6 ms·

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 loo

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?
        pasbesoin 15y ago
        Also, the more time and resources they spend chasing "copyright infringers", the less they're going to spend preventing and solving the crimes most of us worry about. (And since the "entertainment industry" is hardly going to rescue the U.S. economy, I really don't give much of a cr-p about its fortunes -- which it already bolsters by producing things in Canada, Ireland, now Eastern Europe or wherever else, whenever it can.)
        danneu 15y ago
        Why is this voted down?
    - Unseelie 15y ago
      On what basis do you justify laws which illegalize socially acceptable behaviors, and why do you start what people are entitled to at the law? Surely the law should follow society, rather than society following the law.
      - mattdeboard 15y ago
        Sure, but I was speaking of lowercase 's' society, not "society-at-large". Friends, acquaintances, family, etc. Despite what we all may wish would be the case, it's not socially acceptable to deprive rights holders and content producers of the financial value of their rights/content. The notion of rights to content takes primacy over the notion of streaming UFC 500 or whatever they're up to now.
- r00fus 15y ago
  Considering there is no standard "valuation" except what the content owner says it is, that entire clause is useless. Any stream can likely be valued over $2500 by some shady accounting. Copyright infringement should a civil issue, not a criminal one. The Corporatocracy is here.
- sehugg 15y ago
  The MPAA claims that it will only target website owners who "willfully and knowingly violated a copyright and profited from it." The organization says it will not look to prosecute those who "stream videos without intending to profit". I'd like this sort of promise to come from my government, not an industry organization.
  - lurchpop 15y ago
    Those promises never hold weight though if the letter of the law allows that prosecution. I remember a certain presidential candidate saying he wouldn't go after nonviolent pot offenders.
- fragsworth 15y ago
  So someone records a video of their cat, music happens to be in the background, and the video happens to go viral and become a huge hit. If they are a Youtube partner, and make money off the videos, they would be subject to this law, even if the music in the video was largely irrelevant.
  - mattdeboard 15y ago
    Doesn't fall under the purview of the law as written.
    - pavel_lishin 15y ago
      I haven't read the law, but how does it now? You're streaming Lady Gaga's "Born This Way" while your cat is attacking a box, it gets 100 views within six months. Clearly the song is worth more than $5000.
      - mattdeboard 15y ago
        I have read the proposed law (it's literally like 200 words long, it modifies an already-existing law), and it's because you didn't set up the stream with the explicit intent to make it a commercial enterprise. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s978is/pdf/BILLS-112s978is.pdf http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s978is/pdf/BILLS-112s9...
        sorbus 15y ago
        There doesn't appear to be anything in that about intent. Hell, you don't even need to make money off of the stream - it applies if the cost to license whatever works are being used exceeds $5000.
      - hugh3 15y ago
        OK, how would you choose to rewrite the law, in order to only target the things that the law is actually trying to target? Many arguments about intellectual property get confusing, because the folks making arguments like "this law is aimed at targeting X but theoretically could be used to target Y and hence will result in the entire population being locked up" are folks who don't actually think X should be illegal either. In this case the real targets are the folks who are quite deliberately making websites that serve copyrighted material for profit. We all know that these exist -- just type "watch [your favourite tv show] online" and about a dozen of 'em will pop up. If we assume that we want to make this illegal (I know I sure as hell wouldn't want somebody else making money off my intellectual property without my permission) then how can we rewrite this law to do that, while protecting the theoretical case where the camera accidentally pans past a television while recording a cat?
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.

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?
      - pasbesoin 15y ago
        Also, the more time and resources they spend chasing "copyright infringers", the less they're going to spend preventing and solving the crimes most of us worry about. (And since the "entertainment industry" is hardly going to rescue the U.S. economy, I really don't give much of a cr-p about its fortunes -- which it already bolsters by producing things in Canada, Ireland, now Eastern Europe or wherever else, whenever it can.)
        danneu 15y ago
        Why is this voted down?
  - Unseelie 15y ago
    On what basis do you justify laws which illegalize socially acceptable behaviors, and why do you start what people are entitled to at the law? Surely the law should follow society, rather than society following the law.
    - mattdeboard 15y ago
      Sure, but I was speaking of lowercase 's' society, not "society-at-large". Friends, acquaintances, family, etc. Despite what we all may wish would be the case, it's not socially acceptable to deprive rights holders and content producers of the financial value of their rights/content. The notion of rights to content takes primacy over the notion of streaming UFC 500 or whatever they're up to now.
r00fus 15y ago
Considering there is no standard "valuation" except what the content owner says it is, that entire clause is useless. Any stream can likely be valued over $2500 by some shady accounting. Copyright infringement should a civil issue, not a criminal one. The Corporatocracy is here.
sehugg 15y ago
The MPAA claims that it will only target website owners who "willfully and knowingly violated a copyright and profited from it." The organization says it will not look to prosecute those who "stream videos without intending to profit". I'd like this sort of promise to come from my government, not an industry organization.
- lurchpop 15y ago
  Those promises never hold weight though if the letter of the law allows that prosecution. I remember a certain presidential candidate saying he wouldn't go after nonviolent pot offenders.
fragsworth 15y ago
So someone records a video of their cat, music happens to be in the background, and the video happens to go viral and become a huge hit. If they are a Youtube partner, and make money off the videos, they would be subject to this law, even if the music in the video was largely irrelevant.
- mattdeboard 15y ago
  Doesn't fall under the purview of the law as written.
  - pavel_lishin 15y ago
    I haven't read the law, but how does it now? You're streaming Lady Gaga's "Born This Way" while your cat is attacking a box, it gets 100 views within six months. Clearly the song is worth more than $5000.
    - mattdeboard 15y ago
      I have read the proposed law (it's literally like 200 words long, it modifies an already-existing law), and it's because you didn't set up the stream with the explicit intent to make it a commercial enterprise. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s978is/pdf/BILLS-112s978is.pdf http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s978is/pdf/BILLS-112s9...
      - sorbus 15y ago
        There doesn't appear to be anything in that about intent. Hell, you don't even need to make money off of the stream - it applies if the cost to license whatever works are being used exceeds $5000.
    - hugh3 15y ago
      OK, how would you choose to rewrite the law, in order to only target the things that the law is actually trying to target? Many arguments about intellectual property get confusing, because the folks making arguments like "this law is aimed at targeting X but theoretically could be used to target Y and hence will result in the entire population being locked up" are folks who don't actually think X should be illegal either. In this case the real targets are the folks who are quite deliberately making websites that serve copyrighted material for profit. We all know that these exist -- just type "watch [your favourite tv show] online" and about a dozen of 'em will pop up. If we assume that we want to make this illegal (I know I sure as hell wouldn't want somebody else making money off my intellectual property without my permission) then how can we rewrite this law to do that, while protecting the theoretical case where the camera accidentally pans past a television while recording a cat?

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.