• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee: Streaming is a felony

F

FreakyLocz14

Banned
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill yesterday that would make illegal streaming of copyrighted content a felony.

The bill, known as the Commercial Felony Streaming Act, addresses what some lawmakers are calling a loophole in current copyright-infringement laws. It is currently a felony to download or upload copyrighted content, but streaming is not expressly prohibited. This bill would add that streaming copyrighted content would also be a punishable offense.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20...g-is-a-felony/

We need to stand up for our civil liberties and fight for our right to privacy!!!

Contact your United States Senators at once:
http://www.senate.gov/
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill yesterday that would make illegal streaming of copyrighted content a felony.

The bill, known as the Commercial Felony Streaming Act, addresses what some lawmakers are calling a loophole in current copyright-infringement laws. It is currently a felony to download or upload copyrighted content, but streaming is not expressly prohibited. This bill would add that streaming copyrighted content would also be a punishable offense.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20...g-is-a-felony/

We need to stand up for our civil liberties and fight for our right to privacy!!!

Contact your United States Senators at once:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...state&Sort=ASC
Click to expand...

So what is the problem? If it is illegal, it is illegal and quite frankly, I can save illegal streams of music to avoid paying for the tunes thereby facilitating infringement. No problem at all and it hurts those that create music.

And just so you will know, you have always been liable for huge fines and prison time for infringement. Next time, read the FBI WARNING: . . . at the beginning of every DVD you rent or buy.

Good for the Senate JC. Bout time we stop facilitating lawlessness. For some reason, your posted link is broken.

Try this one:

Senate group backs prison time for illegal streaming | The Digital Home - CNET News

I see lots more of this coming to a Senate chamber near you. As we become increasing mobile and have devices that put the planet's contents in our pockets, something must give and I see increases in suits and problems for illegal activities on the WWW.

Content is valuable and in this economy, the IP owners want to maximize profits and I see bigger problems coming our way. Like a crackdown on YouTube is not so unreasonable because there is plenty of illegally posted content and tools available to save the music.

When you earn a living producing content, the last thing you want is some yahoo making it available for free.

Bob
 
your opening sentence is not the same as the article

the articel reads
"The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill yesterday that would make it a felony to stream copyrighted content that was illegally obtained."

i have no problem with this

add this part

if the bill is eventually passed by lawmakers, streaming illegally obtained content for commercial purposes could lead to five years in prison. According to the bill, a person would be charged when the "offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works." As the Motion Picture Association of America notes, the bill would apply to Web site owners who have "willfully and knowingly violated a copyright and profited from it." The organization said those who "stream videos without intending to profit" will not be subject to prosecution under this bill.


​
 
Bob Maxey said:
So what is the problem? If it is illegal, it is illegal and quite frankly, I can save illegal streams of music to avoid paying for the tunes thereby facilitating infringement. No problem at all and it hurts those that create music.

And just so you will know, you have always been liable for huge fines and prison time for infringement. Next time, read the FBI WARNING: . . . at the beginning of every DVD you rent or buy.

Good for the Senate JC. Bout time we stop facilitating lawlessness. For some reason, your posted link is broken.

Try this one:

Senate group backs prison time for illegal streaming | The Digital Home - CNET News

I see lots more of this coming to a Senate chamber near you. As we become increasing mobile and have devices that put the planet's contents in our pockets, something must give and I see increases in suits and problems for illegal activities on the WWW.

Content is valuable and in this economy, the IP owners want to maximize profits and I see bigger problems coming our way. Like a crackdown on YouTube is not so unreasonable because there is plenty of illegally posted content and tools available to save the music.

When you earn a living producing content, the last thing you want is some yahoo making it available for free.

Bob
Click to expand...


How does it hurt those who create music? Your post has me intrigued as I fail to see how it cost the creator anything to upload the content to the site hosting the streaming, or how it cost them anything for the content to be hosted on that site's servers.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
How does it hurt those who create music? Your post has me intrigued as I fail to see how it cost the creator anything to upload the content to the site hosting the streaming, or how it cost them anything for the content to be hosted on that site's servers.
Click to expand...

the law applies to illegally obtained content. if the creator uploads it, it is then legal, read the article
 
mdram said:
if the bill is eventually passed by lawmakers, streaming illegally obtained content for commercial purposes could lead to five years in prison. According to the bill, a person would be charged when the "offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works." As the Motion Picture Association of America notes, the bill would apply to Web site owners who have "willfully and knowingly violated a copyright and profited from it." The organization said those who "stream videos without intending to profit" will not be subject to prosecution under this bill.
Click to expand...

Tricky wording and a few fine points many infringer's do not grasp and will likely take a court to settle the issue(s). Suppose I offer music streams for free, no subscription, no log-in or email info needed. But, I have a popular web site and it draws lots of hits and unique visitors; the server logs tell us it is a popular site.

So I use Google ads and sell advertising on my site. How is "Commercial Purposes" defined by the court? Your widgets site does bupkiss; what draws visitors is your site is a great place to find illegal DLs. Your site grows because of your links to DLs rather than the insanely greatness of your widgets.

Will the court say that you profited from your activities? One could argue that no, you did not sell any music, you just made it available to others through links." In fact, you knew the media at the end of your links is illegal and does it really matter if all you provide are links to sites that cater to those that do not want to spend their cash?

The copyright act/law/DMCA is clear and even if you offer legally protected work for free, that does not matter. You still broke the law. But you really did not break the law, did you? Posting a link to a music file containing the entire Beatles Catalogs is perhaps not illegal, is it? Even though you know the If you do not know they will complain, then another adage says Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

There is a sadly popular program for iPad users that does not infringe (they claim) because it only acts as a front end and SE for finding cracked IPA files. It exists to facilitate infringement and no matter how you spin it, a law is being broken. I know that if I need a dozen cool apps or games, I know exactly where to find the stuff.

As I said earlier, I personally think things will get tougher and there will be great changes. Millions of music and software web sites offering stuff legally and illegally, bot a comparatively small number of producers. Something has gotta give.

Content is king in my view and we will see owners deciding enough is enough and it is time to cut the lawyers loose. I see lawyers hiring more people to specifically look for illegal materials.

Bob
 
Vihzel said:
Where does it say that we have a right to privacy?
Click to expand...

On Wikipedia, the popular replacement for Westlaw, silly you. Smiley.

Seriously, not specifically mentioned, but often assumed, and there is the problem. Amendment 9 will get you close but then it will take the Mighty SCOTUS to rule.

Lots of laws that eliminate the "rights" some people think they have.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill yesterday that would make illegal streaming of copyrighted content a felony.

The bill, known as the Commercial Felony Streaming Act, addresses what some lawmakers are calling a loophole in current copyright-infringement laws. It is currently a felony to download or upload copyrighted content, but streaming is not expressly prohibited. This bill would add that streaming copyrighted content would also be a punishable offense.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20...g-is-a-felony/

We need to stand up for our civil liberties and fight for our right to privacy!!!

Contact your United States Senators at once:
U.S. Senate
Click to expand...

Can you please explain how our right to privacy is compromised by this bill in any way? I fail to see the connection. Are you suggesting that we contact law makers to demand the right to illegally stream music? you do realize that this law is targeting does doing the streaming, not those receiving it? Did I mis read something?
 
Bob Maxey said:
Tricky wording and a few fine points many infringer's do not grasp and will likely take a court to settle the issue(s). Suppose I offer music streams for free, no subscription, no log-in or email info needed. But, I have a popular web site and it draws lots of hits and unique visitors; the server logs tell us it is a popular site.

So I use Google ads and sell advertising on my site. How is "Commercial Purposes" defined by the court? Your widgets site does bupkiss; what draws visitors is your site is a great place to find illegal DLs. Your site grows because of your links to DLs rather than the insanely greatness of your widgets.

Will the court say that you profited from your activities? One could argue that no, you did not sell any music, you just made it available to others through links." In fact, you knew the media at the end of your links is illegal and does it really matter if all you provide are links to sites that cater to those that do not want to spend their cash?

