Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos

from the not-understanding-the-technology dept

Okay, this is just getting ridiculous. A few weeks back, we noted that Senators Amy Klobuchar, John Cornyn and Christopher Coons had proposed a new bill that was designed to make “streaming” infringing material a felony. At the time, the actual text of the bill wasn’t available, but we assumed, naturally, that it would just extend “public performance” rights to section 506a of the Copyright Act.


Supporters of this bill claim that all it’s really doing is harmonizing US copyright law’s civil and criminal sections. After all, the rights afforded under copyright law in civil cases cover a list of rights: reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works or perform the work. The rules for criminal infringement only cover reproducing and distributing — but not performing. So, supporters claim, all this does is “harmonize” copyright law and bring the criminal side into line with the civil side by adding “performance rights” to the list of things.

If only it were that simple. But, of course, it’s not. First of all, despite claims to the contrary, there’s a damn good reason why Congress did not include performance rights as a criminal/felony issue: because who would have thought that it would be a criminal act to perform a work without permission? It could be infringing, but that can be covered by a fine. When we suddenly criminalize a performance, that raises all sorts of questionable issues.

Furthermore, as we suspected, in the full text of the bill, “performance” is not clearly defined. This is the really troubling part. Everyone keeps insisting that this is targeted towards “streaming” websites, but is streaming a “performance”? If so, how does embedding play into this? Is the site that hosts the content guilty of performing? What about the site that merely linked to and/or embedded the video (linking and embedding are technically effectively the same thing). Without clear definitions, we run into problems pretty quickly.

And it gets worse. Because rather than just (pointlessly) adding “performance” to the list, the bill tries to also define what constitutes a potential felony crime in these circumstances:

the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works

So yeah. If you embed a YouTube video that turns out to be infringing, and more than 10 people view it because of your link… you could be facing five years in jail. This is, of course, ridiculous, and suggests (yet again) politicians who are regulating a technology they simply do not understand. Should it really be a criminal act to embed a YouTube video, even if you don’t know it was infringing…? This could create a massive chilling effect to the very useful service YouTube provides in letting people embed videos.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
380 Comments
DogBreath says:

Re: Re:

We can only hope it is one in which someone sings “Happy Birthday”, without paying the commensurate fee for performing the song. They call that a “two for the price of one” in the legal community.

Senators Amy Klobuchar, John Cornyn and Christopher Coons soon to be released statment: “Those song embedding non-fee paying, think they own the world, singing pirates really chap my hide. Who do they think they are??? People with rights and laws that are governed and practiced by common sense? Not after we’re done with them.”

RD says:

Re: Re:

“So, which campaign worker for which Senator will be the first to go to jail for embedding an infringing video during an election?”

Exactly zero, because our corrupt elected officials always ignore the very constitution and laws they are sworn to uphold, and which you can bet your sweet aunt Mary’s ASS they hold you and I and the general public to.

Anonymous Coward says:

It makes a lot of sense, and would put dramatic pressure on YouTube to better police their video content.

There is no chilling effect, as the content isn’t legal to start with. Embedding could continue without issue, providing YouTube does a better job of assuring that they have rights to the content they re-license to other websites in this manner.

PRMan (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Even Viacom themselves could not tell the court which videos they uploaded and had “permission” and which ones did not. How would anyone expect YouTube to do what the copyright holder themselves could not do?

It will be interesting to see individuals trying to use this against the TV shows which routinely steal their viral videos.

chris (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Even Viacom themselves could not tell the court which videos they uploaded and had “permission” and which ones did not. How would anyone expect YouTube to do what the copyright holder themselves could not do?

you guys keep getting caught up on the fact that policing youtube for infringement is impossible. we know that. hollywood knows that. we know they know. they know that we know. it’s been firmly established. it’s time to move on…

…to the fact that despite the fact that it’s impossible, hollywood still wants youtube gone. if they can’t change the law to punish google, they will change the law to punish youtube’s users. and if they can’t do that, they’ll change the law in some other fashion.

and if the law cannot be changed, the law will be ignored and hollywood will take matters into its own hands.

Tom L says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

‘Hollywood’ barely has enough money to put up real TV shows anymore that aren’t variations on American Idol or the Kardashians. The ad revenue is dropping like a rock, which is why good shows with ratings still get cancelled every year. Let them try to ‘take things into their own hands’ they don’t have the funds.

They never did… that’s why they have gov’t using YOUR MONEY to police you for their specious claims of copyright. It’s all a big circle jerk and we’re the jerks paying for it.

Ta,

rabidgoat says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

most of the viral videos arent copyrighted, and EMBEDDING is whats criminal. So youtube isn’t obligated to police it. This is about suppression of information. What do you the Google AND ZUCKERBURG were doing at G8? being told: ” Dont worry, this wont effect you income. We just want to prosecute people who are spreading info that contradicts what we spoonfeed the masses through mainstreem media. And we are such nice DICTATORS, that We will let NSA and HOMELAND SECURITY police it for you for FREE!!!! 🙂 I WANT TO MOVE TO MARS.

Joe Publius (profile) says:

Re: Yeah, it makes TONS of sense

You know what makes even more sense? Increasing the world’s largest prison population with an influx of the least violent criminals* in the world for up to 5 years at a time.

*That is until they have no choice but to join prison gangs and learn how to stab someone to death with a toothbrush.

Josh (profile) says:

Re: Re: Yeah, it makes TONS of sense

It makes tons of sense. The for profit prisons want as many non-violent(Pot smokers, people unable to pay their debts, copyright infringers etc.) prisoners as possible. The violent prisoners and the prisoners that have medical needs are left for the state to house. That way the private prisons are easier to maintain, make a better profit and have less risk of riots. The tax payer still pays for both but now some business man also get his share of the prison profits.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“There is no chilling effect, as the content isn’t legal to start with. Embedding could continue without issue, providing YouTube does a better job of assuring that they have rights to the content they re-license to other websites in this manner.”

Listen, you dolt, the chilling effect will be on those EMBEDDING the links. They will be the ones charged under this bill, not YouTube, and they certainly can’t police the videos they’re embedding.

Seriously, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills….

Chris Rhodes (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I’m a fan of the theory that civil libertarianism “happens” to people. People are all about fellating authority until a SWAT team crashes through their front door, shoots their already-caged dog (and maybe one of their children), throws them to the ground at gunpoint, and demands to know where their illegally downloaded movies are.

Libertarianism happens to people real quick after that.

Dan says:

Re: Re: Re: (Joe Publius)

Civil Libertarians? Do you even have a clue what a libertarian is before throwing that out there? Apparently not. Since libertarians lobby for LESS laws and LESS regulation for everyone. Including the removal of the federal government from state affairs.

This bill violates everything a libertarian holds dear. 1st amendment and 10th amendment violations up the wazoo.

Lastly: this would be next to impossible to police, assuming it is enacted, and would not pass constitutional muster anyway. Just like all those sharing cases a few years ago, they are no longer targeting the downloaders or sharers, but the providers of the content or networks.

No6655321 says:

Re: Yet...

Yet we can play a video at home for friends to watch? Why not online? What’s the difference?

What’s the difference in getting a movie from the library (yea, you can do that) for free and temporarily downloading one online?

What’s the difference between loaning someone a DVD and sending them a copy online?

NONE! It’s bs.

HothMonster says:

Re: Re:

http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/03/oops-pow-surprise24-hours-of-video-all.html

24 hours worth of video is uploaded to youtube every 60 seconds , no that shouldnt be hard to police at all. It would just take 3 people per seconds a day working 8 hour shifts 7 days a week. So thats only 259,200 full time jobs. No policing this stuff shouldn’t be an issue.

This is where you say they can devise a program to do it for you. If you think this is an achievable task you don’t understand what you are dealing with. First of all since we can’t make a program that is 100% effective at scanning text I doubt we will be building one any time soon for video. Second what is this program to do, compare a video file in any format with a database of all video every copyrighted in every format?

You can not accurately police that much data, its the copyright holders work if they want to police it they can go right ahead the system is there for them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Actually, it would be remarkably easy to police.

Require each user submitting a video to set up an account, using two pieces of state issued ID to confirm who they are. Each time they want to upload a video, they would be required to fill in a document that states the source of the video, any backgroup music used, and a list of people who appear in the video. If the video promotes anything including links to a website, a model release document would be required for each person in the video.

If the video is news style, taking in a public place of the event, they would have to disclose that information, date, time, location.

Any failure in this documentation would make the poster liable, and YouTube would agree to provide poster information in response to DMCA notifications, so that the legal action can be taken directly with the content provider.

YouTube’s legal issues would be resolved, and their need to police content removed. It would be much easier to verify 1 million uploaders than it would be to check a million videos a day.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

What if we don’t know what the background music that was used?
Or if the background music is licensed? Is that really my problem? No, it’s not.

If I am on a tropical island and I am recording how the waves break against the rocks, and there is music playing that isn’t from any device on my person, or owned by me, are you saying that I really have to go to jail for 5 years for posting it on youtube?

What if the manager of the tropical island had already paid for licensing the music for public performance? Are you seriously saying that you will send me to jail?

F-U and your stupid music. I don’t need it.

HothMonster says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Any failure in this documentation would make the poster liable”

The poster is already liable so why the mountain of paperwork?

“using two pieces of state issued ID to confirm who they are”
How do i show my computer my drivers license? If I just scan it in what prevents me from scanning a blank piece of paper or a fake id? So now google needs to employ hundreds of thousands of employs to review account applications instead of watch videos.

“much easier to verify 1 million uploaders”
try 30 million, with millions of new accounts being created daily because their old one was shut down for paperwork failure.

Its not like the people couldn’t still post infringing videos and that it would still be impossible for google to know until someone points it out. This wouldn’t prevent anyone from infringing, you could still spoof the application process and your video would stay up until reported much as it does now.

Like most anti-piracy schemes all this does is make it harder for legitimate users to use the site and does nothing that will actually prevent piracy, make it easier to identify or easier to remove than it currently is.

Who wants using youtube to be harder than renewing your drivers licensee?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

The poster isn’t liable because YouTube works hard to make sure the poster isn’t readily identifiable, doesn’t require posters to provide ID before posting, and won’t easily provide the information they do have to rights holders without legal fights.

The theoretical liablity to the poster doesn’t work in reality, because there is no connection, just a really big company profiting off of questionable content and playing in the DMCA gap zone.

FuzzyDuck says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Why don’t you start by showing us two pieces of state issued ID before posting here, mr. Anonymous?

Why would people posting their own stuff have to jump through all those hoops? How do you show your IDs to a website anyway.

Also the ability to post things anonymously is essential for democracy for instance for those fighting for freedom in their own countries (think of China or Russia) where revealing the truth can get you killed.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

> Require each user submitting a video to set up
> an account, using two pieces of state issued ID
> to confirm who they are.

How do you use state ID online? (Keep in mind that it’s a crime in every state to copy or otherwise duplicate a government ID card, so scanning or otherwise uploading an image of one is out.)

> YouTube’s legal issues would be resolved, and
> their need to police content removed.

If any of that nonsense were imposed by law on YouTube, its legal issues (and those of the government it would immediately sue) would only be beginning as what you’ve proposed pretty much flies in the face of 200+ years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence.

Not their job says:

Re:

Is it a driver’s responsibility to pull over other drivers who are speeding? Of course not.

In exactly the same way, it’s not YouTube’s responsibility to police their site for infringement, it never has been. Since your basic premise that they need to do that is wrong, your entire argument that this is a good thing is also horribly wrong.

Brendan (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I don’t think that you understand chilling effects. The problem is that content that is/should be freely usable would be blocked due to a concern about a slim chance of massive liabilty.

It is not possible to determine a priori whether a given clip is “licensed” or infringinging or not. It depends on a huge number of inputs, most of which are not at youtubes disposal, and even less available to the user who embeds the clip.

To reduce risk, people err onto the side of blocking or not using content. That’s a chilling effect.

Ron Rezendes (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Ok you moron – I’ve listened to the drivel from the gaping mouth AC gang for so long that I really wish the “Troll Bill” would be passed and be so short sighted as to put you and your talk-out-of-your-ass type in jail with each other without food or water! Just leave you rot until you kill each other off – you really are that ridiculous that I wish some of your own kind would do you harm!

The damn producers of the content can’t even tell/decide what material is infringing and you want some third party to figure this out?? Or, just because someone says it’s infringing it should automatically be taken down without any proof or due diligence??

Here’s a paper towel…wipe your face off when you pull it out of your ass! Jesus Christ on a cracker – I wish that the sheer stupidity that spews from you was physically painful so I could enjoy the sound of you screaming in agony!

Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I know many of us that frequent this blog think we know quite a bit about infringement and what not but I would go to say that, for the most part, the average joe citizen uploader doesn’t have much of a clue.

Likely scenario: Trevor is shooting some video with his smartphone of his buddies at a ragin’ party playing beer pong. Somebody makes an awesome shot. Trevor uploads the video to YouTube or Facebook. Three weeks later, a jackbooted SWAT kick down the door, shoot his dog, handcuff the guy, and say he is under arrest for criminal copyright infringement by public performance because Lady Gaga was playing in the background of his party video. Five years in prison! Is this reasonable at all! Under this proposal, this can and will happen, as we have seen authorities willing to go to extremes to help the content industries criminalize everyone.

Andrew F says:

Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:39am

The chilling effect would have the greatest effect on fair use. There’s a lot of content that toes the line on copyright. Raising the penalty for getting the line wrong deters people who probably are on the right side of the law but aren’t entirely sure and don’t want to risk it.

Andrew F says:

Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 1st, 2011 @ 10:39am

The chilling effect would have the greatest effect on fair use. There’s a lot of content that toes the line on copyright. Raising the penalty for getting the line wrong deters people who probably are on the right side of the law but aren’t entirely sure and don’t want to risk it.

dirk diggler says:

Re: Re:

yeah it’s genius! it totally puts tons of pressure on youtube to police themselves! OH WAIT. that’s right. it puts no pressure on youtube whatsoever, and puts all of the pressure on average internet users to know whether content is infringing. you’re quite the ignoramus. why would youtube care about policing itself better if it faces no penalty for not doing so? out of some benevolent motherly care for its web visitors? i think not.

John Doe says:

Lets talk about the punishment fitting the crime

So I drink and drive and kill someone, I get 2 maybe 3 years in jail. I embed a YouTube video that more than 10 people see and I can get 5 years. Yea, that sounds about right. Surely nobody can argue that a human life is worth more than 10 people watching a YouTube video where not harm, economic or otherwise, was done can they?

:Lobo Santo (profile) says:

Re: Lets talk about the punishment fitting the crime

1 human life is valued at around 9 million dollars in the United States–that’s the pro-rated amount of economic benefit the country expects to see, on average, per person.

Now, given that the value of something copyrighted far-and-away exceeds 9 million dollars (in the eyes of some, it’s like 25 million or something for a 5 minute copyrighted clip, right?) it makes perfect sense for the jail-time on copyright infringement to be double or triple that of murder/manslaughter.

/sarc…?

Robert M says:

Re: Re: Lets talk about the punishment fitting the crime

You also have to realize that private individuals are automatically protected by copyright protection on their original works. I upload a video of my cat jumping off the sofa and you think it’s cute, so you download a copy (I recommend FreeStudio from dvdvideosoft.com), then re-upload it and share it with 11 facebook friends….you’re a felon, and I can wring you out. But despite these protections, who has to time to do that?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Lets talk about the punishment fitting the crime

You should change your first name to Dil. You compare a typical first offender DWI involuntary homicide sentence to the MAXIMUM sentence under the proposed streaming bill. FUD much? What’s the maximum federal sentence for homicide with a vehicle (it’s not necessarily involuntary manslaughter) probably on the order of 20 years or even life.

rubberpants says:

There’s definitely an effort here, in general, by copyright maximalists to define as much as possible as a “public performance” due to the increased penalties associated with it. I think this is a clear perversion of the law. How is a guy watching a video over the Internet at home in his sweat pants a public performance? These outdated laws need to be repealed anyway.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

You do realize, of course, what constitutes a “public performance” under Title 17? It is much more circumscribed than you may want persons to believe who read your article.

Are you claiming that embedding a video would not be considered a public performance? It certainly looks like it would be based on my reading of the law.

To perform or display a work ?publicly? means ?

(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or

(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

That certainly seems to encompass linking/embedding.

But, you know, if you actually wanted to be *helpful* rather than obliquely and vaguely insisting that I got something wrong, you would explain what you actually mean.

Why you never do that, I’ll never quite understand. I guess it’s easier to insult people if you don’t have to explain your statements.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

I made a simple observation, and nothing more.

To your point re YouTube and its inference that the Sword of Damocles hangs over the head of those making otherwise ordinary YouTube postings, the best a right’s holder could hope for is that Section 506(a)(1)(B) applies, which, of course, requires that the act have been “willfull”, a subjective standard that requires actual knowledge (See, e.g., GLOBAL-TECH APPLIANCES, INC., ET AL. v. SEB S. A., decided by the USSC on 5/31/2011).

Read whatever you may wish into my comments, but do understand that they are not made with an intent to “insult”.

FUDbuster (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Right. And correct me if I’m wrong, but streaming is already a misdemeanor. Do you see people getting arrested for posting YouTube videos? No. Then why would anyone think that once they make it a felony–with a higher threshold than the misdemeanor version–all of the sudden YouTube posters are going to be rounded up and jailed? It’s all total FUD. It’s ridiculous. It’s things like this that do not help the credibility of those saying it, if you catch my drift.

Chris Rhodes (profile) says:

Don't Be Silly

It’s not like they’re going to lock up every soccer mom who posts a YouTube video to her FaceBook wall. Nah, there would be public outrage then. More likely, they’ll just prosecute the uppity ones. Have you recently been publicly critical of a politician? Did you “Like” WikiLeaks on FaceBook? Do you submit code to open source projects like Tor? Well then, they’re going to be searching through your blog links very carefully.

“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted ? and you create a nation of law-breakers ? and then you cash in on guilt.”

John Doe says:

Re: Don't Be Silly

Your second paragraph sums up exactly what I feel about how things are going in the US. It is far easier for the government to control someone once they make a criminal out of them. The sad thing is, the sheeple are all to willing to have more laws passed and more things criminalized.

