6 ms·

Senate Voting to make Unauthorized Streaming a Felony

48 points by Urgo 15y ago

tomp 15y ago
IANAL and I haven't seen the original text of the bill, I believe this sensational title omits one crucial piece of information: unauthorized streaming for commercial purposes (for profit) will become a felony, not "personal" streaming.
- megamark16 15y ago
  So if you embed a YouTube video on your blog (that you have adwords on, of course) and it turns out that someone claims copyright infringement, you could be looking at jail time and a felony records. IANAL, and I haven't read the original text of the bill either, but I really don't like the idea of the government playing cop for the media companies. I think there are probably bigger problems that our government could be focusing on, that's all.
  - nextparadigms 15y ago
    I agree. It seems like all of the sudden copyright infringement is on the Government's priority list, just under terrorism. No doubt the lobbyist kept telling them that if they don't do something about copyright infringement "hundreds of billions of dollars" and millions of jobs will be lost.
  - mattdeboard 15y ago
    "If passed, the bill will make illegal streaming for commercial purposes a felony punishable by up to five years in prison -- if the streaming in question involves ten or more instances of streaming copyrighted works during a 180-day period, and if the retail value of the stream exceeds $2500, or the licenses to the material are worth more than $5000." If you penetrate these limits, odds are pretty good that the copyrighted material was obviously copyrighted material and you were being pretty wanton about it. I'm all about small government and keeping their hands off things they don't understand, but I'm not sure how anyone can be opposed to them enforcing laws.
    - danneu 15y ago
      But it's a felony.
      - mattdeboard 15y ago
        ...and? If you don't want a felony, don't illegally stream? You don't get to do whatever you want just because it's easily done sitting in front of your computer without pants on. As much as the media companies have done to villify themselves in the past decade (and more), that doesn't change the fact that their claims to material are real, and are worth some amount of money. Those are facts. In many cases, such as PPV fights or sporting events, much of the value comes via exclusivity. By illegally streaming such shows, you are, in real terms, diluting the value of their rights to that material. I realize this isn't a popular opinion among many people. However, it doesn't change the reality you're not entitled to take whatever you want from companies simply because it's socially acceptable. There are consequences to your actions. In this case, the consequences turn out to be a felony charge. One final edit before this post becomes completely invisible: Read the amendment, for fuck's sake. The vast majority of respondents here are having a knee-jerk emotional reaction that doesn't actually reflect what's in the amendment. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s978is/pdf/BILLS-112s978is.pdf http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s978is/pdf/BILLS-112s9... You're not going to jail for watching Hangover 2 a couple of times. You're going to be facing potential jailtime and fines for streaming it to a sufficient number of people with the intent of making a profit off of it.
        cowkingdeluxe 15y ago
        Still not worth a felony.
        megamark16 15y ago
        Exactly. To treat someone who streamed The Hangover 2 with more strict criminal repercussions than someone who committed attempted rape seems really really stupid. Also, an I the only one who wishes that the government would hand out some of the 5 year felony prison sentences to the bankers who have been committing fraud the last couple of years?
  - hugh3 15y ago
    I really don't like the idea of the government playing cop for the media companies This seems like a silly argument. It's the Government's job to "play cop". I mean, that's why, as you may have noticed, actual cops are government employees. Protecting property rights, whether physical or intellectual, is part of the Government's job. You can argue about the execution of it if you like, and you can even argue about whether existing intellectual property laws are just. But complaining that the government is "playing cop" seems misguided.
    - megamark16 15y ago
      Obviously the role of executive branch of the government is to "play cop", but in context I'm simply stating that I don't like the idea of our government being the security guard for the media companies, and while it is their job to carry out the law, I wish they would enact laws that made a little more sense.
- sehugg 15y ago
  >unauthorized streaming for commercial purposes (for profit) will become a felony, not "personal" streaming. I don't think that's the intent at all. This bill is an extension of the 1997 NET Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act) which was specifically designed to make it possible for non-commercial copyright infringement to be prosecuted as a criminal offense. Also read this testimony, in particular the mention of "private financial gain" which is a very broad definition: http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat060111.html http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat060111.html Anyone claiming this can only be applied to commercial infringement is blowing smoke. The title of the bill "Commercial Felony Streaming Act" should be changed to "Felony Streaming Act".
pygy_ 15y ago
Sentate _Commmitee_ Votes to Make Illegal Streaming a Felony Please update the title. While the story is worrying, this is misleading and needlessly sensationalist.
int3rnaut 15y ago
Maybe I'm not fully comprehending the validity of this bill--so is profiting via illegal streaming a big thing in the United States? Judging from their reasoning, and not to get ethical, but is this really the answer to this issue?
smogzer 15y ago
when the government represents the interest of a small group agains the people that voted for them is time for change: meta-government + minarquism.
smokeyj 15y ago
Not to commit thought-crime, but why is this anyone's priority in Washington?
- hugh3 15y ago
  Not to commit thought-crime This kind of rhetoric doesn't really advance the discussion.
  - smokeyj 15y ago
    We're all using rhetoric here. Calling a digital pattern "property" doesn't really advance the discussion either. So long as patterns are a criminal offense I will continue to be wary of engaging in thought-crime.
lurchpop 15y ago
The example always given is a youtube video. Why is Youtube not liable??
lurchpop 15y ago
So if i make a $2500 profit from accidentally embedding a copyrighted youtube video on my blog, the government (taxpayers) will need to pay $150,000 to jail me for 5 years. Seems logical.

