Obama "IP czar" wants felony charges for illegal Web streaming

[brentspeak]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/obama-ip-czar-wants-felony-charges-for-illegal-web-streaming.ars

The Obama administration wants to make sure that the illegal streaming of music and movies over the Internet is a felony, and it also wants to give the federal government wiretap authority in copyright cases.

Victoria Espinel, the Obama administration's IP Enforcement Coordinator, today released her long-awaited wish list (PDF) of intellectual property law changes. Most focus on counterfeit drugs and economic espionage, but the list does contain three suggestions more likely to have some effect on home Internet users.

Streaming: The government wants to make sure that, as online piracy moves increasingly to streaming, the law keeps up with the activity. Currently, "reproducing" and "distributing" copyrighted works are felony charges, and they cover peer-to-peer file-sharing. But streaming seems more like a "public performance"—and holding a public performance without a proper license is not a felony.

snip

Wiretaps: The FBI and other federal agencies can tap phones and Internet connections for a whole host of serious crimes, but criminal copyright and trademark cases are not among them. Espinel wants to change this situation.

The US Chamber of Commerce, Obama's new bud, is http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/16/white-house-calls-on-congress-to-make-illegal-streaming-a-felony/">extremely pleased that the White House is willing to allow the power of the federal government to enforce civil law matters.

Meanwhile, number of bailed-out bank execs prosecuted for wiping out what was left of America's real economy still = ZERO.

[Armstead]

1. Raping the economy -- Okay. Listening to a song on the Internet -- Off with your head

It would be helpful if instead of further strengthening the corporate stranglehold, the government put as much effort into protecting Internet users and also into putting the force of law behind things liuke real Wall St. refoirm and anti-trust, anto-monopoly enforcement.

I'm not condoning piracy. Producers of intellectual content should have their rights protected. But it's a matter of priorities -- and excessive zeal in the wrong direction.

[vaberella]

7. Well ...uh...that's not how it works.

It's not like they law will hurt youtube much, since the industry is still going to put their songs up on youtube. And the industry has already been doing it's own policying to be honest. I don't see the streaming sites to be worthwhile myself and have issues with them. But that's something else entirely. Basically this law is not hurting much of anything. Well when it comes to streaming.

The issue is the wiretapping which I'm not feeling. Where it's being installed into computers and ipods. That's the real problem. Not the streaming law. That's irrelevant.

[Armstead]

8. I think the streaming law could have unintended consequences

Say an unsuspecting listener happens to come across and listen to a streaming service, not realizing it might not be kosher. And then they get a knock on their door from the Copyright Police and have to defend themselves legally.

Also, this could legally stifle and/or inhibit legitimate services and radio stations from offering content due to either legal concerns or financial ones.

Again, I am not against legitimate ways to ensure that artists and content providers earn a reasonable income off their efforts. But we have to be careful abut overkill and/or unintended consequences.

Plus, I would prefer that the administration go after abuses of the principle of an open Internet, such as the current plan by AT&T (or maybe Verizon) to start charging more for bandwidth usage.

[JackintheGreen]

9. Oh, I can't resist a binary reference to Jello Biafra

01001001 01110100 00100111 01110011 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01110011 01110101 01100101 01100100 01100101 00100000 01100100 01100101 01101110 01101001 01101101 00100000 01110011 01100101 01100011 01110010 01100101 01110100 00100000 01110000 01101111 01101100 01101001 01100011 01100101

Come on nerds! Whose with me?

[Armstead]

10. I'm not THAT nerdy -- I have no idea what that is (though i do know who Jello Biafra is)

[JackintheGreen]

11. It's the suede-denim secret police! n/t

[nichomachus]

12. There are 10 types of people in the world

Those who understand binary -- and those who do not.

[dmallind]

32. No - there are 10 types of people in the world...

... those who understand ternary, those who do not, and those who confuse it with binary.

[Hawkowl]

15. Neither unforseen, nor unintended

I think they know exactly what kind of consequences they are pushing for. Totalitarianism by corporations! It's good for you! Death IS life, doncha know?

[ClarkUSA]

18. Wrong. Anti-IP enforcement group "Public Knowledge... called the document a positive step."

Radio: Radio stations currently pay cash to songwriters for the music they play, but the stations don't have to pay the actual bands who recorded the material. That's because the US lacks a public performance right for recorded music played by radio stations, unlike most other nations (a situation which means that most other countries won't pay US artists, either, until we pay their artists).

Espinel suggests the creation of public performance rights for music on the radio, which the US already has for satellite broadcasting and webcasting. But the broadcasting lobby has opposed the move ferociously, claiming that its unique exemption from payment is because radio has such promotional force for artists.

<snip>

The list largely avoids big controversies—Web censorship, "three strikes" rules—in favor of a focus on health, safety, and serious criminal activity. Even Public Knowledge, a group not known for its embrace of increased IP enforcement, called the document a positive step.

"The recommendations largely address important areas of intellectual property enforcement that are often overlooked in more contentious debates at the edges of these issues," said president Gigi Sohn. "While there may be room for disagreement on specific methods of implementation, Victoria Espinel has compiled a thoughtful list of targeted recommendations for enforcement."

[onenote]

27. its the originator of the streamed content, not the recipient, that would be liable

if they willfully streamed copyrighted content for financial gain.

[ClarkUSA]

19. The OP left out pertinent sections to bolster his POV.There is no "excessive zeal" in this document.

The list largely avoids big controversies—Web censorship, "three strikes" rules—in favor of a focus on health, safety, and serious criminal activity. Even Public Knowledge, a group not known for its embrace of increased IP enforcement, called the document a positive step.

"The recommendations largely address important areas of intellectual property enforcement that are often overlooked in more contentious debates at the edges of these issues," said president Gigi Sohn. "While there may be room for disagreement on specific methods of implementation, Victoria Espinel has compiled a thoughtful list of targeted recommendations for enforcement."

[vaberella]

21. That's what I thought in regards to the IP part of it. That's why I had no problems with it.

However, can you expand a bit on the issue of wiretapping or putting chips in computers...that's a bit far reaching I find.

[ClarkUSA]

23. FYI...

I interpreted as mostly targeting the "big guys" who infringe on copyrights. I also didn't get anything from it that said companies can request wiretaps, but rather that the government could consult with IP holders at the governments discretion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=680252&mesg_id=681502

Read the White House .pdf in its entirety: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ip_white_paper.pdf

[dkf]

2. So many people are streaming so much stuff how are we supposed to know which things are illegal?

[vaberella]

6. Most everything that can be sold in a store produced in the US, I would imagine.

I mainly stream stuff from Japan and outside of the US. The US laws don't expand that far----only other nations can enforce their streaming laws. So I'm good. US stuff doesn't interest me so much for me to care about this law--other than the wiretapping. For a few years now I've been debating how I feel about streaming sites. Overall I'm not down for them. So that's just me. But a lot of the ones I know are doing it legally and/or they cost money to be a member so they can pay their servers and so on.

[onenote]

24. its the entity doing the streaming,not the recipient, that would be liable

Under the law today, criminal liability applies to a person who "willfully infringes a copyright" if such infringement was committed (a) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain or (b) the infringing act involved the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, one or more copies of copyrighted works which have a total retail value of more than $1000. (47 USC 506.)

The reason that the White Paper recommends (in a single paragraph in a 17 page document dealing with numerous other issues as well) that the law be changed is that there is confusion in the courts as to whether/when "streaming" is "distribution" and thus already covered by the criminal liability provision or a "performance" (in which case it is not covered).

[Forrest Greene]

37. They'll Let You Know

...when they arrest you.

[October]

3. This is on another thread.

I cannot believe this is coming from the White House.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x680252

[ej510]

14. Obama is 100% corporate and wants to privatize everything.

[ClarkUSA]

16. Yea, that's why he pushed through Wall Street reform against the wishes of Wall Street & The Chamber

Every single Republican voted against it, BTW. Your meme is a FAIL. Not that you have a shred of proof to begin with...

[vaberella]

22. That's false. This particular issuance doesn't do anything about privatizing.

This sort of area has been privatized already.

[ej510]

30. I wasn't saying he was privatizing the intenet of course it is privatized but he wants corporations

to regulate most industries.

[vaberella]

31. That doesn't make sense either.

Basically the corporations have been doing this already. Have you been to youtube? A MV of a tv show couple, which was made for fun and not profit, will be taken down first for the music content---which the industry now has a nice little channel on youtube, and secondary for the video clips because of the episodes which are copyrighted. This stuff is already being done..this is just more language.

None of that should be what is bothering us about the legislation. Most of this stuff was already illegal and being policed long before this language came into play. The issue we should be having which is the wiretapping--which is admittedly being done only with a court order (which would probably be rejected in a court of law) but this does create an unacceptable precedence.

[ej510]

34. I know this to, but as a democrat he shouldn't spend his time on assisting

corporate governing. The President agrees with wiretapping.

[onenote]

25. how is protecting copyrighted content "privatizing" something?

[KurtNYC]

4. but Wisconsin was a "distraction" they didn't have time for ? n/t

[vaberella]

5. Yeah, I'm not down for this.

The wiretapping mainly. However, I do understand the illegality of streaming things. I mean the industries have been trying to limit it and it's hard to do. In the case of music and tv shows. So I can see them lobbying for this and put on legislation. So I'm not really against it. Wiretapping is going to far. But I'll wait for a White House clarification on things.

[ecstatic]

13. What will congress do? They have the final say. nt

[ClarkUSA]

17. Illegal activity should be punished. And you conveniently left out these paragraphs from your OP...

Radio: Radio stations currently pay cash to songwriters for the music they play, but the stations don't have to pay the actual bands who recorded the material. That's because the US lacks a public performance right for recorded music played by radio stations, unlike most other nations (a situation which means that most other countries won't pay US artists, either, until we pay their artists).

Espinel suggests the creation of public performance rights for music on the radio, which the US already has for satellite broadcasting and webcasting. But the broadcasting lobby has opposed the move ferociously, claiming that its unique exemption from payment is because radio has such promotional force for artists.

<snip>

The list largely avoids big controversies—Web censorship, "three strikes" rules—in favor of a focus on health, safety, and serious criminal activity. Even Public Knowledge, a group not known for its embrace of increased IP enforcement, called the document a positive step.

"The recommendations largely address important areas of intellectual property enforcement that are often overlooked in more contentious debates at the edges of these issues," said president Gigi Sohn. "While there may be room for disagreement on specific methods of implementation, Victoria Espinel has compiled a thoughtful list of targeted recommendations for enforcement."

[brentspeak]

33. Look, everyone -- someone who advocates Police State USA

And who wants the federal government to criminally "punish" those who violate civil statues involving internet downloading of copyrighted material.

Downloading an mp3 warrants federal wiretapping? Thank you, Mr. Orwell.

"And you conveniently left out these paragraphs from your OP..."

Yes, I conveniently made sure I didn't violate DU copyright violation policy by limiting my excerpt to no more than four paragraphs.

[Exilednight]

36. And here's the real irony: It comes from

someone who claims they want a more informed electorate. Apparently you can only be more informed if you're willing to line the pockets of big corporations.

Capitalism at its finest.

[Ignis]

20. Thank GAWD we're focusing on the important stuff at this crucial time!

:patriot:

[onenote]

26. right. the US Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator should have stopped working

because of.... wait, why should they have stopped working? And what other government officees should have stopped working at "this crucial time."

[Ignis]

28. Thanks for the demonstration of a false dichotomy.

[onenote]

29. well since you seem to think it was wrong to release this document

at this particular time, I think its fair to ask what you think the entity that was tasked with putting this report together (and has been working on it for some time) should be doing now that it finished its report and also whether there are other government agencies working on things that they shouldn't be bothering with now (and what they should be doing).

[CreekDog]

35. Jeez, is prison the solution to everything anymore?

it's extremely expensive to house otherwise productive and nonviolent people.

:eyes:

[woo me with science]

38. Oooooh! That will be another impressive blue link! nt