The copyright act/law/DMCA is clear and even if you offer legally protected work for free, that does not matter. You still broke the law. But you really did not break the law, did you? Posting a link to a music file containing the entire Beatles Catalogs is perhaps not illegal, is it? Even though you know the If you do not know they will complain, then another adage says Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

There is a sadly popular program for iPad users that does not infringe (they claim) because it only acts as a front end and SE for finding cracked IPA files. It exists to facilitate infringement and no matter how you spin it, a law is being broken. I know that if I need a dozen cool apps or games, I know exactly where to find the stuff.

As I said earlier, I personally think things will get tougher and there will be great changes. Millions of music and software web sites offering stuff legally and illegally, bot a comparatively small number of producers. Something has gotta give.

Content is king in my view and we will see owners deciding enough is enough and it is time to cut the lawyers loose. I see lawyers hiring more people to specifically look for illegal materials.

Bob
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you bob. Sadly the more restrictive the environment here becomes, the more these types of websites simply move to jurisdictions where the laws are more beneficial and enforcement is nill. For example, right now the android market is lousy with apps that allow you to search and download MP3s (just like the original napster did). Are the apps legal, of course not. are they easy to obtain, yes, even off the market. where does most of the content originate from? places like russia and china (mainly russia from what i can see). Can Google do anything to block the apps? Not so long as they allow side loading. Can carriers block your access, not without illegally infirnging on your privacy (and even then switching to a wireless connection and continuing to do it is a matter of hitting an icon (and transfer rates are probably better). The point is that the model being used by the recording industry, at least as it applies to music, is dead. The future of music in many ways looks like it will end up resembling its past. Artists are going to end up having a lot more control over their earnings, but those earnings are going to increasingly depend on live performances as opposed to income generated from the sale of recorded music. I'm not saying that studio music will die, not at all, but the power of record labels is definitely waning. IMHO it is probably for the benefit of musicians.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
How does it hurt those who create music? Your post has me intrigued as I fail to see how it cost the creator anything to upload the content to the site hosting the streaming, or how it cost them anything for the content to be hosted on that site's servers.
Click to expand...

OK, lets try it this way for clarity. Perhaps not brevity, but hopefully, a tad more clear.

I think there is some confusion, so I'll wind my way through a few possible answers. Not sure what your question is, so forgive me. Corrections are welcome, as always.

If you are a writer or musician, your goal is to sell books and music. Everyone that downloads unauthorized copies of your book or MP3 file is not paying for the music and there is no difference between you illegally downloading and slipping the CD into your pocket while at Best Buy.

Bottom line is the creator looses money, either way.

So as you enter Best Buy, I tell you that if you go to this address, you can get copies of music for free. Just provide the media and they will make you a copy. Did I break the law? I do not do the copying, just providing the address where you can go. My goal is to provide you with free music and I have not broken the law, specifically, but perhaps I have.

The creator is free to do as he or she feels and if artists want to upload their music, they have this right. We are talking about illegal materials and illegal downloads. Quite a difference between the decisions the creator makes and the decisions others make to my/your stuff available to the world.

I create music. People seem to like my crap, so I decide I will become the next Earl Scruggs by spending loads of time in the studio recording my epic and decades perfecting my craft. My CD is done, The Grand Old Opry is in my future, and the tour bus is being customized.

That CD or those MP3 files are mine. I own them and only I, me, Bob, have any rights to my stuff. I can give the music away, post it on YouTube, or my web site. I can charge $4500.00 for a copy, or fifteen cents per track. I can sell one of the dozen songs, all 12, or make a sampler.

You, on the other hand, have no rights. None, Zero, no rights to copy the files and post them anywhere. I however, can grant you rights, but that is my decision, never, ever is it your decision.

So, you decide that you want to post a link to my music. You know you do not have the right to copy my crap so you decide the safe thing to do is just post a link. And your goal is to help others violate my rights. One could consider your act as the facilitation of a crime. Actually, no bones about it, you are making it easy for thief's to steal my songs.

On the other hand, what you are doing is perhaps legal as you did not break any laws, yet. The law is both clear and not so clear. Some people post complete articles and music claiming Fair Use. Or they post video to YouTube claiming that they do not own the music, but they lay claim to copyright protection in their name for the post (if they add lyrics, for example). Many also tell the viewers that so and so owns the music, not the poster, as if that makes any difference.

Simply put, YouTube is a place where IP violations occur hourly. We have lots of people breaking the law and claiming protection they do not have or deserve.

So the question becomes this: if you make it easy for others to break the law, what consequences should there be for you? If my web page contains links to thousands of illegal downloads, should I/You be accountable for perpetrating an obvious crime?

There is the problem and as I have said, it will take a court to rule.
 
Isthmus said:
I totally agree with you bob. Sadly the more restrictive the environment here becomes, the more these types of websites simply move to jurisdictions where the laws are more beneficial and enforcement is nill. For example, right now the android market is lousy with apps that allow you to search and download MP3s (just like the original napster did). Are the apps legal, of course not. are they easy to obtain, yes, even off the market. where does most of the content originate from? places like russia and china (mainly russia from what i can see). Can Google do anything to block the apps? Not so long as they allow side loading. Can carriers block your access, not without illegally infirnging on your privacy (and even then switching to a wireless connection and continuing to do it is a matter of hitting an icon (and transfer rates are probably better). The point is that the model being used by the recording industry, at least as it applies to music, is dead. The future of music in many ways looks like it will end up resembling its past. Artists are going to end up having a lot more control over their earnings, but those earnings are going to increasingly depend on live performances as opposed to income generated from the sale of recorded music. I'm not saying that studio music will die, not at all, but the power of record labels is definitely waning. IMHO it is probably for the benefit of musicians.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true. And as soon as the Android Market decides they perhaps need to cull the violators, others scream and proclaim that Google is another word for Nazi.

I feel for the artists that are being robbed daily; I cry a little inside because it is theft, pure and simple and it deeply affects me. I know a few artists and they are not necessarily famous or making a go of it, so every time they are stolen from, it hurts.

I hate to say it, but those that steal will be the first to complain if they started trying to sell their own music. Much like the person that wants the rich taxed more and then they win 20 million in the lottery. Suddenly, the rich are taxed too much. Please no tax the rich thread, just an example.

We can greatly alleviate the problem, but it will totally turn the WWW upside down and tons of people will need lawyers and third jobs to pay the fines. And I am not sure if Google or YouTube wants to stem the flow of cash, so perhaps it will never stop.
 
Isthmus said:
Can you please explain how our right to privacy is compromised by this bill in any way? I fail to see the connection. Are you suggesting that we contact law makers to demand the right to illegally stream music? you do realize that this law is targeting does doing the streaming, not those receiving it? Did I mis read something?
Click to expand...

Well put. And when you give people a choice, at least publicly, they will say the proper things. And I suspect most people that illegally DL this and that already know it is wrong.

1- I support illegal downloads
2- I am against illegal downloads

1a- I support web sites that tell me where I can go to illegally DL stuff
1b- I am against telling people where to find stolen property.

Odd that a law must be passed to curtail things that are already deemed illegal by existing laws. Like saying "I support laws that punish people for murder."

Bob
 
Bob Maxey said:
OK, lets try it this way for clarity. Perhaps not brevity, but hopefully, a tad more clear.

I think there is some confusion, so I'll wind my way through a few possible answers. Not sure what your question is, so forgive me. Corrections are welcome, as always.

If you are a writer or musician, your goal is to sell books and music. Everyone that downloads unauthorized copies of your book or MP3 file is not paying for the music and there is no difference between you illegally downloading and slipping the CD into your pocket while at Best Buy.

Bottom line is the creator looses money, either way.

So as you enter Best Buy, I tell you that if you go to this address, you can get copies of music for free. Just provide the media and they will make you a copy. Did I break the law? I do not do the copying, just providing the address where you can go. My goal is to provide you with free music and I have not broken the law, specifically, but perhaps I have.

The creator is free to do as he or she feels and if artists want to upload their music, they have this right. We are talking about illegal materials and illegal downloads. Quite a difference between the decisions the creator makes and the decisions others make to my/your stuff available to the world.

I create music. People seem to like my crap, so I decide I will become the next Earl Scruggs by spending loads of time in the studio recording my epic and decades perfecting my craft. My CD is done, The Grand Old Opry is in my future, and the tour bus is being customized.

That CD or those MP3 files are mine. I own them and only I, me, Bob, have any rights to my stuff. I can give the music away, post it on YouTube, or my web site. I can charge $4500.00 for a copy, or fifteen cents per track. I can sell one of the dozen songs, all 12, or make a sampler.

You, on the other hand, have no rights. None, Zero, no rights to copy the files and post them anywhere. I however, can grant you rights, but that is my decision, never, ever is it your decision.

So, you decide that you want to post a link to my music. You know you do not have the right to copy my crap so you decide the safe thing to do is just post a link. And your goal is to help others violate my rights. One could consider your act as the facilitation of a crime. Actually, no bones about it, you are making it easy for thief's to steal my songs.

On the other hand, what you are doing is perhaps legal as you did not break any laws, yet. The law is both clear and not so clear. Some people post complete articles and music claiming Fair Use. Or they post video to YouTube claiming that they do not own the music, but they lay claim to copyright protection in their name for the post (if they add lyrics, for example). Many also tell the viewers that so and so owns the music, not the poster, as if that makes any difference.

Simply put, YouTube is a place where IP violations occur hourly. We have lots of people breaking the law and claiming protection they do not have or deserve.

So the question becomes this: if you make it easy for others to break the law, what consequences should there be for you? If my web page contains links to thousands of illegal downloads, should I/You be accountable for perpetrating an obvious crime?

There is the problem and as I have said, it will take a court to rule.
Click to expand...

You overlooked one thing. When you steal from a physical location, two things have taken place that don't occur with illegal downloading and streaming. First, it cost Best Buy money to purchase the CD you stole, to have it shipped to their stores, and to have it stocked. It costs the creatror nothing when the content is uploaded, streamed, or downloaded. Also, in order to qualify as stealing, you must be permanently depriving someone of goods. That's not taking place here. So, since there is no financial loss and no one is being permanently deprived of anything, how is this stealing?
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
You overlooked one thing. When you steal from a physical location, two things have taken place that don't occur with illegal downloading and streaming. First, it cost Best Buy money to purchase the CD you stole, to have it shipped to their stores, and to have it stocked. It costs the creatror nothing when the content is uploaded, streamed, or downloaded. Also, in order to qualify as stealing, you must be permanently depriving someone of goods. That's not taking place here. So, since there is no financial loss and no one is being permanently deprived of anything, how is this stealing?
Click to expand...

Just to be clear (it's early and my reading comprehension may not be up to par yet) .... are you saying that DOWNLOADING AND STREAMING content is NOT STEALING?? A simple yes or no will do.
 
So, you dont think one has the right to protect their intelectual PROPERTY? Or, how would you suggest they do? When you download something illegally, you are denying them their right to do with what they please with it. You are physicly taking that from them. And it does cost them to create that content.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
You overlooked one thing. When you steal from a physical location, two things have taken place that don't occur with illegal downloading and streaming. First, it cost Best Buy money to purchase the CD you stole, to have it shipped to their stores, and to have it stocked. It costs the creatror nothing when the content is uploaded, streamed, or downloaded. Also, in order to qualify as stealing, you must be permanently depriving someone of goods. That's not taking place here. So, since there is no financial loss and no one is being permanently deprived of anything, how is this stealing?
Click to expand...

Perhaps there are some differences, granted. And so BB looses money, granted and that is another entity that looses money, too. I would bet that Best Buy has theft insurance that covers shoplifting. So it does cost BB something.

Not sure about your take on what the creator looses. Fact is, the creator looses the money he or she would have earned on the sale of the material. Not sure how you can argue that. And I am not sure what you mean by "permanently depriving someone of goods." You seem to be saying if you DL music illegally, there is really no theft at all.

Bob
 
Bob Maxey said:
Fact is, the creator looses the money he or she would have earned on the sale of the material. Not sure how you can argue that.
Click to expand...

I bought every Beatles album, but went on a trip and left my favorite at home (it's the digital age... so let's say I forgot to sync it to my phone/player).

I then go to a site and stream it, "illegally".

For sake of argument, it was the same exact dub, cut, mix, version, etc. that I had already paid for.

In the eyes of the law, I am still breaking it. IMO I shouldn't be.


There is also the very different viewpoint of downloading/streaming something you didn't know was illegal.

Let's say I have a 13 year old kid that gets busted for streaming music illegally while doing homework. So what happens? He get's tried as an adult and is hit with a felony?

Copyrighted work piracy equating to felony is just ridiculous on all counts. The song is $2 at the most. You steal $2 worth of stuff from a store and you get a misdemeanor at worst, unless you made threats, were armed, etc. Somehow digital products are a bigger deal, likely because it is easier to steal them.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill yesterday that would make illegal streaming of copyrighted content a felony.

The bill, known as the Commercial Felony Streaming Act, addresses what some lawmakers are calling a loophole in current copyright-infringement laws. It is currently a felony to download or upload copyrighted content, but streaming is not expressly prohibited. This bill would add that streaming copyrighted content would also be a punishable offense.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20...g-is-a-felony/

We need to stand up for our civil liberties and fight for our right to privacy!!!

Contact your United States Senators at once:
U.S. Senate
Click to expand...

Any time your talking about a Bill in progress, weather it's a Senate or, House resolution. Please take the time to find the HR, or, SR "Number" , so, we can look it up for our selves. Then we can mobilize and talk to our representatives properly prepared to protest the issue.
Don't rely on a link to a Web site, they either disappear, or, are often too bias, and we gain No insight into the true nature of The Bills, flaws or merits.

How can we take this serious, without proper documentation?

JMO
IM
 
lordofthereef said:
I bought every Beatles album, but went on a trip and left my favorite at home (it's the digital age... so let's say I forgot to sync it to my phone/player).

I then go to a site and stream it, "illegally".

For sake of argument, it was the same exact dub, cut, mix, version, etc. that I had already paid for.

In the eyes of the law, I am still breaking it. IMO I shouldn't be.

There is also the very different viewpoint of downloading/streaming something you didn't know was illegal.

Let's say I have a 13 year old kid that gets busted for streaming music illegally while doing homework. So what happens? He get's tried as an adult and is hit with a felony?

Copyrighted work piracy equating to felony is just ridiculous on all counts. The song is $2 at the most. You steal $2 worth of stuff from a store and you get a misdemeanor at worst, unless you made threats, were armed, etc. Somehow digital products are a bigger deal, likely because it is easier to steal them.
Click to expand...

OK, so what you seem to be saying is once you purchase 'The White Album' you are forever entitled to obtain a copy for free? Not too sure the law agrees with that. If you were to release a monster hit that burns up the charts, I feel confident that when I decide to make it available for free and tens of thousands of people DL it and you stop selling your efforts, your opinions would change and I would be in trouble.

As for your child and his potential felony record, who knows if it is proper to put a kid in jail and ruining his life. We put kids in jail for other felony acts so perhaps an overnight stay at the Greybar Hotel would serve him well in the future. Guaranteed he would learn a valuable lesson. Especially if you have to pay for his transgressions.

Perhaps he will not go to jail, however. As I recall, the parents are legally responsible for their children and their actions. Perhaps all that happens is you are fined.

As for not knowing something is illegal, I can guarantee that the Beatles is protected and therefore, if you DL a copy you are in violation. I think everyone on this list knows what is legal and perhaps not so.

Besides, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Suppose I had an unreleased Stones tape or the Beatles. Brand new, no other versions; the Stones and The Beatles in their prime, complete, still alive, and simply amazing. What do you think that is worth? Then assume my CD is released and two people sorta like it. They like everything but the playing and singing.

Both examples have equal protection under the laws. And . . . Copyright Law is not only part of the Federal Law, it is part of the U.S. Constitution, so our framers thought it important.

Sorry, but this thread can be spun anyway you or I want to spin it. Fact remains, it is illegal and wrong, period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom