5 ms·

"potentially putting people in jail for embedding YouTube videos or just putting up YouTube lip synching videos. " Sounds like FUD If you read the amendment h

"potentially putting people in jail for embedding YouTube videos or just putting up YouTube lip synching videos. " Sounds like FUD If you read the amendment here http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.978 http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.978: It updates this http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00002319----000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00002319---... Which references this http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000506----000-.html#a_1_A http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_0... which then says the following (A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; (B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180–day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or (C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution. Basically, if you don't profit from it, you're cool so YouTube is safe.

jbooth 15y ago
B) and C) are basically "It's on the internet and a studio paid for its production". So they're always true. Now we only need an argument that you were doing it for private financial gain, to satisfy A). If you have adwords on the blog you're embedding the youtube video on? Sounds like a felony to me. The word "felony" should really be reserved for crimes that hurt people.
- migrantgeek 15y ago
  "The word "felony" should really be reserved for crimes that hurt people." Oh, I agree and don't agree with the law. Just stating that it's not as overreaching as stated by the linked article. I do not know much about the law I believe this comes down to interpretation by a judge which I hope will use their best judgement. I know there are cases where judges have been ignorant but that's why we have an appeals process. I'm certain that if court rooms are filled with bloggers embedding videos that these will either be thrown out in most cases or the law will be altered. I'm more worried about letters from lawyers to bloggers and others trying to bully them around with this law. The lawyers may know they can't win but may be able to scare someone enough to cough up cash to not go to court. Personally, I'd like an anti-bullying law to prevent companies from sending templated emails for profit.
  - lutorm 15y ago
    My trust in the courts to do the right thing went out with Eldred vs Ashcroft. And there's no appealing that one.
- Unseelie 15y ago
  No, you missed the point. A, or B, or C, If you posit that B or C are always true, you don't need A You only ever need one of the three.
rubyrescue 15y ago
which means anyone embedding a disputed video on a page with adsense then is profiting from it?
- migrantgeek 15y ago
  Yes, if someone is taking works from others without permission and posting it on a website where they make a profit, they should be fined and possibly jailed if they are repeat offenders. The law just gives companies more ammunition in the event of a case where someone is actually stealing content. There are sites that do nothing but stream movies and music for profit without giving anything to the content owner. They are clearly criminals. It's up to the court system to determine if the company has a case or not. I commented to note that the sky isn't falling and bloggers won't be thrown in jail by the thousands. Common sense will prevail in the end although some battles will have to be fought out in courts to set precedents. Nothing new here IMHO.
  - ahamlett 15y ago
    The court will say "OK you embedded a YouTube video that was copyrighted and made $2500 or more from advertisements so yes you have broken this new law". The court will only decide if a blogger has met all the requirements of this new law. If they have, and millions have, then they will be guilty of a felony. No matter if they get the least possible punishment that is still a felony! Even if someone is found innocent they will still have paid thousands of dollars to defend themselves! I don't trust courts to be just. The time I had to deal with a judge in court I was not treated fairly and was presumed guilty. Therefore, please don't tell me the courts will determine a fair and just outcome. Judges and the court system are just a bunch of disconnected old people who you hope to never have to deal with.
    - ctdonath 15y ago
      Another twist: what if the >$2500 profit was unintentional? Not a stupid question. I once posted an AP photo on my website. Just a minor "fair use" thing for a few friends. Longer story short: within hours, DrudgeReport.com linked to it, AP lawyers threatened me, and traffic was so heavy I couldn't even access my own website to remove the pic. Had I adwords or some such to generate a few measly dollars to offset pocket-change costs, and rendered the image as a video instead (sensible for the content) the sudden attention could have easily generated a felony-inducing profit. Unintended consequences indeed.
sehugg 15y ago
These are "or"s, not "and"s. Also from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act The NET Act amended the definition of "commercial advantage or private financial gain" to include the "receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works" Sounds like a pretty broad definition to me, since "anything of value" could potentially mean goodwill, exposure, campaign donations, etc. The bill's title "Commercial Felony Streaming Act" is a red herring. The intent (as was in the 1997 act linked above) is to prosecute any and all copyright infringement.
- migrantgeek 15y ago
  I could be wrong but I thought it read A and B or C.
georgieporgie 15y ago
I think it's total bullshit that all your comments are getting downvoted. I don't like this law, but I'm not going to take it out on you.

jbooth 15y ago

B) and C) are basically "It's on the internet and a studio paid for its production". So they're always true. Now we only need an argument that you were doing it for private financial gain, to satisfy A). If you have adwords on the blog you're embedding the youtube video on? Sounds like a felony to me. The word "felony" should really be reserved for crimes that hurt people.

migrantgeek 15y ago
"The word "felony" should really be reserved for crimes that hurt people." Oh, I agree and don't agree with the law. Just stating that it's not as overreaching as stated by the linked article. I do not know much about the law I believe this comes down to interpretation by a judge which I hope will use their best judgement. I know there are cases where judges have been ignorant but that's why we have an appeals process. I'm certain that if court rooms are filled with bloggers embedding videos that these will either be thrown out in most cases or the law will be altered. I'm more worried about letters from lawyers to bloggers and others trying to bully them around with this law. The lawyers may know they can't win but may be able to scare someone enough to cough up cash to not go to court. Personally, I'd like an anti-bullying law to prevent companies from sending templated emails for profit.
- lutorm 15y ago
  My trust in the courts to do the right thing went out with Eldred vs Ashcroft. And there's no appealing that one.
Unseelie 15y ago
No, you missed the point. A, or B, or C, If you posit that B or C are always true, you don't need A You only ever need one of the three.

rubyrescue 15y ago

which means anyone embedding a disputed video on a page with adsense then is profiting from it?

migrantgeek 15y ago
Yes, if someone is taking works from others without permission and posting it on a website where they make a profit, they should be fined and possibly jailed if they are repeat offenders. The law just gives companies more ammunition in the event of a case where someone is actually stealing content. There are sites that do nothing but stream movies and music for profit without giving anything to the content owner. They are clearly criminals. It's up to the court system to determine if the company has a case or not. I commented to note that the sky isn't falling and bloggers won't be thrown in jail by the thousands. Common sense will prevail in the end although some battles will have to be fought out in courts to set precedents. Nothing new here IMHO.
- ahamlett 15y ago
  The court will say "OK you embedded a YouTube video that was copyrighted and made $2500 or more from advertisements so yes you have broken this new law". The court will only decide if a blogger has met all the requirements of this new law. If they have, and millions have, then they will be guilty of a felony. No matter if they get the least possible punishment that is still a felony! Even if someone is found innocent they will still have paid thousands of dollars to defend themselves! I don't trust courts to be just. The time I had to deal with a judge in court I was not treated fairly and was presumed guilty. Therefore, please don't tell me the courts will determine a fair and just outcome. Judges and the court system are just a bunch of disconnected old people who you hope to never have to deal with.
  - ctdonath 15y ago
    Another twist: what if the >$2500 profit was unintentional? Not a stupid question. I once posted an AP photo on my website. Just a minor "fair use" thing for a few friends. Longer story short: within hours, DrudgeReport.com linked to it, AP lawyers threatened me, and traffic was so heavy I couldn't even access my own website to remove the pic. Had I adwords or some such to generate a few measly dollars to offset pocket-change costs, and rendered the image as a video instead (sensible for the content) the sudden attention could have easily generated a felony-inducing profit. Unintended consequences indeed.

sehugg 15y ago

These are "or"s, not "and"s. Also from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act The NET Act amended the definition of "commercial advantage or private financial gain" to include the "receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works" Sounds like a pretty broad definition to me, since "anything of value" could potentially mean goodwill, exposure, campaign donations, etc. The bill's title "Commercial Felony Streaming Act" is a red herring. The intent (as was in the 1997 act linked above) is to prosecute any and all copyright infringement.

migrantgeek 15y ago
I could be wrong but I thought it read A and B or C.

georgieporgie 15y ago

I think it's total bullshit that all your comments are getting downvoted. I don't like this law, but I'm not going to take it out on you.