Commercial Felony Streaming Act S.978

[J Adams]

A bill (S. 978) sponsored by Senators Amy Klobuchar (D) MN, Chris Coons (D) DE, and John Cornyn (D) TX, would make it a felony punishable by up to five years in jail for streaming copywrited material. Specifically it clearifies the law adding "electronic means" to ways copywrited material can be published (i.e. YouTube or other streaming service):

(A) the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works;

Title 17, Chapter 1 describes the subject matter and scope of copywrited material and discusses limitations on copywrited material.

Public Performance~

“Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.

To perform or display a work “publicly” means —

(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or

(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times. US Code Title 17, Chapter 1

The reported intent of this bill is to further clarify the law giving it more "teeth" to stop unlicensed movie streaming and music streaming. For example, someone singing a cover of a copywrited song without permission and posting it to YouTube may constitute a "public performance." Also streaming a movie may constitute a "public performance."

However, movies are not the only copywrited visual media. CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, etc. all produce news programs. These programs are copywrited as well.

News programs are clipped and put on YouTube and other such streaming video services by individuals all over the country all the time. Political forum users frequently post clips from these news services to demonstrate a point or further explain what they saw. News falls under Section 107 Fair Use:

Sec 107 Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Questions:

1) Do news clips represent public performances of copywrited material or do they fall under "fair use" (Title 17, section 107)?

2) If news broadcast reposts are infringements, would we see the end news clip posting if this bill is signed into law?

3) What ramifications do you see to free speech and public information if news clips are not considered "fair use" and are public performances once posted to a content provider such as YouTube?

4) What other ramifications not relating to news clips do you see for streaming if this bill is passed and signed into law?

 

[samsmart]

I think that Congressmen and Senators who vote in favor of this law should be aware of what Anonymous is capable of when their ire is raised.

 

[Nick2253]

I'm not sure whether it was an accident or you meant to be ironic, but Cornyn is R.

 

[radcen]

Why would prison time be justified? 5 yrs? Really? We don't need more prisoners for civil stuff. A civil penalty of some sort would be better.

 

[1Perry]

The reported intent of this bill is to further clarify the law giving it more "teeth" to stop unlicensed movie streaming and music streaming. For example, someone singing a cover of a copywrited song without permission and posting it to YouTube may constitute a "public performance." Also streaming a movie may constitute a "public performance."


I don't believe for a second that anyone would ever get charged for this. It's the type of charges those who are against people protecting their property make create to scare people.

 

[samsmart]

The reported intent of this bill is to further clarify the law giving it more "teeth" to stop unlicensed movie streaming and music streaming. For example, someone singing a cover of a copywrited song without permission and posting it to YouTube may constitute a "public performance." Also streaming a movie may constitute a "public performance."


I don't believe for a second that anyone would ever get charged for this. It's the type of charges those who are against people protecting their property make create to scare people.

Actually, I would LOVE to see the U.S. government try to imprison the majority of their population for 5 years over this.

Let's see the government try to raise the taxes to pay for all those prisoners when they don't have any more taxpayers.

 

[atrasicarius]

Oh, for ****'s sake. You know, it would be nice if we had a party that was made mostly of sane, intelligent people, instead of two parties made of greedy, idiotic assholes.

 

[samsmart]

Oh, for ****'s sake. You know, it would be nice if we had a party that was made mostly of sane, intelligent people, instead of two parties made of greedy, idiotic assholes.

It's not the two parties that are made of greedy idiotic assholes. That's just who the two parties get their campaign donations from.

 

[Nick2253]

It's not the two parties that are made of greedy idiotic assholes. That's just who the two parties get their campaign donations from.

You really think that the entertainment industry donates enough money to politicians to make them pass something that would be hated by the majority of Americans?

 

[Paschendale]

Copyright has been horrendously overblown in the last few decades, far beyond the intent to ensure that creative people can make a living from their works. Corporate ownership of IP, coupled with the insane and invasive reach of regulation... it's a nightmare. This is something that needs to be dealt with.

 

[Neomalthusian]

We're gonna need another word to identify actual felons. Like "superfelon" or something.

They must have some competition going for who can come up with the most dead-on-arrival idea.

 

[Temporal]

Well, I read this in the news today:

Google: US law enforcement tried to get videos removed from YouTube | Technology | guardian.co.uk

Requests from government that youtube videos be taken down have increased 70% in the last year alone.

The government has a vested interest in using both security and copyright clauses to take down material that is counter to the mainstream jive.

The best thing people can do right now is basically avoid the mainstream media. See what is happening in the online communities, and especially the communities in your area. The internet is not censored, it just has a lot of noise right now. The truth can be found if you go the grassroots way.

 

[PeteEU]

More industry protecting legislation... totally pathetic. Instead of changing the laws to fit the internet, the boneheaded morons we call politicians are trying to put the cat back in the box by trying to form the internet after our outdated copywrite laws.

There is a reason people watch live shows illegally online... the cant get it legally or the price is insanely high! Provide the material cheaply and then you dont have a problem... If I could watch single football games I want to watch and pay per game, then it would be great! Instead I am forced to pay a monthly subscription that gives a lot of crap I will never watch at a high price...

 

[samsmart]

You really think that the entertainment industry donates enough money to politicians to make them pass something that would be hated by the majority of Americans?

Of course. But I don't think the amount of money the entertainment industry needs to donate has to be very high.

 

[rathi]

Amy Klochubar , Christopher Coons and John Coryn are the creators of this bill. Its good to remember their names so you can ostracize them at a later date. Copyright has gotten completely out of control. The constitution lets creators secure rights for a limited time to promote science and the arts. Throwing people in prison at the orders of corporate masters is blatantly illegally and morally disgusting.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Silly crap laws like this is why we need to get corporate money out of politics. This is horrible skewed against regular citizens.

 

[Cactus Jack]

You really think that the entertainment industry donates enough money to politicians to make them pass something that would be hated by the majority of Americans?

Yes, because politicians are smart enough to avoid biting the hand that feeds them. Sad, but true.

 

[Helix]

the entertainment industry has evolved since suing the VCR. now they want to make kids posting a video on facebook into felons.

 

[1Perry]

the entertainment industry has evolved since suing the VCR. now they want to make kids posting a video on facebook into felons.

That would certainly depend on what they are posting, no?

 

[Ikari]

A felony? Jesus Christ! The last thing we need is more laws against the People in this country, ones which come with such dire consequences like losing your vote and gun rights...you can't just turn everything into that. And for streaming!? Really? No more voting ever for streaming!? That's ****ed up.

 

[winston53660]

I've raised my upfront fees for creative work (portraits) to compensate for what I consider the stealing of my copyright digital tech makes so easy to do. It is what it is and I have to eat. I don't mind so much as long as people are not using the images in a for profit venture or trying to promote something I firmly stand against. For example:



Mother of Girl Pictured on SoHo Anti-Abortion Billboard Wants Image Removed
February 24, 2011 12:06pm | By Gabriela Resto-Montero, DNAinfo Reporter/Producer
commentshareprint
Six-year-old Anissa Fraser's mother, Tricia Fraser, said that she wants her daughter's photo off a controversial anti-abortion billboard currently on display in SoHo. (DNAinfo/Patrick Hedlund)

By Gabriela Resto-Montero

DNAinfo Reporter/Producer

SOHO — The mother of a child model used in an anti-abortion group's controversial billboard said she wants her daughter's photo off the ad, MyFox New York reported.

Tricia Fraser said that the photo of her 6-year-old daughter, Anissa, used by the Dallas-based group Life Always in a three-story billboard that says "The most dangerous place for an African American is in the womb" should be taken down.

"It's bad enough you're saying this about African Americans, but then you put a child with an innocent face," Fraser said to MyFox New York.

Read more: Mother of Girl Pictured on SoHo Anti-Abortion Billboard Wants Image Removed - DNAinfo.com

 

[J Adams]

I'm not sure whether it was an accident or you meant to be ironic, but Cornyn is R.

Yes that was an unintentional mistype on my part. Appologies all.

 

[J Adams]

I don't believe for a second that anyone would ever get charged for this. It's the type of charges those who are against people protecting their property make create to scare people.

I certainly am concerned there are people who want to have the ability to censor. I really don't think the government would attempt nor does it have the resources available to lock up huge numbers of violators. However, a select few cases with high publicity would be enough to back up threats and requests to remove content that was "deemed" copywrite infringement. A piece of work does not actually have to be registered with the U.S. Copywrite office to have copywrite protection.