Chris Rhodes (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Don't Be Silly

I put it in quotes but I purposefully left the attribution out because people get brain lock when they see her name, and I really wanted to express my agreement with the sentiment rather than get into an irrelevant argument about what people thought of her personally or the rest of her philosophy.

But now you’ve ruined that, haven’t you! 😉

Chronno S. Trigger (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Cop 1: “We’re here to arrest one [redacted] on the charge of using the imbedding feature of youtube for a public performance of three Lady Gaga songs. If found guilty, he will spend up to 15 years in jail. We got the tip from…”

Cop 2: “What’s that squeaking noise coming from inside the house?”

Cop 1: “They may be trying to destroy evidence. Bust down the door”

*Bam*

Cop 2: “Oh, you never want to see that.”

Cop 1: “You’re both under arrest”

Perp: “What for?”

Cop 1: “Copyright infringement and public exposure. You shouldn’t be having sex with your door open like that.”

pesti (profile) says:

So if Cal Trans builds a freeway...

So if Cal Trans builds a freeway and Drunk drivers kill people on it then it’s only logical to sue the state cuz they didn’t employ enough policemen….How many people drive the roads? as many that watch you-tube? Or maybe they should sue us the, taxpayers, for providing the funds, or how about our employers, they paid us..Well as far as emb. videos, don’t forget our INTERNET providers, they give these criminals the means to distribute, view, the content performed by these poor destitute entertainers and their corporate buddies…

Jesus, They gotta quit with all this mind boggling,”I have nothing better to do” bullshit!

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Yep, that’s exactly right. They’re going to start throwing people in jail for posting YouTube videos.

What do you think the Channelsurfing guy did?

Good grief, people. Really?

The law makes that a felony. You don’t see this as a problem?

Is your answer really to mock those who point out what the law actually says?

FUDbuster (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Nobody’s going to jail for simply posting a YouTube video. I don’t believe that for one second. The channelsurfing guy ran a full-blown streaming site. Big difference between that and posting a video on YouTube. There can already be liability for posting infringing content on YouTube. Do you see lots of people being sued for it? Nope. The idea that the feds are going to use this law to bust the average YouTube user is laughable.

Chris Rhodes (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Nobody’s going to jail for simply posting a YouTube video. […] The idea that the feds are going to use this law to bust the average YouTube user is laughable.

Of course not. They’ll go to jail for something that isn’t actually illegal (e.g. protected speech), but pisses off someone important. The YouTube link will just be the way they make the prosecution legal.

Robert M says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Almost as laughable as a SWAT team busting down your door and shooting your husband dozens of times over several grams of pot THAT WASN’T EVEN FOUND. THAT IS LAUGHABLE!
But I bet Jose Guerena’s wife and son aren’t laughing much now, as that is what happened in Az last week.

You sound just like whoever started the Drug War with their platitudes about skeptics raising “outrageous” concerns.
I have to ask: When the outrageous happens, will YOU take responsibility for the course of action YOU advocated?
Will you rightfully feel their blood on your hands?

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Whether they actually do it or not isn’t really the point. Why would you (or any other sane person) not object to a law that gives them that discretion in the first place?

^ This

We’ve seen law enforcement massively abuse similar laws in the past. I think FUDbuster over there is being ridiculous naive if he thinks this law won’t be similarly abused.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

No need to call me names, Mike. The way you treat dissenting opinions is sad.

The law as written would apply to those who intentionally act to break the law for the purpose of infringing. That does not include the average YouTube user.

Linking already be a criminal act. This doesn’t change that. The argument that “they’re going to make everyone on YouTube a criminal” is laughable.

FUDbuster (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Channelsurfing was a site where McCarthy had a bunch of links and embedded videos that he updated daily. The stuff he linked to and embedded was new release movies, pay-per-view, stuff like that. That’s a full-blown streaming site.

YouTube is a streaming site, sure, but not the type of streaming site that McCarthy was running.

DogBreath says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Perhaps you don’t understand the difference between links/embedding and streaming. The Channelsurfing site posted links from other sites, where the actual videos were hosted and streamed from.

McCarthy was arrested for posting links to copyrighted material, not for streaming them.

McCarthy’s own words:
Feds Arrest Owner of Seized Sports Streaming Domain

?The thing about my site is we never streamed anything, we always linked from other sites like justin.tv, veetle, vshare.tv, zonein.tv and others,? TorrentFreak was told.

So, if someone tells me this law the Senators want to pass won’t put anyone behind bars for linking to infringing content, don’t expect me to believe it. They’ve already locked up McCarthy and they didn’t even have this law in place to do it. Sounds like the Feds have found out that current law doesn’t give them a leg to stand on (piss on) and they want a law put in place after the fact (of the arrest and takedown) to cover their respective asses.

FUDbuster (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

I get the difference. I think with McCarthy it doesn’t matter whether he hosted the material himself or not. The difference is whether he’s a direct infringer or an accomplice. Either way he gets tried like the direct infringer.

And my point is that, as McCarthy’s arrest demonstrates, linking can already be criminal.

DogBreath says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

The difference is whether he’s a direct infringer or an accomplice.

The real difference is the arrest for linking to (contributory infringement, which should be handled in a civil court, not a criminal one), but not specifically hosting, copying or uploading the material in question.

And my point is that, as McCarthy’s arrest demonstrates, linking can already be criminal.

And this new attempt at a changing the law will make practically everyone subject to that same type of arrest and conviction. Have Twitter? Have over 10 followers? Post link to Youtube video you don’t have copyright to? Go directl y to jail at the whim of the copyright holder under this law. Prepare to visit grandma in jail, for forwarding that link to all of her friends, of that funny video if which she didn’t own the copyrights.

This is all about the “new beating stick” the lawyers will be sending out in their letters. Now along with “Settle for this low price and we won’t take all your money. Because even if you are innocent, it will still cost you to defend yourself”, will be included “and you might not even be sent to ass-raping prison by us”. I certain folks not worried about losing some money in court, might be more worried about jail time for something they’re accused of doing, even if they didn’t do it.

FUDbuster (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

The real difference is the arrest for linking to (contributory infringement, which should be handled in a civil court, not a criminal one), but not specifically hosting, copying or uploading the material in question.

But there is such thing as accomplice liability in criminal infringement. I checked on Westlaw and found about 25 recent cases of people being charged with this for internet-related activity. In fact, one of the charges against McCarthy was that he was an accomplice. It’s not necessarily a civil thing.

And this new attempt at a changing the law will make practically everyone subject to that same type of arrest and conviction. Have Twitter? Have over 10 followers? Post link to Youtube video you don’t have copyright to? Go directl y to jail at the whim of the copyright holder under this law. Prepare to visit grandma in jail, for forwarding that link to all of her friends, of that funny video if which she didn’t own the copyrights.

Utter FUD and nonsense. Remember that it has to meet the requirements to be criminal, not the least of which is that it’s “willful,” which involves a two-pronged test. This will not affect regular users.

This is all about the “new beating stick” the lawyers will be sending out in their letters. Now along with “Settle for this low price and we won’t take all your money. Because even if you are innocent, it will still cost you to defend yourself”, will be included “and you might not even be sent to ass-raping prison by us”. I certain folks not worried about losing some money in court, might be more worried about jail time for something they’re accused of doing, even if they didn’t do it.

I don’t see how this addendum will change things in that regard. Private plaintiffs can already do that under existing law. More FUD.

DogBreath says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

But there is such thing as accomplice liability in criminal infringement. I checked on Westlaw and found about 25 recent cases of people being charged with this for internet-related activity. In fact, one of the charges against McCarthy was that he was an accomplice. It’s not necessarily a civil thing.

Sounds just like what Homeland Security did here, and ICE did here. Good thing they didn’t abuse or make up the law in doing so or things might get out of hand with the authorities making the crime fit the law.

Remember that it has to meet the requirements to be criminal, not the least of which is that it’s “willful,” which involves a two-pronged test.

Did grandma send the link? Prong One. Will some court/judge/jury in East Texas call that alone “willful”? Prong Two. Prison time for grandma? It’s Trident time (no, not the gum, the three pronged version).

This will not affect regular users.

“This will not affect you”. How many times will the powers that be say that, and then have been proven to be utterly and completely wrong.

Agendas. Everybody (and every company) has one, and they don’t care if it squashes your life into the dirt.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

And my point is that, as McCarthy’s arrest demonstrates, linking can already be criminal.

Well, except for the trifling little fact that McCarthy has been convicted of nothing. Neither has anyone else who has linked to infringing content.

Essentially, ICE just assumed linking was a criminal activity, with absolutely no case law (nor statute) to back it up.

Joe Publius (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Whether or not anyone goes to jail for this is beside the point that they want to give judges the permission to do exactly that, because of the consequences that penalty can have on you and I.

Considering that the harm (or even the existence of harm) for infringement is hard to pin down, even from case to case. Making it an offense worthy of incarceration on so low a standard (10 “performances” over 6 months) is pretty ridiculous, even unnecessary. And as been mentioned so many times here that it deserves its own shorthand, the even greater problem is that it could create a chilling effect.

