Congress Wants To Make Uploading YouTube Videos A Felony With Worse Penalties Than...

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Congress Wants To Make Uploading YouTube Videos A Felony With Worse Penalties Than Child Molestation

A new being voted on in the Senate THIS Week will make it a felony crime to post copyrighted videos on YouTube, Facebook and other sites with criminal penalties worse than the crime of child molestation – 10 years in prison!

Clearly the bill is meant to help strengthen the government’s grip on media censorship by preventing the alternative press, bloggers and independent citizen journalists from keeping a record of the lies spread by the government propaganda machine.

The bill will effectively limit the ability of alternative, non-corporate news sources, to reported on issues that are important to the public and and the main stream media buries.

http://cdn.blog.alexanderhiggins.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Congress-Wants-To-Make-Uploading-YouTube-Videos-A-Felony-With-Worse-Penalties-Than-Child-Molestation.png

Take action now! Sign the petition and contact your senator.

http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/ten_strikes

Demand Progress writes:

Congress Wants To Make Streaming A Felony

Tell Congress to oppose S. 978, the new “Ten Strikes” bill

Here they go again: The big business lobbyists who are behind the Internet Blacklist Bill are already making the sequel. THIS WEEK Senators will be voting on 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 two weeks 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 days 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.

Click here to read TechDirt’s take on the bill. The bill’s text is here

Tech Dirt writes:

Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
from the not-understanding-the-technology dept

Okay, this is just getting ridiculous. A few weeks back, we noted that Senators Amy Klobuchar, John Cornyn and Christopher Coons had proposed a new bill that was designed to make “streaming” infringing material a felony. At the time, the actual text of the bill wasn’t available, but we assumed, naturally, that it would just extend “public performance” rights to section 506a of the Copyright Act.

Supporters of this bill claim that all it’s really doing is harmonizing US copyright law’s civil and criminal sections. After all, the rights afforded under copyright law in civil cases cover a list of rights: reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works or perform the work. The rules for criminal infringement only cover reproducing and distributing — but not performing. So, supporters claim, all this does is “harmonize” copyright law and bring the criminal side into line with the civil side by adding “performance rights” to the list of things.

If only it were that simple. But, of course, it’s not. First of all, despite claims to the contrary, there’s a damn good reason why Congress did not include performance rights as a criminal/felony issue: because who would have thought that it would be a criminal act to perform a work without permission? It could be infringing, but that can be covered by a fine. When we suddenly criminalize a performance, that raises all sorts of questionable issues.

Furthermore, as we suspected, in the full text of the bill, “performance” is not clearly defined. This is the really troubling part. Everyone keeps insisting that this is targeted towards “streaming” websites, but is streaming a “performance”? If so, how does embedding play into this? Is the site that hosts the content guilty of performing? What about the site that merely linked to and/or embedded the video (linking and embedding are technically effectively the same thing). Without clear definitions, we run into problems pretty quickly.

Read The Rest…

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110601/01515014500/senators-want-to-put-people-jail-embedding-youtube-videos.shtml

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/06/15/action-alert-congress-uploading-youtube-videos-felony-worse-penalties-child-molestation-27861/

[dirk digler]

Gochiefs is so fucked

[Simplex3]

Too bad the raped kids lobby doesn't have as much money as the Dane.

[Bwana]

Gochiefs is so ****ed

That was my first thought as well. I don't think Clay baby cakes would do to well in the joint.

[kstater]

Copyright infringement being a criminal offense isn't particularly new. Not sure what the issue here is.

[Ace Gunner]

"Okay, this is just getting ridiculous."

gotta disagree there. congress got ridiculous a long time ago

[007]

Great priorities there Washington dumbasses.

[Ebolapox]

yet we ignore the COUNTLESS copywrite infringements that go on in china daily (their blatantly copying our technology/tech knockoffs, clothing knockoffs, etc.

[BucEyedPea]

Then why does YouTube have an embed button under the videos? Who are they kidding.