Scenario: Individual X (not elected official) gives a public speech but says a few things that end up being damaging to X. Public citizen Y filmed the speech (performance) and posts it to YouTube. Individual X claims that that public speech was a copywrited performance and claims protection under copywrite law. He then files a criminal complaint with the appropriate enforcement authority. The enforcement authority contacts public citizen Y (or perhaps the streaming provider) threatening criminal prosecution if the violating material is not removed.

How many common public citizen Ys will bother to fight this just to keep a video up on the internet if there is a possiblility they might face jail time?

I think there is the potential for this to be used as a tool for censoreship.

Whether or not any public speech or for that matter, anything of a political nature said in public deserves copywrite protection may not matter. The claim may have no legal basis at all, but the meere threat of prosecution would probably be enough to get a lot of things removed in a short period of time, before someone steps up and challenges it in court. Even then, something like this would not be decided quickly, so a lot of material that is up (on both sides of the aisle mind you) could be removed from the internet. Once it's removed, it probably won't go back up, even if the courts come down in the favor of public citizen Y eventually.'

Perhaps that's the hidden intent or am I just being too paranoid?

 

[1Perry]

I certainly am concerned there are people who want to have the ability to censor. I really don't think the government would attempt nor does it have the resources available to lock up huge numbers of violators. However, a select few cases with high publicity would be enough to back up threats and requests to remove content that was "deemed" copywrite infringement. A piece of work does not actually have to be registered with the U.S. Copywrite office to have copywrite protection.

Which has little to nothing to do with what I pointed out.

Scenario: Individual X (not elected official) gives a public speech but says a few things that end up being damaging to X. Public citizen Y filmed the speech (performance) and posts it to YouTube. Individual X claims that that public speech was a copywrited performance and claims protection under copywrite law. He then files a criminal complaint with the appropriate enforcement authority. The enforcement authority contacts public citizen Y (or perhaps the streaming provider) threatening criminal prosecution if the violating material is not removed.

Would someone want to sue here? Likely, people like to sue. The courts would never uphold it.

How many common public citizen Ys will bother to fight this just to keep a video up on the internet if there is a possiblility they might face jail time?

I think there is the potential for this to be used as a tool for censoreship.

Whether or not any public speech or for that matter, anything of a political nature said in public deserves copywrite protection may not matter. The claim may have no legal basis at all, but the meere threat of prosecution would probably be enough to get a lot of things removed in a short period of time, before someone steps up and challenges it in court. Even then, something like this would not be decided quickly, so a lot of material that is up (on both sides of the aisle mind you) could be removed from the internet. Once it's removed, it probably won't go back up, even if the courts come down in the favor of public citizen Y eventually.'

Perhaps that's the hidden intent or am I just being too paranoid?

You can not argue that those who hold the rights to something can not defend those rights because you feel it will lead to censorship. It belongs to them, you can not use it without permission.

 

[J Adams]

Which has little to nothing to do with what I pointed out.

Apologies if I didn't understand what point you were trying to make, it was difficult to parse your statement. Perhaps I misread it.

Would someone want to sue here? Likely, people like to sue. The courts would never uphold it.

I said nothing about a civil suit in my previous post. Civil and criminal are two different things. This proposed legislation perhaps expands but certainly clearifies the definition of "public performance" by adding "electronic means" (i.e. streaming) and provides for criminal penalties. I am not talking about civil suits. I am talking about criminal prosecution. (i.e. the government takes action to enforce the law)

You can not argue that those who hold the rights to something can not defend those rights because you feel it will lead to censorship. It belongs to them, you can not use it without permission.

1) I can argue anything I like, however that was not my argument. I believe people have the legal authority to protect their intellectual property. I never stated otherwise.

2) If you care to read through Title 17, Chapter 1 (this link is correct, the one above in the OP is not) you will see there are many limitations on copywrite protection. Notwithstanding, the government and more specifically, the Attorney General's office could prosecute or threaten to do so if a complaint were brought to their office, even if the complaint had no basis. And my point, which you perhaps misunderstood, is that the clerification of the definition "public performance" to include streaming, could be used to target content posted on the internet that could not satisfy the requirements of protected intellecual property. And even though the complaint filed and the subsequent threat of prosecution were baseless, agents of the government could use the law to force people to pull down desparaging posts.