Congress wants to make streaming copyrighted media a FELONY
http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/ten_strikes/?source=fb
Tell Congress to oppose S. 978, the new "Ten Strikes" bill
Here they go again: Big business's lobbyists are launching another attack on Internet freedom. Senators are considering a "Ten Strikes" bill to make it a felony to stream copyrighted content -- like music in the background of a Youtube video -- more than ten times.
As the writers at TechDirt point out, under this bill you could go to jail for posting video of your friends singing karaoke:
The entertainment industry is freaking out about sites that embed and stream infringing content, and want law enforcement to put people in jail over it, rather than filing civil lawsuits.... We already pointed to one possibility: that people embedding YouTube videos could face five years in jail. Now, others are pointing out that it could also put kids who lip sync to popular songs, and post the resulting videos on YouTube, in jail as well.
That's right: Ten strikes and you could get jail time.
Less than a month ago, the Hollywood industry magazine, Variety, reported, "Industry lobbyists pressed House members on Wednesday to pass legislation that would make illegal streaming of movies, TV shows and other types of content a felony...."
Only a few weeks later, the MPAA is getting its wish.
Will you email your lawmakers and tell them to vote against the Ten Strikes Bill?
Just add your info at right to automatically send this note to them, under your name and from your address. (You can edit the letter if you'd like to.)
Just sign on at right and we'll send an email to your lawmakers.
Replies
In all honesty I hardly listen to older music or even newer music after about 10-20 plays, music Is not that big of a deal anymore this isn't the Napster days... old people.
You're missing the point a bit here, it would be illegal, for someone who does not own the copyright. Bands/publisher posting official videos... They own the rights to the music, they are free to do whatever they want.
This is just getting to stupid proportions. This is not what the founders of the constitution intended when they granted congress the power to, "in order to promote the progress of the useful sciences and arts", create copyright and patent law. This is so beyond the point of reason, you can't see the light back to reason. This is wrong, just wrong.
Since when did infringement become a higher crime than assault and battery?
Yes and it's sick. Protests are pushed into the dark corners where nobody will see them by so-called "free speech zones", the TSA assumes we're all carrying bombs (including our children) so they have to irradiate, humiliate, and grope us (and our children) to maintain the illusion that they're protecting us from each other. Cops are making up bullshit charges to use on people filming their questionable actions in public or arresting people for dancing silently in the Jefferson memorial (Jefferson, a staunch supporter of freedom of expression would be appalled). 200 miles within the US national borders are "constitution free zones" where your rights supposedly don't exist because they have to stop the 'terrists and those illegal aliens that tuk ur jerbz! Liberties are being eroded for the sake of "security". Truthfully, you're better off with a criminal than a cop. At least when a mugger gets your wallet and/or mobile phone, they'll leave you alone in most cases. If you piss off a cop, he'll beat your ass and drag you to jail whether he had just cause or not. They don't like it when you shatter their illusion of unquestioned authority.
Oh and did I mention this kid is FUCKED!
[ame]
Yeah, sorry. Civil rights violations kinda hit a nerve with me.
I can see it now: Some crazed drug offender gets early paroled and then goes on a killing rampage on a crowded school bus. Then we find out the only reason he was paroled was to make space in prison for some kid who was unlucky enough to be caught watching some youtube videos.
The lawmakers and big industry in this country are so out of touch with reality it's not funny anymore
It was never funny, but I get your meaning.
Granted it has no chance of passing (I hope), but still the fact that some idiot(s) taking industry bribes (campaign contributions heh) is planning to put this forward to a vote... all while the soldiers need to come home, the economy needs fixing, and the budget needs balancing.
Whoever it is that is wasting the countries time and money on this needs to be banned from politics and law for life!
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-978
Who are these people!? Ah here we go:
Klobuchar, Amy - (D - MN) Class I
302 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3244
http://klobuchar.senate.gov/emailamy.cfm
Coons, Christopher A. - (D - DE) Class II
127A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5042
http://coons.senate.gov/contact/
Cornyn, John - (R - TX) Class II
517 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2934
http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactForm
302 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3244"
Man, one of my senators is in on this? This will not do!
Jail is a walk in the park these days. You get TV in your cells, game consoles, books, free college....
Clearly someone needs to watch Hard Time on Nat Geo.
What are you in Jail for? Murder? Armed Robbery? Abuse? Narcotics?...No I made a Dragon Ball Z music video with a Hanna Montana song 10 times!
I was appalled by this whole thread up until I realized that he would be put in jail...
Now I see the upside.
Unfortunately, they've been trying all they can to kill fair use. They don't care that they're destroying people's ability to make beneficial use of content, they just can't stand the idea of people using content in ways that don't make money for them.
