SOPA is rearing its ugly head again.

For the love of... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/unauthorized-streaming-felony_n_3720479.html

Of course they would try this again. Our victory was enjoyable while it lasted, but it looks like it might be time to fight again. also this time it looks like it's going to be nastier. I swear they're being spiteful now.

We might never see Sophia Grace Brownlee's fantastic Nicki Minaj impression, or this adorable ukulele cover of Jason Mraz's "I'm Yours," or even a young Justin Beiber performance again if the Department of Commerce gets its way.

The department's Internet Policy Task Force last week proposed making it a felony to stream copyrighted works. According to Techdirt, such a provision, if interpreted broadly, could apply to people who upload covers of themselves performing songs to YouTube without permission.

That could be bad news for people like Bieber, who first won fame in part through YouTube videos of his performances of popular R&B covers.

An earlier bill to criminalize streaming died in the Senate in 2011. At the time, activists opposing it began a "Free Bieber" campaign, which emphasized how the bill would put popular YouTube artists in jeopardy.

Criminalizing streaming was then made a key component of the much-maligned Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which sought to stem the spread of copyrighted material on the Web. Opponents, with the support of Google, Reddit and other large websites, said the bill threatened free speech online and mounted a protest campaign that culminated with President Barack Obama announcing that he would not support the legislation.

Streaming copyrighted works without permission is currently a misdemeanor -- technically punishable by a fine or, rarely, a short stint in jail.

More often, it leads to civil suits. In the latest example, a group of music publishers on Tuesday sued Fullscreen, a multi-channel network on YouTube, for posting unauthorized videos of lesser-known artists covering popular songs.

The Internet Policy Task Force report notes that as streaming has become an increasingly popular means of viewing copyrighted content, "the lack of potential felony penalties for criminal acts of streaming disincentivizes prosecution and undermines deterrence."

Their solution is to make streaming -- including material that would fall under the "public performance" category -- the kind of crime that courts can punish with years of prison time.

Perhaps we should expect a Free Bieber revival, too

Not nice, doesn't anyone else no if this is being reviewed by other countries or just the US at this stage?

Helscreama:
Not nice, doesn't anyone else no if this is being reviewed by other countries or just the US at this stage?

At this current moment it only seems to be the USA but I don't keep up with the politics of other countries, just my own.

Helscreama:
Not nice, doesn't anyone else no if this is being reviewed by other countries or just the US at this stage?

Years and years ago there was a proposed Internet Filter in Australia that ultimately never got any support in parliment and ultimately fizzeled out and died.

But it's not suprising that SOPA is being brought back, the same people pushing for it way back are still pushing for it now, so they're just hoping people have forgotten about it already.

We might never see Sophia Grace Brownlee's fantastic Nicki Minaj impression, or this adorable ukulele cover of Jason Mraz's "I'm Yours," or even a young Justin Beiber performance again if the Department of Commerce gets its way.

The department's Internet Policy Task Force last week proposed making it a felony to stream copyrighted works. According to Techdirt, such a provision, if interpreted broadly, could apply to people who upload covers of themselves performing songs to YouTube without permission.

That could be bad news for people like Bieber, who first won fame in part through YouTube videos of his performances of popular R&B covers.

An earlier bill to criminalize streaming died in the Senate in 2011. At the time, activists opposing it began a "Free Bieber" campaign, which emphasized how the bill would put popular YouTube artists in jeopardy.

Criminalizing streaming was then made a key component of the much-maligned Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which sought to stem the spread of copyrighted material on the Web. Opponents, with the support of Google, Reddit and other large websites, said the bill threatened free speech online and mounted a protest campaign that culminated with President Barack Obama announcing that he would not support the legislation.

Streaming copyrighted works without permission is currently a misdemeanor -- technically punishable by a fine or, rarely, a short stint in jail.

More often, it leads to civil suits. In the latest example, a group of music publishers on Tuesday sued Fullscreen, a multi-channel network on YouTube, for posting unauthorized videos of lesser-known artists covering popular songs.

The Internet Policy Task Force report notes that as streaming has become an increasingly popular means of viewing copyrighted content, "the lack of potential felony penalties for criminal acts of streaming disincentivizes prosecution and undermines deterrence."

Their solution is to make streaming -- including material that would fall under the "public performance" category -- the kind of crime that courts can punish with years of prison time.

Perhaps we should expect a Free Bieber revival, too

Posting-etiquette demands that you copy this into the OP. Not having at least a part of the article quoted is bad form, since many of us really do not like to open links online unless we have to. So, please do.
Anyway; I see the main problem here comes from another wide interpretation of the rules and a gray-area when it comes to homage and cover-videos. But if that can be ironed out, then all the law does is pushing for harsher sentencing. Which I am against, but it's a completely different topic than SOPA.

Ugh, I fucking hate shit like this. The fact that this is so broad is very troubling, not to mention the fact that because its so broad, it could have serious repercussions in that they want to make it a felony. I watch copy righted material all the time on Youtube in the form of music and tv show clips, and I would hate to see those people get slapped with a felony simply for uploading.

And you know what, copy right holders don't need any help. What they don't seem to realize that we're not going to spend money on them if they are going to jerk us around (I won't anyway). It's their dickish attitudes towards consumers that's drives stuff like this, and they don't seem to realize they are making it worse by acting like even bigger dickheads.

I like to imagine that one day these kinds of laws will no longer be an issue because the only ones proposing them are old farts who cannot accept how the internet works.
It's like what Yatzee said once (as closely as I can remember): "The only thing that keeps me smiling is the idea that everyone older than me will die", or something like that.

Don't people understand by now that it's free advertising when fans of your product post stuff about it online? Fine, let them pass their retrograde law, those who enforce it will lose business and those who encourage and respect their fanbase will be the new mega media corporations of the digital age.

We all knew--or should have known--that it would come back.

However, this isn't SOPA. It appears to be just one piece of it, and while it's still untenable, it's not the most egregious part, which would've torn the very fabric of the internet to shreds.

I haven't had time to read the linked Commerce Department pdf (yup, it's there, near the beginning of the article) but I'm betting with a few modifications to restrict who it could be applied to (ie: not Billy Bob on Youtube) it could be just fine.

eventually they keep pushing and push either the enitire thing or in part because of simple human nature. people will only fight so long before they eventually give up.

the simple fact of the matter is that its worth lots of money to big business to get these laws passed

Ok what will it take for congress to get the point. Does it take a guy that somehow screams don't police the Internet to get their attention. The republicans are not much better in fact some republican loon from Texas was the reason this is even an issue, but why is a so called "liberal" not liberal about Internet use. Why are the democracts the bending over for big companies, they should have been the ones yelling that Texas rep smith who created the bill. They should have turn it into a easily politcal victory, saying we stand up these people, Obama should have condemned the bill, and call on the republicans for doing so. I say we ABOLISH the donating money to campaigns, and have government tv channels made for the elections, and stop it at that. It's too corrupt.

Gergar12:
Ok what will it take for congress to get the point. Does it take a guy that somehow screams don't police the Internet to get their attention. The republicans are not much better in fact some republican loon from Texas was the reason this is even an issue, but why is a so called "liberal" not liberal about Internet use. Why are the democracts the bending over for big companies, they should have been the ones yelling that Texas rep smith who created the bill. They should have turn it into a easily politcal victory, saying we stand up these people, Obama should have condemned the bill, and call on the republicans for doing so. I say we ABOLISH the donating money to campaigns, and have government tv channels made for the elections, and stop it at that. It's too corrupt.

They won't get the point, that's the issue. Between the corporate payoffs and the fact that nobody in congress understands how the internet works, it'll never go away. The average age for representatives is 57, and senators 63. You've got a huge number of perpetually re-elected Baby Boomers who don't know a damn thing about modern technology, but still get to pass laws regulating it.

Gergar12:
Ok what will it take for congress to get the point. Does it take a guy that somehow screams don't police the Internet to get their attention. The republicans are not much better in fact some republican loon from Texas was the reason this is even an issue, but why is a so called "liberal" not liberal about Internet use. Why are the democracts the bending over for big companies, they should have been the ones yelling that Texas rep smith who created the bill. They should have turn it into a easily politcal victory, saying we stand up these people, Obama should have condemned the bill, and call on the republicans for doing so. I say we ABOLISH the donating money to campaigns, and have government tv channels made for the elections, and stop it at that. It's too corrupt.

Because money.

Dirty, stinkin, filthy money.

Politicians bow down to their rich corporate masters... or they don't get elected.

Goddamnit, this again? I thought we were past this point! But no, greedy companies have to raise their ugly heads again...

Guess it's more inexpensive to cement your business model into immortality via law than adapt to a changing world. With the rate of return on graft in Washington DC being sometimes in the low thousands per dollar spent I would say so.

The only solution I can think of is to further divide representation until it becomes prohibitively expensive to bribe officials.

The internet may be the greatest source of bullshit the world over, but it's also the greatest source of truth and information, and because of that they're going to continue to try and slip these internet control laws in until it happens.

chiggerwood:

We might never see Sophia Grace Brownlee's fantastic Nicki Minaj impression, or this adorable ukulele cover of Jason Mraz's "I'm Yours," or even a young Justin Beiber performance again if the Department of Commerce gets its way.

Hmm, that would almost be worth it.

If only that was the only type of thing it would get rid of.

beef_razor:
The internet may be the greatest source of bullshit the world over, but it's also the greatest source of truth and information, and because of that they're going to continue to try and slip these internet control laws in until it happens.

But we can stop it, we've stopped it before and we can do it again. We can't let ourselves get tired or apathetic, because that's the only way they'll win.

How does the meme go?

US government: Says China and Iran shouldn't censor the internet.

-Introduces bill that would censor the internet.

If SOPA isn't proof we need to have ourselves a little revolution, I dunno what is. Let's take the Titus route: On one chosen day, we all stop for 3 hours. We literally do nothing. If driving, we pull over. If working, we stop. We have a country-wide shutdown for 3 hours. After that, continue as if nothing happened.

Then we say "Now imagine if we did that for 1 day. Get it through your heads: YOU work for US."

Here is some more info: (even if a little redundant)

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130805/12472124074/administration-cant-let-go-wants-to-bring-back-felony-streaming-provisions-sopa.shtml

"There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution" -

Aldous Huxley got it right. While I do agree that we have to keep fighting these bills, considering how self absorbed we are with our own little worlds right now, what hope do we have for our descendents, or theirs? I'll fight it to the bitter end, but the underlying truth is that eventually, hopefully after most of us are dust, this sort of thing will be quietly pushed through the door.

SeldomSeenKid:
"There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution" -

Aldous Huxley got it right. While I do agree that we have to keep fighting these bills, considering how self absorbed we are with our own little worlds right now, what hope do we have for our descendents, or theirs? I'll fight it to the bitter end, but the underlying truth is that eventually, hopefully after most of us are dust, this sort of thing will be quietly pushed through the door.

Hopefully we can starve out the bills support by outliving the politicians that apply this outdated logic to a new age. The coming generations grew up in a Non-SOPA internet in a time where kids as young as 8-9 walk around with advanced computers that can easily access it (In many cases, anywhere they go. Be it street, home or school) watch Lets Plays and Reviews and parodies to their hearts content. And like us, many of whom didn't even grow up with the amount of technology the current generation' has access to, will oppose it with tooth and nail, and they make up the coming voter-base. We can defeat 'this' thing in question simply by outliving its staunch supporters.

Ofcourse that relies on the fact that we(and they) aren't too lazy. But judging by at least local standards, the coming voters are more politically aware and politically active than the last ones, so if anything we have a decent reason to think that these things will keep getting shot down.

I have great hopes for this and the coming generations. Their great use of the internet and all its free content, combined with their increased political activity is hopefully gonna keep the internet pretty much as it always was. Reminds me that I sound a lot like a conservative when I say that <_<.

Remember the words of Clay Shirky "If we defeat this bills, as indeed I hope we do, get ready. Because more is coming"
Sopa and Pipa were not anomalies. Ever since taping shows onto a VHS was made possible, the media companies have been trying to shut down our abilities to share. People forget, but SOPA was just a clone of a bill proposed the previous year, and you can bet this is likely to become an annual thing.
We have to be vigilant, because again "More is coming"

Fantastic break down of this political trend: http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html

chiggerwood:

beef_razor:
The internet may be the greatest source of bullshit the world over, but it's also the greatest source of truth and information, and because of that they're going to continue to try and slip these internet control laws in until it happens.

But we can stop it, we've stopped it before and we can do it again. We can't let ourselves get tired or apathetic, because that's the only way they'll win.

True, but people need to get the mindset of staying with it for the long haul, instead of thinking the threat will evaporate after one or two bills are shot down.

I for one will never give up on fighting against SOPA-esque laws. We just have to outlive the politicians and CEOs trying to pass these laws.

they tried to take awy streaming, lets plays are apperently illegal now and they keep trying to restrict us as much as possible. next up: talking about games at the watercoooler is priacy and gives you death sentence.
IT is sad when people who know nothing about this arem aking decisions based on advice of people whose corruption level is so high no chart is big enough to depict it.

Realitycrash:
Posting-etiquette demands that you copy this into the OP. Not having at least a part of the article quoted is bad form, since many of us really do not like to open links online unless we have to. So, please do.

Perhaps, but doing so is illegal. Fair use only allows quoting small sections of articles. Quoting the entire article deprives the article writers of revenue.

The last thing we need to do in this situation is engage in copyright infringement ourselves. This is the type of thing that makes people think we need such strong laws, when infringement is so rampant that people don't know it's wrong.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked