The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
White House Official Proposes draconian New Copyright Laws; Wiretaps ahoy!
Lanz
...Za?Registered User regular
...Za?Registered User regular
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20043421-281.html
Now, I'm not one to say that Intellectual Property should be some kind of anarchist free-for-all where there should be no protections for content producers, but in all honesty, these provisions seem like their on the other end of the spectrum, one that seems downright unfair to the average citizen.
The ambiguity of the proposed rule changes is just one concern of mine. What exactly constitutes "streaming" in this case? Will John Doe be prosecuted for a felony because he watched a segment of Random Summer Blockbuster from Three Years Ago that Jane Doe uploaded to Youtube? Will Jane Doe now be at risk of being prosecuted and the subject of a wiretap? Or is this merely directed at the various websites around the net that exist to provide unauthorized streams of movies and TV Shows?
Related to this, we already see attacks on sites like YouTube from content providers based on the fact that they're host to unauthorized uploads of copyrighted content. Despite the fact that the courts have found in favor of YouTube and Google in the past, more companies still try to take them to court over these uploads. Now, would they be able to file criminal charges on top of those civil charges? Should they be able to.
Ever since the DMCA, we've seen an increase in power being shifted further and further away from the people to share their media and use property they've bought as they see fit*; I can't help but think this is another sign that corporations in America are slowly trying to make the law favor themselves over the rights and protections held in place for the average citizen. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but honestly, the fact that rule changes like this are being proposed when we already have companies suing poor grandmothers for thousands of dollars for potentially sharing a few MP3s scares the hell out of me. Is there honestly any reason that this needs to be a felony or is a such a severe crime that we need to resort to wiretaps?
*Though recent rulings have been able to restore some power to consumers, such as a recent ruling regarding jailbreaking one's cellphone/PDA
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 term "fair use" does not appear anywhere in the report. But it does mention Web sites like The Pirate Bay, which is hosted in Sweden, when warning that "foreign-based and foreign-controlled Web sites and Web services raise particular concerns for U.S. enforcement efforts." (See previous coverage of a congressional hearing on overseas sites.)
- 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."
- Under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it's generally illegal to distribute hardware or software--such as the DVD-decoding software Handbrake available from a server in France--that can "circumvent" copy protection technology. The administration is proposing that if Homeland Security seizes circumvention devices, it be permitted to "inform rightholders," "provide samples of such devices," and assist "them in bringing civil actions."
The usual copyright hawks, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, applauded the paper, which grew out of a so-called joint strategic plan that Vice President Biden and Espinel announced in June 2010.
Rob Calia, a senior director at the Chamber's Global Intellectual Property Center, said we "strongly support the white paper's call for Congress to clarify that criminal copyright infringement through unauthorized streaming, is a felony. We know both the House and Senate are looking at this issue and encourage them to work closely with the administration and other stakeholders to combat this growing threat."
In October 2008, President Bush signed into law the so-called Pro IP ACT, which created Espinel's position and increased penalties for infringement, after expressing its opposition to an earlier version.
Unless legislative proposals--like one nearly a decade ago implanting strict copy controls in digital devices--go too far, digital copyright tends not to be a particularly partisan topic. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, near-universally disliked by programmers and engineers for its anti-circumvention section, was approved unanimously in the U.S. Senate.
At the same time, Democratic politicians tend to be a bit more enthusiastic about the topic. Biden was a close Senate ally of copyright holders, and President Obama picked top copyright industry lawyers for Justice Department posts. Last year, Biden warned that "piracy is theft."
No less than 78 percent of political contributions from Hollywood went to Democrats in 2008, which is broadly consistent with the trend for the last two decades, according to OpenSecrets.org.
Now, I'm not one to say that Intellectual Property should be some kind of anarchist free-for-all where there should be no protections for content producers, but in all honesty, these provisions seem like their on the other end of the spectrum, one that seems downright unfair to the average citizen.
The ambiguity of the proposed rule changes is just one concern of mine. What exactly constitutes "streaming" in this case? Will John Doe be prosecuted for a felony because he watched a segment of Random Summer Blockbuster from Three Years Ago that Jane Doe uploaded to Youtube? Will Jane Doe now be at risk of being prosecuted and the subject of a wiretap? Or is this merely directed at the various websites around the net that exist to provide unauthorized streams of movies and TV Shows?
Related to this, we already see attacks on sites like YouTube from content providers based on the fact that they're host to unauthorized uploads of copyrighted content. Despite the fact that the courts have found in favor of YouTube and Google in the past, more companies still try to take them to court over these uploads. Now, would they be able to file criminal charges on top of those civil charges? Should they be able to.
Ever since the DMCA, we've seen an increase in power being shifted further and further away from the people to share their media and use property they've bought as they see fit*; I can't help but think this is another sign that corporations in America are slowly trying to make the law favor themselves over the rights and protections held in place for the average citizen. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but honestly, the fact that rule changes like this are being proposed when we already have companies suing poor grandmothers for thousands of dollars for potentially sharing a few MP3s scares the hell out of me. Is there honestly any reason that this needs to be a felony or is a such a severe crime that we need to resort to wiretaps?
*Though recent rulings have been able to restore some power to consumers, such as a recent ruling regarding jailbreaking one's cellphone/PDA
Lanz on
0
Posts
Thankfully it is just a white paper and it likely won't go anywhere.
Can you summarize this? Sounds interesting.
That's about the only nice thing I have to say about this law, though. Enabling additional capacity for wiretapping is really disappointing. I am really hard pressed to believe that keeping some teenager from watching Michael Bay Atrocity #36 for free warrants spying on people.
There's absolutely no reason for the FBI or the federal government to be involved in it. This clearly just another example of the entertainment lobby throwing its money around.
1. constitution clearly says that copyrights shall exist for limited times.
2.The DMCA gives individuals the ability to protect their ideas with technological copyright protections (The DMCA specifically breaks these measures into two kinds of protections, access denial, and copy prevention)
3. Once a copyright expires, the protection method has to go away because the work enters the public domain(in old technology terms, if you had a movie from 1920, copying it today would be acceptable and the copyright protection [suit in court] could not be pursued)
4. Works protected by digital protection schemes never enter the public domain. (Because of the nature of a technological copyright protection measure, the technology used to protect the copyright never stops protecting the copyright, think of it as a dvd that forever prevents you from copying the dvd).
5. The because the DMCA doesn't force companies to ensure that their technological measures self terminate, the protection system lasts in perpetuity forever preventing the work from entering the public domain.
6. This violates the limited times provision of the constitution
7. Therefore the DMCA (which criminalizes circumventing any technological measure absenta few limitations) is unconstitutional on these limited grounds.
Not a resounding argument and i didn't convince anyone at school, but the constitution is the constitution. Have to follow it regardless of its nagging necessities.
They're clarifying that 'streaming' counts as distribution. Great, that clears everything up if someone would just explain what the hell "streaming" means in this context. Receiving packets (watching netflix)? Sending packets (being netflix)? Sending data to someone is obviously distribution, so I object to that interpretation of 'streaming,' as that would mean this was written by idiots. Receiving data is obviously not distribution, so I also object to that interpretation of 'streaming,' as that would suggest that this was written by idiots.
"Illegal" things are not illegal!? Quick, to the legislatobile!
It made me chuckle, but I'm guessing that's just a poor paraphrasing.
Why would a legal distribution of copyrighted material (Netflix) be illegal and cause for confusion?
I'm afraid I don't understand the question. I do understand that you're quoting my reaction to a quote which I interpreted as someone essentially fretting over whether "illegal behavior" was against the law; and then just making this law up to be sure.
I just don't know how it connects to what you're asking. Why is a raven like a writing desk? I don't know.
This means that about half of all fanartists on the internet are felons.
Criminalizing it is ludicrous.
Illegal and Criminal are not the same: Copyrights are covered by civil law and it is idiotic to consider making it otherwise
It says 'in appropriate circumstances.'
There are circumstances where infringement becomes a felony; I'd assumed they were just adding 'streaming' as a method of distribution under those existing circumstances, and not making 'streaming' a new felony circumstance of it's own.
I'm saying there really shouldn't be.
Even in the case of a large scale bootlegging operation? I think the copyright holders have been given several cookies too many, and an equal tally in glasses of milk; but I can agree that mass producing and selling protected works for a profit should be illegal.
Certainly, but I will have to disagree with you in thinking it should be criminal.
it already is illegal. Now they just want to make it criminal as well. And give the government some extra powers to make sure nobody's doing it. Also to keep an eye on the non-mass producing and consumption of protected works.
It is silly. Let the copyright holders enforce it in civil court. Many other illegal activities can only be enforced through the civil process.
With all the systemic fraud going around, it seems rather absurd that this is what they choose to go out of their way to felonize.
I agree.
However, it is already criminal in the situation I described. I'm just asking Elldren if they think it shouldn't be.
Some people don't consider that scenario 'infringing,' but full on piracy, and would agree it should be a proper crime. Some people think that scenario should not be a crime. Just curious which opinion Elldren held.
At least it will ensure that small time operators have too much of an opportunity cost to get into this so these kind of operations become larger and more organized and by people who don't care about being arrested. That way they can also go about murdering each other (and random bystanders) and creating a bunch more excuses for criminal defense.
Oh hey, when you create expectations for wealth (of information) without people having the opportunities to get them some people turn to stealing it? So lets arrest those people instead of finding ways to actually fix the problem.
I pretty much agree with everything you said here.
The streaming thing makes sense to me as it just looks like the law trying to keep up with technology.
The rest seems like insanity. Wiretapping to catch people streaming copyrighted material??? Seriously??!?!?
I can understand the desire to clamp down on this kind of behavior, but I think this is going a step to far and opens up far too many avenues for abuse.
Just out of curiosity, how so? I mean, I'm hoping that you're right here, but I'm not sure of the details of how things like white papers work
Similar to yellow cake, I'd imagine.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Mid-level flunkies issue a proposal like this, and the pollsters see what the reaction is. If it is overwhelmingly negative, then official statement is released castigating the mid-level official. If it's positive, a law is drawn up and introduced into Congress.
White paper is just fancy talk for "essay," it has no official weight.
Essentially, all this means is that someone in the executive branch wrote an essay on on the current copyright situation, and filled it with terrible ideas.
And that someone may or may not have worked at one of the RIAA's law firms before being appointed to a position Justice Department. I say this because Obama appointed five such persons, and I've been expecting something like this ever since.
If somebody gets into a car accident and it's their fault, they should submit to surveillance. After all, they may be running a car accident ring out of their home.
It's perfectly reasonable to set up cameras in the home of someone who defaults on a loan. I mean, what are they doing instead of paying off their loan? It would be a good idea to keep a sharp eye on their front door so we can see what purchases they are bringing in instead of paying their bills.
Heck, sodomy laws aren't around anymore thanks to Lawrence v. Texas, but if they were this seems like it would be an excellent way to find out where all the gays are and make them pay for their homosexual ways! How unfortunate we weren't this forward-thinking prior to 2003.
God this thing sucks. What, precisely, is the reasoning that violation of security in one's home and person in this way is reasonable and not subject to the 4th Amendment?
Man, where the Patriot Act went wrong was in not going too far enough. Fuck the guy who typed all this up, sat back in his chair and thought, "Genius. This is what the world wants, what the world deserves."
Oh. Hey. How you doin'? ;-)
I'm sure NIN's final tour will be playing to empty seats this summer, with their failure of a recent business model.
Thus, just because the Administration has issued this whitepaper does not mean it is where the administration actually is in terms of actual position.
That's because if someone wants to keep their right to privacy, they've clearly got something to hide.
Duh.
So basically they are a new member's first thread in D&D
I've heard similar arguments before. The counter is that DRM can legally be circumvented after the work falls into the public domain. The onus is not on the publisher to make public domain works easier to copy or even to make them available to the public.
Legally circumvented, how? Isn't the distribution of any DRM circumvention methods, or tools, illegal under the DMCA?
hahaha.
Yeah, I wouldn't bet on that one.
Also re public domain: presumably breaking the DRM on public domain works would be legal activity. However I would argue that content produces DO have the obligation to make their works accessible once they enter the public domain. That's kind of the trade off they get for copyright.
It should be a requirement for anyone claiming they hold a copyright to have an original of the IP in question. For software, that should include everything, not just the installer. You lose the original? You're negligent in your end of the bargain, and the copies go public domain.