7 ms·
Obama "IP czar" wants felony charges for illegal Web streaming
- zdw 16y agoHow about felony charges for everyone who worked for a company that was involved with the financial meltdown? I think you'd scrape up a whole lot more guilty people in that circumstance, rather than demonizing a bunch of glorified slingboxes.
- mcantelon 16y agoThe Obama admin will generally prosecute the enemies of whoever pays them the most. We live in a representative democracy, but the representation seems to be auctioned off.
- SkyMarshal 16y agoNot just the Obama admin, but any that manages to get elected. You can't even hope to win a modern election without billions in funding from corporate or wealthy private interests. Even Obama's small-donor-oriented political machine raised roughly half its campaign funding from the former.
- ChuckMcM 16y agoMeg Whitman proved you can't buy an election in California.
- jbooth 16y agoShe only proved that you can't buy an election if you're outrageously blatant about it and a terrible candidate on top of that. Most congresspeople spend more time raising money (banging the phones, attending fundraisers, etc) than they do on policy. You need a few million in the bank to be a "credible candidate", and lobbyists can get you a chunk of the way there.
- Aetius 16y agoYes, she could have used a few pages out of the following book: Modern Vote Buying In The U.S., Koch , et al. 2000-
- thaumaturgy 16y agoI think she would have won if Brown weren't running -- in the end, he had a proven track record doing exactly the kind of reconstruction that California needs right now, and that trumped her money.
- jbooth 16y agoI'm not local and didn't have a great view of it. From what I heard, she was on the air so early and so obnoxiously often that it destroyed whatever message she may have had (and the message was lousy/stale/reactive, too). I think that loses to generic dem in California, but again I'm not local and don't really have the pulse there.
- cabalamat 16y agoEr, surely Meg Whitman proved that Meg Whitman can't buy an election in California? The fact that politicians go to great efforts to raise campaign funds proves that they think its worthwhile.
- Nate75Sanders 16y agoThe reasoning you're looking for here is "necessary, but not sufficient". This post is dedicated to mathematics.
- ChuckMcM 16y agoIf you do the 'good/bad' candidate, 'buys/doesn't buy' the election grid then a system that prevents bad candidates from buying elections would seem to be sufficient. All the other results are tolerable / unavoidable.
- kijinbear 16y agoI wonder what would happen if some super-wealthy retired philanthropist (think Bill Gates, minus the MS monopoly tarnish) donated $1B to a promising Presidential candidate, with very few strings attached. Maybe we'll just end up with another assassinated President...
- ceejayoz 16y ago> I wonder what would happen A felony conviction for campaign finance law violations. :-)
- kijinbear 16y agoHaha, didn't think of that. What if the retired billionaire just ran for President himself?
- bioh42_2 16y agoI don't think just $1B would be enough. I don't think we would have an assassination... but I must admit I am so cynical that one would not terribly surprise me. However, by no means would just the president be enough. You have to keep in mind both the house and the senate are just as much in the pocket of lobbyist as the white house, in fact probably more so. And the president alone can declare war, grant pardons, and not much else. Also, we have to remember that a lot of Obama's funding, especially early on, came from true grass roots, and was in small units which added up big time. So he's as close to a people's candidate as we've had in a LOOONG time. And yet, even he black, constitutional scholar, the most charismatic public speaker in ~ 40 years, even he is succumbing to our cynical political realities. If he is not a transformative president who could ever be? Oh I know he passed health care, but how is more spending radically different from the Medicare drug benefit, or any of the other ways both Republicans and Democrats have grown the size of government over the years?
- lotusleaf1987 16y agoObama spent $1.7 billion in 2008: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aerix76GvmRM http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a... I think $1B is enough to tip the scales for the right candidate, but if everyone knew one candidate was being propped up by a billionaire it would immediately backfire.
- jbooth 16y agoThe Obama admin has actually been better than every other administration about disclosing lobbyist visits, etc. See my link below. Note that no congressional offices or subcommittees have followed suit (and really, if you're spending lobbyist dollars and looking for results, swaying a subcommittee chair is so much easier than swaying the president, and might accomplish more). I'd go as far as to say the problem is more "Washington in general and Congress in particular" than Obama. I mean, last week he was a socialist and now he's a plutocrat, too? The two philosophies are diametrically opposed, pick one.
- harold 16y agoI disagree. For example: The Obama administration has already failed to respond to more FOIA requests than the Bush administration. http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=11758 http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=11758 Obama Administration Aides meet with lobbyists off the White House grounds to avoid logging meetings: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50081.html http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50081.html More than 40 former lobbyists work in top positions in the administration, including three cabinet secretaries and the director of Central Intelligence. http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/former-lobbyists-senior-obama-administration-positions http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/former-lobbyists-seni...
- jbooth 16y agoOn your links: #1) Your first link makes absolutely no reference to the Bush administration. It supports my point, though, Obama created stricter guidelines instructing the agencies to fulfill more FOIA requests. And the agencies are falling short for whatever bureaucratic reason, seemingly that they can't work through the pile fast enough. Rome wasn't built in a day and all that. Thanks for the link though, I didn't know Obama had done that. I approve. #2) Some aides met with lobbyists off of white house ground to avoid logging the meetings? You mean to avoid the policy that Obama put in place and that had never existed before he was elected? Seems like he's working in the right direction, to me. Now we just need Congress to implement a similar rule. #3) Yeah, again, not perfect just yet. Want to compare/contrast with the number of former lobbyists who worked in the Bush white house, on the McCain campaign, or on John Boehner's staff? If you're reasoning backwards from "I've decided I don't like Obama", you can believe whatever you want. But the guy's history and all of his public pronouncements since taking office have been on the side of openness, and consistently against the influence of lobbyists. He's actually created a bunch of initiatives for more openness, the lobbyist visit thing and the data.gov thing being two of them. It's just plain disingenuous to claim that Obama is less in favor of openness than Dick Cheney. EDIT: Wow. Not usually one to whine about the voting but the guy's links actually say the opposite of what he's claiming. And he's upvoted. Just goes to show, you can believe whatever you want and vote that way too.
- yummyfajitas 16y agoWhile I don't like realtors much, I don't think it's fair to send them all to jail. They all took a long position in housing and the market punished them soundly for it. They now need to find a new career. Sending them to jail is overkill. Same for the millions of other people who contributed to the crisis - the real estate speculators/"homeowners" have lost lots of money. Construction workers have suffered 30% job losses. What next, sending people to jail for buying into the pets.com IPO?
- nostrademons 16y agoI think he was thinking of the peoeple at AIG or Lehman Bros or Goldman Sachs, who generally walked away with million dollar bonuses even if they did lose their jobs. A good number of people would be quite happy to lose their job for a million dollars.
- yummyfajitas 16y agoI see - he wasn't advocating punishing everyone responsible, he only wanted to punish a few high profile scapegoats.
- lotusleaf1987 16y agoRidiculous. How can a realtor possibly be as culpable as say, the people who were bundling the mortgages and selling them off as securities that were just known time-bombs? You just jumped on the OP's use of everyone, baited them with your realtors comment and somehow conclude that "he only wanted to punish a few high profile scapegoats" which is exactly what happens all the time anyways (remember Bernie Madoff?) Please watch "Inside Job" it shows how no one responsible for the financial disaster has been punished or even pursued. It's ridiculous. We just had the biggest financial crisis and everyone responsible got away with it. What is truly annoying is you're more concerned with the OP's use of "everyone" instead of focusing on the more important issues.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
- shareme 16y agoas I have stated before those felony laws already exist, both President and US Congress refused to enforce them and changed many of them at bankers request to avoid facing 'the music'..
- nazgulnarsil 16y agoso is "those gosh darned greedy bankers caused everything" the accepted meme at this point?
- danssig 16y agoFrankly, yes. Do you realize that before CDOs were made Deutche bank and friends took precautions to make sure they wouldn't be classified as gambling? They knew the danger of what they were creating and sought to make sure it wouldn't be regulated.
- nazgulnarsil 16y agoand why would people let banks gamble with their money unless it was guaranteed by FDIC? government being "the lender of last resort" really just means that eventually risk will be socialized. Of course private industry seeks to avoid regulation when it can. This does not make one evil.
- jbooth 16y agoIf anyone wants to see who she's heard from on the matter, you can just visit: http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/visitor-records http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/visitor-... and type "Espinel" into the search box on the little app. My sample size of one visitor name typed into Google yielded an ATT exec.
- snsr 16y agoThe fact that any ip related 'crime' is deemed serious enough to be a felony disgusts me. Espinel is bought and paid for.
- jrockway 16y agoIn the US, pretty much any crime other than jaywalking is a felony punishable by a mandatory sentence of 25-life in prison. "Land of the free" indeed.
- PostOnce 16y agoI don't want people to pirate my software, but I'd rather file sharers and individuals get away free than have a felony on their record or go to prison. Civil penalties are a good idea, possibly light criminal penalties, not a felony though, much less prison time. Commercial piracy is a different matter, and I don't have a thoroughly-considered opinion on what the punishment for it should be.
- electromagnetic 16y agoThe truly disturbing thing is that the felony charge can destroy peoples lives, and destroy peoples attempts to even run a normal life. I couldn't work my job with most felony charges, because I'm in construction and I work on other people's property my employer can't have me on payroll unless I'm bondable. If I have a criminal conviction my job is in danger, but if it's for theft I'm gone and I'm either forced to work under the radar or find a new job.
- alexqgb 16y agoKind of. But in spite of her fancy title, she's still just a staffer. But she reports to Biden, and as far as IP reform goes, he's as medieval as they come.
- snsr 16y agoThanks, my earlier comment reads as being more inflammatory than intended. The very existence of Mrs Espinel's position speaks volumes - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95702932 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9570293...
- jevinskie 16y agoIt appears that "streaming" infringing content is considered to be a public performance and thus exempt from felony prosecution while "reproducing" or "distributing" infringing content does. I honestly fail to see much of a difference between "streaming" and "distributing" so I am in favor of making the laws more consistent. Whether they should warrant felonies is a different discussion.
- archgoon 16y agoYou could also make it consistent by making public performances felony charges. I feel an Emerson quote coming on very shortly involving hobgoblins... Note, you do raise a good point, I'm just not sure that the consistency we want is in the direction that we're going in. Like you say, a separate discussion.
- smogzer 16y agoThought Crime ? The fact that a government is acting against its citizens in behalf of a minority, now that should be a crime.
- nhebb 16y agoNow that you mention it, US District Judge Gladys Kessler just ruled a few weeks ago that the federal government has the right to regulate "mental activity": http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/23/dont-think-of-a-health-insuran http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/23/dont-think-of-a-health-ins...
- georgieporgie 16y agoThat seems to be really badly taken out of context. From the one and only quote within the page you linked: As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power...However, this Court finds the distinction, which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little significance. It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not "acting," especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality. It doesn't look like he's saying that mental activity can be regulated by Congress, but rather the claim that deliberate choice not to do something is "mental activity" rather than "physical activity," and thus cannot be regulated, is a meaningless semantic game.
- warfangle 16y ago"Espinel suggests the creation of public performance rights for music on the radio, which the US already has for satellite broadcasting and webcasting. But the broadcasting lobby has opposed the move ferociously, claiming that its unique exemption from payment is because radio has such promotional force for artists." I'm actually a fan of this portion of it. It brings radio broadcasting in line with the harsh limits put on webcasting. I'd rather it be the opposite - that the limits on webcasting were brought in line with the (lack of) limits on radio broadcasting, but this is a good second best. The broadcasting establishment claims that radio is a huge promotional force for artists; why isn't the opposite true of webcasting (a la Pandora)? It would seem the promotion of artists is /better/ in webcasting, because the webcaster can link the listener directly to where they might purchase the artist's work - unlike in radio, where you must wait for the DJ to (maybe, once in a blue moon) announce what just played, and then have to google it yourself.
- zinkem 16y agoBecause radio creates monoculture and monoculture has less overhead.
- CWuestefeld 16y agoThere was "hope" for "change" from a regime that bullied citizens into supporting the government-blessed corporations. But this article shows (again) that our new regime still serves the entertainment industry (not to mention pharma companies). Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. We won't get fooled again.
- cmelbye 16y ago> We won't get fooled again. Yeah, we will (unfortunately.)
- JeremyBanks 16y ago> We won't get fooled again. What makes this time different than the last dozen?
- etherael 16y agoInstead you'll choose the other guy who will.. Oh wait.
- rayiner 16y agoSomething something "living Constitution" something something. I don't think I'd be going out on a limb if I said when the founding fathers penned the Copyright Clause, their original understanding only contemplated civil action.
- warmfuzzykitten 16y agoPerhaps the US could put these felons in Guantanamo?
- patrickgzill 16y agoA copyright infringement is a felony? Seriously?
- Natsu 16y agoIt can be already, under the NET ("No Electronic Theft") Act, if memory serves. But the feds usually have better things to do than to prosecute people for that sort of thing. Or at least they used to. It's clear that prosecuting infringers has become a priority recently. I expect more is to come.
- InclinedPlane 16y agoHow many malicious botnets are in operation in the US alone today? What resources are being brought to bear by the government in shutting them down? Priorities.
- bane 16y agoWhen everything is a felony, nothing is.