Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Bill Ups Punishment For Hosts of Infringing Video Streams

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the legality-is-in-the-eye-of-the-rightsholder dept.

Piracy 278

halfEvilTech writes "Two months ago, the Obama administration asked Congress to make illicit online streaming of copyrighted movies and TV shows a felony. Such a bill has now been introduced by two senators. 'Online streamers can now face up to five years in prison and a fine in cases where: They show 10 or more "public performances" by electronic means in any 180-day period; and the total retail value of those performances tops $2,500 or the cost of licensing such performances is greater than $5,000.'"

cancel ×

278 comments

I'd support this... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36171348)

If every-time a major corporation leaked my personal data (HI Sony!) they were faced with this same penalty. Per record leaked.

Re:I'd support this... (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#36172022)

I'd support a fine (not felony convictions, that's absurd) if entertainment executives faced felony convictions for not making their content available at a reasonable price to the public.

Put it on Hulu. I'll watch ads. Put it on netflix, I pay for that. I'm not signing up for HBGO just to watch game of thrones.

Re:I'd support this... (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36172284)

You realize that HBO GO is free if you are a subscriber to the network already.

Re:I'd support this... (3)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#36172336)

So instead of signing up for a subscription to HBGO, I could sign up for cable AND HBO just to watch it online? Uh, thanks, but that's not better unless I'm missing something... I think I'll stick to signing up for -nothing- and just watch it streaming until they offer it on DVD.

Re:I'd support this... (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 3 years ago | (#36172492)

Ah, Sony, yes. Those with incredible bad IT security and arrogance to match. I want

- Cash to address the insult
- Insurance against any and all costs their gross negligence will cost me
- The responsible parties at Sony for this mess-up to face a few years in prison

Re:I'd support this... (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36172516)

Sue them. Stop your fucking whining, get off your lazy ass, and protect your rights.

WTF? (4, Interesting)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171356)

Why does an industry that offers so little in terms of value or innovation hold so much power over everyone? Why do we keep allowing these bullies to push us around?

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36171388)

Because people keep watching it.

Re:WTF? (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171534)

because if people didn't keep watching it!!!!!!!

Re:WTF? (3, Interesting)

yarnosh (2055818) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171600)

That only answers the question of why they are still around, not why we let them push us around. I think people might be falling for the flawed principle of intellectual property. Once upon a time, nobody would give a second thought to redistributing, copying, sampling, sharing intellectual works. Now it is (or could be) a felony to show an NFL game at your bar without express written permission. Sad.

Re:WTF? (5, Insightful)

Samalie (1016193) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171400)

Simple. They have the money to buy politicians. We don't.

And lets face it, in a 2-party system, there is no way in hell activists like us are going to get big 2 party nominations without taking the money from the lobbyists that we would thereby be bound to serve their corporate overlord interests.

Re:WTF? (5, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171528)

They have the money right now. This is a life-and-death struggle, but as we've seen with other industries throughout history that have been surpassed by newer technologies, not even artificial life-support by governments can buy much more than a temporary stay of execution. The Japanese government during Edo period banned firearms (despite Japan at one point being the largest manufacturer in the world) to prop up the Shogunate. They got an awfully rude awakening when Admiral Perry sailed into Tokyo Bay and shot a few cannons off.

I suspect, in twenty years, RIAA, the MPAA and all these ever-increasingly harsh laws will be history. They had their century or so of necessary economic scarcity and its done. At some point the government will realize that there's about as much use in propping these guys up as there would have been in banning flintlocks and cannons to keep fletchers employed.

Re:WTF? (5, Insightful)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171724)

> not even artificial life-support by governments can buy much more than a temporary stay of execution
> I suspect, in twenty years, RIAA, the MPAA and all these ever-increasingly harsh laws will be history

You are half right. In twenty years the RIAA and MPAA may be history... but those laws giving large corporations and the government the power to monitor everything we do and punish any individual or small business that gets in their way... they will never give up those laws.

And THAT is why Congress is letting the RIAA and MPAA push them around. It's an excuse for both parties to get what they want.
The same thing is going on with the "terrorism" industry.

Re:WTF? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171732)

Don't you call me an activist!

Re:WTF? (3, Insightful)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#36172280)

Simple. They have the money to buy politicians. We don't.

And lets face it, in a 2-party system, there is no way in hell activists like us are going to get big 2 party nominations without taking the money from the lobbyists that we would thereby be bound to serve their corporate overlord interests.

It's only a two party system if the parties have differing points of view. If the parties are both in favour of it, then what you have is a one party system.

Re:WTF? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36172340)

Simple. You have a !#%!%!-up political system that lets big money buy politicians. Money exists, and some people have plenty of it. That's not the problem. The problem is that it can be applied in copious quantities to buy political influence -- so much money that the influence of individual voters, financially or by voting, becomes almost irrelevant. Everybody knows that is the root of the problem here. There are solutions to it, or at least ways to mitigate the problem.

