Embed a Video, Go To Jail? 314
An anonymous reader writes "A few weeks ago, Slashdot had a post about the new bill in Congress to make streaming infringing videos a felony, punishable by up to 5 years in jail if just 10 people watch the video. As more details come out, the bill keeps looking worse and worse, as it appears that the definitions used in the bill would mean that merely embedding or linking to an infringing YouTube video could put you on the hook for jail time. Obviously, supporters of the bill insist that's not who will be targeted with this bill, but just the fact that they could be should be worrisome enough. We've seen other laws 'misused' in the past."
Good - arrest me (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd be happy to appear on every radio and TV show discussing the out-of-control government which arrested me because I linked infringing "Sanctuary" episodes from youtube to my facebook page. It's time to Inform the public about what kind of tyranny they are living.
So go ahead and arrest me.
I'll be happy to fight back.
Re:Good - arrest me (Score:5, Insightful)
Selective enforcement needs to be a crime in its self. It happen all the time. This is incompatable with rule of law.
Re:Good - arrest me (Score:4, Informative)
Mercy can only be given after the guilt was established. You can't pre-pardon people who aren't even considered guilty yet. Selectively accusing and prosecuting people is incompatible with the rule of law.
Re:Good - arrest me (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You'd be in jail, stupid. Fighting for your life, not fighting the gov't.
Re: (Score:2)
however, where is the petition to have this shut down? posting it up on
and i don't care what the proponents "think the intent is" it will be used to-the-letter of how it is stated. and i'm sure they know this (who doesn't!?). so to me it sounds they are even admitting it is incorrect.
Re: (Score:3)
however, where is the petition to have this shut down? posting it up on /. would be a great idea....
How about http://klobuchar.senate.gov/emailamy.cfm [senate.gov] http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactForm [senate.gov] and http://coons.senate.gov/contact/ [senate.gov] to start. I am in Texas, so I called Cornyn. Slashdot em!
Re:Good - arrest me (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Dude, you're 11. Let the adults handle this, okay?
They're doing a bang up job so far... maybe we should let the younger generation take a crack at it.
Re: (Score:2)
maybe we should let the younger generation take a crack at it.
The younger generation is taking too much crack already.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Dude, you're 11. Let the adults handle this, okay?
I am 11 in Mars years (or 3 in Jupiter years), but not earth years.
As for the comment about crack, if I have ownership of my body then I should be able to do anything I want to do to it. There is no justification for the government to disallow Drug use (or even suicide) unless the government claims ownership over you.
five years for 10 viewings? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever happened to our Constitutional protection from cruel and unjust punishments?
Is this the new War on Drugs or something?
Re: (Score:3)
Whatever happened to our Constitutional protection from cruel and unjust punishments?
I think the BoR & 8th Amendment says cruel and unusual [wikipedia.org] punishments.
Re: (Score:3)
That is correct, when it becomes cruel and routine, it is no longer unconstitutional. Just see Guantanamo for reference.
Re: (Score:3)
Whatever happened to our Constitutional protection from cruel and unjust punishments?
I think the BoR & 8th Amendment says cruel and unusual [wikipedia.org] punishments.
My bad... I should have RTFC before posting.
Re: (Score:2)
No cruel and unusual punishment, but either one by itself is permitted. Logic says we're screwed.
Re: (Score:3)
The 8th amendment protects against cruel and unusual, not unjust, punishments.
Have to remember that they weren't too far off of a time when if a ruler didn't like you you very well could be locked in a brazen bull and roasted to death. Simple incarceration isn't considered cruel or unusual and the constitution doesn't really deal with sentence lengths.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There was a Supreme Court case where they determined that a life sentence without parole for the crime of passing a bad check for $50 was, in fact, cruel and unusual. Don't recall the name of the case off the top of my head. But in general, yeah, sentence length doesn't usually fall under there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like getting life sentence w/o the possibility of parole for shoplifting a DVD?
Eyes the various 3-strikes laws
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I also don't like the three strikes laws, you wouldn't be getting a life sentence for shoplifting a DVD; that's a pretty disingenuous portrayal.
That's like me saying I got a divorce because my wife wouldn't put the cap back on the toothpaste. Well... that's what started the final argument, but it's certainly not the reason I got a divorce. (point of fact - I didn't get a divorce, it's just an example).
You'd be getting a life sentence for repeatedly breaking the law; the shoplifting being only the mo
Re: (Score:2)
The unusual part would be the exceedingly long imprisonment for what most would consider minor offense.
