White House Wants To Make Illegal Video Streaming A Felony

[villager]

White House Wants To Make Illegal Video Streaming A Felony


Just when you thought maybe the United States was ready to take a leadership role in modernizing copyright laws for the digital age of mashup and remix culture, the White House takes a massive step backwards, with harsh proposals including felony status for illegal streaming of audio and video. Declan McCullagh reports for CNET:

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.

In a 20-page white paper (PDF), the Obama administration called on the U.S. Congress to fix “deficiencies that could hinder enforcement” of intellectual property laws.

The report was prepared by Victoria Espinel, the first Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator who received Senate confirmation in December 2009, and represents a broad tightening of many forms of intellectual property law including ones that deal with counterfeit pharmaceuticals and overseas royalties for copyright holders. (See CNET’s report last month previewing today’s white paper.)

Some of the highlights:

• The White House is concerned that “illegal streaming of content” may not be covered by criminal law, saying “questions have arisen about whether streaming constitutes the distribution of copyrighted works.” To resolve that ambiguity, it wants a new law to “clarify that infringement by streaming, or by means of other similar new technology, is a felony in appropriate circumstances.”

• Under federal law, wiretaps may only be conducted in investigations of serious crimes, a list that was expanded by the 2001 Patriot Act to include offenses such as material support of terrorism and use of weapons of mass destruction. The administration is proposing to add copyright and trademark infringement, arguing that move “would assist U.S. law enforcement agencies to effectively investigate those offenses.”

<snip>

http://www.disinfo.com/2011/03/white-house-wants-to-make-illegal-video-streaming-a-felony/

[Poll_Blind]

1. You can always count on Obama!

PB

[villager]

4. Sadly true. Sadly.

n/t

[napoleon_in_rags]

2. Haha! I'm going to bust the next live news team I see...

Just run in front of their cameras and start playing a DVD so they are streaming copyrighted content and are all instant felons!

[msongs]

3. however it is legal to kill kids looking for firewood nt

[RandomThoughts]

5. This is the question.

Is what is made and shared meant to make money for a few people, and only seen by the permission of a few people. Or are things made and shared to be seen by many people.

Once you answer that question, do people have the right to censor better thoughts because people live in worse thoughts and don't like ideas that are better. Is it fair to censor an idea like better treatment for more people, because it hurts consolidations of a few.

And if what can be learned by many people is attempted to be censored, that will show the censors for what they are.

There are some that think pointing out something full of wow, is telling on something, it might be to see if people will treat it bad or good, and for what reason. So if you think showing you something is then for you to try and hide it, it might be so that you will be seen trying to hide it.

There are those that chuckle at posting some ideas here. It might be to see what someone will do with an idea.



And I am due beer and travel money and many experiences.

[guruoo]

6. What a

[jwirr]

7. Okay, help this old lady understand. What is illegal video streaming?

[Geoffrey_Lebowski]

8. An explanation for you Ma'am...

If you download copyrighted digital content to your PC without paying, like you grab a copy of the Blu-Ray of Batman from a torrent (aka peer-to-peer) network or whatnot, there is a fairly clear illegality involved with this, at present ... especially if you made copies and sold them.

Now, if you 'streamed' Batman onto your computer w/o paying for it, that means you're like watching it as it flows over the internet to your PC ... have you ever watched a You-tube video? In the case of streaming, you're not actually downloading and coming into possession of a file of that copyright content, you're just basically 'watching' on your PC ... sorta like if it were on TV.

For example, I've watched a few NFL games streaming (in a blurry, tiny window) over teh internet from sites in Europe because I never get to see my team on TV where I presently live. So I guess that makes me a felon. Agent Mike? Come and get me.

Frankly it seems WAY over-the-top to consider steaming of ANYTHING (aside from perhaps kiddie pr0n) to be a felony. And to allow wiretaps to go after people who do so ... that's just total blasphemy.

[Recursion]

12. Think Youtube

It is an open legal question whether displaying a video on a site counts as "distributing" it (from a technical side there are arguments either way; I lean towards "yes"). The proposed change clarifies that it is.

[jwirr]

16. Thank you. I suspect I have a game or two that might be in that

category. oh, well - jail is three squares a day.

[libmom74]

9. Union busting, a fascist governor in

Michigan, a true unemployment rate arount 17%, climate change, two wars and a massive deficit and this is what Obama is concerned about? I guess if we can't employee more people through normal job creation the idea is to incarcerate more people (which I suppose would increase the need for more for profit prisons, guards and police so some jobs would be created).

[vicarofrevelwood]

11. Gotta keep those Employment numbers UP.

[BR_Parkway]

10. But we shouldn't look backwards at Bush's illegal wiretapping? I should

change my last name

[Myrina]

13. Why the hell can't he champion something worthwhile?

Seriously. I am beyond underwhelmed with this man. WTF??

[cognoscere]

14. Haven't you heard? He's playing three dimensional chess.

Unfortunately, the Republicans are playing backgammon.

[bemildred]

15. How can "illegal streaming of content" "not be covered by criminal law"? nt