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.'"

11 of 398 comments (clear)

  1. Why not? by blackicye · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:Why not? by WGFCrafty · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      ...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.

    3. Re:Why not? by LordLucless · · Score: 5, Informative

      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”

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    4. Re:Why not? by PRMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  2. Incorrect Priorities by StoneyMahoney · · Score: 5, Informative

    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".

  3. In the land of a million laws by korbulon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We are all criminals.

    1. Re:In the land of a million laws by korbulon · · Score: 5, Funny

      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!

  4. Proposal by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  5. How fucked up is it now? by dbIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

  6. Re:It's lost by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.