White House wants new copyright laws.

[Odesseiron]

Didn't see this posted anywhere, and I figure it's very relevant here with all the talk of streaming and copying/pirating that goes on.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20...#ixzz1Gl0E8ziz

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."

• 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 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 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.

Thoughts? It will will probably take a while to go through if at all, but I shudder at the thought of it. Seedbox looks more and more viable by the day. Strongly considering one now.

[kuronosan]

lol...

[Xno Kappa]

As long they don't fuck with porn we good.

[Yugl]

As long they don't fuck with porn we good.

Lets get rid of this and retain everything else.

[Akiyama]

So glad they're worried about what people with the internet do with their free time instead of worrying about... actual problems.

[LinktheDeme]

I don't understand how it could be on par with felony charges if the content is under $500. Also with wiretapping it feels like this is the patriot act all over. We might as well allow the CIA and FBI to exchange information for streamers too while were at it so we can waterboard them.

[Shenrien]

So glad they're worried about what people with the internet do with their free time instead of worrying about... actual problems.

If you ignore a serious problem long enough, eventually it goes away and your opportunity to do something about it goes away as well, ultimately everything balances out in the end and everyone is happy right?

[Sylvrdragon]

On one hand, I hate it when old people legislate new technology. I would bet everything I have that most of them probably needed the concept of Streaming explained to them (if they even bothered to learn about it at all). On the other hand, these are the people who have the money, which means they have the most to lose when people are getting shit for free.

The older I get, the more I realize that this wonderful age of free entertainment (via streaming and torrents) was bound to come to an end eventually.

[LinktheDeme]

If you ignore a serious problem long enough, eventually it goes away and your opportunity to do something about it goes away as well, ultimately everything balances out in the end and everyone is happy right?

Because streaming a TV show should be a felony, when stealing a DVD with all the episodes of that TV show is not?? Go play devil's advocate elsewhere kthxbai

[Kuya]

Once free shit on the internet stops, the dark age begins.

[Colenzo]

PUT LAWS UP, I DON"T GIVE A SHIT.

[Colenzo]

I'LL GO BACK TO USING IRC FOR SHIT

[Heavencloud]

The older I get, the more I realize that this wonderful age of free entertainment (via streaming and torrents) was bound to come to an end eventually.

So true, although it seems like there will never be a way for them to enforce these laws, given the magnitude of people who stream/torrent. What are you going to do - shut down entire sites like megavideo that upload shows? Convict the uploaders? I just don't see it happening in a large scale...

[Rhinox]

HOPE AND CHANGE

for big corporations

[Gredival]

I've downloaded music, but I'm not going to delude myself and say that I'm not breaking copyright laws and that piracy doesn't hurt anyone. Widespread acceptance of a crime doesn't negate the harm it does or the fact it is a crime.

Consumers have to understand that there are costs that have to be paid for and artists deserve compensation for their work. Not to say that the industry's compensation compared to artist compensation is fair or that they don't make a killing being the middle man, but the TV/Movie/Music industry could end up like the publishing industry soon. The industry needs to adapt too and understand that piracy exists for a reason (costs) and that gouging the public's wallets will drive some of them to piracy.

[Cream Soda]

I've downloaded music, but I'm not going to delude myself and say that I'm not breaking copyright laws and that piracy doesn't hurt anyone.

It really depends.

1) Buy song
2) Download song

If these are your two options, then yes, your piracy is hurting someone.

1) Download song
2) Go w/o the song

If there is no way possible that you'd ever buy the song, then downloading it vs going w/o makes no diff. They make the same profit, $0

[Rhinox]

not buying it.

[Gredival]

Granted. But everyone listens to music on the go these days. The MP3 player, and its subsequent merging with the phone, is one of the biggest trends of this generation. You can't tell me that everyone would just go without music rather than downloading it. Libraries would be a lot smaller, of course, but piracy certainly takes away from profits. Just not in the absolutely retarded way that the RIAA evaluates lost profits.

I mean I remember in the dark ages of anime fandom before we had $30 boxsets when each single DVD was $20... and they sold shit. That stopped REAL fast after people realized they didn't have to shell out $200+ for a series when they could get it online.

The more piracy becomes the norm and technologies exist to further it (Napster to mIRC to RS/MU to Torrents) the bigger the effect.

[Cream Soda]

Everyone? Of course not. Me? I'd listen to the radio. I'd never spend money on music, lol.

[Senoska]

The older I get, the more I realize that this wonderful age of free entertainment (via streaming and torrents) was bound to come to an end eventually.

Why? This is the age of information and these people are stuck in the last century. They're not going to be able to enforce this at all and we all know we're going to continue to download our shit and stream what we can for the rest of our lives. They are going to need to either adapt to the new situation or die, and its looking like the latter.

Just because they dont embrace the new technology and rather, choose to demonize it, doesnt mean its going to change public opinion. I'm sure most of us have somewhere around $50,000 of shit that is likely downloaded on our machines. The threat of lawsuit, or even felony, wont stop me from basically borrowing some bytes from a "friend"

Just my two cents. They can enact all the laws they want, but this is the way shit is, and will remain to be, and there is nothing they can do to stop it.