Proposed US Law Could Slap Twitch Streamers With Felonies For Broadcasting Copyrighted Material (kotaku.com) 208
Republican senator Thom Tillis has introduced a proposal to turn unauthorized commercial streaming of copyrighted material into a felony offense with a possible prison sentence. It's currently being included in a must-pass spending bill. Kotaku reports: Currently, such violations, no matter how severe, are considered misdemeanors rather than felonies, because the law regards streaming as a public performance. With Twitch currently in the crosshairs of the music industry, such a change would turn up the heat on streamers and Twitch even higher -- perhaps to an untenable degree. Other platforms, like YouTube, would almost certainly suffer as well. According to [Politico offshoot Protocol], House and Senate Judiciary Committees have agreed to package the streaming felony proposal with other controversial provisions that include the CASE act, which would establish a new court-like entity within the U.S. Copyright Office to resolve copyright disputes, and the Trademark Modernization Act, which would give the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office more flexibility to crack down on illegitimate claims from foreign countries.
It's not difficult to see why Tillis would push a proposal that benefits big companies in the entertainment industry to the detriment of regular people; The American Prospect points out that in the past couple years, Tillis' campaign committee and leadership received donations totaling out to well over $100,000 from PACs with ties to the Motion Picture Association, Sony Pictures, Universal Music Group, Comcast & NBC Universal, The Internet and Television Association, Salem Media Group, and Warner Music, among many others.
It's not difficult to see why Tillis would push a proposal that benefits big companies in the entertainment industry to the detriment of regular people; The American Prospect points out that in the past couple years, Tillis' campaign committee and leadership received donations totaling out to well over $100,000 from PACs with ties to the Motion Picture Association, Sony Pictures, Universal Music Group, Comcast & NBC Universal, The Internet and Television Association, Salem Media Group, and Warner Music, among many others.
Soon (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Soon (Score:5, Funny)
Buy stock in prison corps?
Re:Soon (Score:5, Funny)
Buy stock in prison corps?
Do it, get in now before buying them is a felony.
Re: (Score:2)
A++!!!
Re: (Score:2)
At the rate that lawmakers are turning everything into felonies, pretty soon there won't be anything but felonies.
And it's not as if the prison system didn't have more people than the least populated US states.
Quite honestly, I feel as if content creators need to band together and all post videos in a 24 hours period posting against this. During that 24 hours they should post nothing else. Once people see their whole stream for the day full of this they will notice. Something along the lines "All your favourite YouTubers could find themselves serving jail time, by accident".
Re: (Score:3)
Thats actually significantly underestimating just how many people are in prison.
As of 2016 there was 2.3 million people incarcerated in the US, which would make it the 5th largest city in the US.
Apparently the number has gone down a fair bit due to judicial pressure from rulings that find overcrowding to be cruel and unusual in an epidemic. This is a good thing btw, theres absolutely no reason for some guy who ju
Re:Soon (Score:5, Insightful)
At the rate that lawmakers are turning everything into felonies, pretty soon there won't be anything but felonies.
And with more felons you have less voters! perfect policy
Re: Soon (Score:2)
When everything is a felony... then nothing will be.
Re: (Score:3)
Except for baselessly contesting election results.
That will always be legal.
Re:Soon (Score:5, Insightful)
At the rate that lawmakers are turning everything into felonies, pretty soon there won't be anything but felonies.
Don't forget: When everyone is guilty of something, then you have the solid foundations of a dictatorship. It gives those in charge the unrestricted ability to have anyone who doesn't agree with them arrested -- after all, "they did break the law!"
/Any law that 'everyone' breaks clearly does not reflect the will of the people, and ought to be questioned
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Streaming a song: felony (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Streaming a song: felony. Shooting unarmed people: not even a misdemeanor.
Streaming yourself while shooting unarmed people who are humming a song: Justifiable Homicide.
Re: (Score:3)
When you work for the police, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
In the last 5 years, there have been 5,491 people shot by police. Of those, if you search https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com] 374 cases involved someone unarmed. Clearly, every unarmed shooting should be seriously investigated, however some of those shouldn't be prosecuted. And, while these case normally make a big splash in the media, 374 our of the hundreds of thousands of arrests is a pretty small number.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Most people on the planet have no sense of proportion. I never indicated that these incidents aren't bad. However, we're talking about roughly 75 per year. If you really care about life as much as I suspect, you should be putting efforts toward the issues that cause the most premature deaths, because this doesn't even make a dent in those numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
However, almost every state that has a form of the "Castle Doctrine" or the "Stand Your Ground" law has a list of circumstances that must be met before successfully pleading these as a defense. Things like reasonable force, retreat if possible, or fear or life are taken in
Re: (Score:2)
However, almost every state that has a form of the "Castle Doctrine" or the "Stand Your Ground" law has a list of circumstances that must be met before successfully pleading these as a defense
As my Crim law professor explained during the "self defense" section of the class, the "almost" is required for Florida. Surprise surprise.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm well aware of those, but the implication isn't that we're talking about self defense cases here. At least that's the way I took it.
felony offense = real court with jurys and rights (Score:4, Interesting)
felony offense = real court with jurys and rights you don't get in an civil trail
Re: (Score:2)
It also means jail time (Score:5, Informative)
Moreover it means plea deals. Almost nobody goes to court because the risk is too high. You never know what a jury will do. You might walk if they like you. If not you might do 5-10 for nothing. Doubly so if you're black, and you better believe law enforcement knows an easy target and a quick notch on their belt when they see one.
Re: (Score:3)
Moreover it means plea deals.
You don't want to go to jail now do ya? Common we know you're working for Pewdiepie. Why defend him! Just sign this statement and this will all go away!
Stolen Music at DNC/GOP National Convention? (Score:5, Insightful)
I call the game Dev's to the stand to answer quest (Score:3)
I call the game Dev's to the stand to answer questions.
Ok then let's pub EA games on the stand to answer questions about the music rights they paid for the game if they covered streaming in them.
If I buy an game an they say it's ok to do streaming then why am I being changed with an crime do them putting in 3rd party content does cover streaming?
Re:I call the game Dev's to the stand to answer qu (Score:5, Informative)
That's why some games have streamer mode which strips out all of the things you can't rebroadcast.
Re:I call the game Dev's to the stand to answer qu (Score:4, Interesting)
That's why some games have streamer mode which strips out all of the things you can't rebroadcast.
That has to be the dumbest reflection of us as a society in existence. Here buy this game, oh but if someone watches you play it push this button because we have some special content that is only licensed for 2 eyeballs at once!
How did our race get so fucking dumb, at this point I'm cheering on COVID-19, because frankly we deserve it.
If they paid for Streaming rights you're fine (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the game is on auto update and has on line DRM so I question the dev's why if it was expired why has it not taken out?
Re: (Score:2)
If they remove some of the music from the game, when one of the selling points was the particular set of music it included, then they have degraded the product post-sale and that act may have significant potential legal liability.
First step to eliminate fair use. (Score:2, Insightful)
IP really needs to be reassessed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IP really needs to be reassessed... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the copyright holders (who aren't the same as the creators) have more money to give to politicians than assault victims do. The copyright holders really don't care about the details, or whether someone actually was or was not infringing, they just see the big picture of "need to stop piracy by all possible means and collateral damage is acceptable". Profits override every other consideration. And both Republicans and Democrats are fully behind this anti-freedom movement, including the president and senators who campaign heavily on false "we will protect your freedom!" slogans.
Re: (Score:2)
and the jail at home people can collect an $25/day monitoring fee.
Re: IP really needs to be reassessed... (Score:2)
Given that corporate lobby groups pretty much run the legislature, there's essentially zero chance that government will take a step towards curtailing corporate power and giving it back to civil institutions.
Ban All Music (Score:2)
That will fix the problem 100%. Kill anyone playing music then it just can't be pirated.
It's the only way.
Meanwhile I will just finish listening to this Cattle Decapitation album on YouTube for fuckin' free. I feel so dirty now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just kill the music. Sure it will be harsh for music fans, but it will only be temporarily until the big publishers go bankrupt and die out, at which point we can reboot the system.
Re: (Score:2)
That will fix the problem 100%. Kill anyone playing music then it just can't be pirated.
It's the only way.
Meanwhile I will just finish listening to this Cattle Decapitation album on YouTube for fuckin' free. I feel so dirty now.
Hasn't FarmCorp been using copyright to stop animal cruelty videos? sorry turn in your Cattle Decapitation album or face the music
Ya, but ... (Score:3)
Tillis' campaign committee and leadership received donations totaling out to well over $100,000 from PACs with ties to the Motion Picture Association, Sony Pictures, Universal Music Group, Comcast & NBC Universal, The Internet and Television Association, Salem Media Group, and Warner Music, among many others.
Not defending waste-of-space Senator Thom Tillis (R- NC) but $100k is chump change in this context. Either he was already of the same mind as the media groups or he sells himself cheap.
In addition, media companies might want to watch out for what they wish. If their media stops getting streamed, there will be less exposure and people might stop wanting and/or caring about what media companies are trying to sell. If you don't see/hear it, you won't miss it.
Re: (Score:2)
or he sells himself cheap.
I mean compare against people who got paid off to spy on their own country
https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe... [fivethirtyeight.com]
You can convince people to turn traitor for surprisingly little.
What an absolute crock of shit (Score:2)
Can we also make it a felony... (Score:5, Insightful)
...if a politician uses a song without the consent of the artist?
Because that sure seems to have happened a lot over the past four years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Consent of the artist often doesn't matter, because the artists often don't have control over their own music. Of course, the actual copyright holder might complain if not being paid, but on the other hand it's not smart to demand that the dictator-in-chief pay up.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure it matters.The artist could say its defamation of character if a politician they hate implies they endorse them by using their music.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Can we also make it a felony... (Score:4, Interesting)
It has been happening for more then the last four years. I remember Randy Bachman bitching about Republicans using Taking Care of Business without permission a decade or more back and how it was impossible to go after them as the actual companies would fold right after the election. Whole thing is crooked with the law makers busily breaking the laws with no consequences.
Come on guys (Score:5, Insightful)
It's currently being included in a must-pass spending bill.
What? Why? That's a stupid way to run a country.
Tillis' campaign committee and leadership received donations totaling out to well over $100,000 from PACs with ties to the Motion Picture Association, Sony Pictures, Universal Music Group, Comcast & NBC Universal, The Internet and Television Association, Salem Media Group, and Warner Music, among many others.
Holy shit! That's even worse.
Why do you allow your country to be run like that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because elections are amazingly expensive. If they want to keep their cushy do-nothing jobs that require no actual thinking then they need lots and lots of money. Why do they insist that Trump won the election? Because they want to keep their cushy jobs! They not only sell out their votes, they sell out their souls as well.
This is like the ending of The Magic Christian, where tons of cash is dropped into sewage and soon everyone is diving in to get some of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not from the US, though I did live there for a couple of years
It's currently being included in a must-pass spending bill.
What? Why? That's a stupid way to run a country.
Completely agree. Personally I'd be all in favour of tar & feathering </hyperbole> any and all senators, from either side of the aisle, who added completely unrelated items to bills. Ironically, separating those items out into individual bills would streamline the approval (or rejection) process, as well as making the system more transparent. Win / win, unless your intention is not to act in the best interests of your country.
Tillis' campaign committee and leadership received donations totaling out to well over $100,000 from PACs with ties to the Motion Picture Association, Sony Pictures, Universal Music Group, Comcast & NBC Universal, The Internet and Television Association, Salem Media Group, and Warner Music, among many others.
Holy shit! That's even worse.
Why do you allow your country to be run like that?
After the
Re: Come on guys (Score:2)
After the past four years, do you REALLY think "oh my gosh, there's something silly in an omnibus bill" hits home with anyone? I mean the sitting president's lawyer suggested we might need to replace the FBI because they're corrupt... like a week or two ago. And THAT passed like a fart in a stiff breeze.
Sure brah, omnibus legislation, that's super duper concerning, I totally have the mental energy to care about that right now, soon as I'm done contemplating the Supreme Court being asked to flip an electio
Re: (Score:2)
As an extension to your point in many saner countries its illegal for a spending bill to cover anything other than direct spending. That puts a quick stop to this kind of bullshit.
Everything is illegal (Score:2)
Too many laws, too many corrupt laws, and people will just ignore them.
Unsorry, but the po-po has murders, rapes, and violent robberies and assaults to worry about. Protecting the RIAA's manufactured lah-dee-dahs is very low on the list of priorities.
It's a PROPOSAL not a BILL (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's a PROPOSAL not a BILL (Score:4, Insightful)
Aah if only American stupidity was contained within its borders.
And the beat plays on (Score:3)
1) require states to use Ranked Candidate Voting.
2) switch to public funding for campaigns.
While I am not sure about the first, the second requires an amendment. Lessig's approach is probably the best one: every campaign cycle, either registered voter or citizen (not sure which), get a certain amount of money depending on federal races, say $2.5/5.0/10.0. This is split with $5 to the president, 2.50 to the senator, and 2.50 to the rep. The voter then decides to WHICH candidate (only those that they can vote for or write-in ) to give this to, allocating it as they see fit. No other $ is allocated and no other advertising is done EXCEPT by the candidate. This way, it blocks foreign government, rich ppl, businesses from controlling the politician. In addition, we can see how they spend OUR $. If they are smart, they will wait until fairly close to the election. Note that while you can not give other $ to a politician, you are free to go and help campaign for anybody.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure you understand how ranked-choice voting actually works in the real world. This article actually has a reasonable summary of the pitfalls:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/r... [wsj.com]
Ranked voting allows for MORE polarization, because it provides a cushion to vote for a more extreme position first, by just ranking it higher.