Actually, it would only be unusual if it was not the usual punishment for the same offense. It looks like the objective of this legislation is to make incarceration for some years the usual punishment. It would be merely an irrelevance that some people consider it a minor offense; what's important is that the punishment is applied consistently to all who are found guilty of the same offense.
Re: (Score:2)
what's important is that the punishment is applied consistently to all who are found guilty of the same offense.
Well you can then toss out a large portion of the laws right then and there. It is connom knowledge that if you are in a position of power and influence or a corporation you can get away with just about anything. Where as if your everyday working middle class citizen where to commit the same crime, they would be in jail faster than you know it.
Re:five years for 10 viewings? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever happened to our Constitutional protection from cruel and unjust punishments?
Is this the new War on Drugs or something?
er, I think you allowed successive elected representatives to gradually erode any form of constitutionality in the name of capitalism, which is now being protected by the big corporations who fear that their monopoly may be at risk.
Drugs and piracy are just bad ok, so please just accept what you are told, do what 'the man' says, be a good citizen and don't forget to inform on your neighbour if you think they are up to no good. They might be terrorists you know!
How did I allow it? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you allowed successive elected representatives to gradually erode any form of constitutionality
How did I allow it? A lot of these bills became law before I became old enough to vote, and most of the time since then, the candidate for whom I voted lost the election.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
er, I think you allowed successive elected representatives to gradually erode any form of constitutionality in the name of capitalism,...
Actually, if you study the history of jurisprudence in the U.S., you will discover that any form of constitutionality was eroded in the name of progressivism. Early progressives were upset that Constitutional limitations prevented them from implementing the modernizing "reforms" they wanted, so they took actions to gradually nueter those limitations (FDR's attempts to pack the Supreme Court being but one example).
Large corporations were only too happy to help the government implement these changes which a
Re: (Score:2)
The government as an institution has a hard time defending against big corp lobbyists, who have essentially unlimited funding compared with the working budget of congressmen or senators, and have far less tasks to concentrate on. They have done a lot to undermine government, and it took them a comparatively long time. So where I do disagree with you is in your implication th
Re: (Score:3)
They could wield the threatening power just fine without the government's help. You don't have to have a legitimate case to sue.
That said, the real problem is that lobbyists are basically writing the laws these days. Our congresscritters can say all they want to about the law not being used in that way. Odds are good that MPAA lobbyists wrote this bill, and that they knew exactly how it could be used and wrote it this way very deliberately.
Nothing short of an outright ban on paid lobbying can restore dem
Re:five years for 10 viewings? (Score:4)
Anyone else just getting tired of this crap?
Re: (Score:2)
>>>.....the fact that it is a felony.
>>>Anyone else just getting tired of this crap?
I am well past "tired".
I am angry.
Jefferson had the right idea when he proposed this amendment: "Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no other purpose." He suggested "19" be inserted into the blank.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Jefferson had the right idea when he proposed this amendment: "Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no other purpose." He suggested "19" be inserted into the blank.
I have thought of non-transferable IP as perhaps a good policy, but then you'd get murdered so your patent would expire.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>.....the fact that it is a felony. >>>Anyone else just getting tired of this crap?
I am well past "tired". I am angry.
Jefferson had the right idea when he proposed this amendment: "Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no other purpose." He suggested "19" be inserted into the blank.
The Disney version of this story says he sugguested '19,000,000,000,000'
Re: (Score:2)
Granted I think Cruel and Unjust punishment is much better then Cruel and Unusual (Especially as the Unusual may come up with more innovative and effective ideas). But Copyright law hasn't been keeping up with the modern times. The Laws are now unfairly harsh now because it doesn't factor in how easy it is now to break the law "innocently".
Back when these laws were designed copyright infringement meant often a full attempt to break the law. You needed expensive resources to produce copies. Either a lot of
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're LYING. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.
Re: (Score:3)
It is those uncommon uses which gives power to one who wishes to abuse. What may happen is that people get used to nobody doing anything about breaking it, then suddenly they "crack down" on it.
How about a car analogy. Let's say there is a law outlawing making left turns on Thursday.
Some people object saying it is ridiculous, that there are justifiable reasons to make left turns on Thursday.
The lawmakers say they only want this law for a particular
Re: (Score:2)
It already is. There were ads put out by the MPAA a few years ago stating there was a link between pirated movies and Al Queda.
stuff that is not clearly defined. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
May make it hard for a jury to convict and up to 5 year how many rapist and others will have to go free to make room? And who will pay to keep all that many people locked up? When we can't even find room for the drug offenders.