48 points by Urgo 15y ago

tomp 15y ago

IANAL and I haven't seen the original text of the bill, I believe this sensational title omits one crucial piece of information: unauthorized streaming for commercial purposes (for profit) will become a felony, not "personal" streaming.

megamark16 15y ago
So if you embed a YouTube video on your blog (that you have adwords on, of course) and it turns out that someone claims copyright infringement, you could be looking at jail time and a felony records. IANAL, and I haven't read the original text of the bill either, but I really don't like the idea of the government playing cop for the media companies. I think there are probably bigger problems that our government could be focusing on, that's all.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  I agree. It seems like all of the sudden copyright infringement is on the Government's priority list, just under terrorism. No doubt the lobbyist kept telling them that if they don't do something about copyright infringement "hundreds of billions of dollars" and millions of jobs will be lost.
- mattdeboard 15y ago
  "If passed, the bill will make illegal streaming for commercial purposes a felony punishable by up to five years in prison -- if the streaming in question involves ten or more instances of streaming copyrighted works during a 180-day period, and if the retail value of the stream exceeds $2500, or the licenses to the material are worth more than $5000." If you penetrate these limits, odds are pretty good that the copyrighted material was obviously copyrighted material and you were being pretty wanton about it. I'm all about small government and keeping their hands off things they don't understand, but I'm not sure how anyone can be opposed to them enforcing laws.
  - danneu 15y ago
    But it's a felony.
    - mattdeboard 15y ago
      ...and? If you don't want a felony, don't illegally stream? You don't get to do whatever you want just because it's easily done sitting in front of your computer without pants on. As much as the media companies have done to villify themselves in the past decade (and more), that doesn't change the fact that their claims to material are real, and are worth some amount of money. Those are facts. In many cases, such as PPV fights or sporting events, much of the value comes via exclusivity. By illegally streaming such shows, you are, in real terms, diluting the value of their rights to that material. I realize this isn't a popular opinion among many people. However, it doesn't change the reality you're not entitled to take whatever you want from companies simply because it's socially acceptable. There are consequences to your actions. In this case, the consequences turn out to be a felony charge. One final edit before this post becomes completely invisible: Read the amendment, for fuck's sake. The vast majority of respondents here are having a knee-jerk emotional reaction that doesn't actually reflect what's in the amendment. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s978is/pdf/BILLS-112s978is.pdf http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s978is/pdf/BILLS-112s9... You're not going to jail for watching Hangover 2 a couple of times. You're going to be facing potential jailtime and fines for streaming it to a sufficient number of people with the intent of making a profit off of it.
      - cowkingdeluxe 15y ago
        Still not worth a felony.
        megamark16 15y ago
        Exactly. To treat someone who streamed The Hangover 2 with more strict criminal repercussions than someone who committed attempted rape seems really really stupid. Also, an I the only one who wishes that the government would hand out some of the 5 year felony prison sentences to the bankers who have been committing fraud the last couple of years?
- hugh3 15y ago
  I really don't like the idea of the government playing cop for the media companies This seems like a silly argument. It's the Government's job to "play cop". I mean, that's why, as you may have noticed, actual cops are government employees. Protecting property rights, whether physical or intellectual, is part of the Government's job. You can argue about the execution of it if you like, and you can even argue about whether existing intellectual property laws are just. But complaining that the government is "playing cop" seems misguided.
  - megamark16 15y ago
    Obviously the role of executive branch of the government is to "play cop", but in context I'm simply stating that I don't like the idea of our government being the security guard for the media companies, and while it is their job to carry out the law, I wish they would enact laws that made a little more sense.
sehugg 15y ago
>unauthorized streaming for commercial purposes (for profit) will become a felony, not "personal" streaming. I don't think that's the intent at all. This bill is an extension of the 1997 NET Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act) which was specifically designed to make it possible for non-commercial copyright infringement to be prosecuted as a criminal offense. Also read this testimony, in particular the mention of "private financial gain" which is a very broad definition: http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat060111.html http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat060111.html Anyone claiming this can only be applied to commercial infringement is blowing smoke. The title of the bill "Commercial Felony Streaming Act" should be changed to "Felony Streaming Act".

pygy_ 15y ago

Sentate _Commmitee_ Votes to Make Illegal Streaming a Felony Please update the title. While the story is worrying, this is misleading and needlessly sensationalist.

int3rnaut 15y ago

Maybe I'm not fully comprehending the validity of this bill--so is profiting via illegal streaming a big thing in the United States? Judging from their reasoning, and not to get ethical, but is this really the answer to this issue?

smogzer 15y ago

when the government represents the interest of a small group agains the people that voted for them is time for change: meta-government + minarquism.

smokeyj 15y ago

Not to commit thought-crime, but why is this anyone's priority in Washington?

hugh3 15y ago
Not to commit thought-crime This kind of rhetoric doesn't really advance the discussion.
- smokeyj 15y ago
  We're all using rhetoric here. Calling a digital pattern "property" doesn't really advance the discussion either. So long as patterns are a criminal offense I will continue to be wary of engaging in thought-crime.

lurchpop 15y ago

The example always given is a youtube video. Why is Youtube not liable??

lurchpop 15y ago

So if i make a $2500 profit from accidentally embedding a copyrighted youtube video on my blog, the government (taxpayers) will need to pay $150,000 to jail me for 5 years. Seems logical.