Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Piracy

US Senators Introduce SMART Copyright Act To Combat Piracy (torrentfreak.com) 92

Posted by BeauHD from the breaking-the-stalemate dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: U.S. Senators Thom Tillis and Patrick Leahy have introduced the SMART Copyright Act of 2022. The bill requires online hosting services to implement standard technical protection measures, designated by the Copyright Office. The general idea is to grant the Copyright Office the power to designate standard technical protection measures to be implemented by online hosting platforms. These STMs can be tailored to specific niches such as audio and video, which offers much more flexibility than the current regime under the DMCA.

In short, the bill will give the government more tools to facilitate and encourage the implementation of anti-piracy mechanisms, while allowing online services to keep their safe harbors. The full text of the bill provides more details on how the approval process of a proposed protection measure works. In addition to hearing stakeholders, experts, and the public, the designated protection measures have to be weighed on factors such as cost and availability. They shouldn't create any major burdens for online services. Similarly, the rights of the public are taken into account as well. This includes the impact a technical measure may have on privacy and data protection, as well as on free speech issues such as criticism and news.

Finally, it is worth noting that online services will be able to appeal officially designated protection measures in court. In addition, they can also choose not to implement them. However, that opens the door to lawsuits from copyright holders. The statutory damages amounts for services that fail to implement the designated technical protection measures are capped at $150,000 for a single violation, but that number can shoot up for repeat offenders. [...] Rightsholders see the proposal as a great step forward to protect creators, while opponents classify it as a filtering tool that will censor free speech.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Senators Introduce SMART Copyright Act To Combat Piracy More

US Senators Introduce SMART Copyright Act To Combat Piracy

Comments Filter:

  • DUMB (Score:3)

    by locater16 ( 2326718 ) on Monday March 21, 2022 @05:08PM (#62378247)
    LAWYERS

  • Because, in America, you have more power if you have money.

    I'm sure all of the politicians agree that Sony's profits aren't enough. If they don't, most of the holdouts will after a few dinners at some nice restaurants.

    Likely, these large corporations will also write the legislation.

    --
    When you don't take a stand against corruption you tacitly support it. - Kamal Haasan

    • Let's go to Pizza Hut and put a dollar in the vending machine to play your song.... uh, wait a second.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Z80a ( 971949 )

      The american government is just a lap dog for the multinational corporations pretty much.

    • That's where you have the most power. Also never listen to a politician. Read a politician. Look up transcripts of what they say. Politicians use body language to trick you into supporting them. They use clever advertisements to do the same. As a voter you need to stay away from the tricks that they use and focus on their actual words.

    • As a content creator, I sense huge amounts of icky coming our way. This will be used as a gatekeeping device for "unapproved" (i.e. independent) content creators. I release music and novels as an independent artist because, frankly, I'd rather the little dribble of money I'll ever make doing my specific niches go into my production than into the corporate coffers of some massive publishing conglomerate. Even the summary here instantly makes me think, "Ah, so we need MORE ways to block content for non-corpor

      • ...

        Maybe I'm just cynical and this isn't a direct attempt to tamp down independent creators, but it's almost guaranteed it will be used that way....

        You are cynical
        That's not the question
        The question is: are you cynical ENOUGH?

      • OK, lets see if I have this right. In the proposed bill:

        514(a)8(d)1. The Librarian [of Congress] shall accept petitions, from owners of copyrighted works, service providers, and other stakeholders, proposing the designation of a technical measure or the rescission or revision of a designated technical measure.
        514(a)8(c)1. The Librarian may, at the recommendation of the Register. . .designate proposed technical measures that
        (i) are available to any person on (I) nondiscriminatory terms; and (II)(aa) a royal

  • How about giving more tools to prod companies to provide content in the format users want at a reasonable price?

    • They've already said "NO!" to that. Open standards have watermarks, and usage restrictions prevent a video-out from your HDTV.

    • Re:How about (Score:4, Insightful)

      by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Monday March 21, 2022 @05:49PM (#62378407) Journal
      You don't need tools for that, but rules. For a good while, the rule in the Netherlands was: if it's not available legally for a reasonable price, then we won't prosecute people for pirating it. Sadly that rule ran afoul of trade areements, which are notoriously heavy on protection of intellectual "property".

      But for starters, lets bring copyright back to its original intent, a temporary monopoly granted by the public for the public good, not "intellectual property" for lining rights holders' pockets. Lining their pockets was a means rather than an end, and we've forgotten that. Copyright should have a reasonable duration, and a generous interpretation of fair use and de minimis.
      • Also in the Netherlands, the term for copyright translates to "author's right" Rights should by definition not be for sale, and therefore reside with the author.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The other issue is fair use. I like the idea proposed for the EU, where the uploader confirms that any copyrighted material is covered by fair use. Copyright holders can challenge it, but the onus is on them to show that it's not fair use.

        No more bots flagging up everything with a tiny snippet of a song in it, all reviews have to be done by a human, with suitable penalties for abuse.

      • I think the solution should boil down more specifically to being able to claim official distribution status, and let the market hash it out; similar to instagram or twitter, a publisher could be given a check-mark equivalent as being the official distributor of something, and cultivating a social component of getting content from official sources only, plus offering a discount or some other incentive for reporting unofficial distributors. There will always be pirates, and the pirated version for free was ne

    • How about giving more tools to prod companies to provide content in the format users want at a reasonable price?

      Not going to happen they realized you were all morons over the last 23+ years you gave up software and game ownership and all bought windows 10/11. You never buy client-server software, it's the same thing as stealing the program from yourself.

      That's why were getting TPM chip requirements in windows 11+ they are changing how exe's are made over the next 20 years and locking down IO with encypted binaries and file systems you won't have access to when you buy new games and programs over the next 20 years, t

  • Because certain industries, specially the gaming one prefer to let shit rot than preserve, specially when it's stuff that is better than what they're producing now.

  • It's a prior restraint of free speech.

    • Copyright was also mentioned in the founding documents...

      • Copyright was also mentioned in the founding documents...

        And constitutions are always vague enough that nobody knows when one right ends and another begins.

        • Somebody should know... we call them SCotUS.

          • They seem to be fixated on the idea that the authors of the constitution were too stupid to write down what they meant and instead the justices are to be authorities on mindreading the collective thoughts of long-dead people from a different era to divine (impartially of course) what they were thinking-in-common at the time. Some of them should perhaps be called high priests.

    • Re:Likely unconstitutional (Score:5, Insightful)

      by taustin ( 171655 ) on Monday March 21, 2022 @06:10PM (#62378473) Homepage Journal

      So is shouting FIRE in a crowded theater when nothing is, in fact, on fire, but you'll still go to prison for it.

      Ergo, you are mistaken. The 1st amendment and copyright can interact in complicated ways, but they are not incompatible.

      The real BS on this is that what it will really do (and is intended to do) is raise the barriers to entry into the market, to protect the large megacorps who already dominate the market.

      Want to compete? You'll need millions to implement these measures. Without them, it'll be trivial to set you up for a bankrupting lawsuit, or worse.

      • Thanks for the explanation - that's exactly what it is (no mod points, sorry).

      • "Fire" is the title of several movies, TV shows, songs and books so you probably will go to prison for the copyright infringement

      • So is shouting FIRE in a crowded theater when nothing is, in fact, on fire, but you'll still go to prison for it.

        I think you need to look up what "prior restraint" refers to, because I'm pretty sure you have no idea.

      • Agreed about the Bill entrenching incumbent giants, but "Fire in a crowded theatre" is a trope that needs to go away. It is not apt for the discussion of free speech.

        It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote (The Atlantic):
        https://www.theatlantic.com/na... [theatlantic.com]

        Hell, you can even get a hoody about it:
        Free Speech Pro-Tip: You Can Yell Fire In A Crowded Theatre (Techdirt)
        https://www.techdirt.com/2018/... [techdirt.com]

    • It's a prior restraint of free speech.

      Likely unconstitutional says the man who has not read Article 8 Section 8 of the constitution.

    • You might find it interesting to actually look up what "prior restraint" means. Even though you already think that you know.

      Hint - a penalty AFTER you do something unlawful isn't prior.

      • You might find it interesting to learn the meaning of before and after.

        Forcing content not to be published is prior restraint.
        Applying copyright penalties after adjudication is due process.

  • Just Disney trying to destroy the internet to protect their profits.

  • Hey artists who used to play the combined character "analog_hole"... we need you again. We've got copyright debate starting, isn't that your favorite?

  • Instead of increasing enforcement, we should be reducing the existing scope and abuse of copyright.

  • ef all of them DC parasites until they get serious about China's IP theft and Hollywood bending over for the CCP.

  • It's almost certain this F's consumers and mom-and-pop shops.

    The rich get richer, the big get bigger, buying up all the property, real and intellectual, buying up law makers, and the rest take it in the wazoo.

    • This will probably stamp out independent creative types. Which I suppose is the ultimate goal of all publishing types, music, film, books, you name it.

  • reduce the duration of copyright so IP enters public domain sooner?

  • ban auto take down and force it to court with an stay till an judge can look at it over.

  • go to far and then the Supreme Court of the United States may end up taking the full law down over an 1st issue.

    • Not the 7-2 court that is coming after every Biden candidate is butchered by 1st Amendment Zealots who believe that only FAITH BASED judging is lawful
  • Deep packet inspection on all traffic to determine whether it's audio or video?

    Good luck when ssl/tls is a thing.

    Man in the middle attacks from the ISP for decryption?