You haven't been paying attention. Jails are corporate run nowadays, we need more people to put in prison so that the prison corporations can make more money, from billing the government (you and I) and free (slave) labour. No rapists will go free. This is how Stalin built a railroad, it works.
This kind of reminds me of an episode of Stargate Atlantis. An off-world government would send people to "jail" for any little crime at all, and at the end, just because they felt like it (and made something up). As it turns out, they needed more bodies for the Wraith to feed on.
Substitude "Wraith" for "Corporations" and this totally fits with your scenario.
Re: (Score:2)
To put it in acceptable
Re:stuff that is not clearly defined. (Score:4, Informative)
(CBS/AP) SCRANTON, Pa. - Former juvenile court judge Mark Ciavarella was convicted in an alleged "kids for cash" scheme that accused him and another judge of sending youth offenders to for-profit detention centers in exchange for millions of dollars in illicit payments from the builder and owner of the lockups. ...
I see your Stargate: Atlantis and raise you real life.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow what a disgusting creature that "person" is. I hope that vile being is never allowed contact with society again.
{ . . . } & go to jail. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile, I can do whatever I want.
Cue Bart Simpson laugh...
Looking from Europe ... (Score:5, Funny)
The best solution for the interest groups involved would perhaps be to declare all of the US a jail (with some islands for the privileged).
This would be a rather elegant way to get rid of the 'constitution' 'legally'.
CC.
Re:Looking from Europe ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
... and solve the unemployment problem all at once ... genious ...
Re: (Score:2)
you know.. around here they state is looking at requiring community service hours for people collecting unemployment.. (something like 12 hours a month not much really)
some of the people who responded to it where quoted along the lines of "its not really unemployment if you have to work for it"
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of a twist on Wonko The Sane's asylum...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, since you're from Europe, you're obviously speaking from experience.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The best solution for the interest groups involved would perhaps be to declare all of the US a jail (with some islands for the rich).
This would be a rather elegant way to get rid of the 'constitution' 'legally'.
CC.
FTFY
Re: (Score:3)
They kinda already did... there's a 100 mile radius of all "border crossings" that's considered outside of Constitutional protections, so the north border, the south border, the coasts, and everywhere close enough to an airport, and the government has declared it can violate its founding document there. The courts upheld challenges to this. Here, found it: http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone [aclu.org]
La-and of the Freeee, and the Ho-ome of the Brrrraaaa
Re: (Score:2)
The best solution for the interest groups involved would perhaps be to declare all of the US a jail (with some islands for the privileged).
Unfortunately, those who live in such islands would be equally imprisoned, as a substantial part of the country will be barred to them.
9viewsonly.com (Score:5, Funny)
is the name of the video site I'm going to launch!
Re: (Score:2)
just put a counter on there and you are set
for(i10, i=0, i++)
{
play video link
}
delete video link
pardon my psuedo code for being sloppy, I haven't coded in nearly a dozen years
Yeah, right. (Score:2)
"... supporters of the bill insist that's not who will be targeted with this bill..."
If it's written that way, sooner or later somebody will enforce it that way. They always have.
Selective Enforcement (Score:2)
Agreed. If they don't want to prosecute them, don't make them criminals. The worst "laws" are the ones that are not enforced except at the government's whim.
The supporters are Lying (Score:3)
IF they are not Lying, then change the bill to close that loophole.
If they refuse to then they are bold faced liars. It really is as simple as that.
Why stop there? (Score:3)
I mean really - they're gonna ruin some kid's life because the kid misused an embed tag? Really? Doesn't the "Justice" system have a better way to use their time and spend our tax dollars? Clownshoes.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha! I've got them beat. I'm thinking about the latest crop of movies and I haven't seen them at all! What's that knocking? ..... What do you mean, "under arrest for depriving the entertainment industry of deserved profits"?
Re: (Score:2)
misused an embed tag?
The only tag you can misuse is the <blink> tag
Express your view (Score:3)
Grow a pair and call for a boycott (Score:3)
Put down the mp3 player and streaming video toys and pick up an instrument. If you want entertainment, get creative and make your own. Then you can do all the sharing you want with content you make.
Like it or not, whining about "they are taking away my perceived rights" on /. will have no effect on the people who are writing this legislation. But if the people who are supposed to be paying for this content all say loudly in one voice "Your content is crap and I don't want it" and then grow a pair and stick to their convictions and DON'T WATCH THE CONTENT FROM THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BACKING THIS LEGISLATION IN ANY FORM, the loss of 10-20 million viewers will have an impact the longer it keeps up. The only language those people understand is cash. They think they are getting less than they deserve so they buy votes. We outnumber them so remind them they exist because we allow them to. It's not like your life will end if you don't hear/view the latest "thing".
Besides, if /. started looking around and something other than the media content this is about, you might notice there's a lot of stuff that geeks can do to keep crap like this from expanding.
Walk away. Nothing to see here. Literally
Re: (Score:2)
I've been saying this for years. And living it.
Re:Grow a pair and call for a boycott (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The stupid people need protection too, and they outnumber the /. crowd. Left to their own devices they will elect the charasmatic person as leader who will screw all of us.
I don't want to retreat into an enclave of people who ignore copyright. We should fight against those who would lock up our culture and deny it to future generations.
Re: (Score:3)
Intent vs whats written (Score:2)
So I've been thinking (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically what I'm getting at here is that I now believe that in order to effect change, the only way to proceed is to play their same game against them. I propose creating a holdings company, getting it classified as a NPO, and then using donations generated by those interested in the lofty goals of the organization to purchase stock in the companies that are causing the problems. Any and all dividends made from the stock would go toward operational costs of the organization itself, and any surplus would go toward purchasing additional stock. The purpose of this is to be able to try to lobby within the stockholder's meetings with the stockholders themselves, and at worst case and assuming that the organization has enough stock to do so, threaten to tank the company by liquidating the stock for pennies. I'm no market analyst, but I'm pretty sure that it would play havoc with all the automated trading systems were a couple thousand shares of stock to be put out there for 1% of the current asking price.
Anyway, I thought I'd leave this here, figuring that if anyone was cynical enough to be able to shred this to pieces, it'd be Slashdot. Obviously, it has flaws. I'm no genius, and it was just something that came to me the other day, so I've hardly spent much time considering it.
Friedman vs Freeman (Score:2)
This is a clasic issue of business ethics and Friedman vs Freeman is typically cited. In "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits" Friedman argues that companies should act in their own self interest and the interest of their share holders. Social issue are only a concern if they are in the self interest of the company. Freeman presents an almost diametrically opposing view in his article "A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation". Freeman's view is that companies have res
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Face book and others (Score:2)
Absurd (Score:4, Insightful)
I want my friend to see a really funny movie from 20 years ago, but they're not convinced it's worth their time. I search YouTube and I find a video of some highlights, so I send my friend the link to the video. I assume the clips fall under fair use because otherwise YouTube would have pulled them, right?
My friend watches the video, likes it, goes down to the store and buys the DVD and thanks me for introducing him to it.
The MPAA "piracy squad" spends all its time searching YouTube for copyrighted videos. It sues YouTube for its records, the logs show that I used their "share" feature to share the link with one person, and that person watched the video twice. The piracy squad watches the video 8 more times and then sicks its lawyers on me. Since I did indeed link to the video, and it was watched 10 times, I am guilty and convicted of a felony [wikipedia.org]. I lose the ability to vote, the ability to work at many jobs, the right to possess firearms, ammunition and body armor, eligibility for welfare, eligibility for federally-funded housing, and the right to serve on a jury. I no longer have any influence in society and am reduced to flipping burgers by day and scanning retail inventory by night to scrape together enough money to live, which presumably keeps me sufficiently occupied to stay out of trouble.
Meanwhile, the MPAA gets a fee from the sale of the DVD that my friend would never have bought otherwise, they tip the balance of power in government further toward themselves by taking one more voter out of commission, and they strike fear in the hearts of anyone who even thinks about doing anything with video. The only previews you will get to see are the ones they force you to watch every time you pop in a DVD you bought from them.
Perhaps we could counterbalance this bill by adding language that makes it a felony to disable the FFWD or MENU button on a consumer's remote control. It's at least as criminal an act as linking to some YouTube video: millions of people are forced to watch 30 seconds to 5 minutes of previews every time they want to watch the movies they paid to "own" in their own homes. Sure, you could pop the movie in 5 minutes before you're ready to watch it, but the amount of productivity and electricity this needlessly wastes on a global scale is staggering. That's criminal.
I thought the GOP was (Score:2)
pushing for way less government?
a grim outlook... (Score:2)
Honestly, it takes an idiot to not realize that it is precisely such "it won't be the people you think we'll go after tha we'll go after" laws that effectively support a police state bordering on the infamous "new world order" model. Because, if they can, they WILL go after you. If they would want to. Give them a reason, c'mon! Of course simple laws of economy and ROI (let's face it, the modern world is largely a commercial enterprise of sorts) says that a 14 year old kid linking to infringed material on Yo
now you get to pay to protect their profits, too! (Score:3, Insightful)
By making this a criminal instead of civil issue - its not about locking you up - its about getting the government to prosecute copyright infringements instead of the corporation.
By making linking into a criminal law, now largescale content owners can harness the raw power of the taxpayer dollar - the governement is now the plaintiff, and government laywers are prosecuting on behalf of the corporations. Just like they have done with IP and piracy, by linking their profit protection to criminal matters (the Pirates are stealing our product and selling it on the streets!) they get to defray the costs of protecting their profts, and sic the government on anything they don't want to see happening, like sharing passwords or sharing content, when they could be making profits off of those interactions.
Time for Atlas to shrug? (Score:2)
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
I was never an Ayn Rand fan, but she nailed that one. I leave it others to argue whether it was actual prescience or the "stopped clock" effect.
Fortunately ... (Score:2)
The kinds of legislation I worry about are where a few sentences get added to some unrelated legislation (some "Feed the Poor, Starving Children" type bill) that sneaks this kin
Police State (Score:2)
Priorities (Score:2)
The average jail time served for rape is 65 months.
Potential jail time for linking to a youtube video under this law? Up to 60 months.
It's really all about YouTube (Score:2)
This all begs the question as to which competitor to YouTube is paying (I mean supporting their re-election campaign...) the bill's sponsor behind the scenes. Someone wants YouTube shut down and is obviously getting this exact sort of wording put into the bill so that they can do it.
Remember, it's never about politics or even copyrights these days. It's about power and money.
Now I gotta give it up (Score:3)
So a Rick Roll is a federal crime?
Re: (Score:2)
Multiply your vote by getting involved in party activities not just during election seasons, but between them. That's when candidates are proposed and selected and party platforms get written. By attending monthly meetings, and maybe going out for a drink or three with people you meet at those meetings, you can multiply your one vote by 100. Do any kind of election work or donate to candidates with whom you agree, and the multiplier is even greater.
Call our form of government a Democracy or a Republic. Up t
Re:what can I do (Score:2)
This is it, what I've been calling Superclick.
If they pass it (and a few patches), it's the Grand Slam end to all Web 2.0.
As long as the law was only about uploaders, the viewing public was safe. But if they switch it to make linking a crime, and by extension clicking unauthorized copies, all sharing will end instantly except the Johnny Mnemonic Low-Tek rebels.
It will instantly slice down YouTube to a mix of corporate accounts and little guys.
wake up and take responsibility (Score:2)
No, more likely the UK would itself charge and convict you, since UK laws are at least as draconian; no need to extradite you. Theses kinds of laws are massive cases of policy laundering [wikipedia.org]. Britain (and Europe) are at least as much at fault here as the US.
Take responsibility for your own country instead of believing the propaganda that this is all America's fault.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes extradition is a real threat in the EU. You can be accused of a crime in Poland, and the UK Judge has no choice, by law, but to deport you to that member state. Extradition to the US is more complicated, but still a danger.
Personally I think that's bullshit. "There's nothing I can do; I must comply with the law" has been used too many times by Judges, lawyers, police, et cetera. Yes there IS something you can do.
You can refuse to comply with unjust laws.
It's called nullification -
refuse to obey unco
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the "it will only be used against the bad guys" excuse is sufficient, then why make such detailed laws at all? Just make a law stating "you can be thrown into prison for any reason" and assure everyone that it will only be used against the bad guys.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Talk about scary - is everyone supposed to be an expert in copyright law?
Yes, you are expected to know which YouTube videos are posted legally and which aren't. Make a mistake, and it's off to jail for you.
Re: (Score:2)
No - that's the best part of it. It's a "go to jail when I want you to" ticket for those in power. Sort of like in North Korea, China and the Mid-East. Except that in China and the Mid-East the people are getting restless about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Why does the government get involved in auto theft? Why does the government get involved in fraud? Why does the government get involved in assault? Why does the government get involved in trespassing? Do you want to be responsible for the full cost of tracking down and prosecuting someone who committed any of those crimes against you?