White House wants providers of illegal streams liable for felonies - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

White House wants providers of illegal streams liable for felonies

...

Page 1 of 2

1 2

Page 1 of 2

1 2

03-16-2011 , 12:57 AM

The4thFilm

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 13,472

Along with "suspected infringement" to allow FBI wiretaps.

Quote:

The White House today proposed sweeping revisions to U.S. copyright law, including making "illegal streaming" of audio or video a federal felony and allowing FBI agents to wiretap suspected infringers.The White House today proposed sweeping revisions to U.S. copyright law, including making "illegal streaming" of audio or video a federal felony and allowing FBI agents to wiretap suspected infringers.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20043421-281.html

Given the overcrowding in state prisons, you'd likely get out earlier performing an armed robbery at Walmart to steal DVDs.

Last edited by ElliotR; 03-16-2011 at 04:05 PM. Reason: Because OP didn't read his own link.

03-16-2011 , 01:02 AM

JayTeeMe

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 29,419

Yes We Can!

03-16-2011 , 01:14 AM

Low Key

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 33,327

The Department of Homeland Security - I'm all up in your weblinkz, arresting your kidz

03-16-2011 , 01:56 AM

Cotton Hill

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 12,307

The only way this can end is me sitting in a court room listening to a prosecutor list the titles of all the clips I've ever watched online.

That will get awkward fast.

03-16-2011 , 02:09 AM

TomVeil

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,374

Does that count the illegal streaming of your speeding ticket?

03-16-2011 , 02:10 AM

Booker Woodfox

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,573

Just think, this could save Blockbuster ... if they put pr0n on the racks

03-16-2011 , 02:13 AM

TomVeil

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,374

Quote:

Originally Posted by Booker Woodfox

Just think, this could save Blockbuster ... if they put pr0n on the racks

If they put porn on the racks they wouldn't be broke.

03-16-2011 , 02:59 AM

Effen

CRAB

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 24,004

One step closer to leaving this hellhole. Dual citizenship ftw.

03-16-2011 , 04:37 AM

inthepub5

banned

Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 3,994

cliche i know but

[ ] land of the free

03-16-2011 , 04:55 AM

#10

andyhop

veteran

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 3,253

Whats the problem here?

It's a perfect example of the free market at work .Hollywood types paid for a service ,Obama is providing what they paid for.

03-16-2011 , 08:29 AM

#11

Wynton

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 15,189

[ ] link shows that Obama is proposing making it a crime to view illicit streaming

03-16-2011 , 08:34 AM

#12

fleez33

enthusiast

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 71

as a chronic illegal streamer...fcuk da police

03-16-2011 , 03:49 PM

#13

spike420211

banned

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 9,509

i can presume this will soon include:

>Al-Jazeera English
>BBC
>WikiLeaks

so much 4 my f***ing 1st amendments rights...

03-16-2011 , 04:04 PM

#14

ElliotR

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 30,029

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynton

[ ] link shows that Obama is proposing making it a crime to view illicit streaming

exactly. title fail, OP should be banned. MODS!!!!!

03-16-2011 , 04:06 PM

#15

ElliotR

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 30,029

Also, lol @ everyone who posted ITT thinking the old title was true

03-16-2011 , 04:19 PM

#16

leavesofliberty

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 6,296

so why doesn't Obama engage in some swordplay against the white house, being the hopey-changy new-age figure that he was billed to be?

03-16-2011 , 04:19 PM

#17

leavesofliberty

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 6,296

I guess as the executive he's powerless.

03-16-2011 , 04:22 PM

#18

Chips Ahoy

help me help you

Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 28,869

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElliotR

Also, lol @ everyone who posted ITT thinking the old title was true

from the pdf...

Recommendation: The Administration recommends that Congress clarify that infringement by streaming,
or by means of other similar new technology, is a felony in appropriate circumstances

---

Why is only the provider of the stream guilty of infringement? Is not the consumer infringing the copyright holder's exclusive rights too?

03-16-2011 , 04:36 PM

#19

13ball

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 12,912

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chips Ahoy

Because the provider is the one actually infringing the rights of the Copyright holder? It might be illegal to buy pirated DVDs, etc, but I've never heard of this being enforced in practice.

03-16-2011 , 04:39 PM

#20

Chips Ahoy

help me help you

Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 28,869

Quote:

Originally Posted by 13ball

Because the provider is the one actually infringing the rights of the Copyright holder.

So if I download (not streaming now) some music that I don't have rights too, and don't make it available to others, I'm not guilty of copyright infringement? That seems unlikely to me. I would expect both parties have committed copyright infringement.

03-16-2011 , 04:40 PM

#21

Chips Ahoy

help me help you

Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 28,869

Quote:

Originally Posted by 13ball

Because the provider is the one actually infringing the rights of the Copyright holder? It might be illegal to buy pirated DVDs, etc, but I've never heard of this being enforced in practice.

It gets enforced for software. If you run your business off of stuff from the warez store, the copyright police will come for you once your unhappy employee sells you out.

03-16-2011 , 04:41 PM

#22

13ball

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 12,912

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chips Ahoy

That's probably true. But streaming seems like a different animal to me. You aren't actually making a copy.

03-16-2011 , 04:51 PM

#23

fishdonkey

old hand

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,883

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chips Ahoy

It gets enforced for software. If you run your business off of stuff from the warez store, the copyright police will come for you once your unhappy employee sells you out.

Wrong conclusion. The laws are enforced when you try to make money from piracy. Software, mp3s, movies or other. Authorities aren't going to go after non-commercial users because they know it would be -ev for them.

original thread title made me waste my ****ing time last night making sure the OP was posting misinformation, so good thing it was changed.

03-16-2011 , 04:53 PM

#24

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by 13ball

That's probably true. But streaming seems like a different animal to me. You aren't actually making a copy.

Sure you are. You have a pile of bits, you send the pile of bits down a pipe, you still have the pile of bits on your local machine.

03-16-2011 , 04:59 PM

#25

ElliotR

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 30,029

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chips Ahoy

First, you need to realize that there is a distinction between civil infringement and criminal infringement. With that predicate, the answer is:

Because of the way the criminal copyright infringement statutes are written, and the clarification/change that is being requested to be made. Specifically, the clarification/change that is sought is to unambiguously label streaming "distribution". Obviously the consumer is not the one distributing.

Page 1 of 2

First

1 2

Last

...

Page 1 of 2

First

1 2

Last