    I suppose that's possible if you own all the signing keys - but it would also give untrusted ISPs access to things like banking information and therefore essentially break the internet.

    What are these lawmakers thinking exactly?

    • The proposed bill grants powers to the copyright office to require internet sites (youtube, netflix) to implement specific DRM mechanisms and grants copyright holders the right to sue any site that does not implement those DRM mechanisms.

      This is DMCA v2.666 - You'll like it because we'll tell you to like it and if you don't, you do. Of course that's information I've gleaned purely from the summary.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

        It's crap like this that will cause your TV / monitor to stop working when some certificate expires or when a forced botched update bricks it's firmware all in the name of DRM.

        And good luck watching Youtube or anything else on Linux if this goes through.

  • Thank goodness *someone* is thinking of the 69-year-dead artists who are losing money to those awful pirates
    .
    Or would be.
    If they hadn't been dead.
    For 69 years.

  • If so I have not heard of it. Tor is on the run, major content producers continue to make a ton of money on Big Content. Smaller content producers are more likely to big ripped off by the big companies than by pirates.

    Piracy does exist. But honestly, it USED to be a real problem. 100 years ago, people in your own city would rip off your music, books, movies, and even inventions etc. Some creators never got wealthy (worst tale I heard was that the creator of the Cotton Gin - who thought it would red

    • If so I have not heard of it.

      It's not about "piracy" it's about monopoly profits, censorship and control. They are killing open computing that's what TPM requirement in windows 11 is all about, they want to shut down the "digital" whole that was a thorn in their side from 1970's to 2010 (aka all cpu's used plaintext binaries and you had complete access to the instructions of the program/exe's).

      Going forward, exe's will use a new model based on TPM/pluton refusing to play pirated games/software and will be updated remotely. Your windo

  • They want to dress this up as something for the likes of youtube or facebook, but if implemented, it could affect hosting providers, ISPs and network backbone operators. It will create the legal basis for implementing filtering on par with the Great Firewall of China.
  • doing their employers bidding. This is a step backwards.

    • Just another shining example that politicians aren't actually concerned about issues that actually matter to their constituents. This is obvious shilling for the entertainment industry bigwigs. If they wanted to actually fix an issue for the entertainment industry at large, they could be looking into why so many artists are publicly complaining about shady/low Spotify royalties. Instead, we get custom legislation that is willing to sacrifice everyone's privacy for the sake of routing out piracy.

      If you want

  • Work for citizens, ya, right.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • There are no "standard technical measures" that do not involve a massive degree of surveillance into a host, hosted by a hosting company or full and complete control. The danger present in this proposal is massive.

    Perhaps this sort of model works when the hosting company is vimeo, youtube, or google drive which controls the content and application but once this is attempted to be applied to say, an ISP where individuals manage said hosts, all bets are off.

    So much of the web is (fortunately) encrypted these

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by netik ( 141046 )

      EFF chimes in here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/03/new-filter-mandate-bill-unmitigated-disaster

      An "unmitigated disaster."

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • ... government more tools to facilitate and encourage ...

    It seems the government is providing special services to corporations owning content, and a $150,000 fine for anybody not providing similar services. This is still 'corporations have more rights than you'.

  • roll out and make universal and foolproof the RIGHT censorship , and for all the right reasons, for the good of the people themselves who would obviously approve, if only they were smart enough and sufficiently well educated enough to understand...

    This effort is as stupid/dangerous/doomed-to-failure as the "V-chip" and other previous attempts to censor the public "for their own good" or in pursuit of protecting the profits of super ginormous, preposterously powerful, multinational corporate behemoths.

    Remin

  • The authority to make rules is supposed to rest with the elected representatives of the People in the Legislature, NOT the Executive branch, which exists to enforce the rules, not create them. This is how the Constitution separates power between the branches of government. The people who write the rules need to be accountable to the people who have to live with them, and when legislative authority is delegated to the bureaucracy, there is no accountability. The bureaucrats are not easily friable, they ar
    • The executive is directly accountable to us as well (at least prior to this administration). Unfortunately, the other branches have done everything they can to minimize the degree to which the staff in the executive answer to the person we elect.
    • The Executive creates administrative code to SUPPORT laws passed by the Legislature which created the various bureau.
      Stop pretending that the Constitution forbids the Executive from carrying out legislation!!
  • Giving copyright trolls more power over the internet is the kind of urgent national issue that I am so glad they're addressing, and so plainly on the right side of it too!

    Later for hospitals, schools, and ending gun violence. Media conglomerates need our help!
  • This allows for more or less direct censorship at scale for any arbitrary cause whether it has anything to do with copyright or not. The DMCA is already horrible legislation that should have never been permitted the last thing we need is to further the overreach.

  • A new mechanism for censorship.

  • If there is one thing the last 20 years have definitely demonstrated, it's that software and media piracy are significant threats to their respective industries.

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close