Commercial Felony Streaming Act S.978

[1Perry]

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)

All the same, nobody is going to go arrest some kid for singing some song in their bedroom and putting it on YouTube.

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.

Which as far as I see is what this is all about. Now if you want to argue that there are already venue's to address this, I'll agree.

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.

They can do that now.

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.

Nah, this is the same thing police have been attempting to do with people taping them in the line of duty. Actually despite the gnashing of teeth, what you describe is partially what Citizen United defended against.

 

[Nick2253]

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 mean no offense, but I think that this is the biggest problem with copyright theft: there is an assumption among all the copyright holders that their works are being stolen when they would otherwise be purchased. This isn't necessarily the case.

Let me ask you, what is the marginal cost to produce another copy of a digital work? Try nothing. That means your costs to sell one copy or one million copies are by and large identical. This means that if someone "steals" your copyrighted material, then they actually haven't stolen anything. The margin cost, assuming you bore it, for their theft is zero.

Herein lies the issue: if twenty people buy your work, and only those twenty people have it, it is no different than twenty people buying your work, and one million people having it. What makes you so certain that those 999,980 people that stole your work would have bought it in the first place?

This is something that I don't think the video game and film industries get: for some content, the only acceptable cost a user will incur to acquire that content is $0. In that case, if that user "steals" the copyrighted content, no damage has actually occurred. The user neither introduced an additional burden on the producer, nor did he deprive the producer of the potential monetary gain. There were no damages against the producer.

 

[Diving Mullah]

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~



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:



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?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) No the news clips or any other clip for that matter fall under fair use act (see public Domain and Public Interest clauses) which means you can show exurbs of it ( I can post a 5 or 10 minutes clip of say the Daily Show and tell you he check this out it is really funny..that is within my right to do so, without any copyright backlash)...the trouble with youtube is the damn bots..when they detect any copyright martial regardless of length or intents, they remove it and almost impossible to convince Google people to put it back

2) They are not...see 1)

3) Nothing! Viva La Pirate Bay and torentbit

4) Nothing see 3)

Diving Mullah

 

[J Adams]

Nah, this is the same thing police have been attempting to do with people taping them in the line of duty. Actually despite the gnashing of teeth, what you describe is partially what Citizen United defended against.

Actually they allege violation of state wiretap laws in many of the police videotaping cases to make these arrests, not copywrite infringment.

 

[1Perry]

I mean no offense, but I think that this is the biggest problem with copyright theft: there is an assumption among all the copyright holders that their works are being stolen when they would otherwise be purchased. This isn't necessarily the case.

Let me ask you, what is the marginal cost to produce another copy of a digital work? Try nothing. That means your costs to sell one copy or one million copies are by and large identical. This means that if someone "steals" your copyrighted material, then they actually haven't stolen anything. The margin cost, assuming you bore it, for their theft is zero.

Not true. One figures the cost of one item by adding in the costs of the assets one has to purchase to create it, plus other costs and acceptable profit then dividing it by expected sales.

If he expects 100 sales but instead he has 70 with people just deciding to take an extra, he has to charge more for the initial 70. So not only does it increase his individual costs, it increases the cost for those who only take what they pay for.

Herein lies the issue: if twenty people buy your work, and only those twenty people have it, it is no different than twenty people buying your work, and one million people having it. What makes you so certain that those 999,980 people that stole your work would have bought it in the first place?

I won't buy an iphone but that doesn't mean I deserve one anyway.

This is something that I don't think the video game and film industries get: for some content, the only acceptable cost a user will incur to acquire that content is $0. In that case, if that user "steals" the copyrighted content, no damage has actually occurred. The user neither introduced an additional burden on the producer, nor did he deprive the producer of the potential monetary gain. There were no damages against the producer.

Bull****. It's amazing how far some will go to excuse theft. "I wouldn't have paid for it anyway so it's O.K. for me to steal it". Christ, do you not realize that this is the same attitude every shoplifter has?

 

[atrasicarius]

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.

Ideas don't belong to anyone. You can't own something non-tangible. If I hear a song you played and get it stuck in my head, do you now own my head? If I memorize a book you wrote, do you now own my memory?

 

[Nick2253]

Not true. One figures the cost of one item by adding in the costs of the assets one has to purchase to create it, plus other costs and acceptable profit then dividing it by expected sales.

If he expects 100 sales but instead he has 70 with people just deciding to take an extra, he has to charge more for the initial 70. So not only does it increase his individual costs, it increases the cost for those who only take what they pay for.

Exactly. It doesn't matter how many people steal it or not. What matters is how many people will actually pay for it. If you expect 100 people to pay for it and only 70 do, then you do a poor job of estimating the demand for your product. If those 30 people existed or not is irrelevant. If those people stole it instead of paying for it, that is irrelevant. In a traditional business, however, it does matter. Every theft costs me money because they are stealing a good that has a non-zero marginal value, and by stealing it, they are robbing me of potential profits. If I were trying to sell home-made soap on the street corner, I'd need to make sure that my pricing accounts not only for the products that I sell, but for the products that might be stolen. In a digital business, there are zero losses and zero marginal costs for theft.

I won't buy an iphone but that doesn't mean I deserve one anyway.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Bull****. It's amazing how far some will go to excuse theft. "I wouldn't have paid for it anyway so it's O.K. for me to steal it". Christ, do you not realize that this is the same attitude every shoplifter has?

You are completely ignoring the important differences here. The marginal cost of a product in the store, or the iPhone, is not zero. Those are actual goods that had to be produced. I can't just wave a magic want and produce infinity iPhones on demand for free. If I could, I'd be down at the Ferrari dealership working my magic :lol:.

I'm not saying that people are justified when they steal something, and my point has never been to defend theft. But my point is that theft, as we know it, no longer applies here. The idea behind criminalizing theft was to prosecute those that took from one their resources, or their potential to gain resources, because such a theft puts the original owner at a disadvantage. This really doesn't apply here.

 

[1Perry]

Ideas don't belong to anyone. You can't own something non-tangible. If I hear a song you played and get it stuck in my head, do you now own my head? If I memorize a book you wrote, do you now own my memory?

Someone has assigned rights to thoughts?

 

[Diving Mullah]

Not true. One figures the cost of one item by adding in the costs of the assets one has to purchase to create it, plus other costs and acceptable profit then dividing it by expected sales.

If he expects 100 sales but instead he has 70 with people just deciding to take an extra, he has to charge more for the initial 70. So not only does it increase his individual costs, it increases the cost for those who only take what they pay for.



I won't buy an iphone but that doesn't mean I deserve one anyway.



Bull****. It's amazing how far some will go to excuse theft. "I wouldn't have paid for it anyway so it's O.K. for me to steal it". Christ, do you not realize that this is the same attitude every shoplifter has?

Except for majority of goods the cost of production has very little do with how much certain item cost, as oppose to fair market value, how much a customer is willing to pay for a given item. DVD costs $15 to $20 dollars because they determined how much people are willing to pay for a DVD.

Netlfix is a perfect example. Their margin for DVD rental is over 50% while streaming video little under 30%.

Renting a DVD use to be 1.99 to 2.99 but Streaming from AMAZON is 2.99 to 3.99 despite the fact streaming is far cheaper and more secure than renting DVDs, because powers to be decided that you are willing to pay upto 3.99 for streaming and convenience fee.

Except for very high items I know of no products that the manufacturing cost remotely represent the production cost+ some profit

Diving Mullah

 

[1Perry]

Exactly. It doesn't matter how many people steal it or not. What matters is how many people will actually pay for it. If you expect 100 people to pay for it and only 70 do, then you do a poor job of estimating the demand for your product. If those 30 people existed or not is irrelevant. If those people stole it instead of paying for it, that is irrelevant. In a traditional business, however, it does matter. Every theft costs me money because they are stealing a good that has a non-zero marginal value, and by stealing it, they are robbing me of potential profits. If I were trying to sell home-made soap on the street corner, I'd need to make sure that my pricing accounts not only for the products that I sell, but for the products that might be stolen. In a digital business, there are zero losses and zero marginal costs for theft.

You complained because he said he was going to have to raise his costs to cover the items people take as oppose to pay for. So if he made a mistake in believeing people would pay for his product as opposed to just taking it, he has to raise costs for the ones he does sell, costing those who actually pay for the things they use.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Of coure it does. If you want something and refuse to pay for it, means you don't get one.

You are completely ignoring the important differences here. The marginal cost of a product in the store, or the iPhone, is not zero. Those are actual goods that had to be produced. I can't just wave a magic want and produce infinity iPhones on demand for free. If I could, I'd be down at the Ferrari dealership working my magic :lol:.

I'm not saying that people are justified when they steal something, and my point has never been to defend theft. But my point is that theft, as we know it, no longer applies hear. The idea behind criminalizing theft was to prosecute those that took from one their resources, or their potential to gain resources. This really doesn't apply here.

It's theft. It does not belong to you, you did not pay for it. You took it. That's theft. Using your logic, nobody should pay at which point it no longer becomes available to anyone. If someone gives me something, I have nothing in it. Because I have nothing in it doesn't mean you can just take it.

If I have a product made for me. Say 100 of them. I sell 50 of them for $2.00 each. I have nothing in the other 50. It's O.K. for you to just take one?

 

[1Perry]

Except for majority of goods the cost of production has very little do with how much certain item cost, as oppose to fair market value, how much a customer is willing to pay for a given item. DVD costs $15 to $20 dollars because they determined how much people are willing to pay for a DVD.

Netlfix is a perfect example. Their margin for DVD rental is over 50% while streaming video little under 30%.

Renting a DVD use to be 1.99 to 2.99 but Streaming from AMAZON is 2.99 to 3.99 despite the fact streaming is far cheaper and more secure than renting DVDs, because powers to be decided that you are willing to pay upto 3.99 for streaming and convenience fee.

Except for very high items I know of no products that the manufacturing cost remotely represent the production cost+ some profit

Diving Mullah

That's just what you argued. :shrug: If one person rented from Netflix and gave it to 30 of his friends as opposed to them paying for the rental, Netflix either raises prices or goes out of business.

Back in the old days of cable people used to sell filters that allowed you to get HBO without paying for it. It didn't actually cost the cable company or HBO any extra money but it was illegal because it was theft.

 

[Nick2253]

It's theft. It does not belong to you, you did not pay for it. You took it. That's theft. Using your logic, nobody should pay at which point it no longer becomes available to anyone. If someone gives me something, I have nothing in it. Because I have nothing in it doesn't mean you can just take it.

If I have a product made for me. Say 100 of them. I sell 50 of them for $2.00 each. I have nothing in the other 50. It's O.K. for you to just take one?

You're still confusion actual, physical products, with digital products.

You say I took something. Well, what did I take? I'm going into details about what it means to copy a file on a computer, but suffice to say that you can copy one file to another place without doing anything to the original file. So, now I have my copy. It is completely separate from anything that you made. So there is absolutely nothing physical that I'm taking. I'm assuming that you'll argue that I've stolen the "idea" of the work. Well, let's compare two scenarios:

1) I rent a copy of a movie and make a copy of that movie on my hard drive.
2) I have an eidetic memory, and after I watch the movie I make a copy of that movie on my brain.

Why is (1) theft, but (2) isn't?

 

[1Perry]

You're still confusion actual, physical products, with digital products.

It makes no difference. It does not belong to you.

You say I took something. Well, what did I take? I'm going into details about what it means to copy a file on a computer, but suffice to say that you can copy one file to another place without doing anything to the original file. So, now I have my copy. It is completely separate from anything that you made. So there is absolutely nothing physical that I'm taking. I'm assuming that you'll argue that I've stolen the "idea" of the work. Well, let's compare two scenarios:

It's not an idea. It's an actual thing. If there was nothing there you could not download it. The value is in the time and effort that went into making it in the first place. If I download "Pirates of the Caribbean" while the bits I downloaded may not have value, it costs a ton of money to intially create. If everyone stole it, there would be huge losses. Why is it O.K. for others to pay for it so you can have it for free?

1) I rent a copy of a movie and make a copy of that movie on my hard drive.
2) I have an eidetic memory, and after I watch the movie I make a copy of that movie on my brain.

Why is (1) theft, but (2) isn't?

Nobody else can view the copy on your brain.

 

[Nick2253]

It's not an idea. It's an actual thing. If there was nothing there you could not download it. The value is in the time and effort that went into making it in the first place. If I download "Pirates of the Caribbean" while the bits I downloaded may not have value, it costs a ton of money to intially create. If everyone stole it, there would be huge losses. Why is it O.K. for others to pay for it so you can have it for free?

If everyone stole it, then no one would make movies anymore. The market will correct. I don't buying movies and games because I enjoy shelling out cash. I buy movies and games because I know my purchase helps encourage future production and development. And it's also because I feel that the purchase of those movies and games is a fair exchange.

Nobody else can view the copy on your brain.

So, if I developed a (obviously hypothetical) technology that let me view what other people had seen, then it would be stealing?

 

[1Perry]

If everyone stole it, then no one would make movies anymore. The market will correct. I don't buying movies and games because I enjoy shelling out cash. I buy movies and games because I know my purchase helps encourage future production and development. And it's also because I feel that the purchase of those movies and games is a fair exchange.

And those who do not understand that are simple thiefs.

So, if I developed a (obviously hypothetical) technology that let me view what other people had seen, then it would be stealing?

Sorry, I have no desire to deal in hypotheticals that there are no no needs to discuss. It's a huge waste of time. We can stick with the facts or go off on irrelevant tangents.

 

[KevinKohler]

Ideas don't belong to anyone. You can't own something non-tangible. If I hear a song you played and get it stuck in my head, do you now own my head? If I memorize a book you wrote, do you now own my memory?

No. But if you remembered that song well enough to perform it, claim it as your own, in order to make money off of it, we'll have a problem.

And idea belongs to the person that had it. Just because I put my idea down on paper does not entitle anyone to it.

 

[KevinKohler]

You complained because he said he was going to have to raise his costs to cover the items people take as oppose to pay for. So if he made a mistake in believeing people would pay for his product as opposed to just taking it, he has to raise costs for the ones he does sell, costing those who actually pay for the things they use.



Of coure it does. If you want something and refuse to pay for it, means you don't get one.



It's theft. It does not belong to you, you did not pay for it. You took it. That's theft. Using your logic, nobody should pay at which point it no longer becomes available to anyone. If someone gives me something, I have nothing in it. Because I have nothing in it doesn't mean you can just take it.

If I have a product made for me. Say 100 of them. I sell 50 of them for $2.00 each. I have nothing in the other 50. It's O.K. for you to just take one?

He's not condoning theft, all he's trying to say is that this is a different sort, in that it hurts the owner of the song...not at all. Downloading music cuts into the profits of CD sales and Itune sales, but does not actually COST the musician and record company anything. Where as, if you snuck in and stole the artist's guitar, that costs him another grand or so to replace said stolen instrument.

 

[KevinKohler]

It makes no difference. It does not belong to you.



It's not an idea. It's an actual thing. If there was nothing there you could not download it. The value is in the time and effort that went into making it in the first place. If I download "Pirates of the Caribbean" while the bits I downloaded may not have value, it costs a ton of money to intially create. If everyone stole it, there would be huge losses. Why is it O.K. for others to pay for it so you can have it for free?



Nobody else can view the copy on your brain.

Yet, lol....

 

[Travelsonic]

Sorry, I have no desire to deal in hypotheticals that there are no no needs to discuss. It's a huge waste of time. We can stick with the facts or go off on irrelevant tangents.

Of course they are very much relevant, since you dragged it into this discussion in the first place.

 

[KevinKohler]

Here's another way of looking at it. I have a cheap recording device from the 80s...a song comes on on the radio...I record the song.



Is that theft?

 

[TurtleDude]

senator Amy K is a worm. she was a year behind me in college

 

[Nick2253]

He's not condoning theft, all he's trying to say is that this is a different sort, in that it hurts the owner of the song...not at all. Downloading music cuts into the profits of CD sales and Itune sales, but does not actually COST the musician and record company anything. Where as, if you snuck in and stole the artist's guitar, that costs him another grand or so to replace said stolen instrument.

BINGO!

Thank you for actually getting this. And this is my problem with all this copyright business. We keep trying to shove intellectual property into the same cubbyhole as physical property, and they just don't work that way.

Honestly, I don't really know what the right answer is. I think patents are good, but patents also have a more rigorous framework. As my copyright lawyer friend likes to say, "you don't know you've infringed copyright until you're standing in court and a judge rules that you have." There are so many well intentioned exceptions for fair use and public expression, but it leads to the problem of differentiating between an idea that you've "saved to your brain" and an idea that you've "saved to you hard drive."

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I really don't like the whole 'sharing is caring crowd' but my GOD is it really THAT big of a deal?

it's not THAT big of a problem - definitely not worth our tax dollars to raise legislation against . . . laws on the books should be sufficient but in this day and age I think it should be pushed to the backside so our pennies and cents can go towards catching more ardent criminals - you know.

And it's not just this regulation - but all menial regulations while we're in the ****ter just gets under my skin.

 

[Nick2253]

Sorry, I have no desire to deal in hypotheticals that there are no no needs to discuss. It's a huge waste of time. We can stick with the facts or go off on irrelevant tangents.

This is actually a very important hypothetical. Your definition of copyright exempts the human brain because content stored their is not viewable by others. But what if that changes? Then remembering what we saw will be a copyright violation?

You see, this is my point. When I "steal" some IP, I do absolutely no damage to the originator of the IP. Copying a movie onto a hard drive is no different than copying a movie onto your brain as far as the movie is concerned. In either scenario, you actually haven't stolen anything physical. In fact, from the perspective of the originator, there's no way to tell that the theft has occurred at all. The only way to tell would be if someone probed your brain or hard drive, and found that copy there.

You cannot apply the time-honored, common law rules of theft to this problem. Intellectual property is just that: intellectual. And in order to be appreciated, it must also be stolen, based on the common-law understanding of theft.

 

[KevinKohler]

I really don't like the whole 'sharing is caring crowd' but my GOD is it really THAT big of a deal?

it's not THAT big of a problem - definitely not worth our tax dollars to raise legislation against . . . laws on the books should be sufficient but in this day and age I think it should be pushed to the backside so our pennies and cents can go towards catching more ardent criminals - you know.

And it's not just this regulation - but all menial regulations while we're in the ****ter just gets under my skin.

What I want to know is, how come our government has taken such a keen interest in this ONE problem, for this ONE industry, dominated by corporatism? Why not roll out some new legislation protecting other industries further from theft? We don't see THIS much interest in fighting identity theft, the number one rising crime in this country. But since that is perpetrated against individuals, and not lobbyist employing, donation giving mega corps like columbia records, it's not worth uncle sam's notice?