I doubt they will get the result that they want, but its the only way they will learn.
are you willing to be one of the innocent people who has to go to prison and get a felony on their record just so those fat fucks can "learn a lesson"?
No, but I dont for one second think it would go that far, there would be outrage from the media and general populus at the first felony. Then there would be backtracking and the usual we made a mistake.
Even the idea of implementing it is so stupidly unfeasible, what with the structures already in place and the populations perception.
Originally, I got the gist that ANY "Let's Play" stuff, music, ingame audio, snippets and everything was essentially being folded in under the parent company. Meaning if we did something with said stuff, we would be liable to a fine or payment, once we reached the 10 strike count.
Lets say if someone wanted to make another Portal joke, in a video, like "Chell's mind", they would have to contact Valve to get the rights to do so.
I found this stupid, because I really doubt that Valve has lawyers and assistants waiting on communication devices 24/7 replying to every email, hell, I don't think Ubisoft, EA and Activision combined together with Sony, Nintendo and MS would be able to tackle this issue, the huge piles of letters that must line up their boxes with people asking the right to show video X,Y,Z. Plus, with Duke Nukem's recent PR issue, companies could very well close any video that don't like.
Plus, it would require some investment on behalf of the users to get some paperwork done as well a decent backing of the law, bigger companies can pull this off easily, especially reviewers, but anyone else?
However, upon further looking up on said issue, I don't get the following things about it. So I'll break it down more.
The person committing infringement in question has to upload 10 of said 'items' within a time period of 180 days, meaning the person who is performing the uploading of said material is being charged on this point, plus they also have to make 2,500$ from said act.
If said video was used under fair license, they would need to pass the 5000$ mark inorder to get fined. In either case, pending on the severity, the prison time should be less then 5 years.
Now, people are saying it's a 10 strike count for the WATCHER and the UPLOADER depending certain variables, but I yet have to hear those.
To top it off, again, this is what the internet is yelling at me: The company must specifically state at the beginning if something be reproduced with Authorization or not, and this can goes back to being tackled with my first set of paragraphs about amount of money being made when it should be free.
I'm confused...each point seems to be there to contradict or confuse another point. I understand that this is need to stop uploading of full fledged movies and episodes online, but the larger context of the bill is too vague for comfort, so it really breaks more areas then fixes them.
though i don't think it will have a huge effect since how many people make money by posting content on YT, so i doubt someone will make 5k on copyrighted material.
stuff like this would prolly have the biggest effect on mash-up artists who sell songs or videos
Squeeze harder.
But its turning blue and stopped breathing.
That means its working! KEEP SQUEEZING!
That's how my phallus and testicles feels most nights...
*ba-dum-tish*
- the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
- the nature of the copyrighted work;
- the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[1]I highly doubt they'll get any money from people in lawsuits that cost the companies more than what they'd actually get back.
It has everything to do with companies wanting to control the spread of their content, for good and for bad.
Expand fair use I say, mashups and creations on youtube is a wonderful thing that can even help the further spread of the content of these companies. However I have nothing against stopping unlicensed streaming of full movies or series on different places.
It's a bit of a gray area. If someone gains extreme popularity from doing things that would fall under some kind of fair use, then they could gain money from either ads, donations or extended services.
There are shitty abusive people on both ends of the IP struggle, no one is reasonable.
how the hell do the US gov, hope to enforce something like this?
the cost of obtaining subpoenas from courts in order to gain address/personal information from ISP's regarding specific IP addresses, and then sending billy bob the policeman to go and get that person, will be high enough.
not to mention, the internet is a global freeway... and since i live in england i can (and will if the bill passes) say "FUCK YOU AMERICA", and start streaming every single one of my music and video files.
Doesn't mean the law is good but it helps to keep things in perspective instead of pretending like every kid on youtube is going to be a convicted felon after this passes. Odds are in 99% of the cases no one will even try to enforce this on them. Again though, that doesn't mean it's alright.
Fortunately I highly doubt this is ever going to actually pass.
Campaign contributions mostly. We're at a point where being a politician has become a career choice and not a public service, politicians are constantly raising money for their next election so that they can stay in office.
http://maplight.org/us-congress/bill/112-s-978/954321/total-contributions?sort=asc&order=%24+From+Interest+Groups%3Cbr+%2F%3EThat+Support
So far 86 million dollars has been 'contributed' by interest groups supporting this bill.
They won't pursue legal action unless it's at the request of a copyright holder. The only situation I could see law enforcement trying to enforce this on their own is if they're already charging you with something and want additional leverage.
Bingo. That's why we have drug laws in the US in the first place. It puts the dirty brown people in jail so the uppity white people don't have to afraid of them (the preceding was an exaggerated stereotype, I'm not racist). As much as drugs disgust me, I don't want to see them outlawed. It just creates a market for criminals and the prison industry to make lots of money without doing a damn to stop it and the violence is creates.
The way you've interpreted it is exactly what they want and exactly why trash like this gets anywhere at all. They put a tiny bit of legitimacy into the bill to hide the actual intent. This is how most bills are written and why most bills are written.
Kids on youtube are the people who are being targetted because it's a scare tactic and scare tactics don't work for normal people unless you target other normal people. The theory is that if a bunch of kids on youtube hear that some other kid on youtube got sent to jail for 5 years for watching some videos, the rest of them will not want to take the risk.
Of course, this doesn't work at all (again, history says hi) but the People With Money don't like thinking so they just keep trying the same ineffective trick rather than making any attempt to adapt whatsoever. The politicians profit, the lawyers profit, the lobbyists profit, the internet gets to rage (yay!) and nothing changes.
Big media wants absolute control over how, when, and on what device you enjoy your content so that they can pinch every penny out of every different use of the same content. It's like charging extra because you read the newspaper while drinking your coffee instead of gargling a mouthful of their reproductive fluids. That's dramatic, I know. Though it is getting to feel that way.
It's not dramatic, it's the truth. Rich, and politically powerful old Americans are just completely disillusioned. It's a symptom of an old era. These old white men born in the 40's and 50's don't realize what the media has become for the common person. They see content users as a commodity, not people just wanting to enjoy the myriad of entertainment being offered today. They also think that we're little monkeys who just want to sit around and watch whatever they can shovel in our faces instead of smart technical savvy people who want to share what we've enjoyed and mash-up thing we love, and most importantly share! What's the point of enjoying something if you cannot share it?
That's absolutely right. The experience has more meaning when you can share the art you enjoy with others so that they can come to love it as much as you do. If you've ever felt excitement over showing a friend or relative something you thought was just incredible, you'll know what I'm saying is true. I see it all the time right here on Polycount in the P&P threads.
Make that two CEOs, one shroom and that will explain why this bill even exists.
If we do look at it from another perspective, we can see that people want with the low price of one copy have full distribution and rights to alter the material as they see please with no limitations.
Pretty much I guess.
The problem is that games could handle it, because they could all cut out singleplayer, make games multiplayer with free to play system in place and a heavily locked online-style drm system that prevents any kind of piracy, oh and tons of hats.
Movies and music has a harder time since they're not interactive in any kind of way.
So much mileage out of this one pick, wish cars had this mileage...
In their 5 year campaign against filesharing they sued some 18k people, the entire federal prison population is only 200k. Trying to enforce this with the same scorched earth terror campaign they ran in their civil suits is not only improbable, it's basically impossible. Especially when you consider that they had the luxury of being able to limit their targets down to people in the U.S. by just looking at the IP address. In the case of streaming content they have no way of identifying where the uploader even is without filing a subpoena.
Will they try to martyr somebody? Maybe. But given how ineffective suing people was and the fact that they actually abandoned the idea in favor of trying to attack the problem on a major distributor level, I doubt it.
By the way, copyright infringement is already a 3 year criminal felony, it's just nearly impossible to meet the current guidelines in the case of streaming content because the file is technically only uploaded once.
Yes, people want to be able to do a wide range of things with the content the buy. People derive a great sense of self-actualization from sharing and altering content. They feel tied to the art and being part of its evolution. That's something important to note. You can't stop them from doing it, so why fight it? Even multi-player and online-only DRM doesn't put much of a dent in people's desire and ability to copy and share games. You could try the online DRM route and cut them off from a single-player experience, but you're just going to piss off people that want something different. And when you don't give people what they want, they find a way to get it. So in the end, it's just not worth it. What you could do is try to build a new revenue stream around people's love of sharing content willy-nilly across the internet. I've no clue what that would look like though.
If you're going to take it from a perspective where you control people's access in order to coerce them to pay up, it's going to eventually fail. It's going to fail hard, because technology will always find a way around every barrier, move every obstacle, and cross any chasm.
Free to play titles are pretty much the foolproof piracy solution though, there's no point in copying a game that is already available for free. it IS the ultimate DRM.
My point was that it means the death of singleplayer, movies and music could go through an equal transition in the name of "oh the industry just needs to adapt!"
Enforcing this law is just not going to work, I know that as well, but I still believe in IP-laws and the right for people to decide who gets full freedom with their products.