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

[Bob Maxey]

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

Bill Text: US Senate Bill 978 - 112th Congress | eLobbyist

Easy to find, just ask Mr. Google

 

[FreakyLocz14]

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

Now you are speculating and assuming instead of referring to actual loses. You are assuming that for each copy of the creator's work that was downloaded or streamed illegally, it would have been done so legally if the illegal options were not present. That is nothing but mere speculation. There is no actual theft, and there is no actual cost to the creator.

You actually aren't charged with theft when you get caught doing this. You are sued for copyright infringement.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Now you are speculating and assuming instead of referring to actual loses. You are assuming that for each copy of the creator's work that was downloaded or streamed illegally, it would have been done so legally if the illegal options were not presence. That is nothing but mere speculation. There is no actual theft, and there is no actual cost to the creator.

You actually aren't charged with theft when you get caught doing this. You are sued for copyright infringement.

Not really. I'll give you this: when Metallica releases a new song and it is downloaded 100,000 times, this does not mean those 100,000 people would have bought the song. If it was a buck a download, Metallica likely did not lose $100,000.00

Does not matter!

Even one illegal DL is wrong, period.

Sorry that is somehow lost on you.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Not really. I'll give you this: when Metallica releases a new song and it is downloaded 100,000 times, this does not mean those 100,000 people would have bought the song. If it was a buck a download, Metallica likely did not lose $100,000.00

Does not matter!

Even one illegal DL is wrong, period.

Sorry that is somehow lost on you.

I never said it wasn't wrong, but it's not stealing.

Theft is a legal concept and in most jurisdictions it requires the defendant to have had the specific intent to permanently deprive the rightful owner of whatever was stolen. This is why average Joe Blows that are caught downloading music off LimeWire are sued in civil court rather than charged with a crime. If they proffited of what they downloaded by making copies and selling them, that makes it a criminal issue.

 

[lordofthereef]

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.

I am completely aware that "the law doesn't agree with me." Let me be a little blunt. THAT is my problem. I don't agree with IT, and that is largely why this thread seems to have been created, and why I am being vocal about this.

If I bought a song at one time and wanted to re-download that song elsewhere (again, same exact version, nothing has changed), and I am not using the distributors resources to do this, I feel I should be allowed to. Again, let me reiterate. I bought this song, for sake of argument, as a .FLAC on the most recently released album, left it at home, and would like to stream THE SAME THING again. The law says no, I say BS and say we need to challenge it.

Another reason I disagree with piracy laws, as I mentioned, is there severity. I can pirate a 99 cent song and its a felony. I can steal a 99 cent candybar and there is no chance in hell I am going to be charged with a felony. There is something VERY wrong with that.

Lastly, I am free to reproduce any tangible product to exact manufacturer specifications and use it for myself. I can even post a how-to online and be perfectly fine. If I have a machine (analogous to the computer that makes digital media copies) that can fabricate these parts, that is my prerogative. This is all without owning the original product myself. What I cannot do, is sell this product without proper licensing. All this without a felony or any other crime committed, yet somehow, when I am reproducing digital media that I even own on the computer for myself, I am committing a felony. I find there is something VERY wrong with that as well.

My latter point, I think, will largely be moot with all of the cloud streaming services being provided. These companies are fighting so hard to throw people in jail that, in my opinion, aren't REALLY doing anything wrong to begin with. Soon we will just buy out media, send it the cloud, stream it whenever we want, and not have to buy it again. Let the companies make the same amount of money they are now but have lower percieved losses that way. The idea that every time someone "pirates" media they already own is a loss in sales is absolutely ludicrous to begin with.

 

[Dark Jedi]

Now you are speculating and assuming instead of referring to actual loses. You are assuming that for each copy of the creator's work that was downloaded or streamed illegally, it would have been done so legally if the illegal options were not present. That is nothing but mere speculation. There is no actual theft, and there is no actual cost to the creator.