I just want to know if there's enough room in our already overflowing jails for this? It gives new meaning to the word police state.

[JohnnyV13]

Well,

I would like to see the content of the bill before I start screaming.

They need to update the definition of "fair use", to include limited snippets on on places like youtube, (both video and music), especially if the content is not distributed for profit.

Of course, some power multi media types on youtube might trip the "for profit" standard, because they can make considerable money just from producing a lot of views.

If the bill is truly limited to websites streaming TV and pay per view content, I wouldn't be that unhappy.

Of course, BEP probably doesn't think copyright should exist anyway, since its an immoral restriction on people using their own rightful property.

[BucEyedPea]

They need to update the definition of "fair use", to include limited snippets on on places like youtube, (both video and music), especially if the content is not distributed for profit.
The definition of "fair use" already includes the use of snippets in certain situations such as for education, in journalism and satire.

Of course, some power multi media types on youtube might trip the "for profit" standard, because they can make considerable money just from producing a lot of views.

If the bill is truly limited to websites streaming TV and pay per view content, I wouldn't be that unhappy.
Uh, how 'bout addressing the penalties being worse than for child molestors on those not doing this for profit. How 'bout addressing You Tube having an embed video which invites some of this.

Of course, BEP probably doesn't think copyright should exist anyway, since its an immoral restriction on people using their own rightful property.

I do? A lot you know. Especially when dealing with a creative professional who makes her living with such things. Including giving talks at colleges as a guest speaker on copyright for artists.

I think you might start by NOT making ASSumptions and improving your critical reading. ( You Tube's embed and the penalty.) Just use the search here with the word "copyright" and my name.

I think it's patteeu you're thinking about on this.

[JohnnyV13]

The definition of "fair use" already includes the use of snippets in certain situations such as for education, in journalism and satire.



Ummm...I'm well aware of the traditional standard of fair use. Of course, I haven't kept up on IP law much the last 5 years or so, because I'm doing something else. Even then, I never was much interested in copyright b/c I did patents. However, I do know that NFL videos on youtube don't usually have a very long shelf life due to the NFL objecting for copyright infringement.

Hence, I think some of the fair use doctrines haven't kept up with technology and need to be clearly defined.



Uh, how 'bout addressing the penalties being worse than for child molestors on those not doing this for profit. How 'bout addressing You Tube having an embed video which invites some of this.


Seems pretty exessive to me, but not really surprising. The combined might of media companies is pretty extensive and certainly has huge resources to throw at lobbyist firms.

I don't really think you can blame youtube embed capability. It can be used to embed non-copyrighted material as well as copyrighted material. Its up to the user to determine if material is copyrighted or not, they're just a service provider. Of course, that argument didn't help napster.



I do? A lot you know. Especially when dealing with a creative professional who makes her living with such things. Including giving talks at colleges as a guest speaker on copyright for artists.

I think you might start by NOT making ASSumptions and improving your critical reading. ( You Tube's embed and the penalty.) Just use the search here with the word "copyright" and my name.

I think it's patteeu you're thinking about on this.


I just presumed you'd follow the Misean party line on this issue. I think misean arguments about intellectual property are some of their worst-constructed arguments.

Misean arguments about the immorality of copyrights are particularly bad. The whole idea that restricting someone from copying a written work somehow "restricts their liberty" in the use of their own property is completely silly. The idea that someone could independently repeat an 80,000 word manuscript on their own is ludicrously improbable, without seeing the original author's work.

As such, its totally legitimate to protect that work. And, as a practical matter, why would anyone spend months (or years) of their life composing a novel that gave them no property right in the work? You'd seriously reduce the quality and quantity of literature if you eliminated the copyright.

[Bump]

whoever is lobbying for this needs to be put down. With this country in the state that it's in, I think it's time to move to Canada or something. Money money money is the only thing that matters, congress only passes bills that benefit the people that pay them off.

There seriously needs to be a stand taken here by the people.

[BucEyedPea]

Ummm...I'm well aware of the traditional standard of fair use. Of course, I haven't kept up on IP law much the last 5 years or so, because I'm doing something else. Even then, I never was much interested in copyright b/c I did patents. However, I do know that NFL videos on youtube don't usually have a very long shelf life due to the NFL objecting for copyright infringement.

Hence, I think some of the fair use doctrines haven't kept up with technology and need to be clearly defined.
No they haven't kept up and that's a point some libertarian economists make but in the vein that technology won't be able to keep up because it's too hard to control without getting draconian. Whether one supports the idea of intellectual property or not, the market is still having its own way with the matter and will continue too even if there are changes in the law. ( which I support depending how it's done) So the Misean observation that the market always gets the last say is pretty correct.


Seems pretty exessive to me, but not really surprising. The combined might of media companies is pretty extensive and certainly has huge resources to throw at lobbyist firms.
Yeah, well the gist of my point on the penalty is how full our prisons are already—and now this?
Copyright, as you must know, is rarely prosecuted criminally but is pursued more as a civil matter.

I don't really think you can blame youtube embed capability. It can be used to embed non-copyrighted material as well as copyrighted material. Its up to the user to determine if material is copyrighted or not, they're just a service provider.
Well, I am not "blaming" them as much as saying they enable it. Those who use You Tube must know it's there. It just doesn't seem responsible of owners in that case, when they can mitigate the damage, regardless of how the law views it. Some owners do restrict those videos from being embedded at least. Why can't others do that?

I just presumed you'd follow the Misean party line on this issue. I think misean arguments about intellectual property are some of their worst-constructed arguments.
I haven't read Mises on this matter. I have read things on the most read libertarian site, Lew Rockwell.com, where they diss copyright and I have argued it with patteeu—with him not supporting it and me defending it. I have defended it by saying I don't agree with them on it because it is a form of property.

HOWEVER, I wouldn't say all their points are invalid either. I mean it is a monopoly. That much is true just as an observation. I have read some good arguments, and I think it was on the Mises Institute, that not having patent protection hasn't prevented inventions from developing. There was a long list of examples. Does that mean I am for abolishing patents? No. It does mean I can see some reform, particularly on drug patents. As in the same thinking as education getting some rights on copyright because of it's value there.

Misean arguments about the immorality of copyrights are particularly bad. The whole idea that restricting someone from copying a written work somehow "restricts their liberty" in the use of their own property is completely silly. The idea that someone could independently repeat an 80,000 word manuscript on their own is ludicrously improbable, without seeing the original author's work.
I agree. It's nearly a complete flip-flop on property being where one's liberty resides too.

As such, its totally legitimate to protect that work. And, as a practical matter, why would anyone spend months (or years) of their life composing a novel that gave them no property right in the work? You'd seriously reduce the quality and quantity of literature if you eliminated the copyright.
I agree.

One argument made is that it props up prices being a monopoly and is anti-competitive. In my industry, however, there can be competition in how many rights one wants to sell and for what price with a competitor promising all rights released for less money. I have gone through this myself and have had to negotiate such things when hiring photographers and other illustrators on behalf of a client when art directing a project. So an artist can still sell such things competitively. Some clients think it's outrageous to have to pay to re-use when they commission a specific piece too. So it comes down to working the deal accordingly or losing the project. Then there's the exposure allowing a site like YouTube can give one if something goes viral. So some artists can cut their noses off to save their faces being too strict. That's the market working too. An artist can make it work for them and it should be their choice.


Oh, and BTW, I have said I am 90% Misean and I usually test around there on those quizzes....sometimes a bit higher but never at 100%. I am not that absolute. But many of the Misean arguments do hold.

[Fishpicker]

I get the feeling that they don't want anyone uploading CSPAN clips.

[JohnnyV13]

I get the feeling that they don't want anyone uploading CSPAN clips.

That could be the bottom line truth. Hey, if YOU were robbing the American people blind, would you want video evidence?