Re: (Score:3)
RCV forces the major groups into the center. The reason is that the more extreme they become, the higher the likelihood that a 3rd party will spring up in the middle.
What RCv WILL DO, is stop either parties from such criminal action as this. [tampabay.com]
Mass shot it down because of a massive $ flowing from both Dems and GOP. However, Alaska approved it. And the fact is, that RCV is used in a number
Re: (Score:3)
Love this one in there.
Another implication of Ballot Measure 2 is that Alaska’s moderate Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski, is in less danger of being primaried from the right — which is what happened in 2010, when a more conservative Republican won the party’s nomination, forcing Murkowski to run an unprecedented successful write-in campaign to keep her seat. In a ranked-choice voting system, Murkowski only needs to be one of the top four candidates in the primary to advance to the general election.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that while you can not give other $ to a politician, you are free to go and help campaign for anybody.
This is the argument that allows SuperPACs so I'm not sure you are actually fixing anything here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How about you do something far easier: Pass a law that limits spending bills to spending. Many other countries have such a law, and adding riders to spending bills is unconstitutional.
Why is it a crime? (Score:2)
This should be a civil, not a criminal, issue.
The bill doesn't say this at all (Score:2)
The bill criminalizes unauthorized streaming services, not adding music to your twitch stream.
Read the actual law before you post these ridiculous statements.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really interested in seeing what you think "unauthorized streaming service" actually means.
Republicans are terrorists (Score:2)
Felony overkil (Score:2)
Felonies are usually reserved for severe crimes. You name them, I don't have time. But serious stuff.
The crime here is using somebody else's content, which is not nearly the same as murdering someone or stealing cars or all the other sorts of felonies. So now they want to equate misusing a song to killing someone? How are these crimes even remotely similar? And if they are not, which they aren't, how can the classification and presumably punishment be similar?
Makes NO sense.
What would make sense is a
Get less time for an DUI and an WI DUI is very eas (Score:2)
Get less time for an DUI and an WI DUI is very easy (civil offense for 1st time)
You will probably have to redo your nation. (Score:3)
"... Not the greatest country in the world. ..."
That famous speach from that TV series? Spot on.
Being a former US citizen and having lived most of my life in (Western) Germany, having family in the US and watching with interest what's going on with you guys it's becoming more and more evident to me that the US will have to redo their nation from the bottom up. A bit like post war Germany. There is so much fundamentally wrong with the system and its getting worse as we speak. Electoral system, education, health care, penal system, welfare, all-out corporate socialism presented and sold as capitalism... It's all a bizarr train wreck and that cold hard fact is slowly drawing on the people. I so hope that you guys can do this halfway peacefully and without another civil war and that the States can engage in a healthy peaceful competition like that federal states in Germany today.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
maybe I should have stayed (Score:2)
When I left the US Army back in the early 1970s we had the option to be discharged in Europe if we were stationed there. Top two on my list were Denmark and (then-Western) Germany.
I frequently wonder if I should have stayed. My German was passable, and I could have picked up Danish in one of their immersion schools.
The most democratic country I know of is Germany, where the variety of parties allow voters to choose between more options for the Bundestag (legislature) than which wing of the DemoPublican pa
YTCracker is a prophet (Score:2)
Dictatorship (Score:2)
The Media rules this country. (Score:2)
It is hard to counter any argument that the media actually, legit, seriously runs this country and continually tries to expand and cement their power over it.
If you're a political candidate the media doesn't like, expect to get your house torched by the mob. Criticise the media under your real name, bam, you're a conspiracy theorist now, expect your accounts be terminated and if you persist, your house torched by the mob.
" All within the media, nothing outside the media, nothing against the media." would a
There's already a model which solves this (Score:3)
What we need is a law to force the music industry to offer a similar blanket licensing to streamers and YouTube/Vimeo/etc. content creators. It's been some 15 years since video sharing sites became a thing, and the music industry shows zero interest in doing this on their own. They're gonna have to be dragged kicking and screaming into it.
Bring on the Baroque and Classical Music!!! (Score:2)
I see a day when people start to use music based on compositions from Baroque- and Classical-era composers. Totally fair use. Maybe some type of depository for music based on those composers to be uploaded free of any license, and use of these tracks could be prima facie evidence that there has been no copyright violation. That wouldn't solve everything, but it would be a start.
Felony? (Score:2)
First of all, making a civil matter a felony is insane.
Secondly, if we're going this route could you make falsly reporting copyright infringement a felony as well?
Re: (Score:2)
and outcry when an rapist get's less time and is set free to make room for some one who just streamed an shit B side.
Re: (Score:2)
From the bill... https://www.tillis.senate.gov/... [senate.gov]
‘‘(c) PENALTIES.—Any person who violates sub21 section (b) shall be, in addition to any penalties provided
22 for under title 17 or any other law—
23 ‘‘(1) fined under this title, imprisoned not more
24 than 3 years, or both;
5
ALB20D51 5S9 S.L.C.
1 ‘‘(2) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned
2 not more than 5years, or both, if the offense was
3 committed in connection with 1 or more works being
4 prepared for com
Re: Suggestions for a more profitable bill (Score:2)
Re:Ha ha indeed. There is such bill. What actually (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.tillis.senate.gov/... [senate.gov]
Re:Ha ha indeed. There is such bill. What actually (Score:4, Informative)
Thanks for the link. A quick read-through of the bill seem to pretty specifically exclude any secondary violations:
‘‘(b) PROHIBITED ACT.—It shall be unlawful to willfully, and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, offer or provide to the public a digital transmission service that—
‘(2) has no commercially significant purpose or use other than to publicly perform works protected under title 17 by means of a digital transmission without the authority of the copyright owner or the13law; or...
Obviously, I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't that seem to exclude streams with copyrighted content playing in the background? This seems to only target copyright violations that clearly have no purpose but copy other copyrighted work, and have no other purpose. That would seem not to doesn't apply to streamers, who are commenting on background material, showing gameplay, etc. Now, if a Twitch streamer broadcast nothing but the copyrighted material, they'd clearly be in violation.
I don't necessarily like the escalation to felony status. We should reserve that for the most serious of offenses, and this is nothing but a nuisance to copyright holders. But I'm not sure the danger is being properly represented here either. I see this often, exaggerated claims in a "good cause", but I think it erodes trust in the long run.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The games twitch streamers play are copyrighted works; so technically twitch "has no commercially significant purpose or use other than to publicly perform works protected under title 17 by means of a digital transmission without the authority of the copyright owner"
Re: (Score:3)
‘‘(b) PROHIBITED ACT.—It shall be unlawful to willfully, and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, offer or provide to the public a digital transmission service that—
I'm also not a lawyer. But, it's actually saying say providing the service is illegal. From my reading of the rest of it, my take away is that it's making running a site for copyright material is illegal. I don't know how vague the wording is under legal scrutiny, but it sounds like Twitch itself might be illegal to run under this. Since the core of the service is people playing games that are copyrighted materials, it could be interpreted to mean Twitch would need authorization for the games being streamed
Re: (Score:2)
And don't forget any streamer that makes a profit from their stream using said game playing stream.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if a twitch streamer broadcasts a game, it's not the output from running/playing the game that's copyrighted - its the game itself.
Re: (Score:3)
I appreciate you finding and linking that bill, which states the criminal copyright infringement includes a streaming service that:
--
is primarily designed or provided for the purpose of publicly performing works protected under title 17 by means of a digital transmission without the authority of the copyright owner or the law;
2) has no commercially significant purpose or
use other than to publicly perform works protected
under title 17 by means of a digital transmission
without the authority of
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this Informative. It's clearly incorrect as outlined in the bill linked by Knightman.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright infringement is always a crime.
Also, before you bring it up, fair use is not an admission of infringement, it is an admission that one has made copies without permission, which does not constitute copyright infringement when and where an exception to infringement (such as fair use) would apply.
Re: (Score:2)
If you'd like to know about the law, check out the difference between unlawful and criminal. If it can get you sued, it's probably unlawful. If it can get you thrown in jail, it's criminal.
Copyright infringement is unlawful (except for when it's not).
The copyright owner could sue the infringer for money damages.
Under certain circumstances, copyright infringement *for profit* is criminal - a crime - can result in jail time.
If you really want to understand it, the Copyright Act isn't that long at all, you ca
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright infringement is always unlawful.
There can be exceptions to copying without permission that do not constitute copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
How about instead of celebrating the thing that mildly irritates you becoming a felony crime, you don't watch those shitty videos? There are tons of videos covering video games, movies, and music that just can't exist without the audio.
Christ, what's next, banning the sale of speakers that go over a certain decibel level because someone else might hear the music you're listening to?