You actually aren't charged with theft when you get caught doing this. You are sued for copyright infringement.

its real simple every time a record or cd is sold the artist gets a certain percentage of Tue sale called points. So let's say our artist gets 5 cents for every one sold. Now if the person who wants the record/cd but doesn't want to pay the price. He or she will download it for free and our artist don't get his 5 cents as a site has deprived him of that potential sale.

Just so you know when you buy a cd or dvd. You only own the disk you don't own the content of the disk. So you cant use the content anyway you please. Maybe you should watch the FBI opening warnings. It's like the NFL after every broadcast they tell you you cant rebroadcast anything unless you have the expressive written consent of the nfl.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

its real simple every time a record or cd is sold the artist gets a certain percentage of Tue sale called points. So let's say our artist gets 5 cents for every one sold. Now if the person who wants the record/cd but doesn't want to pay the price. He or she will download it for free and our artist don't get his 5 cents as a site has deprived him of that potential sale.

Just so you know when you buy a cd or dvd. You only own the disk you don't own the content of the disk. So you cant use the content anyway you please. Maybe you should watch the FBI opening warnings. It's like the NFL after every broadcast they tell you you cant rebroadcast anything unless you have the expressive written consent of the nfl.

The problem with your argument is it is mere speculation, like I said before. You are basing your claim of damage on a potential that you don't know would have taken place if the illegal methods were not available. Theft requires actual loses, not potential loses.

 

[Bob Maxey]

The problem with your argument is it is mere speculation, like I said before. You are basing your claim of damage on a potential that you don't know would have taken place if the illegal methods were not available. Theft requires actual loses, not potential loses.

But . . . the problem with your argument is you overlook existing copyright law. Forget how much we think an artist could potentially make, the current law does not (generally) require that potential earnings be considered. The law is only concerned with the illegal act.

I think there is a difference between stealing a CD from a store and making the zeros and ones available to others. It is still theft, but one is a copyright violation and the other is simple pilfering of a plastic disk. Both are crimes and both covered under completely different laws. And lest we forget, the founders thought it vital so Article 1, Section 8 was put into the Constitution.

There is one more issue: penalties. Criminal prosecution and prison is fairly rare these days, but the law provides for serious penalties, just the same. Chances are, you will not go to jail unless your actions are determined to be criminal and I do not believe that merely downloading a song or providing a few links to illegal content would result in jail. It might get you sued but likely not a trip to jail.

More likely, if this law passes and people become frightened --especially if there are large fines-- many ISPs/Hosts will simply police their customer's sites and either tell you to take down the material or simply close your site.

As it is now, there are relatively easy ways to deal with infringers. If I discover my content is hosted on your site, I can request a DMCA Takedown. Not effortless, but still quite easy.

Selling vast numbers of songs would be considered differently, however. Wholesale pirating is serious and it should result in jail. But we are not talking about that component of the problem in this thread.

I am not sure if there have been all too many cases involving streaming. Not saying they do not exist, but I feel confident they will. In fact, I think we are due for a sea change. Given that great content is relatively scarce and much desired; things like music and video and software, for example; I believe we are reaching a breaking point and I see lots of problems for infringers.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

But . . . the problem with your argument is you overlook existing copyright law. Forget how much we think an artist could potentially make, the current law does not (generally) require that potential earnings be considered. The law is only concerned with the illegal act.

I think there is a difference between stealing a CD from a store and making the zeros and ones available to others. It is still theft, but one is a copyright violation and the other is simple pilfering of a plastic disk. Both are crimes and both covered under completely different laws. And lest we forget, the founders thought it vital so Article 1, Section 8 was put into the Constitution.

There is one more issue: penalties. Criminal prosecution and prison is fairly rare these days, but the law provides for serious penalties, just the same. Chances are, you will not go to jail unless your actions are determined to be criminal and I do not believe that merely downloading a song or providing a few links to illegal content would result in jail. It might get you sued but likely not a trip to jail.

More likely, if this law passes and people become frightened --especially if there are large fines-- many ISPs/Hosts will simply police their customer's sites and either tell you to take down the material or simply close your site.

As it is now, there are relatively easy ways to deal with infringers. If I discover my content is hosted on your site, I can request a DMCA Takedown. Not effortless, but still quite easy.

Selling vast numbers of songs would be considered differently, however. Wholesale pirating is serious and it should result in jail. But we are not talking about that component of the problem in this thread.

I am not sure if there have been all too many cases involving streaming. Not saying they do not exist, but I feel confident they will. In fact, I think we are due for a sea change. Given that great content is relatively scarce and much desired; things like music and video and software, for example; I believe we are reaching a breaking point and I see lots of problems for infringers.

You argued that streaming is copyright infringement, but you haven't argued that it is theft. I have not overlooked copyright laws. I mention them clearly when I say that copyright infringement is not theft. Theft and copyright infringement are two separate legal concepts and are not one and the same. Theft requires actual damages to occur to the victim by them being permanently deprived of their belongings. Copyright infringement involves a civil violation of somebody's intellectual property rights.

Look at it this way. Say I own a company that makes and sells cell phones. If you were to come into my place of business and take one of my phones without paying for it, that would be theft. On the other hand, if you were to make exact copies of my phone and start selling them, you wouldn't be guilty of theft. You would; however, have committed the tort of copyright infringement.

 

[Dark Jedi]

So just as long as what you are talking doesn't have a physical presence then its ok to take and use as you please?

 

[mdram]

napster ring a bell?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

So just as long as what you are talking doesn't have a physical presence then its ok to take and use as you please?

Why are we putting words into my mouth?

I never said that the item taken has to be physical. In fact, many modern thefts are not physical in nature in this age of technology. Nowadays, someone can electronically steal money from you without ever physically touching any cash that you have. That's not physical, but it is permanent deprivation since it results in actual (and not just potential) economic loss for the victim.

 

[Dark Jedi]

Why are we putting words into my mouth?

I never said that the item taken has to be physical. In fact, many modern thefts are not physical in nature in this age of technology. Nowadays, someone can electronically steal money from you without ever physically touching any cash that you have. That's not physical, but it is permanent deprivation since it results in actual (and not just potential) economic loss for the victim.

Right here you said it. and I quote.

Theft requires actual damages to occur to the victim by them being permanently deprived of their belongings.

Not putting words in your mouth. Just showing you what you are saying.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Right here you said it. and I quote. Not putting words in your mouth. Just showing you what you are saying.

You showed where I said that theft requires actual loses instead of potential loses. You haven't shown where I said that what is stolen has to be physical.

Please, stop putting words in my mouth.

 

[Bob Maxey]

You argued that streaming is copyright infringement, but you haven't argued that it is theft. I have not overlooked copyright laws. I mention them clearly when I say that copyright infringement is not theft. Theft and copyright infringement are two separate legal concepts and are not one and the same. Theft requires actual damages to occur to the victim by them being permanently deprived of their belongings. Copyright infringement involves a civil violation of somebody's intellectual property rights.

Look at it this way. Say I own a company that makes and sells cell phones. If you were to come into my place of business and take one of my phones without paying for it, that would be theft. On the other hand, if you were to make exact copies of my phone and start selling them, you wouldn't be guilty of theft. You would; however, have committed the tort of copyright infringement.

Still at it, eh? Well good luck with that

Right here you said it. and I quote. Not putting words in your mouth. Just showing you what you are saying.

LOL . . . I also become upset when my own words are tossed my way.

Look, folks, call it theft or not theft or "helpful marketing for the band" or something else. Facts are facts and if you try with all you mite to justify something that is illegal, well, good luck in court because you will not win, just spend cash.

Copyright is covered in the Constitution and therefore, our founders thought it vital. Folks can justify their actions any way they wish and those of us that know a few things know these people will not have a leg to stand on.

The record companies might not come after you personally, but your ISP might simply take down your web site just to avoid problems.

Why are we putting words into my mouth?

I never said that the item taken has to be physical. In fact, many modern thefts are not physical in nature in this age of technology. Nowadays, someone can electronically steal money from you without ever physically touching any cash that you have. That's not physical, but it is permanent deprivation since it results in actual (and not just potential) economic loss for the victim.

So . . . if I create a CD and it does not sell because it is available for free on the web, I have lost nothing? Or if a movie producer creates a movie and it is released on the web and therefore, far fewer ticket sales, he has not lost anything? I beg to differ, sport.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Still at it, eh? Well good luck with that



LOL . . . I also become upset when my own words are tossed my way.

Look, folks, call it theft or not theft or "helpful marketing for the band" or something else. Facts are facts and if you try with all you mite to justify something that is illegal, well, good luck in court because you will not win, just spend cash.

Copyright is covered in the Constitution and therefore, our founders thought it vital. Folks can justify their actions any way they wish and those of us that know a few things know these people will not have a leg to stand on.

The record companies might not come after you personally, but your ISP might simply take down your web site just to avoid problems.



So . . . if I create a CD and it does not sell because it is available for free on the web, I have lost nothing? Or if a movie producer creates a movie and it is released on the web and therefore, far fewer ticket sales, he has not lost anything? I beg to differ, sport.

No, you did not suffer actual damages because it cost you nothing for your CD to be copied and distributed on the web. You cannot prove with absoulte certainty that people would have purchased your CD legally otherwise.

 

[Dark Jedi]

No, you did not suffer actual damages because it cost you nothing for your CD to be copied and distributed on the web. You cannot prove with absoulte certainty that people would have purchased your CD legally otherwise.

just like you cant disproved that his cd wouldn't sell if not on the web. You can argue that if a person downloaded his cd. Would be more inclined to have gone out to a store and purchess the cd if not avalible on the net.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

just like you cant disproved that his cd wouldn't sell if not on the web. You can argue that if a person downloaded his cd. Would be more inclined to have gone out to a store and purchess the cd if not avalible on the net.

The plaintiff carries the burden of proof, though. The plaintiff is the party claiming to have suffered damages. He did not suffer any actual damages.

 

[nlsme]

You argued that streaming is copyright infringement, but you haven't argued that it is theft. I have not overlooked copyright laws. I mention them clearly when I say that copyright infringement is not theft. Theft and copyright infringement are two separate legal concepts and are not one and the same. Theft requires actual damages to occur to the victim by them being permanently deprived of their belongings. Copyright infringement involves a civil violation of somebody's intellectual property rights.

Look at it this way. Say I own a company that makes and sells cell phones. If you were to come into my place of business and take one of my phones without paying for it, that would be theft. On the other hand, if you were to make exact copies of my phone and start selling them, you wouldn't be guilty of theft. You would; however, have committed the tort of copyright infringement.

Since you like hypotheticals, say I own a car company. I spend millions developing a new car. You came in and copy the designs. You then sell it to a competing company. How is that not theft?

 

[Dark Jedi]

He suffered that his musical talent was taken by illegal means. They do get paid to perform. Basically playing a cd or file of his music is him preforming for you. How many artist perform a concert for free all the time? Or give their music for free? Even groups from the 60's with free love saying they didn't own their music but it was owned by all a free entity you might say. Later on when the drugs and booze wore off they was like screw that I wanna get paid.

Pick up a cd and read the legal mombo jumbo. You agree to those terms when you buy the cd and break the plastic seal. Why you think napster got nailed and had to pay millions. Why has other people fallen just like napster has.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

He suffered that his musical talent was taken by illegal means. They do get paid to perform. Basically playing a cd or file of his music is him preforming for you. How many artist perform a concert for free all the time? Or give their music for free? Even groups from the 60's with free love saying they didn't own their music but it was owned by all a free entity you might say. Later on when the drugs and booze wore off they was like screw that I wanna get paid.

Pick up a cd and read the legal mombo jumbo. You agree to those terms when you buy the cd and break the plastic seal. Why you think napster got nailed and had to pay millions. Why has other people fallen just like napster has.

If we never buy the CD in the first place, we are not bound by that "legal mumbo jumbo". When I do pay for CDs (which I do quite frequently), I keep it for myself. He suffered no damages becuase it costs him money to travel somewhere to perform, it takes time out of his schedule for every performance, it costs money to secure a venue, and it costs money for other things like boarding and food. None of these factors are at play here.

Remember when your preschool teacher taught you that sharing is caring? Well, apparently sharing is stealing. Don't let that pretty girls who sits behind you in class borrow your pencil because the manufacturer suffers the loss of a potential pencil sale because she didn't buy her own.

 

[Dark Jedi]

Ok beings you want to bring up preschool. Yes we was taught to share our stuff and play with others. So they would use my ball and we had a grand time. At the end of the day I went home with my ball. Now if another little kid took my ball then that's stealing. So if johnny makes a copy of his cd and gives it to you then he is breaking the agreement and stealing from the artist or record label. Now if johnny buys a cd and gives it to you then it becomes a gift. Just like if i give johnny my ball.

A cd/dvd is for personal use. How is posting it on the web for streaming or download fall under your personal use?

I do have a question with this whole thing. With these club dj's that spin records. They get paid for playing other people music at the club. Now do they have to pay a royalty to the record labels or is there an exemption for them? I always wondered about this?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Ok beings you want to bring up preschool. Yes we was taught to share our stuff and play with others. So they would use my ball and we had a grand time. At the end of the day I went home with my ball. Now if another little kid took my ball then that's stealing. So if johnny makes a copy of his cd and gives it to you then he is breaking the agreement and stealing from the artist or record label. Now if johnny buys a cd and gives it to you then it becomes a gift. Just like if i give johnny my ball.

A cd/dvd is for personal use. How is posting it on the web for streaming or download fall under your personal use?

I do have a question with this whole thing. With these club dj's that spin records. They get paid for playing other people music at the club. Now do they have to pay a royalty to the record labels or is there an exemption for them? I always wondered about this?

I'll research this further but from what I know so far, yes. A lot of DJs obviously are not in compliance, though.

 

[copestag]

without throwing out my opinion because I really couldnt care less.... I do find the arguments hilarious though

just a couple of interesting questions for those arguing that the person who actually does the d/l is stealing....... because until recently its been the person who actually offers the d/l who has been considered the criminal

did you ever own and use a tape recorder or the record feature on your vcr??? youre a thief

have you ever gone to someone elses house and watched a dvd or vcr tape???? youre a thief

ever borrowed a dvd or cd??? youre a thief

do you own and use a dvr of any type (tivo, on your satelite box, etc)???? youre a thief

you see those things are no different in any way........ yet I bet not a single one of you think that is stealing

 

[Bob Maxey]

No, you did not suffer actual damages because it cost you nothing for your CD to be copied and distributed on the web. You cannot prove with absoulte certainty that people would have purchased your CD legally otherwise.

That is why we have laws. Again, it DOES NOT MATTER if my CD sells or fails. The facts are simple: it is illegal to distribute without written permission and the money I do not make or make is of ZERO CONCERN, period!

Sad that some people can't see this.

Here is one for you. I know of a collector that has more than three million records in his extensive collection and in the collection is a Stones demo or special pressings made for record company executives, that have never been released and even the most rabid and dedicated Rolling Stones fan and collector has likely never listened to the music on that LP.

Guaranteed that it would sell if released and guaranteed I would be in trouble if I released the music. This is a given; people would purchase the CD if made available.

Again, the law does not require that one proves his or her work makes money or would sell. Sans permission, you are in trouble if you infringe.

Simple as that.