiah to bring balance to the force; but neither did I think that he would be turn out to be the head of such a heavy-handed and intrusive governmental apparatus. I had the simple hope that he would backpedal much of the dangerous expansion of federal powers that started in the Bush years, especially homeland, tsa and patriot act. But none of that shit. It certainly didn't get any better, maybe even got a little worse.

The betrayal doesn't only refer to that of the Obama administration, it is rather the abandonment by what passes for the left in this country of liberal principles, lines you just don't cross have been crossed. For the 'left' as much as the 'right', it's not about any sort of enlightened principles, it's only about winning winning winning. They're competing strains of the same virus. If you go to moveon.org you won't find a peep about the nsa surveillance, which is an implict acknowledgment that they're an appendage of the administration. It's simply jaw-dropping. I feel like I ordered some spaghetti with marinara sauce and got egg noodles and ketchup.

Also, perhaps most urgently, you need to see 'The Big Lebowski'. By 3 o'clock.

It's lost

[phantomfive]

From the article:

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?

Re:It's lost

[serviscope_minor]

Bieber spoke out against Klobucharâ(TM)s bill,

Well, that's actually quite remarkable.

For all the complaining about how "the masses" don't care, this person actually is relevant to a substantial demographic who generally neither know nor care about such things. The fact that he is speaking out is a good thing and should not be mocked.

I now have considerably more respect for the guy.

Proposal

[DarkOx]

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.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

My emails are my works, I never authorised the NSA to stream them anywhere, let's throw them all into jail.

How fucked up is it now?

[dbIII]

"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.

Re:Which administration?

[mwvdlee]

Can you narrow it down a bit more?

Dear Republicans

[dkleinsc]

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)