Let’s use the ever handy YouTube as an example:

Who would want to post anything there that may refer to any copyrighted media, if due to some misunderstand of the law, or an interpretation of fair use that doesn’t jive with the judge can lead to criminal prosecution that could result in jail time? Instead of worrying about that, some would rather just keep their “mouths” shut. What originally is thought to be harmonizing the laws, is now a statutory hurdle against engaging with our own culture.

HothMonster says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

right cause the police have never used the law to arrest someone it wasnt designed for.

There is no abuse of power in the system, i say broader laws. How about this “Its a felony to do bad stuff.” You have nothing to worry about because it only goes after people doing bad stuff, not acting in good faith and doing something wrong. No one would ever be arrested for the wrong bad stuff just you know bad stuff. Oh and this law doesn’t require the court system, someone just has to say you did bad stuff and the cops will disappear you. Sounds good right? No more bad stuff to worry about. I know everyone hates bad stuff and if only there was a law against it no one would do bad things anymore.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I think of it this way. McCarthy, the guy from the channelsurfing site, was arrested under existing law. Running a streaming site is already criminal–at least that’s the government’s position. Do you see them busting regular YouTube users now? Nope. Mike’s trying to turn this into “they’re going to arrest everyone on YouTube.” It’s ridiculous, IMO.

DogBreath says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Don’t worry, we were pretty sure you were you.

By the way, the Feds will be over to bust down your door for posting anonymously. Whats that you say? Posting anonymously isn’t illegal? Good luck with that explanation as a jackboot is pressing your neck to the floor. I’m sure SWAT and the court system will go easy on you once they hear you say that “get out of jail” phrase, because the justice system is always fair, just ask them.

r (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Hrm.. if you really and truly believe that any (another) law is just in that it criminalizes linking then I truly, really believe you are in need of an additional hole in your head so you can breath. The net is being cast ever wider, the hands on our throats ever tighter, laws are binding this nation to stakes in the desert and those that write them and enforce them and “manage” them are above them. Why? Because people like you “aren’t doing anything wrong and have nothing to worry about”. Inch by inch, inch by inch. The government should fear its peoples and I smell fear.

And for what? Money? Great. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt is what your government is using to guide you dear fellow.

The Internet swells and raises the voices of the quiet. It’s getting louder, incessant, it’s threatening the corridors of power and soon more laws will not be enough.. or we will be made quiet.

So.. roll your eyes and drink your tea.

r

Relabill says:

Re: Re:

They’re going to start throwing people in jail for posting YouTube videos.

That’s not necessary. All they have to do is convict you a felony, and put you on probation. Then guess what? You can no longer vote, serve on a jury, you can have your passport revoked, your job opportunities destroyed.

All because you linked to that Fox video and made a critical comment on Conryn or his cronies. Wise up fool.

ScytheNoire (profile) says:

Need more prisons

They are going to need a lot more prisons. If problems weren’t bad enough with marijuana users and three-strike criminals over-crowding the system, now they can start tossing in people who link or embed a video. Wonderful. Hey, why not just start tossing every one into prison, since that’s the path they are on. This is just ridiculous. Copyright needs to go, it just doesn’t work.

BackfireConcept says:

Here we go…if this passes how about someone start a crowd sourced funded company that hires those that go to jail for such a crime on the day of their release. Their job could be to research for infringement committed by lawmakers. They could get paid well. The company would likely get tax breaks for hiring convicts.

A Guy says:

I think part of the story is missing… I believe these bills are written so that they don’t affect the DMCA safe harbor. So for a site like YouTube, there would be no change in its legal standing. I think this is written to go after sites stream or embed video and ignore take down requests. The owners of the such a site could be criminally liable instead of it being solely a civil matter.

G Thompson (profile) says:

Unusually broad and ambiguous laws like this will make the USA that much more difficult for organisations to be based their.

Wait until the first arrest is made under this law to an alleged individual ‘pirate’, and then his attorney questions why Police have not arrested any other persons whom are blatantly flouting the law ie: Youtube embeders Making the court (criminal) question its equity role and the police being accused of malfeasance.

Yes there are some who have stated above that “this will never happen”, but please explain why it wouldn’t? And lets not quote de minimis non curat lex ok? it would NOT apply since the first time it is, and used successfully as a defence, it would then be used by all.

JohnSmith999 says:

You cannot compete with FREE !!

Really,

I have been thinking about this thorny issue for a few months now and have come up with a solution that is so simple i cannot believe the “big content” havent thought of this before.

Streaming is not really an option as most people want to collect collections of films, music, TV programmes ebooks etc, move them to whatever device they want to use them on and only pay for them once.

The “big content” gatekeepers build a site and charge a fee (approx ?30 or $50) per month, (I think this is reasonable) for this you the public get unlimited all you can eat internet. the servers link to all the vast amounts of Official and unofficial media from all the torrent sites, usenet and digital lockers etc. This takes advantage of the P2P distribution model with is very efficient and cost effective as the servers only need to keep links to the media. Each month the relevant gatekeepers (MPAA RIAA, BPI, Ebook publishers, software publishers etc) all get a proportion of the total amount collected, based on downloads. to stop the figures being inflated by unscruplious people the download can be confirmed as taking place before it is registered as a completed download.

Based on my (admittedly rough figures) if 10 million people were to subscibe, (a crazy low figure) then the gatekeepers would take in ?300,000,000 ($500,000,000) per month. if this was to be done correctly then the MPAA and the RIAA would distribute the money to the artists whose music and films have been downloaded, it could also be broken down further and the original TV networks (BBC, CBS NBC FOX, etc) would get paid for the downloads of their programmes.

This would encourage the networks, film producers etc to put out officially sanctioned copies at high quality, this is a win win for the public and a win win for the lablels and gatekeepers, they get to hold on to their “legacy models” and get into the 21 centuary.

If anyone wants the full physical copy then obviously they can buy a CD/DVD, book, or magazine from the publishers.

Im sure i am going to get flamed and told that this cannot possibly work, but i feel that this is the only way the lables can “compete with Free” and stop Piracy in its tracks.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: You cannot compete with FREE !!

Im sure i am going to get flamed and told that this cannot possibly work

This cannot possibly work, for one simple reason: Whenever startups have tried similar ideas, Big Content has demanded unreasonable licensing fees (e.g. 50% of their profits).

You might also take a gander at EFF’s collective licensing scheme, and Mike’s criticism of compulsory licenses.

Johnsmith999 says:

Re: Re: You cannot compete with FREE !!

I was not saying a new startup do this, i was saying this was a viable business model for the “Big Content” RIAAA MPAA etc. If only they stopped trying to kill technology but embraced it, they could make many millions of $$, probably Billions of $$ per year.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: You cannot compete with FREE !!

If only they stopped trying to kill technology but embraced it, they could make many millions of $$, probably Billions of $$ per year.

Yeah, but that’s been true since the 1800’s. From player pianos, to DAT tapes, the music industry has always tried to kill technology.

Like most other industries, the legacy players are always the last to embrace new technology. This means that embracing new technology must be the job of startups or new players. Unfortunately, they are legally not allowed to do so, and if they try, they’re “pirates.”

I mean, take another look at your statement:

for this you the public get unlimited all you can eat internet. the servers link to all the vast amounts of Official and unofficial media from all the torrent sites, usenet and digital lockers etc.

This is what you get right now with “pirate” sites. They are pirate sites only because the RIAA/MPAA makes it impossible to build a “legit” site.

Johan van de Merwe (profile) says:

In Europe we are excluded from quite a lot of Youtube content

As an European I think that you Americans really go crazy. First you go after the moslims, then you exclude Europeans and now you are haunting eachother. It is not showing content on Youtube that endangers the world. You Americans are. You have a dangerous form of paranoia. Don’t forget one thing. Youtube made a lot of performers only more famous and even forgotten performers attractive again. Remember USA, you don’t own the internet!!!

iBelieve says:

Stop wasting precious time over this.

If Hollywood is so smart, let them take down our actual enemies with their tech savvy. The US government seems to be fascilitating support for their every cry of foulplay, while they are taking up precious time of our government while we are in peril of extinction as a matter of fact from vicious enemies who have infiltrated our borders and security and stand poised ready to strike out. Where are their priorities, turning out more bad movie entertainment being such a pain in arses of the American public?

John Raykowski says:

Who are 'Supporters' and 'Everyone'

Supporters claim…
Everyone keeps insisting…

How ’bout you name names?

Seriously?

Who, exactly, says this is just to harmonize civil and criminal law? On its face, that seems a ridiculous statement and I’d like to let them know my opinion and ask how I’m in error.

Who, exactly, is saying this is targeted at streaming sites? I have a few questions for them, too.

Lets see more specifics on who (names please) is saying what. Its not like you’re going to run out of page space here.

-jmr

Mark G Hansel (user link) says:

Senators Gone Wild or Insane: Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos

The New Al Qaida of the Up and Coming 2012 New World Order Terrorists in the US Government. It is amazing how the american public will put up with the crazies in government who take your freedomsd and rights away that are these so called Senators Gone Wild or Insane. Yes you people who put up with governments making citizen’s into criminals. What has happened to the United States, a once proud country that now it’s own government is making criminals out of it own citizen’s to please the global elite. There is really something wrong with this picture and if you americans do nothing to get rid of those Senators Gone Wild or Insane then you get what you get, to be slaves to your masters

Arthur Burke says:

Commies passing laws

Why don’t you low-life lawyers start overturning these unjust “laws” that are keeping illegal crap from passing over our borders. Lock up these corrupt politicans. Defund this TSA
thug-like lowlifes. Defund the marxist healthcare BS promoted by obama.

Stay the hell away from menial things and start destroying and dismantling a total waste of our taxpayer money. We work too darned hard to have low lifes sucking off the taxpayers teat.

Andre says:

Time to wake up and smell the coffee

This is just another step in order for the powers that be to 1. Squeeze as much money out of us in terms of “fines” and
2. Stop the flow of free information amongst the masses.

You all have got to understand, this is not about protecting the artist, composers, or hard working individuals. The internet is the biggest threat to the power elite right now because the slaves have started talking to one another. Do you realize how many videos that are posted on Youtube that have important information about the mechanisms of the imperialists that are block for “copyright infringement”? You will also notice that they never say that the video in question is the copyright of a particular person, no it is copyright of a corporation. You see these people do not care about anything other than to make a fast buck, and to keep us in the dark. The digital technology has made it easier for everyone to be able to share their ideas and opinion over a wide variety of subjects. That is what they are most afraid of, a thinking and informed citizenry. This law is designed to try and counter the information revolution that is being fought by people who are fed up with being programmed my the lame stream media. The music and works in question have been copied and performed thousands of times over even before the internet became a household word. What is being done by the people is no different than what people used to do with cassette tapes and VHS recorders in the late 70?s and 80?s. Why is it such a big deal now? This law cannot be passed, or we are going to open a Pandora?s box that we cannot close.

Marc Gauvin (user link) says:

Digital Rights Management of You Tube Videos

Hi,

The technology exists so that the responsibility for distributing illegal content can be correctly assigned across the media value chain.

Specifically, !SO/IEC 23000-19 Media Value Chain Ontology (MVCO) published standard, allows for keeping track of content and assigning the corresponding rights to different agents according to the roles they play in the value chain.

Thus there is no reason to be in the dark with respect to who is responsible for illegally distributing You Tube Videos.

An example application that precedes this standard but is entirely compliant, is at http://www.digitalmediavalues.com. The idea is that users that post content are required to take responsibility for correct rights attribution. So if I am a performer/producer and the work I am performing is in public domain, then I declare so and place any conditions I wish on the performance. Thus anyone who downloads the content must accept my license and would then be cleared of any responsibility should I have been wrong about the public domain status of the work I perform.

Transparency in the value chain is the answer and creating such transparent applications is no longer a technical challenge but rather a question of policy.

Will the so called rights managers accept to switch from managing individual rights to providing a rights management platform accessible to all and anyone, or do they still wish to make rights control an exclusive prerogative.

Marc

Sheila (user link) says:

They don't work for us!!

Will Enough of Us Refuse?

by Sheila the Watcher

Living without the bonds of TV affords me the luxury of having time to read. As my third book this month, I happened to pick the Leon Uris novel, QB VII, written in the 1970s, when there was still something to be proud about in America, and when there were still enough people around who could remember the horrors of WWII.

The story takes place in post-WWII England, and is about a libel suit brought by a Polish Nationalist doctor (Kelno), a former POW in Jadwiga concentration camp, against a Jewish-American author (Cady) who names him as performing surgeries for German doctors who were experimenting on Jewish prisoners.

This is part of the opening statement made by the defense attorney (for Cady) in the British courtroom:

? ?Well, as a matter of fact there were some Germans, soldiers, officers, priests, doctors, and ordinary civilians who refused to obey these orders and said, ?I am not going to do this because I would not like to live and have this on my conscience. I?m not going to push them into gas chambers, and then say later I was under orders and justify it by saying that they were going to be pushed in by someone anyhow and I can?t stop it and other people will push them more cruelly. Therefore, it?s in their best interest that I shove them in gently.? You see, the trouble was, not enough of these people refused.? 1?

When my tears subsided I thought, what an amazing time to be reading this. How appropriate to what is happening in our country now.

Day after day we see headlines about the indignities suffered by air travelers at the hands of TSA agents who are content to place their hands on the genitals of passengers of no matter what ages for their daily ration of bread (read: HFCS, MSG, GMO, etc.). And still the passengers line up for the privilege of being ?man-handled? so that they can get to grandma?s house or their next business meeting a little faster instead of saying, ?I am a free American and you may NOT touch me without cause,? or even, ?I will not ride your airplane if I must be accosted so.?

Day after day we see headlines about some police officer tazering an elderly citizen for asking a question, or throwing the occupant of a wheelchair to the ground to prove that he is handicapped… or killing a veteran for having a gun in his own home. And still we say, ?Yes, sir? to the police and skulk away in fear, instead of saying, ?Don?t do that to this person!?

Day after day we see headlines about what a potential criminal/terrorist — someone to be suspected regardless of their actions — is the person who cites the U.S. Constitution to affirm their rights, or likes a certain political candidate, or has served his or her country in the military, or just wants to be left alone by ?the system?, or has the audacity to disagree with the current administration — or who asks for acknowledgement of the truth instead of ridicule on a point of fact. And still we say, ?Thank goodness you?re taking care of my safety and security, because I don?t want to get my hands dirty,? instead of saying, ?I have a right to my opinion, to think my own thoughts.?

Day after day we see headlines about the millions cheated out of their homes, loosing their jobs, forced to beg the government for poisoned food that will make their children imbeciles compared to who they could have been so that those who control the money can amass more and more for themselves, reaching orgasm at the thought of how much they have attained and how they can hold the ?cattle? as slaves. And still we say, ?Thank you for the job as a hamburger flipper so that I can pay you most of my wages in taxes,? instead of saying, ?I will take care of my money myself.?

Stand up. Don?t let them grope you. Don?t let them go through your car at a warrant-less checkpoint. Don?t let them search your home without cause or due process. Don?t let them control your money. TPTB?s philosophy is, if you don?t complain, nothing is wrong. Start complaining. Start deciding that you won?t allow yourself — or others — to be treated this way.

We are at the proverbial ?slippery slope?. From here it will be easy to fall into the same state as was controlled by the German nazis. The slogan of the time was, ?Never Forget!? But TPTB are doing everything possible — dumbing us down, directing thought — to make us forget so that they can use the same tactics unencumbered by the ghosts of the slaughtered. Don?t allow us and our children to be next. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Just make sure the history you remember is the truth.

Aldus Huxley is quoted as saying (paraphrased) that the ideal situation is one in which the slave is contented with his enslavement. You are an accomplice to your own enslavement. Stop being contented. Stop rationalizing your own enslavement as the best you can hope for.

TPTB know that if you don?t resist, you are theirs to exploit in any way they see fit. Stop complying. Imagine what would happen to TPTB if we all just said, ?hell, no? — no matter how gently they grab our balls.

Through our website, placeofrefuge2012.com, we talk to far too many docile, I-have-a-million-reasons-not-to-take-action kind of people. The time to stand up is now, not as they close the gas chamber door behind you. No football game, airline flight, bus trip, concert, prom, no job, no social group is worth your human dignity — nor your freedom. Spread the word that we are enslaved by our own volition — and that it doesn?t have to be so. Stop complying now with that which is, at it essence, wrong. There is no excuse.

? …You see, the trouble was, not enough of these people refused.?2 ?

1 QB VII, by Leon Uris, Copyright 1970. Bantam Books edition, published 1972, page 295

2 Ibid.

Joseph Henderson says:

Re: They don't work for us!!

If you wouldnt mind answering a few questions 1. Where do you live if People are forced “to beg for poisOned food”? 2. How often do you see vetereans get killed for having a gun in their home?(or is it a one time thing your blowing out of proportion) 3. Do you really think someone else makes your child an imbecile? In most cases parents raise their on children 4. Lastly who ate you saying cheated millions out of their homes? Feel free to e-mail me at unexpected_guest3@hotmail.com

Quinn Sysmith says:

It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it.

Part of the plan to keep us slave class ignorant about the corrupt actions of those in government and power. I can present a 10 minute video on a soulless suite in Washington with facts from news articles, public information, investigations, etc but instead of looking at the evidence presented they are going to go after the person doing the cops job for them, makes sense in the NWO nazi America.

question says:

So a person stands a chance of going to jail for 5 years, becoming a felon and losing their rights to vote, for singing at a karaoke bar? After all that is a performance and assuming there are more than 10 people in the bar, would meet this difinition. Sounds a bit extreme to me.

on a side note, I was talking with a group that was registered with BMI many years ago and the thing that surprised me was that BMI was geared more towards the writers and not the performers. So does a person in that Karaoke bar have the writers permission to sing their song in public? Things could have changed in the past 20 years.

Mrak says:

New Rule:

YOU CANT OWN A VIEW.

The real crime is thinking you own something you didnt make or produce.

I did a remix for Sony, they bought it from me, never released it, and then hit me with a CEASE AND DESIST from me putting my own work up on YouTube. I keep putting it up btw. (keep wasting your resources)

FACE THE MUSIC CEOs: Its time to give up your CEO parking spots.

mystic says:

embedding

I barely know what “embedding” means, but isn’t this all a way to prevent the truth from getting out, like the history we were never taught e.g. the Bolsheviks were overwhelmingly Jewish and were responsible for murdering 66 million Russian Christians. Now that’s a holocaust in denial. How about the Armenian Holocaust, also committed by you know who, again in denial. Isn’t denial of any holocaust immoral or just when certain people are killed? The many Youtube videos enlighten the truth and that’s exactly what our leaders do not want us to know.Politicians can’t tell lies like they used to thanks to YouTube.

Medical Quack (user link) says:

Lawmakers at all levels suffer digital illiteracy

Well it surfaces in other areas too with not having the right technology to sort and get the information they need and there’s a lot of data out there today, but they don’t seem to use much of it. The fact that they keep choosing items that are from the 70s and 80s to take a stand on certainly proves the point that we need educated lawmakers that participate and use technology to understand and be able to make laws today or we all get sunk.

http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2011/05/digital-illiteracy-still-plagues-law.html

raz says:

You wont belive this..but its a fact ....in israel

EVERY citizen would need to go to the nearest police station (in about 6 month, the pilot is in November)

And give 2 finger prints and photo for facial recognition, and go into the the first in the world ridiculously unsecured databank that every police officer can access.
The guy in the government that did this(an uneducated member of a criminal party called kadima-political pary who’s leader is going to jail for massive fraud(billions) and the secretary of treasury who is doing time now for stealing (among other things) from a children funds!!!!

Meir shitrit did it by himself (it was like watching sadam hussein give a speech, because the rest of the Israeli government weren’t attending (most of them are corrupt to the bone, the former president is a convicted rapist, the last prime minister is going to jail for unbelievable fraud ,- the guy cost the country billions)

if you fail to comply you will not get a PASSPORT and id , which means you cannot leave the “country” or get health care among other things,

Information experts from big companies said clearly that this is a gross mistake since every data base can be hacked and probably will which leaves 7 million people in the risk of going to jail’ half of the government are going to jail and the Innocent citizens have to give finger id like criminals, this is unbelievable , at the beginning shitrit even tried to enforce mandatory PRISON TIME for those who refuse to give finger prints and go into an unsecured to be hacked country crossing data bank, this is not a government this is NOT a democracy , this is like a bad night mare, i still cant believe it he passes the pilot for the law with NO OBJECTION just because the rest of the government were to lazy to attend.

Ian McGreggor says:

WHAT??!!!

If our elected Officials cannot find a better way to spend their time (time that is being paid for by the American taxpayer) than to come up with legislative tripe like this, then they should be forced to perform a few hundred hours of community service (like picking up trash alongside a busy freeway) for stealing from taxpayers!

ohsnap (profile) says:

Beyond stupid

This is stupid. Aren’t there more earth-shattering issues for Senators to be worried about? This copyright stuff, in some instances, makes no sense. Now, I got rid of TV long ago but isn’t there a little thing called a DVR…can’t you record programs to watch later? What’s the difference really? Isn’t that copyright infringement? What if I invite my friends over to watch?Or give them the disc to watch? Or whatever. I might be a little behind TV technology but you get the picture. The bottom line is the big kahunas figured out another way to make money, they can’t do it now, so let’s pass a law as a first step!

Yarbat says:

perhaps the process is geared at something else

years ago I heard that every blank CD I bought was more expensive because the price had a fee built into it so that “when” I violated copyright and copied materials the industry was compensated for it….perhaps this is the workup towards getting $$$ rather than putting the a whole bunch of folks in jail!

Anatoly Volynets (profile) says:

basics in question

I don’t see any detail of importance in here. The very idea of “protection” of an idea or aesthetic form from distribution and other uses for any purpose is nonsense. Those who think that we encounter “abuse of normal copyright” here have to understand that the incoming bill is not an accident (like infamous DMCA, ACTA, COICA, etc.), but is just normal development of the basic concept of the “right to make copies.” But let’s presume it is an abuse, while there is such a thing as “normal copyright” there. Do you really understand its unavoidable necessity and importance? Or you just get used to all the speculations surrounding the concept? Moreover, do you see _any_ possibility to stop those abuses which undermine virtually everything we value, but to take away the very basis for them–to take away copyright, once and for all?

Mike Cook says:

Myopic

I am concerned by the myopic vision of our lawmakers who believe that they can solve all the problems of the global internet with American legislation…Oh God! What power-player are they pandering to now? Trying to sue service providers is like saying because criminals drive on highways we need to sue the road builders. Duh.

Facebook says:

Jail for using Facebook!

Yea I can now how to jail for clicking the facebook tab on YouTube and embedding funny videos to share with my family. Or if someone sends me a link in a email and I click it and it opens a streaming movie I go to jail for 5 years for opening my email!

These Senators need to be locked up every one that reads this should call them and further more call your congress or senators office and tell them to call these idiots out on the floor! We put them up there to repsent us it’s time they do there Fu*king jobs… Work for us not against us to put us in jail for enjoying our freedoms!

Joseph Henderson says:

They don't work for us!!

If you wouldnt mind answering a few questions 1. Where do you live if People are forced “to beg for poisOned food”? 2. How often do you see vetereans get killed for having a gun in their home?(or is it a one time thing your blowing out of proportion) 3. Do you really think someone else makes your child an imbecile? In most cases parents raise their on children 4. Lastly who are you saying cheated millions out of their homes? Feel free to e-mail me at unexpected_guest3@hotmail.com

James Brown says:

Madness control by money!

United States Senators?
These there are dumb post it on your facebook or tweet it that we need to call these dummy’s on Monday then call your local officials and make sure they don’t vote on this madness!?

John Cornyn Texas?Republican
Amy Klobuchar?Minnesota?Democrat ?
Chris Coons?Delaware?Democrat

It’s clear that we are working with dumb people here not party lines! What has happened is the movie studios have got to these guys with political contributions = $$$$ and once again big business is working against the people that put these yahoos I’n office!

Jane says:

Facebook will they put my child in jail!

Will they put my child in jail for watching a embedded movie or posting to many funny cat videos on Facebook? Or will they put me in jail saying it happened on my ip address? Get ready to see one pissed of Mom! This mom will go mid-evil…

Why don’t these worthless people go catch some bank robbers, rapist, druggies, gangbanges that make it so dangerous that me and my 7 year old daughter can’t take a walk in the park at 5:30 in the afternoon in most big city’s.

E.Nuf says:

Embedded

It should be Criminal to embedded idiots into positions
of power in our government;but it’s not.

Here is a new word from The Washington Post’s Mensa Invitational where once again readers are invited to take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or changing one letter, and supply a new definition.
The following was one of the winners:

Ignoranus : A person who’s both stupid and an asshole.

horacemanoor says:

americans are sheep

americans still don’t realize that polticians are sociopaths who like bullying the citizenry — the system has been rigged ever since world war one — before that, wages rose faster than the cost of living — there was no income tax — there was no federal reserve — the nation made spectacular economic progress, specially in the last third of the 19th century, but economists called it the ‘great depression’ because wages fell slower than prices — thus it was tougher for the wealthy than for the workers — but americans think it’s impossible for the economy to thrive unless prices go up — american economists don’t learn economics, they learn how to propagandize — the typical american fails to see that partisan politics is a sham aimed at distracting the citizenry from the kleptocracy — americans deserve their fate — the breadline or jail — they’ll be happy as long as washington entertains them with wars

Anonymous Coward Disliker says:

Re:

You are either a clueless internet user or a slimey shyster lawyer for the industry. God people are so lame. Senators Amy Klobuchar, John Cornyn and Christopher Coons are bought and paid for a**holes for the recording industry. They don;t even understand the law or it’s implications but were just told to support it for “X” amount of cash. They are truly disgusting elected officials

Akyas Easu (user link) says:

TubeTruthers.com Alternative to Youtube's New Policies?

TubeTruthers.com Alternative to Youtube’s New Policies?

Where not the alternative but where sure as hell here for those who feel Youtube is out of control!

Started on 5/28/11 TubeTruthers.com was my way of giving something back to all the Tube Truthers of the now fascist community known as YouTube. Disgusted with account cancellations, and people having to create back up accounts, has now forced me into this work full time. With the help of wonderful friends and people coming to together for a common good, i present TubeTruthers.com.

Let this be our home, until the time comes when you and i meet on the front lines of the coming ground war. For now, feel free to express your truth and help us get the word out, that we finally have a home where Censorship and Bullshit does not apply. Lastly, the world must know, there are a group of Tube warriors who take there spare to to share a message for your own good. All that we ask is for a few minutes of your time to share that message with you.

Stories:

Alex Jones protest banned from Youtube?

Demonstrators led by Alex Jones chant ?treason? in response to federal government threat to close down Texas airports

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, May 26, 2011

Alex Jones? spontaneous decision calling on Texans to protest the government?s egregious threat of a federal blockade if the Texas Senate passed an anti-TSA groping bill resulted in hundreds of protesters storming the Capitol in Austin yesterday afternoon.

“”vid was removed by the youtube nazies(Google).

As we reported yesterday, the TSA and the Department of Justice resorted to financial terrorism by threatening a federal blockade that would have closed down Texas airports if the Texas Senate had followed the House in unanimously passing a bill that would have made TSA groping in the state a felony.

?There?s never a dull moment at the Texas Legislature. The House and Senate were going about their regular end-of-session business on Wednesday when loud screams could be heard coming from the rotunda. Outside the chambers, a group of mostly men and a few women were screaming, ?Cri-mi-nal! Cri-mi-nal!? and ?Treason! Treason!? reports the Texas Tribune.

The quickly arranged demonstration was announced during Jones? radio show just hours beforehand. Next time around, there would be 50,000 protesters in attendance, he promised.

Media reaction to the event was mixed, with some accurately reporting the protest and others resorting to the usual brand of sneering arrogance we?ve come to expect from the corporate press.

Despite the fact that the intimidation tactics of the federal government, which will surely backfire as a massive shot in the arm for the states? rights movement, scuttled the anti-grope bill in Texas, there are numerous other states that are already debating or preparing to introduce similar bills.

The feds cannot keep relying on mafia-like behavior to preserve the ability of their criminal army of minimum wage perverts to molest children, at some point down the line lawmakers will have the guts to stand up and say no, and at that point a wave of TSA resistance will sweep legislatures across the country.

Watch more videos of the protest below

click the link to watch and read it all.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/rage-against…pitol.html

Links:

http://www.infowars.com/government-orders-you-tube-to-censor-protest-videos/

http://www.hidden.me/2011/05/government-orders-youtube-to-censor-protest-videos-about-corrupt-judge/

Akyas Easu Founder of TubeTruthers.com

For information on Youtube

james says:

Yes it would count !

Yes it would count you idiot! why don’t you just lay down and take it like a spineless coward?

“I DON’T WANT ANY PROBLEMS” wow you are a mam-be pansy!

CRIMINAL OFFENSE. I’M NOT UNDERSTANDING ALL THIS. I DON’T WANT ANY PROBLEMS. PLEASE ADVISE.

get up off your ass grow some balls make some phone calls and tell these idiot what your going to do if they put this bill in! like your going to go out and tell the world and make sure they never ever get reelected!

Jailbird says:

Free Kankel bracelets!

We can all just post you tube videos they so can put half the population in jail! Yea it will take them 40 years to build the prisons big enough! and they will have to contract the work out with illegal aliens as all Americans will be in jail or maybe they can give us Kankel bracelets lol

I cant wait my very own Kankel bracelet! Ill even post a you tube video on how to get it off YEA!

Wizeone says:

FUDbuster works for Copyhype!

FUDbuster is a lair he has posted over 20 comments defending this bill that just takes more freedoms away from Americans!

FUDbuster works for copyhype.com he is all over the internet
spamming the news story’s on this trying to down play it!

FUDbuster is a employee for the media company’s that want to
take more of our freedoms and get in our pocket books1

Shame on you FUDbuster…

Jay (profile) says:

FUDbuster works for Copyhype!

I’m not the biggest fan of copyright maximalists, but I do ask that we focus on debunking the information given, not attacking the people that give the message.

Terry Hart might be slowly becoming a copyright maximalist, but he does have the right to express his opinion. If FUDbuster says that his info is valid, we should see why or why not. But calling FUDbuster a “moron” just for showing us the information doesn’t show anyone why it’s good or bad.

Let’s have more discourse and less personal attacks, alright? 😉

Anonymous Coward says:

Jay and FUDbuster work for the crooks that made this bill

Hey Jay I just came in here and read all this FUDbuster is a spammer that works for these people and the other guy is right FUDbuster signed up just to defend this crazy bill he should be tar and feathered for trying to help take freedom of speech from people. And you should pull your head out of his ASS its that easy.. Oh yea wash your face before you come back!

Anonymous Coward says:

Don’t forget that singing “Happy Birthday” is supposedly a copyright violation, and millions have been paid by unauthorized performers in public settings. This means that if you have a Happy Birthday video on the web and ten people watch it, in come the Jack Booted Thugs.

Stupid thing is, the Chinese will still keep banning Hollywood movies and they’ll still be available for sale in pirated form in any market, and what’s Hollywood going to do about it? Except make double sure we pay every penny to Chinese copyright holders.

Eric Wurm says:

Read the bill

I think the article is biased. Any time I read a story like this, I read the bill itself which is available for free in PDF form. Every bill is made available. I read the text, and it appears that the bill would make a felony a copyright infringement that exceeds 10 performances within 180 days AND the infringer receives from the performance $2500+ or the fair market value would be $5000 or more. There isn’t any mention of Youtube specifically. It would appear to me that the bill is designed to make a crime the streaming of unauthorized content where the user makes a substantial profit. For example, a person streams a live concert in an unauthorized manner and charges a fee which would net them more than $2500, or the fair market value of the view if the infringer does not charge a fee if over $5000. Looks like a rubbish article. Full text of the bill: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s978is/pdf/BILLS-112s978is.pdf

Clinton Moore (user link) says:

Copyright enforcement is simply just a lost cause anyway.

Copyright laws defeat the purpose of streaming media. This type of law would violate civil liberties, and people will simply just rebel against it anyway. I say, we worry about bigger things, and focus on finding new jobs outside of show business, and create more jobs in car factories since the environment is more important than entertainment.

People nowdays strongly believe in “free entertainment”, and if anybody is going to make it a felony to embed infringed media, then it will infringe people’s rights. Infringing peoples rights to freedom should be a felony, not infringement of copyright. And again, copyright laws are now a lost cause anyway.

Considering how Newgrounds Audio Portal has created a “loophole” to the copyright laws by having completely original music from the Creative Commons that is free, but 100% legal to download, theoretically people might just boycott iTunes if Newgrounds gets extensively advertised and will make Newgrounds Audio Portal music the new standard for pop music. I say, we repeal copyright laws and keep steaming legal, because YouTube has already been ruined by Warner Music Group blocking videos, and some people think YouTube has been subverted because of that. Who’s with me?

Chris in Utah (profile) says:

Copyright enforcement is simply just a lost cause anyway.

Considering I subscribe to the top 5 and my g-mail filter is set to have anything with newgrounds in the e-mail to send it to my newgrounds archive. Low behold my TechDirt label didn’t get this one. Lulz, Yeah I’m with you.

Now the trick is to get Tom Fulp and gang to actually advertise the site to this end.

Today’s modern music brought to you by the site that gave you Charlie the Unicorn (albeit the youtube upload made it popular without permission… ironically enough)

Chris in Utah (profile) says:

Copyright enforcement is simply just a lost cause anyway.

Wow I regret having thoughts 5 minutes later. In Nina’s last post about how you don’t need her permission on anything posted is something to bring up with Tom fulp as well.

other thought was that it was the crowd that called out the re-poster in YouTube and it was handled that way thankfully. Though I think Newgrounds didn’t get the view count I may have because of the tard.

Stefan Youngs (profile) says:

FIDDLING WHILST ROME BURNS

These are the frikking jokers who let our Constitutional rights be trampled on by the farcical anti-democratic Patriot Act WITHOUT a squeak in protest, yet they can find the time to worry about an issue as trivial as this.

It’s time to get rid of these bozos entirely and put people in who can do the people’s business, starting by protecting us from our own government.

Shadow16nh says:

People who upload innocuous covers to YouTube and those who may link to them elsewhere will be absolutely unaffected by it.

This article grossly misrepresents the implications of the proposed bill.

People who upload innocuous covers to YouTube and those who may link to them elsewhere will be absolutely unaffected by it.

Read the bill more carefully and you?ll see that the ??10 or more public performances?? stipulation is only applicable in conjunction with one or more of the subsequent provisions.

You fail to note that this law only applies to *intentional* infringements where the total retail value of the performances exceeds $2,500 and the total fair market value of licenses for such use must exceed $5,000.

Please check your facts more thoroughly in the future before allowing yourself to take an alarmist stance.

blupheonix says:

Hows that hope and change working out for you America?

2 words. PRIVATE PRISONS. Thats why.
The more non violent offenders you can jail=an easier job of keeping “inmates” in line. I notice that no one has brought up private prisons as a reason for jailing people for such petty reasons as streaming content. Why aren’t these people more interested in securing the border, and kicking out illegals?

anonymous says:

Clarification

All right. For clarification of this Bill, I see that simply embedding a Youtube video on your private Facebook page so you can share cool and funny videos with your friends won’t land you in jail, correct? From what I gather, you as the streamer/embedder must be ENRICHED by this embed somehow. I’ve never made a plug nickle by doing this, so I should be 5-by-5, yes?

Josh Taylor says:

Do you all realize what constitutes as a “public performance” under this bill? We’ll the RIAA and MPAA will use this law in court and put everyone in jail for Singing in a hymn or quoting a bible verse in a church. If any one of you are Christian and goes to church, prepare for persecution.

Singing a copyrighted lyric and quoting from a movie = 5 years in prison. Even though the prisons will be full, there are secretly located FEMA death camps near you that comes with FEMA coffins.

Make Jesus your savior and start hiding in a cave, preferably a cave of Church Rock in Utah.

Don’t fight the govt, trust Jesus.

Jim from Sacramento says:

Only the beginning

If this law goes through we will no longer be able to distribute videos of government abuse. I think that is the real purpose of this law, but they disguise as a copyright infringment issue. There is usualy an alterior motive when the government tries to pass something this stupid.
And for now, you must be enriched for embeding the video, but like I stated, the government usualy has a motive. This will open the door for amendments to come later when no one is watching.

Jim from Sacramento says:

Only the beginning

If this law goes through we will no longer be able to distribute videos of government abuse. I think that is the real purpose of this law, but they disguise as a copyright infringment issue. There is usualy an alterior motive when the government tries to pass something this stupid.
And for now, you must be enriched for embeding the video, but like I stated, the government usualy has a motive. This will open the door for amendments to come later when no one is watching.

Steer says:

Mike's irresponsible, outrageous falsehoods

Mike,

You’ve gone completely nuts on this one. If you even done even the most Basic research, you’d realize that this legislation does NOT criminalize any behavior that wasn’t already criminal. It simply takes the most egregious cases of conduct that were already misdemeanor crimes under 17 U.S.C. 506(a)(1)(A), and raises them to felonies in particularly egregious cases. So, under this bill, the public performance of copyrighted works is only a felony if (1) it is willfull (knowing and intentional) infringement (2) for commercial advantage or private financial gain (3) involving 10 or more performances within 180 days (4) that cause more than $2,500 in loss to the rights holder. It is clear that none of the parade of horribles you trot out would meet all these conditions, nor would any prosecutor try to claim they did. So which is it: (a) you actually have no idea how to read legislation, (b) you think a willful, commercial infringer who causes more than $2,500 in damage shouldn’t be subject to criminal liability, or (c) you are deliberately misleading your readers about this legislation?

Anonymous Coward says:

Mike's irresponsible, outrageous falsehoods

Please Steer. Don’t sidetrack Masnick’s paranoid rantings with facts.

He is deliberating misleading readers, which he does on a variety of topics. But what you will soon learn is that when he’s caught in a lie or utter fabrication, he simply responds that he’s merely a blogger, thinking that somehow absolves him from accuracy or even good faith.

His claims are absurd and he knows it. But the true impact of the bill doesn’t suit his agenda, so you get insane headlines and crazier assertions.

Riquin (profile) says:

American artists are suffering...

Definitely you do not understand the new marketing paradigm created by the internet and as a result American artists are suffering…

We do not watch TV anymore. Just Netflix movies. We get news from WRH, RawStory, BlackListedNews, etc. We used to buy a lot of American music CDs by listening to some songs in YouTube and then going to Amazon to buy the CD but now people are afraid to load American artists songs to YouTube, fortunately a lot of EU songs are getting loaded to YouTube and we find ourselves buying a lot of EU artists CDs from Amazon. This problem is self feeding because now Amazon sees that we like EU artists and they send us everyday recommendations of CDs by EU artists. Then we go to YouTube and find if we like the recordings and buy EU artist music from Amazon perpetuating the problem for US artists. The media executives do not understand the internet model and then they want to kill it. They are pathetic!!

Robert says:

Unmitigated Stupidity and Greed.

This is yet another example of politicians who are way out of their league in terms of modern technological growth. The internet is a medium that telcom and copyright associated companies want to hijack for personal greed. If illegal content is posted, remove it. It’s simple as that.

Imprisoning citizens for non-violent, petty violations (often unwittingly so), is asinine, inane, an demonstrates a complete alienation of human rights in lieu of the interests of large corporations.

Stephen (profile) says:

Youtube

I thought Youtube used the resources of Google to auto screen what goes up, I have a few videos up that have old rock songs embedded. Youtube found that immediately and put ads to buy the music at Amazon in the corner of the video. Since I embed the music for artistic purposes and am not looking for cash, that’s fine with me. And should be with everybody else!

Hexpigge says:

...

Yes, I do disagree that uploading TV material, unless you own it, is bad and it is just not cool for me to see it getting tons of views. But “let’s play” videos would be a giant strike for everything, roosterteeth would go down, machinima would go down (not sure about that though). I’ve been in trouble for copyright on youtube, but everything was under fair use, so isn’t it like a new law would be violating fair use?

Btw, just for the record, this is probably the most BSFULL thing I have heard this year. I would make a bill that Justin Bieber videos couldn’t be uploaded, but noooooOOo!! Five year old girls will run to my house with torches and pitchforks as angry villagers!…

A Pissed off Person says:

This is fucking ridiculous. Honestly, why does the American government get so damn radical with every “problem”. I don’t even see this as a problem, if a music artist releases a song/alblum, and you purchase it with your money, you should have every right to post it on a youtube video, which DOES NOT have any kind of illegal download link that would give people the ability to get the song for free. This is a major infringement of my 1st ammendment rights, and this is going completely against the Bill of Rights.

svwnl says:

i understand that they wanna ban movies and tv shows but games videos that is just dumb becaus if you watch a videos from lets say world of warcarft you dont just watch the videos je wanna play it so you buy it . if this bill passes the game industry wil fall and all the big youtube name like machinima and stuff like razer,nvidia that sponser gamers that are big on youtube like seananners,x,swifty,theyogcast will all fall .so if they pass the bil 1000s of people wil lose ther jobs

Calvin says:

S.978 short honest opinion

PLEASE PLEASE please don’t put this new law into affect PLEASE, i love watching peoples gaming videos such as tobygames, davidr64yt, manice08, those are some famous you-tubers who play games daily, some gamers even make MONEY off of it, people can have a partnership with YouTube on their gaming channel and make a living off of it, if you put this into effect you could destroy their means of making money! in my opinion that’s like firing somebody because they walk funny, you just don’t do it! Please take this into consideration.

WellDuh (profile) says:

The fear campaign is total BS.

#1 Law established when sheet music was copyrighted already protects innocent perform for purposes that do not attempt material gain (cash/property) nor attempts to deprive the copyright owner of opportunity to profit. Yes cash prize talent shows technically require permission (e.g. Miss America).

#2 Rights to post video either already exist within or can be added to Gaming licenses issued with purchased games. Can also be added to form letters included with free games sent to reviewers. Zero effort by game companies.

Sorry but this campaign of twisted half-truths relies on your legal ignorance. Google Public Performance and Copyright.

WellDuh (profile) says:

Fear Campaign is Total BS

#1 Law established when sheet music was copyrighted already protects innocent perform for purposes that do not attempt material gain (cash/property) nor attempts to deprive the copyright owner of opportunity to profit. Yes cash prize talent shows technically require permission (e.g. Miss America).

#2 Rights to post video either already exist within or can be added to Gaming licenses issued with purchased games. Can also be added to form letters included with free games sent to reviewers. Zero effort by game companies.

Sorry but this campaign of twisted half-truths relies on your legal ignorance. Google Public Performance and Copyright.

WellDuh (profile) says:

Real Fear for copyright violate is true

Pirates do have reason for fear and protest. And yes access via links is still giving access.

Basis for protest — traditional separation of civil (property, contractual, and mental considerations) from criminal matters (actual or potential physical harm, force and loss of liberty against persons or harm to the community).

Even most laws on robbery is punished primarily on the basis of harm to community (banks) or on actual or potential physical harm to persons during commission or escape from the felony.

P.S. Actually for remixes etc, I think that law allows 30 second clips without violating copyright. I am sure that is limited to 1 clip from each performance per each of your means of distribution (webpage, CD, etc). But consult a lawyer or at least google copyright law from professional and college sources.

Ben says:

NO

No, do not make uploading VIDEO GAMES on the internet. It helps buisnesses grow, if a big YouTuber posts a game, people will see if they like it or not. If someone was playing a game, uploaded it on YouTube, they would need to ask a HUGE company to reply “Yes.” But there are only a small number of people taking phone calls and E-Mails, it will be likely it will not get answered.

I understand taking down movies, and television programmes, because you would have to pay a decent amount to buy / watch a film. Taking down programmes on YouTube could also be understandable, because you would have to watch advertisements, which could get businesses some money.

Please rethink these VIDEO GAMING rules. Thank you.

IDK says:

I do agree with the law on the grounds of stopping people from streaming or watching shows or movies online for free. But where I draw the line is that you can go to jail for uploading a video of you playing a videogame, which is actually the best form of advertisement for a videogame company. The same goes with you uploading a video of you singing a song. They should revise the bill so it only includes the streaming and/or posting of television shows or movies online.

Ronald Johnson says:

I agree

Even though putting videos on YouTube may hurt TV or movie making companies, it actually HELPS video game companies! It is not logical to say “This is a Minecraft video! Five years in jail! or (This is Call of duty you are under arrest!” And if you try too get permission to add a video with copyrighted content, well, millions of other people are asking the same question and the company cannot handle it! The law should either be seriously revised, or rejected. >:(

Darian Comeaux (user link) says:

Videogame walkthroughs/playthroughs

I understand that the movies and all dat…but you can’t just shut down the internet like dis I’am a youtuber myself I do commentaries and I edit my videos to post dem on youtube I do it wit friends and alot of people wants to see other people see the new games that they don’t have and see rather or not they like it I don’t want you to do dis bill. if you do things won’t be the same anymore so please don’t do it please

Anonymous Coward says:

well if government doesn’t want more money then they should pass the video gaming part cause did you know move will buy a game just from seeing at lest 1min game play or review honestly i hope the government knows the differences between showing game play other showing how to get it for free i don’t paying for a game i want for ex: there’s person on you tube that plays bitrip runner its game on steam the person plays it acctouly wants me to go on steam pay 10$ for great game that one live steamer plays on you tube.

Tobais says: