Feeds

back to article US feds: 'Let's make streaming copyrighted content a FELONY'

A report by the US Department of Commerce's Internet Policy Task Force recommends that the government make the streaming of copyrighted material a felony. Currently, streaming content is a simple misdemeanor that breaches rules on violation of the public-performance right, but the report recommends upping the penalty to felony …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Bronze badge
Joke

The Task Force [calls] for Congress to enact legislation

Whew, I was worried for a minute there...

7
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: The Task Force [calls] for Congress to enact legislation

You only think that's a joke ...

4
0
Silver badge

Re: The Task Force [calls] for Congress to enact legislation

oh no we don't :-(

Should they manage to agree on something for once you can bet they get immunity for any 'research' they may have done or do into streaming.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: The Task Force [calls] for Congress to enact legislation

I'm all for it, as long as they first pass the death penalty for any public employee or elected official which sanctions suggests or otherwise approves any violation or avoidance of the items identified in the Bill of Rights.

8
0
Nym
Flame

Better idea for public officials

Drug testing EVERY time they go to work. And auditing...EVERY YEAR. I'm positive it would save billions. Then we could have this big Christmas party, see...and the plods could arrest us all.

0
0
Silver badge
Unhappy

Sad

Makes perfect sense. If illegal streaming is a felony they can get a better return on all the systems that were put in place to stop terrorism, but don't stop terrorism. No point letting them go to waste and they can't use them for misdemeanors.

I guess water boarding will be permitted too, "tell us who the other pirates are". Maybe they'll just execute you if you're smoking a joint & watching Game of Thrones simultaneously.

22
0
Silver badge
Unhappy

Re: Sad

"Maybe they'll just execute you if you're smoking a joint & watching Game of Thrones simultaneously."

Nah, there's no profit for the owners of the private prison industry in that.

10
0
Silver badge

Re: Sad

Why not just make downloading a movie terrorism?

Two birds - one stone !

11
0
Silver badge
Unhappy

Re: Sad

The sad thing is, that as ridiculous as this is, I'm not surprised.....

I expect the UK to follow in 3... 2... 1...

4
0
Silver badge

Re: Sad

They've already tried that, haven't you seen the message at the beginning of a film in a cinema?

"If you watch pirated movies, you're supporting terrorism"

Erm... How is downloading a free torrent supporting terrorism? Honestly I want to know.

4
0
Gold badge
Unhappy

Re: Sad

" If illegal streaming is a felony they can get a better return on all the systems that were put in place to stop terrorism, but don't stop terrorism. "

True.

But isn't copyright infringement a civil matter? IE it's a private dispute between the copyright owners and the person doing the streaming?

This smells of more paid conslutancy.

5
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Sad downloading = terrorism

It's REALLY simples: monies spent on buying illegal (pirated) stuff that the terrorists are flogging down the high street of Peshawar and London (I see them (...) at every corner and tube station!) is channeled back to fund the terror operations, like buying nukes and pressure cookers. And we all know, which country of the world has a long-standing tradition of making nukes and pressure cookers. The country which harbors terrorists such as Mr Snowden, for example...

...

but.. but the people downloading illegally, don't pay a penny to the terrorists!!!! WTF?!

ehm... well, this is irrelevant, we say. AND, on top of that because by seeding free movies, the terrorist freeloaders undermine the fundamentals of our free(ish), greedy, capitalist society, leading it to, and beyond the brink of collapse (see: coyote) - thus making the terrorists win.

See? Simples.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Sad

"Nah, there's no profit for the owners of the private prison industry in that."

They don't need it. Many are already approaching capacity and are getting denied fresh meat by the courts on 8th Amendment grounds. Look at California.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: John Smith

"paid conslutancy"

I like what you did there.

Even if it was unintentional!

1
0
Gold badge
Happy

Re: John Smith

"Even if it was unintentional!"

Today's spelling mistake, tomorrow's OED entry.

It does create a certain impression of the sort of people you're dealing with.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Sad

Why not just make downloading a movie terrorism?

They already did it. A bogus research sez that terrorists get their monies from piracy. They even made an effort to tropicalize this FUD to Mexico, where we're told that piracy funds the drug cartels. Which is stupid, as the original "terrists fund themselves with piracy" was under the assumption that piracy had better margins than drug dealing... so wouldn't drug dealers just get off the drug dealing and do piracy instead?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Why stop they, why not just make the use of copyrighted material a felony and let's make it retroactive. Since Chris Dodd is CEO of it, will he face the penalties?

"The MPAA itself has been accused of copyright infringement. In 2007, the creator of a blogging platform called Forest Blog accused the MPAA of violating the license for the platform, which required that users link back to the Forest Blog website. The MPAA had used the platform for its own blog, but without linking back to the Forest Blog website. The MPAA subsequently took the blog offline.[91] Also in 2007, the MPAA released a software toolkit for universities to help identify cases of file sharing on campus. The software used parts of the Ubuntu Linux distribution, released under the General Public License, which stipulates that the source code of any projects using the distribution be made available to third parties. The source code for the MPAA's toolkit, however, was not made available. When the MPAA was made aware of the violation, the software toolkit was removed from their website."

16
0
Silver badge

Actually, they can't. Retroactive ("ex post facto" or "after the fact") laws are explicitly prohibited under Article I, Section 9 (the part that says what specific types of laws Congress can't make). Since this is part of the base Constitution and spelled out pretty clearly, all the law geeks and honest judges are familiar with it.

0
0
Silver badge
Coffee/keyboard

really?

what about retroactive immunity?

0
0
Silver badge

Why not just abolish copyright altogether?

The prisons are full enough.

4
0
Silver badge

Re: Why not just abolish copyright altogether?

Don't be silly. There're plenty of drug dealers, bank robbers, and murderers we can parole to make room for the copyright violators.

16
0
Silver badge
Alert

Re: Why not just abolish copyright altogether?

The prisons are full enough.

Don't be silly! There's money to be made from forced labour, and at moment only a shockingly small portion of the US population is in prison - around 1 percent! Think of the profit to be made if they can manage to get that up to five, or even ten percent!

0
0

Re: Why not just abolish copyright altogether?

Lets not forget that middle class copyright violators probably have quite a bit more money in savings than your normal run of the mill criminals.

So you can get them to pay their own way as well as making them work as slaves.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/10/riverside-county-california-prisons_n_1085983.html

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Why not just abolish copyright altogether?

Forced labor is restricted under most state laws, plus many of them are running afoul of the FEDERAL courts, who are forcing releases due to overcrowding (IOW, they can't take in new people without kicking out other people—and turnover is bad for business).

0
0
Thumb Up

Jail 'em up I say, jail some sense into 'em!

"Don't be silly. There're plenty of drug dealers, bank robbers, and murderers we can parole to make room for the copyright violators."

I can't see them having an issue with that, the worst crimes imaginable are 'stealing' from rich people and exposing the crimes of our governments.

0
0

Chop off their hands and gouge out their eyes

Why stop with just making it a felony ? We are an insufferable species.

1
0

Re: Chop off their hands and gouge out their eyes

This isn't a bad suggestion but the bleeding hearts of the world would be aghast at proper punishment for piracy.

0
13
Gold badge
Trollface

Re: Chop off their hands and gouge out their eyes

"This isn't a bad suggestion but the bleeding hearts of the world would be aghast at proper punishment for piracy."

Sounded like a cube rate in the NSA.

Now just a troll.

Do not feed.

4
0
Coffee/keyboard

The USA doesn't have enough people in prison?

6
0
Silver badge

Well, with marijuana restrictions being relaxed they've got to find a new bread-and-butter revenue generator for the prison system.

9
0
Anonymous Coward

How about...

... making it a felony to be a corporate whore while in office?

7
0
Silver badge
Mushroom

Re: How about...

That is more of a High-Treason level offense, I feel.

7
0
Silver badge
Joke

Re: How about...

...making it a felony to give birth to children. Problem solved, nice and clean . As for being a corporate whore in office, perhaps making it a felony to marry somebody who forces you to become a corporate etc.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: How about...

Can't prohibit children, they're the gateway to greater government assistance. You can't collect enough welfare without them.

1
4
Gold badge
Facepalm

Re: How about...

"... making it a felony to be a corporate whore while in office?"

Because turkeys don't vote for Thanksgiving?

1
0
Silver badge

Re: making it a felony to be a corporate whore while in office?

You could get american politicians under their bribery laws. Good luck finding someone to charge and prosecute them though.

1
0
Black Helicopters

Those without sin can cast the first cluestick?

So is it time to offer a bounty on any video of senators sinning "happy birthday" in public? That is illegal too. Maybe the folks at EFF can set up a drop box for video evidence of these law breakers.

5
0

Re: Those without sin can cast the first cluestick?

Didn't you hear, turns out that the "owner" of the Happy Birthday song (Sony?) can't seem to find the paperwork that says so. Turns out that it's hard to keep track of "ownership" paper work after a hundred years, maybe that is saying something about the length of copyrights.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: Those without sin can cast the first cluestick?

Your idea has merit, but should be taken further. A group of like minded people in their respective locations researching with a fine tooth comb all of these media lobbyist organisations and companies.

They will not be up to date with licensing, they do not respect the copyright of others. When details are found out redistribute around the group for them all to lodge complaints with the relevant organisations. Some blogs do make a good try with this but are usually by themselves and may not have all the required skills or resources to go further. I'm not condoning hacking, I am suggesting going through publicly available information, websites and the like. Even if it means reporting the font they use on the stupid DVD anti-piracy methods, asking them to supply the hard data that proves piracy supports terrorism. Go for stuff they would never expect, such as invoicing them for time lost having to sit through the stupid piracy adverts, if they don't pay sell it to a debt collection agency.

I am as complicit as the rest of you guys for screaming about this on forums and doing feck all about it, as a group we have the requisite skills, lets use them.

2
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: "fine tooth comb"

I would very much like to see this particularly fine example of a comb used for teeth that you possess.

Personally I have always used a brush.

0
0

"Content" ???

Living in orbit around Barnards Star I've got absolutely no idea what the fuss is all about. Really, why does anybody bother to watch let alone pirate ultra violent propaganda about pathological psychological cripples operating in totally unreal amoral inhuman societies ?

0
0
Silver badge

Re: "Content" ???

CSPAN?

0
0

Does this apply to NASA?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/06/curiositys_sam_sings_itself_happy_birthday_for_martian_anniversary/

0
0
Bronze badge
Alien

re: NASA

If it applied off-world we could all be in deep trouble if aliens have already copyrighted everything we can think of (perhaps even our genome)

1
0
Silver badge

Re: re: NASA

Besides, since it was composed for a new instrument (a roving machine) it might be considered a cover or re-composition, giving it its own copyright (it's considered fair use to apply the original in this manner). And under federal law, with only a handful of exceptions, all products of the federal government immediately become public domain.

0
0
Silver badge
Pint

Re: re: NASA

And the copyright will be good for the life of the rover+75 MARS YEARS.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: re: NASA

Our first interstellar visitors will be greeted by the RIAA/MPAA!

0
0
Bronze badge

Priorities

Good to know that irrelevant things like homelessness and disease can be put aside to focus on the really important things like streaming video watsits. Just maybe if they put a little more effort into providing a good service to their audience rather than trying to find ways to prosecute them... nah. That'd never work.

9
1
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Your Majesty is like a stream of bat's piss

Ahh, I mean, your proposed streaming laws are bat shit insane.

2
1
Silver badge

Wouldn't that make all TV stations criminals?

I mean there's nothing in the article saying it's streaming without a license they are after. So if this is actually legislated like in the article, it would mean that there would be no "legal" streaming any more.

1
1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.