PROTECT IP ACT to criminalize YouTube moves thru Congress NOV 16; Obama, Dems support bill WILL PASS

[Leopolds Ghost]

Bill would also impose large fines and jail time for individual users
publshing cover songs, screencaps, and fan art on various sites, including Facebook,
and allow the government to shut down any site that plays host to such content.

House Judiciary Committee Press release on the SOPA announcement.

link to the bill text - Library of Congress

PDF of second revision (of 2)

Information on S.968 - PROTECT IP Act of 2011 from OpenCongress

Sponsors:

Senator Patrick Leahy - D-VT

Specific Organizations Supporting S.968

Recording Industry Association of America
Independent Film & Television Alliance
Motion Picture Association of America
National Association of Theater Owners
Microsoft
Pfizer
Outdoor Industry Association
National Electrical Manufacturers Association
Business Software Alliance
Association of American Publishers
Ford Motor Company
Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association
Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
American Federation of Musicians
Merck & Co., Inc.
Entertainment Software Association
American Association of Independent Music
Eli Lilly and Company
Xerox Corporation
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
Major League Baseball
CBS Corporation
National Basketball Association
The Walt Disney Company
Advanced Medical Technology Association
Beam Global Spirits &Wine
National Football League
Johnson & Johnson
News Corporation
Warner Music Group
Estee Lauder Companies
Greeting Card Association
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Adidas America
Acushnet Company
ABRO Industries, Inc.
1-800-PetMeds
1-800 Contacts, Inc.
Blue Sky Studios, Inc.
Bose Corporation
Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI)
Burberry
Electronic Components Industry Association
HarperCollins Publishers
Kekepana International Services
LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton
Nike, Inc.
Nintendo
Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc.
Timberland Company
Tiffany & Co.
Comcast
Walmart

Co-sponsors via LoC:

Sen Alexander, Lamar - 5/25/2011
Sen Ayotte, Kelly - 6/27/2011
Sen Bennet, Michael F. - 7/25/2011
Sen Bingaman, Jeff - 10/19/2011
Sen Blumenthal, Richard - 5/12/2011 (D)
Sen Blunt, Roy - 5/23/2011
Sen Boozman, John - 6/15/2011
Sen Brown, Sherrod - 10/20/2011
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. - 7/13/2011 (D)
Sen Casey, Robert P., Jr. - 9/7/2011
Sen Chambliss, Saxby - 11/2/2011
Sen Cochran, Thad - 6/23/2011
Sen Coons, Christopher A. - 5/12/2011 (D)
Sen Corker, Bob - 6/9/2011
Sen Durbin, Richard - 6/30/2011 (D)
Sen Enzi, Michael B. - 9/7/2011
Sen Feinstein, Dianne - 5/12/2011 (D)

Sen Franken, Al - 5/12/2011 (D)
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. - 5/26/2011 (D)
Sen Graham, Lindsey - 5/12/2011
Sen Grassley, Chuck - 5/12/2011
Sen Hagan, Kay - 7/5/2011 (D)
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. - 5/12/2011
Sen Isakson, Johnny - 11/2/2011
Sen Johnson, Tim - 10/3/2011
Sen Klobuchar, Amy - 5/12/2011 (D)
Sen Kohl, Herb - 5/12/2011 (D)
Sen Landrieu, Mary L. - 10/17/2011 (D)
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. - 7/7/2011 (D)
Sen McCain, John - 7/26/2011
Sen Menendez, Robert - 10/31/2011 (D)
Sen Nelson, Bill - 9/23/2011 (D)
Sen Risch, James E. - 11/7/2011
Sen Rubio, Marco - 5/26/2011

Sen Schumer, Charles E. - 5/12/2011 (D)
Sen Shaheen, Jeanne - 6/30/2011 (D)
Sen Udall, Tom - 7/7/2011 (D)
Sen Vitter, David - 11/7/2011
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon - 5/12/2011 (D)

Source: reddit

[Leopolds Ghost]

1. So, thoughts...?

[eShirl]

2. rather a misleading post title, wouldn't you say?

still sucks though, kinda cancels Fair Use

[Leopolds Ghost]

6. How so? Look at the list of co-sponsors.

If you believe Obama will veto this bill, I have a bridge to sell you...

