5 ms·

I just called John Cornyn's Washington office at 202-224-2934 and talked to an aide about S. 978 because I live in Texas. He explained a few details of the bil

I just called John Cornyn's Washington office at 202-224-2934 and talked to an aide about S. 978 because I live in Texas. He explained a few details of the bill to me like how it only applies when the economic value of the public video streaming is above $2500. I asked if this would include a blogger who makes more than $2500 from ads on his blog and he said yes. Then I gave an example of a blogger embedding a YouTube video which is copyrighted in a blog post, even if the blogger removes the video after finding out it is copyrighted, to which he just said "OK, I will notify John Cornyn". I tried my best to express my concern that millions of people including myself could be charged with a felony if this bill gets passed, but I don't think my effort will work. I don't think the people passing this bill, like my Texas senator John Cornyn, can see the dangers in making it illegal to embed videos. Maybe they just don't care because they don't use the internet the same way younger / technology efficient people use it?

jim_h 15y ago
It's great that you called. Unfortunately it seems like most, if not all, politicians are shielded and you can't reach (talk to) them directly unless you're connected in some way.
- learc83 15y ago
  That's why we should get rid of the cap of 435 reps in the House. It was never supposed to work that way.
jbooth 15y ago
They don't care because they haven't heard the other side of the story, nobody's employing lobbyists to defend medium-time bloggers. Moreover, many senators and congressmen, especially Cornyn, have determined that "capitalism" means "support entrenched business interests through favorable legislation" rather than all that hooplah about competition we learned in school.
- lutorm 15y ago
  I liked how the Economist put it (that was about GW Bush): "Being business-friendly is not the same as being market-friendly."
runningdogx 15y ago
I believe you got snookered by the aide. The crime is conditioned on $2500 of income to the infringer, _or_ $2500 loss to the copyright holder, _or_ a $5000 or more licensing fee for said content. It is not clear, if those damage requirements are met, that there is any requirement -- other than non-zero economic advantage from the infringement, as required by 506 (a)(1)(A) -- that the infringer actually made lots of money as a result of the instance of copyright infringement. It is also unclear what "total retail value", "total economic value", and "fair market value" (all of which are used in the bill) mean in the context of a form of property that is given artificial monopoly status. If someone uploads an unreleased Justin Bieber video to youtube and it gets 1 hit, then Bieber releases that video in a limited collector's edition at $2600 USD, is that youtube uploader a felon? The text of the bill is very short: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.978 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.978: (include the last ':') And 18 USC 2319 which it affects is also very short: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2319.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2319.html

jim_h 15y ago

It's great that you called. Unfortunately it seems like most, if not all, politicians are shielded and you can't reach (talk to) them directly unless you're connected in some way.

learc83 15y ago
That's why we should get rid of the cap of 435 reps in the House. It was never supposed to work that way.

jbooth 15y ago

They don't care because they haven't heard the other side of the story, nobody's employing lobbyists to defend medium-time bloggers. Moreover, many senators and congressmen, especially Cornyn, have determined that "capitalism" means "support entrenched business interests through favorable legislation" rather than all that hooplah about competition we learned in school.

lutorm 15y ago
I liked how the Economist put it (that was about GW Bush): "Being business-friendly is not the same as being market-friendly."

runningdogx 15y ago

I believe you got snookered by the aide. The crime is conditioned on $2500 of income to the infringer, _or_ $2500 loss to the copyright holder, _or_ a $5000 or more licensing fee for said content. It is not clear, if those damage requirements are met, that there is any requirement -- other than non-zero economic advantage from the infringement, as required by 506 (a)(1)(A) -- that the infringer actually made lots of money as a result of the instance of copyright infringement. It is also unclear what "total retail value", "total economic value", and "fair market value" (all of which are used in the bill) mean in the context of a form of property that is given artificial monopoly status. If someone uploads an unreleased Justin Bieber video to youtube and it gets 1 hit, then Bieber releases that video in a limited collector's edition at $2600 USD, is that youtube uploader a felon? The text of the bill is very short: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.978 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.978: (include the last ':') And 18 USC 2319 which it affects is also very short: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2319.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2319.html