Ban corporate and organizational/group donations. Limit personal donations per year and per party/candidate to some reasonable amount within reach of anyone. Oh, but that might be unconstitutional, you say? I can't think of anything more important than preventing the complete subversion of "one person, one vote" democracy by money. Amend the constitution if you have to. Something along the lines of "The Congress of the USA may make laws limiting financial contributions made to political candidates and political parties." Done.

Crazy idea? Would never work? Other democratic countries have managed to pass laws that limit the influence that money can have in the democratic process without voiding their constitutionally-protected freedoms. Why can't that beacon of democracy, the USA, manage to do it?

A felony for streaming video? Five years in prison? Even as a proposed bill this is some kind of joke. Apparently the RIAA/MPAA own US legislators. Maybe next they'll propose moving the capital to Hollywood.

Re:WTF? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36172540)

There's nothing about "2-party system" that has anything to do with "They have the money to buy politicians. We don't."

If there was 1, 3, 5, 7, or 10e100 parties, you'd still be a broke-ass slacker refusing to show up to shout down their candidate.

Re:WTF? (1, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171414)

The industry does offer something in terms of value. Intellectual property is sadly a cornerstone of the US economy.

Re:WTF? (2)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171582)

Wish I had points... It is true that it is about our only export. And it is falling fast.

Re:WTF? (3, Interesting)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171806)

It is true that it is about our only export. And it is falling fast.

No it's not, and no it's not.

Re:WTF? (1)

Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (142215) | more than 3 years ago | (#36172024)

Does the US MAKE anything (real goods) any more?

We don't make a single TV (*) or DVD player in the US, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are NO US computers or motherboards.

If this country would starting MAKING things again we might have less of these bullshit intellectual property laws.

* Sylvania TV's the only "US" brand, are made in Communist China.

Re:WTF? (2)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36172158)

Does the US MAKE anything (real goods) any more?

Nearly 2 trillion dollars worth, yes.

Re:WTF? (1)

sfunk1x (2085698) | more than 3 years ago | (#36172406)

Plenty of small arms are made (and sold) by very small companies all over the United States. About the only reliable manufacturing job you can get anymore. There will always be a market for guns.

Re:WTF? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36171416)

Because the US has basically no exports except the ones from well you guessed it. Without that cash the economy would crumble even more quickly than it already is.

Re:WTF? (5, Informative)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171564)

Manufacturing accounts for the lion’s share of U.S. exports—accounting for 62 percent in 2008

Royalties from Intellectual Property (patents, film, software, tv, music) - 13.3 percent in 2008

Re:WTF? (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171890)

It's not so much that intellectual property is a major export, rather that industries generating intellectual property are a major employer. Do to automation, manufacturing employers a considerably smaller proportion of the population than a century ago. What are the rest of the people going to do?

Re:WTF? (-1)

Nick Fel (1320709) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171442)

If they don't offer anything of value, you don't need to download it. Problem solved.

Re:WTF? (5, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171624)

Not downloading does not solve the problems of intrusive laws, required record keeping, and misdirected lawsuits.

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36171646)

If they don't offer anything of value, you don't need to download it. Problem solved.

According to this bill, it would be a felony to stream content that you hold the copyright to if you do not pay a compulsory license fee to SoundExchange. [wikipedia.org]

Re:WTF? (2)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 3 years ago | (#36172408)

An artist doesn't owe royalties or license fees to themselves unless they set up a separate legal entity to hold the copyright from that which broadcasts the performance.

Even then, the law allows for direct negotiation of broadcast payments of royalties and license fees. SoundExchange only covers fees required for non-negotiated broadcast of a performance. For example, I can broadcast anything I like legally, without contacting the rights owner, so long as I pay statutory license fees through SoundExchange. If I were to negotiate directly with the rights owner, SoundExchange would not have authority to collect anything for that distribution.

Re:WTF? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36172134)

Whether you download/watch it or not, the fact that you did not pay for it means you are a lost sale - and that lost sale will be counted as part of the piracy bill.

In fact I'm sure they get their figures by taking the total population of earth, estimating what % have a dvd player, then subtracting sales from that - the remainder are clearly pirates because they didn't buy the movie.

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36171504)

Why did you use the term "an industry" there, when in this case, it was "the government", or more specifically, US Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Victoria Espinel, that pushed for legislation making streaming video a felony?

Re:WTF? (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171524)

Who does this target? I'm not aware of any illegal streaming services.
Oh wait.
Youtube.
Googlevideos.
Vimeo.com

And so on. I suspect that when these companies put their weight Against the bill, it will crumble into dust.

Re:WTF? (5, Informative)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171560)

Same damn reason corporations in general are running everything. In the past few decades, "capitalism" and "free market" has been twisted by those with lots of money and a vested interest in having as much power as possible to mean unbridled, unregulated, free reign to do anything they want. When someone tries to inject some common sense into the conversation, they get called Communists (the Cold War buzzword) and/or Socialists (its modern bogeyman equivalent), the FTC, FCC, and other organizations tasked with looking out for us get emasculated and de-funded, a bunch of flag waving and chants of "freedom!" happen, and people vote and act against their own self-interest. All the while, those very rich people get to pay 15% capital gains tax on most of their income while the rest of us pay way more, and those corporations that are screwing us over pay little or no tax in the name of "creating jobs" all the while planning how to more efficiently cut our salaries and benefits and ship our jobs overseas.

Other than posting meaningless messages on Slashdot, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to cancel your cable subscription and stop watching big content? Are you going to stop listening to everyone except independent artists? Are you going to stop going to/renting movies? Are you going to support and campaign for people who have strong consumer rights stances? Are you going to tell your family and friends, even when it's a bit awkward because they're the very "freedom!" chanters you're fighting, why they have to buy movies four times to watch them on four devices? Are you going to write to your Congresscritters and your local media, set up a blog, and otherwise try to get the word out? Are you going to donate time and money to organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation? Are you going to stop buying iPods, Blu-ray players, PS3s, Amazon Prime memberships, and Netflix subscriptions?

Yeah, that's what I thought. That is why the bullies get to keep pushing us around.

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36171670)

What to you mean "that's what I thought"? I donate to the EFF, and stopped buying in to the rest of that crap years ago.

Sounds like... (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171796)

Same damn reason corporations in general are running everything. In the past few decades, "capitalism" and "free market" has been twisted by those with lots of money and a vested interest in having as much power as possible to mean unbridled, unregulated, free reign to do anything they want. When someone tries to inject some common sense into the conversation, they get called Communists (the Cold War buzzword) and/or Socialists (its modern bogeyman equivalent), the FTC, FCC, and other organizations tasked with looking out for us get emasculated and de-funded, a bunch of flag waving and chants of "freedom!" happen, and people vote and act against their own self-interest. All the while, those very rich people get to pay 15% capital gains tax on most of their income while the rest of us pay way more, and those corporations that are screwing us over pay little or no tax in the name of "creating jobs" all the while planning how to more efficiently cut our salaries and benefits and ship our jobs overseas.

What you are describing sounds like fascism. At least Mussolini made the trains run on time. In the US, they can't even do that.

Re:WTF? (1, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171588)

It's the last industry that we own in the US. Everything else has been sent out of the US... everything including technology. Intellectual property and control of the world's money is all that's left. Once that's gone, then end of life in the US as we have known it will end pretty quickly with it.

Re:WTF? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171780)

Why does an industry that offers so little in terms of value or innovation hold so much power over everyone? Why do we keep allowing these bullies to push us around?

Supply and demand.

Re:WTF? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#36172138)

Did you e-mail your representatives and/or give money to EFF? Or some other relevant public interest group? Because I haven't yet either, and there are 3 reasons:
1. Laziness
2. I'm telling myself I will do it soon
3. It's a bit of a depressing situation. I'm guessing my personal opinions on the subject are outweighed by ten dollars from the MPAA. That might be optimistic. Thousands of us need to give counter money AND bother our reps before we have a glimmer of hope of opposing them, and by the time we do, they may well have all but written a fucking amendment to the constitution saying copyright infringement carries the death penalty. ACTA or whatever it's called these days is going to plague us long after the movie executives are dust.

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36172156)

What are you even talking about???? This has nothing to do with file sharing and sticking it to the man. A closer analogy would be a guy taps into a cable TV line and starts selling cheap cable to people into the neighborhood. Is that okay with you? They are trying to shut down these services that cheaply sell video streams and don't pay for the content. They are leeching off the providers and not providing anything themselves. They are in it for the buck period.

Well.. (1)

Samalie (1016193) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171376)

In Soviet Russia, Streams imprison you!

Look, we all know, "copyright infringement is bad". But this is NOT a criminal matter, and in no way should the government/police/Federal Agencies be responsible for dealing with matters of civil law.

(And yes, if this passes, it does become criminal law...which is fucking retarded and a waste of public money.)

Re:Well.. (5, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171448)

I don't think civil v. criminal is as cut-and-dried as you think. If it was, people would not be thrown into prison for smoking a naturally-growing green plant.

The US Constitution (unfortunately) gives the US power to grant monopolies to artists and inventors. Wouldn't infringement on that monopoly be a criminal offense against the US Government?

I think Jefferson had the right idea with his version of the Bill of Rights. He limited the monopoly to ___ years which he suggested should be 14. I agree. If you can't make money off your product during its first 14 years of existence, then too bad. Time to put it in the public domain for the benefit of ALL the people.

Re:Well.. (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#36172088)

"In Soviet Russia, Streams imprison you!"

In Soviet America, Tan Jesus imprisons you.

A felony???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36171394)

So they want to take away your right to vote (among other things) for posting as little as a crappy cellphone video of the concerts you went to and want to show friends?

Re:A felony???? (1)

wmbetts (1306001) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171466)

And the right to own a firearm and many other rights as well.

Re:A felony???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36171506)

Why the hell does felony even take away your right to vote? If someone believes a law on something that is a felony should be changed, he has no way to even vote for that after acting what you believe in.

Re:A felony???? (1)

wmbetts (1306001) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171734)

No idea why they take away the right to vote. I've never looked into it. It does seem silly that people on generational state assistance can continue to vote, but someone with a felony can't.

Re:A felony???? (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#36172332)

You're probably going to use that vote to not support the large companies.

So you don't deserve it. There.

Felony? (5, Funny)

Rei (128717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171408)

Felony? Seriously?

"Yes, ma'am, I know you were raped, but it's not like your attacker posed a couple episodes of Scrubs on YouTube..."

Filled-up Prisons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36171412)

Does this mean we'll finally be releasing drug offenders to make room for this new scourge of society?

Re:Filled-up Prisons (5, Informative)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171500)

Hell no, bucky, prison is a for profit industry these days. Prison is the new plantation. In California, for instance, prison industries are exempt from environmental and safety regulations. And state agencies are required to buy from a prison industry where one exists, even if the products are inferior, unsafe, and more expensive than those available on the free market.

The powers that be have every incentive to create more, and more ridiculous, crimes. After all, if you are wealthy and politically connected, you can commit any crime you like with impunity, so what does it matter to you that everything is now a crime?

Re:Filled-up Prisons (0)

Wansu (846) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171758)

Hell no, bucky, prison is a for profit industry these days.

Yeah. Just watch Locked Up on MSNBC. We have the largest prison population in the world. This law will only add to it.

All kinds of offenses have been trumped up into felonies. They might as well do away with misdemeanor.

Re:Filled-up Prisons (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#36172346)

The powers that be have every incentive to create more, and more ridiculous, crimes. After all, if you are wealthy and politically connected, you can commit any crime you like with impunity, so what does it matter to you that everything is now a crime?

I'm waiting for the day where we start using executed criminals for organ transplants. It seems the obvious next logical step in this line of thinking, and Niven has already described how it'll go from there.

Math (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36171426)

Infringement of $2,500 => 5 years imprisonment, costing the government $113,000. That's a great way to alleviate problems with our overburden prison systems and help us lower government costs.

Re:Math (2)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 3 years ago | (#36172518)

This will just empower the drive to privatize prisons, in order to defray the cost. It's a great investment, since they get a captive slave population which continues to feed the prison industry by permanently disenfranchising people (and in large part, their descendants).

Consequences... (2)

Sooner Boomer (96864) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171432)

Will be interesting (assuming this passes) to see if the so-called offenders move off shore. They might get their domain names blocked, but they might avoid prosecution if the law where they stream from does not make this illegal there too. Would also be interesting to see how this would stand up to a 1st Amendment challange as it make the punishment of electronic form of violating the law much more harsh that otherwise.

Re:Consequences... (3, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171496)

since anyoen who fires up a bittorrent is considered distributing, everyone is at risk.

OTOH, maybe everyone should just do it and watch the imploding court system force them to remove this law.

Re:Consequences... (1)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171728)

I'd be more surprised if this didn't result in an upsurge in multicasting. Streaming 11 people ptp would break the limit of 10 "performances". Multicasting once to 1,000 people in one go would be a single "public performance". Guess which becomes the more attractive. (It'd also slash bandwidth usage, freeing up the Internet for things it's meant for, like prawns.)

My official stance on this (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36171444)

This will be used to squelch free speech and the Larry Flint of the 21st century will be in prison awaiting trial before he gets in front of the Supreme Court.

This could also be used in a copyright dispute with multiple owners (film school students vs their school, CGI hobbyists vs each other, etc.) It is unprecedented to give citizens the ability to create situations where they can send people to jail when they lost nothing but imaginary revenue and occording to several studies actually gained free marketing from the unauthorized streamers.

When you create a scenario where someone can be arrested for replaying something in fair use, and await trial to prove their innocence... it's a travesty of justice.

punishment doesn't fit the crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36171458)

People with manslaughter get less!

Movies and Television Shows only? (1)

Sunshinerat (1114191) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171470)

At first I thought this was about people broadcasting pay-per-view games, which makes sense (to some extend, it is not a violent crime, so felony is a bit harsh).
But then I read movies and television shows... Does this mean that if I rebroadcast Escape from Alcatraz on TNT it is a problem, but a pay-per-view soccer match is not?

Re:Movies and Television Shows only? (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171544)

...and thus, soccer was reimagined as sports entertainment.

Re:Movies and Television Shows only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36171578)

Why does is make sense to charge for a sports game but not for a TV show or movie?

Gotta Love That Federal Code (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36171472)

It's not like we already have enough felonies, and felons.

Glad to see Congress and the White House working to add more to the books.

Those wicked online streamers had this coming. Incarceration is not enough, nor is being a second (felon) class citizen.

My only problem with this is that it does not include a possible death penalty.

steaming vdo outlawed, only for crooks, chosens (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36171480)

retwolling; still waiting? more stand-up talknician routines. more threatening now? will the FSF guys be arrested for sex crimes too? julians, adrians, everybody's at risk, of being arrested, or worse. scary? 13 year old tagged by ss.gov at school for unapproved tweeting. so we're safe from him now. the key to the bells & whistles of just one city is way too much trust to put in one human. our/our planet's fate however, is different?

same old; how many 1000 babys going up in smoke again today? how many 1000's of just folks to be killed or displaced again today? hard to put $$ on that. the cost of constant deception, to our spirit? paying to have ourselves constantly spied on & lied to by freaky self chosen neogod depopulationers? the biblically styled fatal distraction holycost is all encompassing, & never ends while we're still alive, unless we cut them/ourselves off at the wmd. good luck with that, as it's not even a topic anywhere we get to see, although in real life it's happening everywhere as our walking dead weapons peddlers are being uncontracted. you can call this weather if it makes you feel any better. no? read the teepeeleaks etchings.

so, once one lie is 'infactated', the rest becomes just more errant fatal history.

disarm. tell the truth. the sky is not ours to toy with after all?

  you call this 'weather'? what with real history racing up to correct
itself, while the chosen one's holycostal life0cider mediots continually
attempt to rewrite it, fortunately, there's still only one version of the
truth, & it's usually not a long story, or a confusing multiple choice
fear raising event.

wouldn't this be a great time to investigate the genuine native elders social & political leadership initiative, which includes genuine history as put forth in the teepeeleaks etchings. the natives still have no words in their language to describe the events following their 'discovery' by us, way back when. they do advise that it's happening again.

who has all the weapons? who is doing MOST of the damage? what are the motives? are our intentions & will as the ones who are supposed to be being represented honestly & accurately, being met? we have no reference to there being ANY public approval for the current mayhem & madness pr firm regime style self chosen neogod rulership we've allowed to develop around us, so we wouldn't have to stop having fun, & doing things that have nothing to do with having to defend from the smoke&mirrors domestic frenetics, of the unproven genocides. rockets exploding in syria fired from Libya? yikes?

  the zeus weather weapon is still being used indiscriminately against the population, our rulers' minions are fleeing under fire.

the whore of babylon has been rescued by the native elders. she has the papers of challenge authored by the hymenical council, & is cooperating wholeheartedly with the disarmament mandate.
disarm. thank you.

censorship, or convenience?
Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, anonymous comment
posting has temporarily been disabled. You can still login to post.
However, if bad posting continues from your IP or Subnet that privilege
could be revoked as well. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in
the timeout corner or login and improve your posting. If it's someone
else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is bogus, you are right moderation@slashdot.org with your MD5'd IPID and SubnetID, (which have been maliciously edited from time to time for effect by /.censory)
which are always changing, you butthead

Let your representitives know (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171482)

how you feel.
Please.

If people would put the effort into being involved in meaningful ways, we can stop this.

Nero played the fiddle while Rome burned*, and geeks whine on the internet while America burns... Checkmate.

*Not actually likely to have happened since he wasn't there.

Because you miss the ads. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36171502)

The shows don't make money directly from you watching them. It's about the advertisers.

Let them load the shows with ads every 10 mins and sure they won't mind you streaming it.

Politics (2)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171508)

Once again proving the Obama Administration is very much in the pockets of the entertainment industry, and that the kind of people who become politicians are exactly the kind of people you wouldn't want as politicians.

Priorites (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171520)

Screwed up they are, in America.

Ugh (3, Interesting)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171658)

I know the Democrats are screwing up here. As a card carrying Dem I'll apologize for my people. Something that would help us help you though is if we could get a more solid base. The Dems are running scared, and they're pandering to Hollywood just to get enough money to fight the good fight. Ideologically I don't think my party wants to put people in Jail for this nonsense. It's an awful comprise. Obama basically said as much about the compromises he's making to get anything done.

Anyway, I've said it before and I'll say it again, stop voting Republican. Yes, the Dems do crap like this. But they at least have to pretend to support the little man. Yes, a 2 party system sucks. Yes, Canada is a better run country than us. But a general goes to war with the army he's given, and the Dems stated ideology puts SOME limitations on the damage they can do. It's a start.

Re:Ugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36171950)

Bullshit, the Democratic party is as much a big business whore as the GOP, the concept of liberalism may be against this, but the party that claims to follow that ideology is not.

Re:Ugh (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 3 years ago | (#36172400)

The Dems are pandering because they think they HAVE TO. Show them they don't have to, and they'll stop pandering. You know, there's always the caucuses. If you want the right people in the pre-election stuff.

Re:Ugh (2)

spauldo (118058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36172466)

What he's saying is that the Democrats have to basically do it against the wishes of their base. Sure, they grant stuff to big business, but if they do it too much their own party (registered voters, I mean) turns on them.

The Republicans can do it all day, because they believe that helping big business is the way to go, and their base supports them.

It's really too bad we're stuck with a two party system... a small party that's gung ho for consumer rights would do us a lot of good under a parliamentary system.

Re:Ugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36172100)

I don't think I've seen anything so horribly apologetic in quite some time. Idiots like you are just as much of a problem as the people you claim to oppose. I have a better recommendation. Stop voting for either of the two major parties, or for that matter, any asshole who decides to identify him or herself by putting a letter in parentheses behind his name. You've basically admitted that {party of choice} are a bunch of spineless, worthless, moronic scum, but then you suddenly decide that the best course of action is to keep voting for them anyways because the other guys are also just as bad. If you limit your choices to a bunch of shitheads and fuckwits things are never going to improve.

Re:Ugh (0)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 3 years ago | (#36172384)

That won't work. You'll never get enough people to go for that to enact real change. What you will do is divide and conquer so that the same sort of jerks that're screwing us now can completely run roughshod over us all. The trouble it, the world's too complex for that sort of hardline ideology. You've got to deal with the world as it is, not as you want it to be. You can't just say it'll never improve. You've got to do it step by step. So the Dems get a back bone, put more money behind education, maybe a little birth control so there aren't so many people, and before you know it things are better. But if you just say screw it, they Repubs will divide & conquer, and they'll be laughing all the way to the bank with your money.

Re:Ugh (2)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 3 years ago | (#36172174)

I seem to remember that most Hollywood people (who are, incidentally, rich) tend to be Democrat? Or at least vote that way? How is pandering to Hollywood anything new?

Re:Ugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36172270)

I'd consider myself a Democrat a lot quicker than I'd consider myself a Republican, but the Democrats have been pushing for this crap just as hard as the Republicans have for just as long. Do not make it a partisan issue. They are all out to fuck us over on this one.

Re:Ugh (2)

Maltheus (248271) | more than 3 years ago | (#36172326)

As a Republican, we faced the same issue with our party. They weren't practicing their rhetoric. But instead of pleading with people to stay the course, we formed something called the Tea Party (back during the Bush years) and decided that sticking to small government principles was more important than winning.

Obviously that Tea Party has now been fully co-opted by the mainstream GOP, noecons and social conservatives, but I'd really have more respect for the left if they at least tried the same thing on their side. You might not be able to get a Dennis Kucinich elected, but you can at least pull your party in the direction you want by supporting people like him.

What is this hero worship of Obama? He's Bush on steroids and you guys despised him. And yes, I do flip that question around for Bush-backing conservatives, because ideologically, there's very little difference between the two. Their buddies get rich while we the people get screwed. Giving the government more power won't change that, it'll only make it worse.

Re:Ugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36172334)

Yea, last month 200 waivers for Obamacare were passed out, 20% to ONE Congressional district. Want to guess who? Pelosi. But what about Harry Reid you say, he is a Senator for an entire state? Well his ENTIRE state is now exempt from that law.

GE lobbied to get light bulbs banned so their $50 per bulb replacement is the only thing legal to use next year. Because their new bulb is "green" they get to force you to buy them while getting enough tax deductions to pay ZERO taxes last year.

That the DNC working for the little man my ass. Obama is BY FAR the MOST corrupt president we have EVER HAD. Obama, shitting on the little guy who isn't in a union and telling you to shut the fuck up when you complain about border security. You can take your DNC and go to Canada with them and let us little people have our country back.

Re:Ugh (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#36172380)

"I know my party's screwing up with the power they have, but if you give us more power, then I promise we'll do better."

And for the record, I'm not even an American, so I don't have a horse in this race; I think both your parties suck.

Re:Ugh (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#36172386)

the Dems stated ideology puts SOME limitations on the damage they can do.

Yeah, and Reps stated ideology (states rights) also does so.

What good is stated ideology if the parties do not adhere to it whenever and wherever it is convenient for them to do so?

youtube (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36171660)

i hope they try to attack youtube, it may very well be cheaper for google to just buy half the entertainment industry then to get sentenced to whatever

Total Retail Value (1)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171688)

Henceforth the total resale value of any single or partial frame of any broadcast for web use will be set at $2501 or more by the industry, and licensing fees to anyone other than their friends will be set at $5001 or more. Each pixel of each frame will count as a separate public performance (they are after all separated in time). So from this day forth the publication of anything on the web that resembles any 10 pixels in any copyright work will be considered a felony.

no jury will fall for that carp (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171774)

no jury will fall for that carp

Slingbox and personal streaming (1)

crakbone (860662) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171746)

I wonder how this would effect slingbox and other personal streaming? And is this because the movie industry is scared of amazon and some others possibly setting up movie vaults to stream movies like they now do music?

n/t (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36171756)

Intellectual property laws are incompatible with Libertarianism.

In other news... (1)

res2216firestar (1669714) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171784)

The license fees for public screenings probably just went up.

the good thing about a felony is higher burden of (1, Interesting)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171792)

the good thing about a felony is higher burden of proof then other non felon cases and trial by JURY.

Appalling (2)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171820)

I am really truly disgusted that Obama would support this. I voted for Obama once in 2008 in the final election (but for Kucinich in primaries). I am a progressive and now i feel duped for having voted for what is a conservative pro corporate, anti worker president who apparently loves being ass kisser of Republicans and surrendering to their poor and working class hating, billionaire worshipping ways. The difficulty in 2012 is that there is no one else for a progressive to vote for, we have two conservative candidates running against each other. One can vote Green, but they have no chance of winning, but its better than not voting. People do need to vote , even for the greens, to show them that they are there and that progressives are out there, rather than to give the impression we don't care. I voted for Obama, and basically am greatly disappointed about what has basically turned into a conservative, fascist, war mongering, corporatist president. He would do far less damage if he would run under the Republican party where his ideas are more at home and stop polluting the Democratic party with his corrupt policies. It seems like what he says in speeches is just enough to try to appease progressives but then he turns around adn stabs us in the back in another attack on our rights such as this, or attacks on social security and medicare, continued failures in enacting a public option for health care and making universal health care a reality, and more tax breaks for the wealthy. I get the feeling he loves surrendering to the Republicans in tax cuts for the rich and more attacks on common people.

I think the only thing that might force Obama to take progressives seriously, rather than ignore them, a mass defection of progressives to the green party that would cut into his support base and threaten his chance of winning. That desperately needs to happen. An example of him ignoring progressives is that while he invited Republicans who want to continue to let the poor die while insurance companies rake in massive profits, he excluded advocates of medicare for all from the health care debates. He also started out with a proposal that was already conservative, the idea of the exchanges were the republicans own ideas from the 90s, leaving himself the only negotiating room was into conservative territory. This is all relevant to internet rights and fair use of copyright and having decent, non fascist copyright laws, since the same thing applies, it keeps selling us out to republicans and corporations.

it is also time to look at election reform to implement proportional representation so we are not stuck with the two party system, such as like they have in Europe, so minority parties like the greens can have representation, and that we are not locked into two parties. Currently we have an extremist conservative right wing party, the Republicans, that wants to scorch the earth and kill the poor, and we have a centrist party, the Democrats, that is where the Republicans were ideologically, 40 years ago. Its been said that Obama is more conservative than Richard Nixon or Eisenhower. Sad, but true.

Re:Appalling (2)

Maltheus (248271) | more than 3 years ago | (#36172554)

The main problem that we have with elections is that people wrongly believe that they've wasted their voted if they didn't vote for someone who was likely to win. I would argue that the only way to waste your vote is by giving it to someone who would have won without it.

By voting third party (or for a fringe democratic candidate, in your case), you can goad your mainstream compatriots into fishing for your votes, and moving in your same direction. See the Tea Party for an example.

Ok, but you might say that you just don't want to risk letting the other guy get elected. Me, I love when the other guy gets elected. They become an immediate poster child for my side. Bush was a disaster for conservatism, whereas Obama fuels it. Both Bush and Obama have so betrayed their respective ideologies, that no one even knows what a person means anymore when calling themselves a conservative or liberal.

Personally, I'd like to see something of an alliance between the Ron Paulers and the Dennis Kucinich fans. There is a lot both sides agree upon and they're really more alike than either side is with their respective party.

Oh, Mr. Obama (1)

techoi (1435019) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171834)

Once again you have proved to me that I was wrong in supporting you (both in time and financially). It doesn't matter who we elect here as either party is beholding to special interests above all. And, hell, it is almost always the same ones - those that pay well. The only "change" I am seeing is the change I am going to keep in my pocket and never donate to any national political group or candidate in the future.

Who cares? (2)

boristdog (133725) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171928)

Here on /. people complain about companies that "lock" you into their ecosystem. (Hi, Apple!) But you willingly let yourself be locked into the **AA ecosystem.

Back in the day we weren't totally dependent on being entertained by moving pictures on a screen. Most of the time we made our own entertainment.

I still live that way. I watch a one or two Netflix movies or TV shows a week, go to the real movies about once every couple months. TV is a bunch of crap, if it's good I'll Netflix it later. I have LOTS of time to create things, build things, walk the dogs, hang out with friends and family. I wish I had musical talent so I could play an instrument, but no luck there. If I had to totally give up the moving pictures on the screen, I could do it. Sometimes weeks go by when I don't sit in front of the TV. Sometimes I go days where I don't even sit in front of a computer. Okay, that's rare, but it happens. But I try to limit my browsing every day so I can actually go live my life, and then generally only when taking a break at work (Hi!).

Think of all the things you could do if you weren't so concerned with being entertained by moving pictures on a screen all the time. Think of the **AA pockets you will not be lining if you choose to make your entertainment, or how many artists you will help if you choose to see more live entertainment instead. How much time do you spend watching TV shows and movies? If it's more than 10% of your waking hours, you are wasting your life.

When your mom, your dog, your wife, your husband, your sister, your brother, your friend, your cat, your dad, etc. dies, how much time could you have spent with them that you spent watching TV instead?

Face it, the fact that you are complaining about this issue shows that the **AA already has you by the balls. Don't give them a chance to squeeze, just get out of the grip. Life is short. Go out and live it.

Re:Who cares? (1)

mrnobo1024 (464702) | more than 3 years ago | (#36172132)

I care that my tax dollars are going to be used to keep people in this country's expensive prisons just to benefit a select few corporations. You can boycott the RIAA/MPAA all you want, but you can't boycott the IRS.

One of the best SlashDot posts ever... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36172438)

thank you.

What about embedders? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36171930)

How does this affect people who embed, for instance, YouTube videos on, say, their blogs? Would this apply to them too?

Let me get this straight. (2)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171980)

If I am arrested for DWI, that is a misdemeanor? But, if I use bittorrent to watch a copy of a show broadcast last night that my DVR failed to record, I just committed a felony?

This is ridiculous (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36172096)

Things I can do that will get me in less trouble than pirating a movie:

Shoplifting the movie
Shoplifting the movie and stabbing the manager on my way out
Executing neighborhood pets in the street while neighbors watch
Dealing small amounts of drugs to children

Well, at least now I have some options for the weekend that will get me out of the house. Thank god I'm not hurting the country by stealing a movie

This bill is crazy. (1)

John Sokol (109591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36172446)

So what happens when someone streams CNN on justin.tv or ustream?
Many people are starting to cancel their cable service as the bills have started to become excessive and the content has gotten crappier. (or maybe it's just seems like it as I get older)

I really want to start a Cable TV service over the Internet , as in IPTV.
http://www.videotechnology.com/tv/ [videotechnology.com] Try the space bar to change channels.

All the technology is in place for this already, and I know how to get legitimate content licenses.

So yesterday I spoke on the phone briefly with Steve Wozniak who expressed a slight interest. I really need to get sponsors and a few people with some pull to make these things happen.

I also am planning on starting an Open source project for an Alternative to Google TV (Android) called Amorphous OS, that's based on Linux.
http://www.dnull.com/~sokol/amorp/ [dnull.com] I gave a talk on this 10 years ago, since then we have done some experients but I could really use some help on security and Object models.

We need the Open Source community to step up and own this technology otherwise we'll all be left out again like the Phone Companies and Microsoft did to us in the past.

I think an open source alternative to Google TV / Apple TV could easily find it's way in to Televisions if the effort is put in to such a project.

Few people realize that most of these BlueRay players, and Set top boxes such as TiVo are based on Linux already. What remains is the next layer up.
X windows is unacceptable for some things, and things like KDE and other windows managers just aren't consumer friendly.

Android's model of Apps is really out dated. Even Java Applets are more advanced in that they don't get "Installed" and "upgraded" or "updated"
I want to take this to another level for the way applications are build, offered, managed and secured.

I believe that Amorphous OS can be the way to do this, with Micropayment it could even make the Open Source Model profitable and still remain open.

Anyone with any real interest can reach me at videotechnology.com

John

NO thank you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36172560)

We, the people, do NOT want this.

Major problem here (1)

iplayfast (166447) | more than 3 years ago | (#36172568)

The fine is imposed when the cost of licensing such performances is greater than $5,000. In time, the cost of licensing will of course go up simply due to inflation. After the first year a movie that would license at $5000 would then license for $5300. But the fine is still at $5000.
In 5 years a movie that would $5000 would now license for $6691.

In effect the fine is being imposed for smaller and smaller infractions.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...