[Leopolds Ghost]

12. To clarify, this bill would criminalize non-commercial fair use. That is about 80% of online content

YouTube is just the tip of the iceberg, so the post title actually understates the gravity of this bill.

[onenote]

57. can you point to where and how it does that?

I"ve read the bill. And I don't see it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

58. The Protect IP bill does that. This one claims to combat online piracy in general + protect IP

Bipartisan Bill Combats Online Piracy

Washington, D.C. – A bipartisan group in the House today introduced legislation that expands protections for America’s intellectual property (IP) and combats the illegal distribution of counterfeit goods via rogue websites. The Stop Online Piracy Act (H.R. 3261) allows the Attorney General to seek injunctions against foreign websites that steal and sell American innovations and products. The bill increases criminal penalties for individuals who traffic in counterfeit medicine and military goods, which put innocent civilians and American soldiers at risk. And it improves coordination between IP enforcement agencies in the U.S.

If this does not essentially include Protect IP's provisions (under the last category) then the mistake is in the original thread --

Which contains reference to the groups opposing Protect IP, the roll call of Senators endorsing it, etc. And none of the seemingly knowledgeable people on the Reddit thread (not a source for intellectual rigor, mind you) corrected the article, but instead indicated that it is a repackaged bill.

I myself was under the impression that Protect IP was dead.

[onenote]

63. there is some confusion in the original post I think

The bill that is "moving through Congress" on November 16 is the Stop Online Piracy Act (HR 3261) and what is happening on the 16th is just a hearing (although I would expect the bill to move to a Committee mark up in relatively short order -- maybe before the end of the year, maybe not).

That bill has some similarities to, but also some differences from the Protect IP Act.

Both bills are problematic in various ways -- I've worked on them in an effort to address some of the potential problems. But even I think the claim that these bills will criminalize YouTube or FB postings is a bit overblown.

[Leopolds Ghost]

65. Well, that's good to know. But I reckon the vigilance is warranted regardless. n/t

[Occulus]

24. No, this will criminalize lots of YouTube

I notice Nintendo is on the list. Bye- bye, Mario speedruns and Nintendo "Let's Play" videos.

WTF is PetMeds doing on there?

[ret5hd]

3. I think google may have made a really really bad deal.

[eShirl]

4. this has implications far beyond Google and Youtube

[Leopolds Ghost]

7. When they agreed to fund Obama's campaign? Perhaps not. YouTube is a money-loser for Google.

They're probably behind this.

But they can't monkeywrench YouTube in public or they'd face a massive revolt
from users already waking up to the fact that Google has become a systematically
intrusive monopoly on data collection and browsing.

I'm sure the people running YouTube don't support the bill, but they're not upper-echelon management.

[inna]

14. one step closer to police state. (are we there yet?...)

[Leopolds Ghost]

5. Anybody here believe in non-commercial fair-use of copyrighted material?

This bill would criminalize the posting of anything related to copyrighted material without the express permission of the owner, be it parody, pastiche, fan-art, cover songs, screencaps, excerpted footage of movies and games, etc. and make the government responsible for shutting down websites that host such material.

[slay]

67. I do

i think as long as you are not profiting from it you should be allowed to use it, share it, post it. if people don't think this will have an extremely chilling effect on free speech on the internet they are dead wrong.

[nc4bo]

8. It's stupid and provides more cover for the 1%ers.

I'm not a huge YTuber but I do enjoy looking up old music every now and again just to listen to it on my pc. Unless someone is making ad money on the video, what's the big deal?

Some B side record from the 60's or 70's that some f'd up record label doesn't care enough to even put on their website but some nobody posts on YT is a threat or an old episode of The Electric Company, Sally Star, Captain Kangeroo or some old commercials that you loved back then but can't find anywhere else.

At least it was all out in the open now they'll just force people to go underground, back to the newsgroups or whatever.

Tired of this stupid shit.

[Leopolds Ghost]

9. It's funny because DU relies on YouTube. Did you know news clips are copyrighted?

And yet chances are 50/50 this thread and the bill itself will be ignored by the uninformed.

[nc4bo]

11. Excellent point...

Again, just as the RIAA made users pay for their own huge technological error, not seeing a benefit to making their music available online.

Newsclips, IMO, could be used to drive traffic TO the company making it available or allowing the fair use of the media. But it seems the 1% and their enablers believe in punishing people and anger potential customers rather than wooing them.

Everyone knows you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Everyone but the 1% it seems.

Even more disgusting when some of the enablers have a (D) after their names.

[Leopolds Ghost]

19. If we can get some discussion up in this thread from other DUers, it'd be nice.

I'll stop spamming this post with my replies now. :-(

[nc4bo]

20. What will happen....

Once our political video section begins showing Copyright infringement messages instead of the advertised content, it will be a topic of more conversations.

Right now, everything's working a-okay.

[Leopolds Ghost]

21. Yes, typical. It only becomes topic of the day when it makes an impact on cable news.

And then and only then will the flood of

"F--- MSM, I don't listen to a word they say on this highly important issue" will begin.

[Leopolds Ghost]

10. I wonder if this post will drop like a stone

And if so, why? :shrug:

[Leopolds Ghost]

22. Only five or so people have commented on this n/t

[Occulus]

25. Because DU has been browbeaten into accepting that copyright = inviolate

There are still people here who think unauthorized copying = stealing, FFS. We haven't even moved beyond that argument, because too many free marketeers believe that incorrect statement and think they have a right to money they might have made.

What they don't understand is that the entire argument goes way beyond profit. Our own political videos section, for example, relies exclusively on YouTube. That will be gone. Now imagine if the argument by PetMeds (for example- they're on the list above) becomes "we didn't give permission for our corporate logo to be placed on video", and decide to sue protest leaders for royalties or the removal of the protest videos that show their logo as the march passes by corporate HQ.

Christ- imagine Goldman Sachs or another bank using copyright as a tool to get protest videos removed. Maybe that's an absurd line of thought, but then, why the hell is ADIDAS on the list of supporters? Why does Taylor Made Golf Company care?

I think their strategy is going to be to get this horrible bill passed into law and then start claiming copyright violations for every video that shows their products without their permission. I wouldn't put it past these big corporate motherfucks to use image and character recognition to ID video frames containing their logos for that exact purpose.

This is a bad, bad bill. I won't vote for anyone who supports it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

28. -->"Our own political videos section for example, relies exclusively on YouTube. That will be gone."

^^ And probably this Herman Cain image macro, too.

[Leopolds Ghost]

30. Also: This bill is designed to criminalize fair use. I thought DUers believed in fair use.

Wait, most people on the 'Net know what fair use is, right? Right?

* my confidence in American civics education in the past 15 years *

[a simple pattern]

47. I don't think we're allowed to say that here

[OKNancy]

13. I read the link of the press release

Bipartisan Bill Combats Online Piracy

Washington, D.C. – A bipartisan group in the House today introduced legislation that expands protections for America’s intellectual property (IP) and combats the illegal distribution of counterfeit goods via rogue websites. The Stop Online Piracy Act (H.R. 3261) allows the Attorney General to seek injunctions against foreign websites that steal and sell American innovations and products. The bill increases criminal penalties for individuals who traffic in counterfeit medicine and military goods, which put innocent civilians and American soldiers at risk. And it improves coordination between IP enforcement agencies in the U.S.

--------

Am I missing something?

[nc4bo]

16. What I got from it was the sneaky stuff added in. Huge = counterfeit products

sneaky stuff = Bill would also impose large fines and jail time for individual users
publshing cover songs, screencaps, and fan art on various sites, including Facebook,
and allow the government to shut down any site that plays host to such content.

[Leopolds Ghost]

18. My understanding is this is repackaged Protect IP Act (PIPA). Here's an informed post from a techie:

I'm one of the folks organizing this. What we're hearing is that personal contacts (phone calls, walk-ins) from people who work in tech are extremely effective.

Especially if you live outside Silicon Valley, where reps hardly ever hear from constituents on these issues. Every Congressperson knows that tech is crucial to job creation, and that today's startup founder could be tomorrow's millionaire donor.

The irony is that tech issues are a rare place where we can have an impact, but the tech startup community is notoriously apolitical.

---

Here's a post from another reddit user that expresses how I feel when posts such as this sink like a stone:

I feel so helpless. Here is the list of the people ruining our lives and I can't do anything about it. I contacted my representatives and senators for years about every political event and law that I could form an opinion on at the time. Never once did I get back any real message. The times I did get any kind of response, it was just a standard letter basically saying "fuck off I don't care". I would talk to everyone about politics. I was the most well informed, rational, activist I could make myself. I could point out the flaws in anyone's arguments and had real answers about what to do about the problems we have, based in reality, on facts, on science.

Eventually I got tired of it. People aren't rational. They're selfish, prideful, and ignorant. I never watch the news anymore. It's so vapid and depressing. So I bury my head in the sand. I have no idea what's going on with any war. I haven't seen a TV that has been on in more than three months. I just realized yesterday that there are actual presidential campaigns happening, because some guy named Rick Perry going full retard in a presidential debate. This guy was/is a frontrunner? To be the president? WTF?

But I see this and I just feel like crying. They're spitting in our faces with a gun pointed to our heads and their hands in our pockets. If Buddhism has taught me anything, it's that I need to let go of my fear. But when I see all the political figures that are supposed to represent me doing this shit.... It makes me weep. This country is so fucked. so fucked. I have to get out. I have to leave. But I'm too busy smoking trees. Fuck.

[Leopolds Ghost]

17. Sounds like a re-packaged bill. Here's a list of organizations opposing it.

Any indications that PIPA is dead and not contained in this bill?

Unfortunately the list of specific organizations opposing it is much smaller:

Visa Inc.
Google (not very vocally)
Demand Progress
American Express Co.
Yahoo Inc.

Venture Capitalists Against Protect IP Act (PIPA)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14CkX3zDyAxShrqUqEkewtUCjvvFdciIbKjC18_eUHkg/edit?hl=en_US&authkey=CNHr3I4L&pli=1

Marc Andreessen, Andreessen Horowitz
Brady Bohrmann, Avalon Ventures
John Borthwick, Betaworks
Mike Brown, Jr., AOL Ventures
Brad Burnham, Union Square Ventures
Jeffrey Bussgang, Flybridge Capital Partners
John Buttrick, Union Square Ventures
Randy Castleman, Court Square Ventures
Tony Conrad, True Ventures
Ron Conway, SV Angel
Chris Dixon, Founder Collective
Bill Draper, Draper Richards
Esther Dyson, EDventure Holdings
Roger Ehrenberg, IA Ventures
Brad Feld, Foundry Group
Peter Fenton, Benchmark Capital
Ron Fisher, Softbank Capital
Chris Fralic, First Round Capital
David Frankel, Founder Collective
Ric Fulop, North Bridge
Brad Gillespie, IA Ventures
Allen "Pete" Grum, Rand Capital
Chip Hazard, Flybridge Capital Partners
Rick Heitzmann, FirstMark Capital
Eric Hippeau, Lerer Ventures
Reid Hoffman, Greylock Partners
Ben Horowitz, Andreessen Horowitz
Rob Hutter, Learn Capital
Mark Jacobsen, OATV
Amish Jani, First Mark Capital
Brian Kempner, First Mark Capital
Vinod Khosla, Khosla Ventures
Josh Kopelman, First Round Capital
David Lee, SV Angel
Lawrence Lenihan, FirstMark Capital
Kenneth Lerer, Lerer Ventures
Jordan Levy, Softbank Capital
Greg Mauro, Learn Capital
Jason Mendelson, Foundry Group
R. Ann Miura-Ko, Floodgate
Howard Morgan, First Round Capital
John O'Farrell, Andreessen Horowitz
Tim O'Reilly, OATV
David Pakman, Venrock
Eric Paley, Founder Collective
Alan Patricof, Greycroft Partners
Danny Rimer, Index Ventures
Neil Rimer, Index Ventures
Bryce Roberts, OATV
Bijan Sabet, Spark Capital
David Sze, Greylock Partners
Andrew Weissman, Betaworks
Albert Wenger, Union Square Ventures
Eric Wiesen, RRE Ventures
Fred Wilson, Union Square Ventures

So it looks like the venture capitalists are against this (of course we all know that these people, being the 1%, are the only opponents that have any influence in the current government, barring a massive revolt by online users -- which doesn't look to be happening -- how much interest is there in this topic here on DU?)

[Leopolds Ghost]

15. Americancensorship.Org is a website devoted to fighting this bill.

http://americancensorship.org/

[Fumesucker]

23. The whining will be deafening here if this bill actually passes..

But for now nobody really gives a fuck..

You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone..

[d_r]

26. what do you think the best course of action is for an ordinary person?

[Leopolds Ghost]

29. I don't know, I just learned about this. Anyone? It seems to be a D-sponsored bill. Is DU for it?

I thought this bill was dead. Apparently not. In fact it seems to be a Dem-sponsored bill.

[CanSocDem]

33. I used to worry about ....

...posting my original graphics onto the 'net. I worried about losing the economic benefit of a copyright. Gradually I came to realize that that fear was depriving the net of the very thing that has always motivated me to produce the graphics.

It made me realize that a one-time publication was better than never publishing. It caused me to re-evaluate the entire relationship between art and commerce. I concluded that the positive result of publishing art was that it made me want to do better work rather than hoping for 'royalties' from recycled, less inspired products that managed to retain a shelf life.

One of the great strengths of the internet is that it makes information available to everybody regardless of the corporate myth of ownership.

.

[KoKo]

34. If D's are for it....then DU's policy is for it and so is OFA for it.

That's why there's little response. Also, many of us don't know what to do about it. The bill may have details that we wont find out about until after it passes. It sounds like a bill that can be interpreted in ways that will hurt open information down the road. "Once the hand is in the door the door will open wider" ....but if Dems are for it...then this site will go along.

Thanks for the work in posting this though. A K&R.

[Leopolds Ghost]

38. Thanks-is OFA the new DFA? Do they believe in the concept of fair use as enshrined in copyright law?

This isn't just about implications down the road, it's what it would do to fair use right now.

We're not talking about just making it easier for Metallica to take down samples of their songs
(although that in and of itself is just ridiculous.)

We're talking banning any and all derivative works from the Internet. Including screencaps,
excerpts of copyrighted material, etc.

[KoKo]

51. I'm not quite sure ...but, I believe that OFA is the New DFA...combined and

corporate. But, I don't want to be harsh.

[Leopolds Ghost]

31. I will stop posting now. This thread has gotten almost no replies except from me :(

As far as what to do about it, see Post #18. A tech person on reddit writes:

I'm one of the folks organizing this. What we're hearing is that personal contacts (phone calls, walk-ins) from people who work in tech are extremely effective.

Especially if you live outside Silicon Valley, where reps hardly ever hear from constituents on these issues. Every Congressperson knows that tech is crucial to job creation, and that today's startup founder could be tomorrow's millionaire donor.

The irony is that tech issues are a rare place where we can have an impact, but the tech startup community is notoriously apolitical.

[yodermon]

27. Enforcing this law will create TONS of jobs.

:sarcasm:

[Feron]

32. Senator Wyden may be our only hope..

He stopped a similar bill last year. Hopefully he'll do the same again if the need arises.

[Celefin]

35. The (copyrighted) art of shooting yourself in the foot

This is kind of an epic fail for a lot of companies.

It's been a very long time since I last spent money online on something I hadn't got interested in through this kind of content.

I can see how this would be a wonderful thing for repressive governments to shut up opposition like DU here by potentially hitting millions of people with millions of lawsuits. Just sift through the online activities of any politically active person today and you will find something to take them to court based on this. But for companies in the games or music business? Publishers of any kind? Suicide. Who sold them the idea that killing online newsgroups or fandoms which keep a particular product or service advertised 24/7 for free is a good idea? Greed makes stupid, I guess.

Another funny thing - the grassroots movement that put Obama in power wouldn't have been possible with this. Not if the use of newsclips by private persons is criminalized. 'D' as in daft.

[bigmonkey]

36. This kind of thing gives me the cold chills.

I felt this way about the passage of the DMCA. What, specifically, can I do to combat this? I'm just an IT worker.

[bigmonkey]

43. Isn't this precisely the kind of "restrictions on the Internet" that our cynical sages predict?

Where are they, to fight this? Isn't this their fight?

[Leopolds Ghost]

53. You're an IT worker? You're more likely to be listened to by your rep... See post #18.

[Modern_Matthew]

37. I'm with Bieber on this one. Haul them all off in cuffs.

I hope they all feel the wrath of Anonymous and other various hackers group.

[MedleyMisty]

39. K & R

[TheKentuckian]

40. Congress is beyond worthless. Rather than seeking to solve our million problems

they try to find ways to make more while protecting and enhancing profit centers.

[MedleyMisty]

41. And, of course

limiting our freedom in order to support the profit centers.

[Generic Other]

42. And so when ONLY our own copyrighted content can be posted what will we see?

Seems like the answer is not much. All the cover art will disappear. All the news clips will disappear. The reason we see many of them is that they are saved by viewers who repost them. Most of the youtube music we hear will go silent.

Unless companies authorize use of their songs as some do on Youtube, we will need to find alternative creative commons music. It is out there but must be tracked down.

I suppose there will be a massive take down on youtube. FB too.

[KurtNYC]

62. Copyrights are already protected under current laws

YouTube will not go silent. Google/YouTube has an agreement with music publishers and videos which are objectionably violating copyrights are quickly taken down or the music is muted or sub'd. YouTube is a pipeline to iTunes so they deliver buyers to the doorstep of music publishers.

In the year before elections there is a lot of intercourse between MSM and pro politicians. Bills like this give congress leverage on the MSM who in turn always have leverage on them. We will see Congress playing footsie with bank regulations and other areas which will generate campaign donations or help for re-election.

IF they actually pulled all the copyrighted content off of the internet then a new crop of creative Americans would bloom like flowers after a rain storm in the desert. Real man on the street news, amateur interviews would replace slick propaganda (although Google has billions and would likely pump out their own content to fill the void). Would be like the end of the movie "They Live" -- Americans awaking from the numbing hypnosis that is MSM ready to "kick ass and chew bubblegum." The PTB don't want anything like that to happen and that is not what this bill is about.

[Hydra]

44. More and more I'm becoming an "Information wants to be free" person

The fact that they are shutting things down in the name of profit is funny as hell. "Profit" is the new God. Profit is a legitimate excuse for theft, imprisonment, murder and the destruction of progress.

Yay for the new god.

[a simple pattern]

48. Same as the old god.

[MedleyMisty]

45. You know

It's damn tiring when in a supposed democracy, you have to keep fighting the people that you supposedly elected to supposedly represent you and desperately try to tell them that you don't want them doing evil shit.

[MedleyMisty]

46. Giving this another bump

[a simple pattern]

49. They didn't get to get rid of Net Neutrality.

So they're going to take our internet and go home.

[Downwinder]

50. DU wins the battle with Righthaven but loses the war.

[Leopolds Ghost]

52. Oh, and to ensure proper enforcement, the bill would only apply to copyrighted works valued > $2500

According to americancensorship.org:

Website Blocking

The government and corporations can order service providers to block websites for infringing links posted by any users.


Risk of Jail for Ordinary Users

It becomes a felony with a potential 5 year sentence to stream a copyrighted work that would cost more than $2,500 to license, even if you are a totally noncommercial user, e.g. singing a pop song on Facebook. (e.g. karaoke)



Chaos for the Internet

Thousands of sites that are legal under the DMCA would face new legal threats. People trying to keep the internet more secure wouldn't be able to rely on the integrity of the DNS system.


Small fry need not apply.

Just like the entry rules to the above ground doors to the US Capitol (lawmakers and registered lobbyists only).

Everyone else can use the underground slave entrance.

Most political folks visit YouTube, or do they not read sites that feature anything having to do with something other than current events, such as movies, games, music, or art, because they heard that watching YouTube videos is "piracy"? Well, naturally cable news junkies would be uninterested? (like the political news junkies I know, who could care less if all movie clips, music remixes, etc were removed from the Internet because they "only read nonfiction") Too bad for them that news clips would also be removed except from official channels. BTW: Modifying a visual artwork for the purposes of parody or pastiche makes it yours. That's why rappers will continue to sample songs and small fry will not be able to post videos.

[Leopolds Ghost]

54. BTW, if anyone thinks my karaoke reference is exaggeration, think again. ASCAP and BMI

ASCAP and BMI, the two main IP enforcement companies in the US, have the legal authority as private companies to tax venues that have live music and give the proceeds to the record companies (10% go to the artists, distributed according to sales, so all proceeds go to Hanna Montana, Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga) -- but the artist agencies support ASCAP and BMI because they are afraid they will get nothing at all from the big venues that host cover bands otherwise --

EVEN IF PERFORMERS AT YOUR VENUE ARE PLAYING THEIR OWN WORK OR COVERS OF NON-COPYWRITED SONGS, E.G. FOLK SONGS.

ASCAP and BMI have shut down live music at many restaurants in my metropolitan area. They are one of the reasons venues have a hard time advertising live music UNLESS they are nightclubs that sell booze and can afford to pay ASCAP and BMI (both, not one or the other).

You also have to pay them (and probably get a distributor's license from the MPAA as well) if you wish to show movie screenings at an art gallery or community center. The only reason this is not enforced is because such events are usually one-time events and so "beneath the radar" of the royalty enforcement agencies.

It is legalized Racketeering.

And that is how the Record Industry was made. Oh, and they want to restore payola, too --

By passing a bill that would require radio to pay for each airing of a song, essentially shutting down FM radio.

Fortunately I don't think that one's gotten anywhere.

Anypony notice the similarity between Youtube and FM Radio?

If we draw an analogy between the two, it may help our congresscritters understand the concept of fair use.

[Leopolds Ghost]

55. I think the analogy between YouTube and FM radio is a good one, btw...

Thoughts?

[Leopolds Ghost]

56. I can see ignoring this issue, but... why would someone downrec this?

Only one person has posted their opinion on why this doesn't sound like an issue to be upset about.

:shrug:

[TheKentuckian]

61. Because they are corporate hacks and fawning little partisan fanboys and gals

That will sell us all out for fake ass political points.

[KurtNYC]

59. I don't get it -- it is ALREADY illegal to violate IP copyrights

this smacks of "double secret probation"

[Leopolds Ghost]

60. Fair use is not illegal. Protect IP (if its this) would essentially criminalize fair use on the 'Net

There is some discussion upthread about whether Protect IP has been added into this bill, snuck out of the bill, or snuck back into this as a related bill. The provisions of Protect IP seem pretty straightforward:

Unauthorized use of copyrighted material (worth over $2500) online -- fair use or otherwise -- would be blocked.

Screencaps, clips, covers of songs for non-commercial audience, etc. constitute fair use. These would be banned under the original provisions of the Protect IP act. Fair use would still presumably be legal off-line because off-line is not considered to be "republishing"

Unauthorized use of songs for non-commercial purposes where the artist or studio does not complain because it is free advertising or out of print (e.g. most of the songs on YouTube) would also be banned.

In fact, most of the songs on YouTube would NOT be illegal because YouTube advanced precisely these arguments to negotiate a profit-sharing agreement with most of the record companies where, as long as the user posts a copyright disclaimer, a share of the advertising dollars and/or free advertising for the album is placed on each YouTube video that contains a song. EXACTLY THE SAME AS ON THE RADIO, only the radio you can't click on a link to buy the song. Since the issue RIAA got traction on was not fair use, but the fact that YouTube itself was making $$ off it.

The Protect IP bill (in its original form) would probably displace that (negotiated) arrangement, allowing them to remove even more fan-videos from YouTube that HAPPEN to contain a song (because most YouTube people are not knowledgeable enough about fair use to post a "fair use" disclaimer to their copyright notice, which applies to ALL parodies, pastiches, or excerpts for the purposes of education or criticism.

Does anyone feel that when a radio broadcasts a song on the air,

That they are doing something different than YouTube?

What about Internet radio?

[KurtNYC]

64. Time to create more Public Domain art, news and music

To paraphrase Kris Kristopherson:

"Freedom's just another word for nothing (copyrighted) left to watch on YouTube"

[Leopolds Ghost]

66. Remember the old days of the Net, when you couldn't repost an image without doing © check

This is still a problem for web developers since it still applies to featured content... the IP industry's dream is for it to apply to user content

so it'll be back to 1995 and the days of Microsoft bundles of free images and collections of cheesy "free use" graphics :P