Justin Bieber: Senator Klobuchar Should Be Locked Up For Felony Streaming Bill

from the free-bieber,-jail-klobuchar dept

Earlier today we wrote about how Justin Bieber's lawyers were threatening the folks behind the FreeBieber advocacy project, which highlights some of the problems with Senator Amy Klobuchar's dangerous and ill-thought out bill to make streaming video a possible felony. It appears that his "people" didn't discuss this much with Bieber himself. During a radio interview, the host asked Bieber about the law, explaining how it would make streaming a felony, and his response was that Klobuchar "should be locked up," a point he reiterated a few times.
They then go on to discuss it a bit, and Bieber talks about the importance of being able to upload and stream videos and to perform other people's songs. He talks about how people "need the freedom" to perform songs. He also notes that it's "awesome" when others perform his works. Of course, Klobuchar's office claims that Bieber must have "misunderstood" the bill, but he's right. The bill is "silly," and targets exactly the wrong thing. It's good to see him speaking out on this subject, and it shows how Klobuchar (and the House supporters of E-PARASITE, which also has a similar felony streaming law), need to rethink this bill.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Oct 28th, 2011 @ 1:10pm

    Klobuchar

    I'm ashamed that she's my senator. Writing to her would be fruitless too, since it's obvious she's already been bought.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 1:42pm

      Re: Klobuchar

      Your senator is probably ashamed of you, I imagine. But a vote's a vote.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 3:20pm

        Re: Re: Klobuchar

        Did she mention that she was going to pass IP expansion laws before she got elected? Was it one of her campaign points? No? Why not? Could it be because she knew that doing so is a sure way to lose an election?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        abc gum, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 4:20pm

        Re: Re: Klobuchar

        "Your senator is probably ashamed of you"

        Yes, I imagine a lot of elected officials are ashamed of those which they are supposed to represent, sad isn't it?

        The constituents do not share in the sick and perverted political aspirations, go figure.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Greevar (profile), Oct 28th, 2011 @ 11:16pm

        Re: Re: Klobuchar

        Where did you learn to troll? You suck at it!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 1:54pm

      Re: Klobuchar

      Writing to her would be fruitless too, since it's obvious she's already been bought.

      More importantly, it would require effort on your part as well as the cost of a postage stamp

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Ron Rezendes (profile), Oct 28th, 2011 @ 2:18pm

        Re: Re: Klobuchar

        Yeah, because email requires postage!

        Did you just get your computer today? Welcome to the interwebz!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Rekrul, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 2:20pm

          Re: Re: Re: Klobuchar

          Yeah, because email requires postage!

          Politicians don't respect email. Probably 75% of them don't even know how to check their email. Only actual paper letters get their attention.

          It's the same way with TV networks.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Ron Rezendes (profile), Oct 28th, 2011 @ 2:22pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Klobuchar

            You honestly believe the politicians themselves open their own snail mail? It's the same intern who responds to both - one is no more weighted than the other - they are equally ignored unless accompanied by a fat overstuffed envelope with sufficient amounts of money to get their attention.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 3:22pm

      Re: Klobuchar

      It's not entirely your faults, she didn't mention that she was going to pass IP expansion laws before she got elected. She likely thought that doing so is a sure way to lose her election.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      cisrael882000 (profile), Oct 29th, 2011 @ 12:10pm

      Re: Klobuchar

      so you're proud of Bieber, but not the first woman Senator from MN who served as a County Attorney and went to Yale? I guess that makes sense in your world.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      mpg, Oct 30th, 2011 @ 5:32am

      Re: Klobuchar

      Thank goodness that Senator Klobuchar is standing up for artists rights. This is about theft - pure and simple. Senator Klobuchar is trying to help artists fight back against theft.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 1:20pm

    I do not find the opinion of a 17 year old boy from Canada who has certainly not read the bill and the amendment it would make to Title 17 particularly compelling.

    Perhaps if one took the time to read the current incarnation of the relevant criminal statute they would quickly realize that blog-o-sphere wailing such as here is viscerally, and not factually, based.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 1:37pm

      Re:

      You didn't actually read the article did you? Ironic that you would encourage others to read the relevant criminal status but skip reading the article you're commenting on. Just to catch you up, the article isn't just about his position on the bill. There's also the legal entanglement with the FreeBieber project to consider so the primary point of the quote is to highlight that it's clearly his lawyers, bankrolled by his label, that are behind the legal threats there.

      Furthermore, I've read the current incarnation of the relevant criminal status and the wailing seems factually based to me. However, if you have a point that does not simply rely on implying everyone who opposes you is stupid or uninformed by all means make it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 2:29pm

        Re: Re:

        It is "statute", not "status".

        Were you as well versed re 17 USC 506 as you seem to want others to believe, you would almost certainly express a more nuanced point of view.

        BTW, this article has nothing to do with the earlier article about JB's attorneys. Mention of the earlier article is but a passing reference.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 3:27pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "you would almost certainly express a more nuanced point of view."

          Yeah, because those who don't hold your position must do so out of ignorance, right?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          abc gum, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 4:25pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "It is "statute", not "status"."

          This certainly proves your point doesn't it.
          Bravo

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 8:27pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I guess that was a no on having a point that doesn't simply rely on implying everyone who opposes him is stupid. He sure showed me!

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 6:32pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You are such a pedantic, obnoxious mother fucker. It almost seems like you are cheerleading these broader IP laws just to be more annoying.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 8:25pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The article has two paragraphs and the entire first paragraph, fully half of the article, is devoted to pointing out the incongruity between Bieber and his lawyers. The second half expands on Bieber's actual position which flows directly from the first paragraph's observation that it's incongruous with the stance of the lawyers. Again, are you sure you've actually read and understood it?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 3:29pm

      Re:

      "I do not find the opinion of a 17 year old boy from Canada who has certainly not read the bill and the amendment it would make to Title 17 particularly compelling."

      Many, if not most, seventeen year old's are more intelligent than most IP maximists, at least the ones I see here on Techdirt.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 3:32pm

        Re: Re:

        I must assume you hope you are in the "most" group when you reach seventeen.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 9:01pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Well, it would be dreadful for a seventeen year old to be as retarded as most of those who advocate for stricter IP laws and enforcement policies (or at least most Techdirt advocates). So, yeah, I agree with your statement.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 30th, 2011 @ 5:15am

      Re:

      Adding "from Canada" was kind of crude, but the rest was correct.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 1:22pm

    So, it's a felony to...

    Upload a video of Senator Klobuchar doing the nasty with a sheep?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 1:30pm

    Mike, are you just going to run hit pieces on everyone related to copyright legislation?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 1:35pm

      Re:

      Yep, that's his mandate. But don't think he's a piracy apologist or anything. 'Cause he's not. He hates piracy and loves copyright. Can't you tell?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 1:37pm

        Re: Re:

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 1:42pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yeah, it's a false dilemma to point out that Mike hates copyright and loves piracy. Do you actually read this blog? Point out where Mike approves of copyright or disapproves of piracy. You can't.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 1:44pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Maybe he disproves of the terrible uses of copyright and approves of the wonderful uses of not using copyright.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 2:38pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Or, maybe he hates copyright. Can you point to one thing Mike has said that leads you to believe that he doesn't hate copyright in general? Of course not. The way you idiotic sycophants defend this douche bag is so amusing.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 3:41pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Ah, your only response is derogatory comments out of anger. Real good way to get any point across.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 3:57pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Actually pirates hate it when simple facts like that are pointed out; reality interrupting their delusional fantasy world.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    The eejit (profile), Oct 28th, 2011 @ 11:54pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Reality has a hippie, share-the-love bias. But hey, maybe I've gone sane and everyone else is stark raving mad, too.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Jay (profile), Oct 28th, 2011 @ 8:03pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                " Can you point to one thing Mike has said that leads you to believe that he doesn't hate copyright in general?"

                Why should someone else do your research for you? If you want to troll, the least you could do is educate yourself on other's positions.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 1:48pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Not a regular reader? Mike is pretty clear about not supporting piracy. Take this for example: "Assuming they're guilty, they certainly don't deserve any sympathy..." a few articles down the page: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111023/22062816484/just-as-valve-shows-that-you-can-compete-with- piracy-russia-russia-starts-cracking-down-piracy.shtml

            Try pointing out Mike saying he hates copyright in general?

            And what you are saying is still a false dilemma.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 2:36pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              LOL! The thought that unless he explicitly says it then it must not be true cracks me up. You idiots will jump at anything to protect your Pirate Leader.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Greevar (profile), Oct 28th, 2011 @ 11:25pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                And you'll persist in taking anything he says that isn't "hang the pirates!" as support of infringement. Only fools deal in absolutes. There's a difference between supporting something illegal and opposing unjust portions of a law that are directly involved in it.

                You're just delusional and aching for something to pin the "pirate supporter" flag on his head that you start seeing "evidence" everywhere.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 2:02pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            It's a false dilemma to pretend there's only two options. That's what false dilemma means. Try reading the linked material next time.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 2:24pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I'm not saying there's only two options. I'm saying that Mike hates copyright and that he loves piracy. It's not an either/or thing.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 2:28pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                So your saying that you don't understand how words work?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 2:33pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Mike loves piracy. Mike hates copyright. One does not necessarily follow from the other (for example, one could hate piracy yet also hate copyright). There's no dilemma in play, false or otherwise. You Mike-apologists are really stretching the bounds of reason here.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                freak (profile), Oct 28th, 2011 @ 2:29pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Show us where he loves piracy then.

                We know he hates copyright. We've seen him post that he does not approve of piracy.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Oct 29th, 2011 @ 1:43pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Here's a quote from Mike himself, from an older article:

                "I've pointed out time and time again that I don't, in any way, condone unauthorized file sharing. I don't participate in it, and I don't think people should do so, though I certainly understand why many do."

                So reading that quote, how can you still say Mike "loves piracy"?

                Read it, read it again, read it a third time. Pause. Realize that it is just one of MANY examples that proves you completely and totally wrong. Realize that repeating what you do over and over in every single article every single day DOES NOT make what you say right and will not make it come true if you keep saying it over and over and over like a broken record.

                What will it take to get you to stfu and quit saying the same incorrect thing over and over? If we give you a cookie will you go away? You know, there's this thing, it's called Google (but there are other options available), they let you make your own blog. Where you can rant to your hearts content if you want. And others can read what you write. You can hate on "freetards" all day long and praise Buddah about things like E-PARASITE and all kinds of other nonsense. Why don't you just go do that? Make your own blog and get lost.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Oct 29th, 2011 @ 4:19pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  You can read it a thousand times. It's on par with a drug dealer saying "he doesn't love crack", but he happily makes his living off of it.

                  Mike doesn't condone piracy, but his business ideas depend on it. If piracy went back to being a lower level thing, everyone would be back to buying and selling music and movies, and the whole "sell the scarce" thing would go back to being what it is, a nice add on to a great existing business.

                  It's also amazing to watch Mike stand up for the rights of pirate sites, and to support them as they play the old "we don't host it" game of chicken with copyright holders. He encourages them in their actions, and pretty much endlessly supports the infrastructure of piracy.

                  He may not condone piracy in and of itself, but without it, he's just another random blogger.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    PaulT (profile), Oct 29th, 2011 @ 4:36pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "Mike doesn't condone piracy, but his business ideas depend on it."

                    Which business models? The one where he runs a blog you can comment on for free? The models he points out on a regular basis that require people to pay for things?

                    Citation needed yet again, peabrain.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Oct 29th, 2011 @ 8:55pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    It does not depend upon it, but it is clear that his views are based exclusively on classic economics theory.

                    The problem, however, is that ours is not a society built on just economic theory. There is much more that enters into discussions of policy and laws reflecting public policy.

                    I do not disagree with his economic analysis of issues. I simply disagree that economic theory should be the sole basis by which policies such as patents and copyrights should be measured.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Oct 29th, 2011 @ 11:06pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    At least he stand up for his beliefs that includes not only himself you on the other hand only stand up for yourself apparently.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            PaulT (profile), Oct 29th, 2011 @ 2:56am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Point out where Mike approves of copyright or disapproves of piracy. You can't."

            Point out where he approves of piracy.

            Difficulty: articles that merely suggest that piracy need not be a problem or support the position of sites accused of piracy don't count.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 29th, 2011 @ 11:02pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I do, do you?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 31st, 2011 @ 4:47am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            he has repeatedly said he does not approve of piracy because its against the law. he's also said he does not approve of stricter copyright. What he has done was point out study after study that shows that the law is have a disastrous effect on the economy and the creative industry and its going in the wrong direction.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 1:40pm

        Re: Re:

        Three! Three trolls that haven't read the article! Ah! Ah! Ah!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        heyidiot (profile), Oct 28th, 2011 @ 1:57pm

        Get a room...

        ...you two!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        btr1701 (profile), Oct 28th, 2011 @ 4:01pm

        Re: Re:

        > He hates piracy and loves copyright.

        LOL! So now it's a moral failing not to 'love copyright'?

        This shit just gets better and better.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 1:38pm

      Re:

      Which person is this a 'hit piece' on exactly? Did you even read it?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), Oct 28th, 2011 @ 5:06pm

      Re:

      Only if you promise to come in and bitch about every single one of them!

      Smooches!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 1:41pm

    This is good to see. If there's one group who can fight the old data delivery industries deep pockets for the support of ordinary citizens it's celebrities.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Joe Publius (profile), Oct 28th, 2011 @ 1:56pm

      Re:

      I seriously don't know if you're kidding or not. Maybe it's just the fatigue of a long work week.

      Either way, you made me laugh.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Atkray (profile), Oct 28th, 2011 @ 2:29pm

        Re: Re:

        I think he is expressing the hope that beebs will start some sort of campaign where the artists speak out against crap like PROTECT IP, ACTA, and E PARASITE.

        Unfortunately the young lad is probably even now being "educated" about speaking out.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 4:07pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          He's looking at his wallet.

          You're not seriously so stupid to think that Justin Beiber would come out against this bill are you?

          LOL.

          Does he give away his albums for free?

          No?

          Well guess what? That's cuz he likes being PAID for them.


          You people are seriously about as sharp as a marble.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Greevar (profile), Oct 28th, 2011 @ 11:31pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            He just did you dipshit. He exhibited his disdain for the bill by suggesting the author of it should be locked up. It doesn't get much clearer than that.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 2:28pm

    IP maximists try to claim something to the extent of "stricter IP laws are what the American public want". If this is true then give me a single example of a politician running for office while publicly declaring that if he gets elected, she will expand IP law and s/he will expand its enforcement. It doesn't happen. Politicians know that this is a sure way to lose an election. The American people are against our strict IP laws and the are against making those laws, and its enforcement, even stricter.

    I want a representative government, darn it, and substantially redacting IP law is what a representative government ought to do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 2:30pm

      Re:

      (or, if you give me an example of a politician that consistently ran under those pretexts, I'll give you an example of a politician that lost that election).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 2:32pm

      Re:

      I didn't vote for these IP laws. Our politicians didn't tell us that they were going to expand IP laws before getting elected because they know darn well that doing so is a sure way to lose an election. So why are they suddenly expanding IP law? Abolish these laws!!!!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 2:44pm

      Re:

      I can only surmise you did not closely examine Obama's published policy statements during the 2008 presidential campaign. If you had then surely you would have voted for another candidate.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Killercool (profile), Oct 28th, 2011 @ 3:03pm

        Don't know about the guy you're replying to, but...

        I did vote for another candidate. He lost, now I'm stuck with this crap...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 9:20pm

        Re: Re:

        I would be interested in a citation.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 9:46pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          and here is a citation of Obama wanting to shorten patent lengths early during his elections.

          "His proposal is to change the patent term from 20 years to 7 years."

          http://hallingblog.com/obama-%E2%80%93-change-pharmaceutical-patent-term-to-7-years/

          A lso see

          http://ipwatchdog.com/2009/06/27/obama-administration-wants-short-biologic-exclusivity/id=428 3/

          Surprisingly, here is a more recent post

          "Obama's recently announced deficit reduction proposal includes the reduction in patent lengths for brand name pharmaceutical drugs from 20 to 7 years."

          http://progressiveproselytizing.blogspot.com/2011/04/pharmaceutical-patent-lengths.html

          (actually, it's not surprising, he's re-running for election soon. He'll likely change his tune if he gets re-elected).

          In 2007 he strongly suggests creating reform that will reduce the scope of ridiculous patents and allow for an easier, cheaper, and more efficient invalidation process

          "Giving the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) the resources to improve patent quality and opening up the patent process to citizen review will reduce the uncertainty and wasteful litigation that is currently a significant drag on innovation. With better informational resources, the Patent and Trademark Office could offer patent applicants who know they have significant inventions the option of a rigorous and public peer review that would produce a "gold-plated" patent much less vulnerable to court challenge. Where dubious patents are being asserted, the PTO could conduct low-cost, timely administrative proceedings to determine patent validity. As president, Barack Obama will ensure that our patent laws protect legitimate rights while not stifling innovation and collaboration."

          http://www.patenthawk.com/blog/2007/11/smoking_obama_1.html

          Again, Obama knows that people don't like our current IP system because it's too restrictive and grants way too many frivolous and publicly unacceptable monopoly privileges.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 9:48pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            (yet, here he is/was, trying to make pro-IP negotiations like ACTA and TPP in secrecy. Of course, now that he must re-run for election, he'll likely back away from these negotiations for the time being and has been. They'll spring right back up if he gets re-elected. He knows darn well that these negotiations are not good for his election strategy).

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            cisrael882000, Oct 29th, 2011 @ 6:12pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Actually, you have all misread this. No one is taking a position that patents terms shoudl be reduced from 20 years. The 7 year term referenced in all these articles is for the exclusivity of data used to achieve marketing approval from the FDA ... in order to get approval to market a drug in the US it costs about $1b to do the clinical research and trials necessary to convince the FDA that it works and is safe. This data cannot be relied upon by your competitors for 7 years. Seems fair that the company that did all the work and made the investment doesn't see it immediately turned over to others that didn't.

            Obama did sign a bill recently that will improve the patent process and hopefully improve patent quality leading to less litigation. We can all agree on that.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Oct 29th, 2011 @ 7:28am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I regret I did not bookmark the policy paper when I read it last evening. During the campaign such papers were issued on a host of matters, and the one relevant to the subject included in its title "innovation and technology". The last few paragraphs outline the position on this issue, which paragraphs were most certainly written by a specific academic who lifted the language from her prior publications and pasted it into the policy paper.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 29th, 2011 @ 8:44pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I now recall that the academic's name is Beth Noveck. Her academic credentials are in the areas of social studies and comparative literature, and yet she has not the slightest reluctance to wax poetic on the law and process associated with patents. Despite the lack of any relevant credentials in either technology or patent law, she sits in the Technology Office of the Executive Office. Small wonder that the Executive Office seems off kilter in this subject matter area.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    anonymous, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 2:28pm

    perhaps Bieber has simply realised what damage the bad publicity of the C&D against the 'FreeBieber' advocacy project is going to do to his image?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 3:11pm

    He's 17, shouldn't he be in school. Send him back to Canada. He's not a U.S. citizen and can't even vote. Send him north.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Oct 28th, 2011 @ 3:13pm

    "Klobuchar's office claims that Bieber must have "misunderstood" the bill..."

    If you disagree with me, you must not have understood me, because mine is the only possible rational position.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    PrometheeFeu (profile), Oct 28th, 2011 @ 4:08pm

    Great... Now I have to agree with a kid whose achievements involve garnering the adoration of 12 year old girls... Thanks a lot!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    abc gum, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 4:38pm

    I find it interesting how some people so easily dismiss the opinions of others based solely upon prejudicial tidbits of little to no consequence.

    He's a seventeen year old Canadian and therefore does not have a right to an opinion - Amirite?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Oct 29th, 2011 @ 10:33am

      Re:

      He's a seventeen year old Canadian and therefore does not have a right to an opinion - Amirite?

      Being 17 has nothing to do with it.

      Kidding!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    FUD packer, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 4:58pm

    Sock Puppets

    Pretty sure the contrarian ACs are all the same guy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 5:08pm

    It sounds like this one should have been from the department of "saving face".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Abby, Oct 29th, 2011 @ 7:56am

    Copyright/piracy

    Yaawwnnn...why doesn't everyone take a nice long nap and GROW UP?
    Get off this site and go march for ALL rights promised by our Constitution!
    Angels dancing on the head of a pin:@.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    cisrael882000 (profile), Oct 29th, 2011 @ 12:14pm

    Reading the bill is always a good start

    Setting up a business to profit from streaming someone else’s works is already a federal misdeamor in the U.S. Senator Klobuchar’s bill simply makes streaming huge amounts of copyrighted material for a profit a federal felony. At a time when sites like megavideo are making millions by stealing and streaming thousands of high-quality videos – including 437 of Bieber – raising seriousness of this crime is a necessary deterrent.

    Current law already requires criminal intent - willful infringement of a work – the U.S. Attorney General would certainly not determine this in the case of a tween singing a cover in his bedroom.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 29th, 2011 @ 8:48pm

      Re: Reading the bill is always a good start

      Moreover, in addition to the point you make, the act would have to involve "competitive advantage or private financial gain", a term that is defined within 17 USC 101.

      The ordinary YouTube video certainly does not come even close to meeting the prima facie elements needed to pursue a criminal prosecution.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 29th, 2011 @ 11:04pm

    Liar!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    gmiddle, Oct 31st, 2011 @ 8:47am

    The purpose of this legislation is not to go after your friends and family who try to enjoy and recreate the music they love. The bill is an effort to go after those who try and use the professional work of the music industry unfairly and are trying to make money off of these unfair practices. Please read the bill and do not believe the hype. Here's a blog post about it: http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2011/ ... -campaign/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Oct 31st, 2011 @ 12:41pm

      Re:

      The purpose of this legislation is not to go after your friends and family who try to enjoy and recreate the music they love. The bill is an effort to go after those who try and use the professional work of the music industry unfairly and are trying to make money off of these unfair practices.

      Yeah, don't worry. These kinds of laws never get abused.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    kcmind (profile), Oct 31st, 2011 @ 12:24pm

    Those of you who feel skeptical of this bill's merits need to read it more closely. Punishing willful infringement that is done for criminal purposes is nothing new in the United States. All Sen. Klobuchar is trying to do-and I thank her for doing it-is elevate the punishment for illegal streaming, which has become a problem in today's technology-centric culture. Please, if you are one of many echoing Justin Bieber's remarks, I urge you to research the tenets of the bill, S. 978, more thoroughly

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Mike Nelson, Nov 4th, 2011 @ 11:32am

    Justin Bieber for President!!!

    Maybe he can run as a third-party candidate under the AmericansElect.org banner!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This