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!

Embed a Video, Go To Jail?

Roblimo posted more than 3 years ago | from the up-the-stream-without-a-paddle dept.

Crime 314

An anonymous reader writes "A few weeks ago, Slashdot had a post about the new bill in Congress to make streaming infringing videos a felony, punishable by up to 5 years in jail if just 10 people watch the video. As more details come out, the bill keeps looking worse and worse, as it appears that the definitions used in the bill would mean that merely embedding or linking to an infringing YouTube video could put you on the hook for jail time. Obviously, supporters of the bill insist that's not who will be targeted with this bill, but just the fact that they could be should be worrisome enough. We've seen other laws 'misused' in the past."

cancel ×

314 comments

Good - arrest me (4, Interesting)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319152)

I'd be happy to appear on every radio and TV show discussing the out-of-control government which arrested me because I linked infringing "Sanctuary" episodes from youtube to my facebook page. It's time to Inform the public about what kind of tyranny they are living.

So go ahead and arrest me.
I'll be happy to fight back.

Re:Good - arrest me (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36319228)

I'll be happy to fight back.

Dude, you're 11. Let the adults handle this, okay?

Re:Good - arrest me (2)

SilentStaid (1474575) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319734)

Dude, you're 11. Let the adults handle this, okay?

They're doing a bang up job so far... maybe we should let the younger generation take a crack at it.

Re:Good - arrest me (2)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319806)

maybe we should let the younger generation take a crack at it.

The younger generation is taking too much crack already.

Re:Good - arrest me (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36320052)

I think you're confusing commodore64_love/commodore6502/cpu6502's age with his IQ.

Re:Good - arrest me (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36320076)

>>>Dude, you're 11. Let the adults handle this, okay?

I am 11 in Mars years (or 3 in Jupiter years), but not earth years.

As for the comment about crack, if I have ownership of my body then I should be able to do anything I want to do to it. There is no justification for the government to disallow Drug use (or even suicide) unless the government claims ownership over you.

Re:Good - arrest me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36320102)

Hey, a semi-intelligent comment from Commode64Love. I guess even a stopped clock is right twice a day...

Re:Good - arrest me (4, Insightful)

Script Cat (832717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36320124)

Selective enforcement needs to be a crime in its self. It happen all the time. This is incompatable with rule of law.

five years for 10 viewings? (5, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319176)

Whatever happened to our Constitutional protection from cruel and unjust punishments?

Is this the new War on Drugs or something?

Re:five years for 10 viewings? (2)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319206)

Whatever happened to our Constitutional protection from cruel and unjust punishments?

I think the BoR & 8th Amendment says cruel and unusual [wikipedia.org] punishments.

Re:five years for 10 viewings? (2)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#36320130)

That is correct, when it becomes cruel and routine, it is no longer unconstitutional. Just see Guantanamo for reference.

Re:five years for 10 viewings? (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36320242)

Whatever happened to our Constitutional protection from cruel and unjust punishments?

I think the BoR & 8th Amendment says cruel and unusual [wikipedia.org] punishments.

My bad... I should have RTFC before posting.

Re:five years for 10 viewings? (2)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319226)

The 8th amendment protects against cruel and unusual, not unjust, punishments.

Have to remember that they weren't too far off of a time when if a ruler didn't like you you very well could be locked in a brazen bull and roasted to death. Simple incarceration isn't considered cruel or unusual and the constitution doesn't really deal with sentence lengths.

Re:five years for 10 viewings? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36319340)

There was a Supreme Court case where they determined that a life sentence without parole for the crime of passing a bad check for $50 was, in fact, cruel and unusual. Don't recall the name of the case off the top of my head. But in general, yeah, sentence length doesn't usually fall under there.

Re:five years for 10 viewings? (1)

jdpars (1480913) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319720)

Right, incarceration is only cruel, not unusual. But if they sentenced you to be a shepherd (in nice conditions, though that's rare) for a year, well, that'd be unusual, but not cruel.

Re:five years for 10 viewings? (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319848)

The unusual part would be the exceedingly long imprisonment for what most would consider minor offense.

Re:five years for 10 viewings? (1)

urulokion (597607) | more than 3 years ago | (#36320000)

Like getting life sentence w/o the possibility of parole for shoplifting a DVD?

Eyes the various 3-strikes laws

Re:five years for 10 viewings? (1)

memojuez (910304) | more than 3 years ago | (#36320140)

That must have been a gold plated DVD for its theft to be considered as a felony.

Re:five years for 10 viewings? (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 3 years ago | (#36320006)

The unusual part would be the exceedingly long imprisonment for what most would consider minor offense.

Actually, it would only be unusual if it was not the usual punishment for the same offense. It looks like the objective of this legislation is to make incarceration for some years the usual punishment. It would be merely an irrelevance that some people consider it a minor offense; what's important is that the punishment is applied consistently to all who are found guilty of the same offense.

Re:five years for 10 viewings? (5, Insightful)

plunderscratch (2169382) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319266)

Whatever happened to our Constitutional protection from cruel and unjust punishments?

Is this the new War on Drugs or something?

er, I think you allowed successive elected representatives to gradually erode any form of constitutionality in the name of capitalism, which is now being protected by the big corporations who fear that their monopoly may be at risk.

Drugs and piracy are just bad ok, so please just accept what you are told, do what 'the man' says, be a good citizen and don't forget to inform on your neighbour if you think they are up to no good. They might be terrorists you know!

How did I allow it? (5, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319588)

I think you allowed successive elected representatives to gradually erode any form of constitutionality

How did I allow it? A lot of these bills became law before I became old enough to vote, and most of the time since then, the candidate for whom I voted lost the election.

Re:How did I allow it? (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319886)

Did you coerce your neighbor into voting properly? I suspect not, therefore it's all your fault.

Re:five years for 10 viewings? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36320236)

Whatever happened to our Constitutional protection from cruel and unjust punishments?

Is this the new War on Drugs or something?

er, I think you allowed successive elected representatives to gradually erode any form of constitutionality in the name of capitalism, which is now being protected by the big corporations who fear that their monopoly may be at risk.

Drugs and piracy are just bad ok, so please just accept what you are told, do what 'the man' says, be a good citizen and don't forget to inform on your neighbour if you think they are up to no good. They might be terrorists you know!

Why is this modded funny? The poster is not joking! This is exacly what I was thinking... should be (Score:5, Insightful)

The government clearly... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36319286)

... wants to stop everyone from communicating over the Internet. Except for licensed corporations, of course.

Re:five years for 10 viewings? (3)

stewbee (1019450) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319516)

It's not just the time that is ridiculous, but also the fact that it is a felony. A felony is a huge thing to be charged of. It means that you essentially lose your civil rights. You can't vote. Your chances of finding future work will certainly be more difficult, since after all you are a convicted felon.

Anyone else just getting tired of this crap?

Re:five years for 10 viewings? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319690)

>>>.....the fact that it is a felony.
>>>Anyone else just getting tired of this crap?

I am well past "tired".
I am angry.

Jefferson had the right idea when he proposed this amendment: "Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no other purpose." He suggested "19" be inserted into the blank.

Re:five years for 10 viewings? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319784)

Considering the broad support for strong copyright/trademark/patent laws in both the Democrat and Republican parties, I doubt that such an amendment would make a difference: the amendment would just be repealed.

Re:five years for 10 viewings? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36320274)

Jefferson had the right idea when he proposed this amendment: "Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no other purpose." He suggested "19" be inserted into the blank.

I have thought of non-transferable IP as perhaps a good policy, but then you'd get murdered so your patent would expire.

Re:five years for 10 viewings? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36319796)

The problem is that people are too disorganized. When the MPAA, RIAA, Oil Industry, etc. give money to politician, they have a goal in mind. They want value for their money, they are bribing the politician to behave in a particular manner.

The disorganized rabble give money to a candidate, and in the same amounts as the organized groups, but get nothing for it. The candidate may, or may not get elected, but there are no hooks or definite agenda for that person after they are elected.

What we need is to organize so that money goes to candidates, but more and repeated money goes to candidates who execute on the goals behind the money. In short, the individual rabble need a website that manages their money in a way that gets them a return on investment from their bribes. (If you wish, you can read "campaign contributions" instead of bribes, but the effect is the same).

Re:five years for 10 viewings? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36319980)

This would be an ideal way to catch Julian Assange. 'Collateral Murder' springs to mind.

In conjunction with yesterdays' story "NATO Report Threatens To 'Persecute' Anonymous" we have all the tools we need to supress truth tellers and music junkies alike. Copyright infrigement will be equated with terrorism.

1984 gets closer by the day.

Re:five years for 10 viewings? (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#36320164)

It already is. There were ads put out by the MPAA a few years ago stating there was a link between pirated movies and Al Queda.

Re:five years for 10 viewings? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36320014)

Granted I think Cruel and Unjust punishment is much better then Cruel and Unusual (Especially as the Unusual may come up with more innovative and effective ideas). But Copyright law hasn't been keeping up with the modern times. The Laws are now unfairly harsh now because it doesn't factor in how easy it is now to break the law "innocently".

Back when these laws were designed copyright infringement meant often a full attempt to break the law. You needed expensive resources to produce copies. Either a lot of Man Power or an expensive press... These large expensive operations meant that copyright infringement also came with selling the goods for a profit. So the infringer were making a lot of money breaking the law. So these high fines were just because the larger the infringement the more money they made.

However today it is too easy to break copyright. Digital Technologies are designed to make consistent high quality copies every time, without degrading quality. They are cheap and easy to use so anyone could be a violator of a large scale. The laws need to tighten to help protect the copyright holders, however the punishment for the crimes shouldn't be such that it could cause life ruin for the perpetrator. It is like giving out $50,000 speeding tickets, for people who go 10-20 mph over the limit, but are in cars designed to drive at least 20mph any US. Speed limit, and roads designed to handle safe driving at those speeds under particular conditions.

Re:five years for 10 viewings? (1)

rbochan (827946) | more than 3 years ago | (#36320224)

Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're LYING. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.

"We've seen other laws 'misused' in the past"? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36319216)

Are you kidding me? That's the understatement of all time right there.

Virtually all laws get misused, and this will be no exception.

Re:"We've seen other laws 'misused' in the past"? (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319944)

But that's not the "intent" so just bend over and take it. Really, it's for your own good...

stuff that is not clearly defined. (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319230)

May make it hard for a jury to convict and up to 5 year how many rapist and others will have to go free to make room? And who will pay to keep all that many people locked up? When we can't even find room for the drug offenders.

Re:stuff that is not clearly defined. (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319328)

May make it hard for a jury to convict and up to 5 year how many rapist and others will have to go free to make room? And who will pay to keep all that many people locked up? When we can't even find room for the drug offenders.

You haven't been paying attention. Jails are corporate run nowadays, we need more people to put in prison so that the prison corporations can make more money, from billing the government (you and I) and free (slave) labour. No rapists will go free. This is how Stalin built a railroad, it works.

Re:stuff that is not clearly defined. (2)

mldi (1598123) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319646)

May make it hard for a jury to convict and up to 5 year how many rapist and others will have to go free to make room? And who will pay to keep all that many people locked up? When we can't even find room for the drug offenders.

You haven't been paying attention. Jails are corporate run nowadays, we need more people to put in prison so that the prison corporations can make more money, from billing the government (you and I) and free (slave) labour. No rapists will go free. This is how Stalin built a railroad, it works.

This kind of reminds me of an episode of Stargate Atlantis. An off-world government would send people to "jail" for any little crime at all, and at the end, just because they felt like it (and made something up). As it turns out, they needed more bodies for the Wraith to feed on.

Substitude "Wraith" for "Corporations" and this totally fits with your scenario.

Re:stuff that is not clearly defined. (1)

flappinbooger (574405) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319828)

The problem we are seeing here, I'm fairly certain, is that the congresscritters are being forced to consider these bills in order to retroactively earn their "paychecks" or subsequent "paychecks" will not be forthcoming.

To put it in acceptable /. terms, recall the Simpsons episode where Lisa takes a trip to WDC and is horrified to learn that "gasp" there are corrupt politicians, bought and paid for by various corporate entities.

Re:stuff that is not clearly defined. (3, Informative)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#36320150)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20034694-504083.html [cbsnews.com]

(CBS/AP) SCRANTON, Pa. - Former juvenile court judge Mark Ciavarella was convicted in an alleged "kids for cash" scheme that accused him and another judge of sending youth offenders to for-profit detention centers in exchange for millions of dollars in illicit payments from the builder and owner of the lockups. ...

I see your Stargate: Atlantis and raise you real life.

{ . . . } & go to jail. (3, Insightful)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319252)

What it boils down to, is they can send you to jail if they want to. This is just another hook to let the man fuck you over if you not play the game like a good little plebe.

Re: & go to jail. (1)

plunderscratch (2169382) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319412)

Absolutely. Everyone is guilty of something, even those who maintain their righteousness and purity at every opportunity.

Just another stick that can be pulled out and used to beat you with when it suits them and ignored the rest of the time.

Re: & go to jail. (2)

kent_eh (543303) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319704)

So if everything is already illegal, and everyone is already guilty of something, then it doesn't really matter what I do. They'll arrest me when they decide it's my time.

Meanwhile, I can do whatever I want.

Cue Bart Simpson laugh...

Re: & go to jail. (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 3 years ago | (#36320086)

So if everything is already illegal, and everyone is already guilty of something, then it doesn't really matter what I do. They'll arrest me when they decide it's my time.

Meanwhile, I can do whatever I want.

"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh

Correction, If your Maserati does 185, you can do whatever you want, for the rest of us, no you can't.

Only In America (1)

Grindalf (1089511) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319262)

This type of legislation is against the rune law or "Spirit Law" as they say in some religions. Voices anybody? :0)

Looking from Europe ... (5, Funny)

foobsr (693224) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319288)

The best solution for the interest groups involved would perhaps be to declare all of the US a jail (with some islands for the privileged).

This would be a rather elegant way to get rid of the 'constitution' 'legally'.

CC.

Re:Looking from Europe ... (3, Insightful)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319342)

maybe the US could get pointers from North Korea on how to put 200 milions american to work in camps.

Re:Looking from Europe ... (2)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319606)

... and solve the unemployment problem all at once ... genious ...

Re:Looking from Europe ... (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 3 years ago | (#36320036)

you know.. around here they state is looking at requiring community service hours for people collecting unemployment.. (something like 12 hours a month not much really)

some of the people who responded to it where quoted along the lines of "its not really unemployment if you have to work for it"

Re:Looking from Europe ... (1)

Geeky (90998) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319428)

Kind of a twist on Wonko The Sane's asylum...

Re:Looking from Europe ... (1)

dhickman (958529) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319434)

Already done, or at least predicted. www.prisonplanet.com

Re:Looking from Europe ... (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319474)

It's been in the works for quite some time now. There's the serf class, and then there's the political class. What's old has become new again. Make no mistake about it. American Exceptionalim is just that; an exception, a brief moment in time against the natural state of mankind. That natural state is oppression against those outside our immediate sphere of associations (read the Monkey Sphere).

I'm privileged to be born in this era of humanity. Not many get to taste freedom while it lasts.

Re:Looking from Europe ... (1)

t2t10 (1909766) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319554)

Well, since you're from Europe, you're obviously speaking from experience.

Re:Looking from Europe ... (1)

Anarchduke (1551707) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319826)

I've been to Arkansas, thought this had been done already.

Re:Looking from Europe ... (1)

cHALiTO (101461) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319908)

The best solution for the interest groups involved would perhaps be to declare all of the US a jail (with some islands for the rich).

This would be a rather elegant way to get rid of the 'constitution' 'legally'.

CC.

FTFY

Re:Looking from Europe ... (2)

X86Daddy (446356) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319964)

They kinda already did... there's a 100 mile radius of all "border crossings" that's considered outside of Constitutional protections, so the north border, the south border, the coasts, and everywhere close enough to an airport, and the government has declared it can violate its founding document there. The courts upheld challenges to this. Here, found it: http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone [aclu.org]

La-and of the Freeee, and the Ho-ome of the Brrrraaaaave.

Re:Looking from Europe ... (1)

Gr33nJ3ll0 (1367543) | more than 3 years ago | (#36320216)

Luckily I live in the heartland!

Government involvement (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36319298)

Why is government getting so involved in copyright infringement issues? They shouldn't be doing that at all. Rather, it should be up to the copyright holders to file a lawsuit and do what they need to do. The government should not be involved unless, after being told to pay up and stop infringing upon the copyright of others, by the legal system, they don't listen. Rushing through all of these pointless laws and going after infringers is just a huge waste of money.

Re:Government involvement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36320042)

You've missed the point where the RIAA and MPAA have become the government.

9viewsonly.com (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36319310)

is the name of the video site I'm going to launch!

Re:9viewsonly.com (1)

guybrush3pwood (1579937) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319892)

You, sir, are a genius!

Yeah, right. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319322)

"... supporters of the bill insist that's not who will be targeted with this bill..."

If it's written that way, sooner or later somebody will enforce it that way. They always have.

Selective Enforcement (1)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319816)

Agreed. If they don't want to prosecute them, don't make them criminals. The worst "laws" are the ones that are not enforced except at the government's whim.

Technically inept and Corporate apathy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36319326)

Legal framework wrangling for the myopic entertainment industry aside, why is it none of the top 10 major tech firms in existence have come out guns blazing, calling out both industry and politicians on these half-assed worded bills?

I try really hard, EVERY DAY, not to become more cynical of our system, but my confidence that common sense will ultimately prevail is continuously getting beaten to a pulp.

What can I, a lowly citizen and IT Admin, possibly do at this point to make a difference?

Re:Technically inept and Corporate apathy (1)

Roblimo (357) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319656)

Multiply your vote by getting involved in party activities not just during election seasons, but between them. That's when candidates are proposed and selected and party platforms get written. By attending monthly meetings, and maybe going out for a drink or three with people you meet at those meetings, you can multiply your one vote by 100. Do any kind of election work or donate to candidates with whom you agree, and the multiplier is even greater.

Call our form of government a Democracy or a Republic. Up to you. Either way, it's a do-it-yourself, "lots of assembly required" system.

You can also do political theater. Example - I am planning to stand by the side of the road, in an area where political sign-wavers are common around here (Bradenton, FL) with a large sign that says KILL SOCIAL SECURITY - VOTE REPUBLICAN.

Another thing I'm considering is dressing as a witch doctor and doing exorcisms: FOUL REPUBLICAN SPIRITS COME OUT!!!

Every little bit helps. :)

 

Re:Technically inept and Corporate apathy (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319934)

Multiply your vote by getting involved in party activities not just during election seasons, but between them. That's when candidates are proposed and selected and party platforms get written.

The major news media share corporate parents with the major movie studios. (Citation available upon request.) I understand that people vote for a candidate that they've heard of. I have reason to believe that if a candidate adopts a platform that the major news media or their corporate parents don't like, the major news media won't give that candidate a chance to get the word out. Do you remember the Republican primary debates from 2008, when Ron Paul couldn't get a word in edgewise?

Re:what can I do (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319676)

This is it, what I've been calling Superclick.

If they pass it (and a few patches), it's the Grand Slam end to all Web 2.0.

As long as the law was only about uploaders, the viewing public was safe. But if they switch it to make linking a crime, and by extension clicking unauthorized copies, all sharing will end instantly except the Johnny Mnemonic Low-Tek rebels.

It will instantly slice down YouTube to a mix of corporate accounts and little guys.

Misused (0)

Someone Awful (1109763) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319364)

Why is misused in quotes?

Spirit of the Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36319398)

Mean, Conniving, Untrusting, Coercion, Padding pockets are some of the words that come to mind. Fuck it, I will stop altogether watching any movies. How do yo like that? Its all shit anyway, garbage. There is nothing new in the way of concept and storylines. ITS ALL CRAP.

Lobbyists... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36319420)

Lobbyists have destroyed this country. These groups only exist to protect and promulgate their own special interests. They have deep pockets and can exert unfair influence over the laws of this nation. What should be outlawed is the ability for lobbyists to exist and operate as they do today. I get that our representatives don't necessarily understand all the complex issues and nuances of everything that comes across their desk, but you can't have groups with only their own interests in mind leading/shaping the discussion. Our government is broken, and there's no one with the backbone and/or ability to fix it.

The supporters are Lying (2)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319458)

IF they are not Lying, then change the bill to close that loophole.

If they refuse to then they are bold faced liars. It really is as simple as that.

They had it coming (1)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319476)

Y'know, as things worsen, I'm deeply considering constructing Skynet. Lock me up when I have my trigger finger on an AI that's just waiting to blow you to bits.

What chance of escape? (1)

Coisiche (2000870) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319488)

It's not even possible to feel smug about it from outside the US.

I'm in the UK and you can be sure if I ever embedded infringing material on Facebook then I'd be promptly handed over to US justice if they requested it. While there have been high profile cases against extradition I'm not sure that any have been completely stopped. They are, at best, ongoing.

wake up and take responsibility (1)

t2t10 (1909766) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319688)

No, more likely the UK would itself charge and convict you, since UK laws are at least as draconian; no need to extradite you. Theses kinds of laws are massive cases of policy laundering [wikipedia.org] . Britain (and Europe) are at least as much at fault here as the US.

Take responsibility for your own country instead of believing the propaganda that this is all America's fault.

Re:What chance of escape? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319770)

Yes extradition is a real threat in the EU. You can be accused of a crime in Poland, and the UK Judge has no choice, by law, but to deport you to that member state. Extradition to the US is more complicated, but still a danger.

Personally I think that's bullshit. "There's nothing I can do; I must comply with the law" has been used too many times by Judges, lawyers, police, et cetera. Yes there IS something you can do.

You can refuse to comply with unjust laws.
It's called nullification -
refuse to obey unconstitutional or unnatural laws.

Why stop there? (2)

Yaddoshi (997885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319496)

Soon they'll be pressing charges against us for infringing on their intellectual property by thinking about the movie we just watched after we leave the theater without paying some sort of license to do so.

I mean really - they're gonna ruin some kid's life because the kid misused an embed tag? Really? Doesn't the "Justice" system have a better way to use their time and spend our tax dollars? Clownshoes.

Re:Why stop there? (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319768)

Ha! I've got them beat. I'm thinking about the latest crop of movies and I haven't seen them at all! What's that knocking? ..... What do you mean, "under arrest for depriving the entertainment industry of deserved profits"?

Let me ask it clearly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36319524)

In my country, there's something like "binding duty" (sorry, don't know English nor US Legalese enough to translate -- btw, this is a personal, just MHO post unrelated to other people/organizations.

It means a policeman cannot ignore a crime in front of him, nor just let go a criniminal for any reason, for he will expelled from Police and charged with a crime accusation (negligence, accomplicity, etc.).

> Obviously, supporters of the bill insist that's not who will be targeted with this bill

Once written, these guys won't even be reachable for comments. The law will have to be applied, or else law agents will be punished. At least, that's the way it works (should work?) in my country.

Invent a guillotine and prepare your neck.

War on Drugs (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319550)

Impossible to enforce, fills our jails, burdens our tax system, and is a total failure...

why not start another one of these

Re:War on Drugs (1)

polebridge (517983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319986)

But just like in the war on drugs, there will be golden opportunities to scrape off a few bucks as the money goes flying around to build up a bureaucracy, buy more assault rifles and urban tanks, build more jails, and bamboozle the taxpayers. Follow the money.

Why are lawmakers like this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36319736)

Why is Congress constantly insisting that they can perform brain surgery with a sledgehammer....

While the brain can be adequately extracted with this method, any reconstruction or reuse is simply impossible.

Re:Why are lawmakers like this? (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319982)

While the brain can be adequately extracted with this method, any reconstruction or reuse is simply impossible.

From that fateful day when stinking bits of slime first crawled from the sea and shouted to the cold stars, "I am man!," our greatest dread has always been the knowledge of our mortality. But tonight, we shall hurl the gauntlet of science into the frightful face of death itself. Tonight, we shall ascend into the heavens. We shall mock the earthquake. We shall command the thunders, and penetrate into the very womb of impervious nature herself.

Brought to you in part... (1)

kosty (52388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319764)

by your friendly Prison Industrial Complex. Motto: "Incarceration cures all!" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison [wikipedia.org] –industrial_complex

The New Constitution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36319904)

i) Corporations have a right to make a profit.
ii) People have a right to ensure that corporations make a profit.
iii) Changes to these clauses or introduction of claueses weakening these rights will be null and void.

Grow a pair and call for a boycott (2)

jkinney3 (535278) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319916)

I am astounded that the /. crowd has not been calling for an absolute boycott of ALL media from ALL labels who sign on to these kinds of bills.

Put down the mp3 player and streaming video toys and pick up an instrument. If you want entertainment, get creative and make your own. Then you can do all the sharing you want with content you make.

Like it or not, whining about "they are taking away my perceived rights" on /. will have no effect on the people who are writing this legislation. But if the people who are supposed to be paying for this content all say loudly in one voice "Your content is crap and I don't want it" and then grow a pair and stick to their convictions and DON'T WATCH THE CONTENT FROM THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BACKING THIS LEGISLATION IN ANY FORM, the loss of 10-20 million viewers will have an impact the longer it keeps up. The only language those people understand is cash. They think they are getting less than they deserve so they buy votes. We outnumber them so remind them they exist because we allow them to. It's not like your life will end if you don't hear/view the latest "thing".

Besides, if /. started looking around and something other than the media content this is about, you might notice there's a lot of stuff that geeks can do to keep crap like this from expanding.

Walk away. Nothing to see here. Literally

Re:Grow a pair and call for a boycott (1)

boristdog (133725) | more than 3 years ago | (#36320258)

I've been saying this for years. And living it.

Intent vs whats written (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319930)

When they say "that not the intent", then modify the bill so that it's words match the intent. Nobody is going to give a shit what you meant to write, they're going to look at what you actually wrote down on paper.

So I've been thinking (4, Interesting)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319972)

I've been thinking about these kinds of problems that plague civilization when corporations have a louder voice than humans, and are able to manhandle laws into doing everything they can to keep the plebs in their places. The problem to me appears to be that corporations are completely amoral, and dedicated toward doing absolutely whatever it takes to make as much money as possible. They do this due to their obligations to the shareholders. I'm going to pause along this train of thought to abuse the corollary: Somewhere along the line, "The customer is always right", transformed into, "the shareholder is always right."

Basically what I'm getting at here is that I now believe that in order to effect change, the only way to proceed is to play their same game against them. I propose creating a holdings company, getting it classified as a NPO, and then using donations generated by those interested in the lofty goals of the organization to purchase stock in the companies that are causing the problems. Any and all dividends made from the stock would go toward operational costs of the organization itself, and any surplus would go toward purchasing additional stock. The purpose of this is to be able to try to lobby within the stockholder's meetings with the stockholders themselves, and at worst case and assuming that the organization has enough stock to do so, threaten to tank the company by liquidating the stock for pennies. I'm no market analyst, but I'm pretty sure that it would play havoc with all the automated trading systems were a couple thousand shares of stock to be put out there for 1% of the current asking price.

Anyway, I thought I'd leave this here, figuring that if anyone was cynical enough to be able to shred this to pieces, it'd be Slashdot. Obviously, it has flaws. I'm no genius, and it was just something that came to me the other day, so I've hardly spent much time considering it.

I can safely say the law will not get misused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36319990)

It will get used exactly as intended, and you who talk about it being misused are foolish for believing that it is intended for anything other than what it will be used for.

If they didn't intend it to be used for all and every case they could have, and would have, included caveats.

Your 'representatives' pull this trick every time and every time you fall for it. It's no good voting for other 'representatives' because they will do exactly the same thing.

You thought you were living in a democracy but you aren't. You are living in an oligarchy with a voting feature to mislead you into believing otherwise - and it works. It keeps you quiet enough for them to pursue their agenda.

Face book and others (1)

diewlasing (1126425) | more than 3 years ago | (#36320088)

How does this affect them, when they allow you to post videos and what not?

Good news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36320116)

If my unemployment ever runs out, I will get myself into the system easily. Free boarding, food, health care and awesome library.

This video was viewed more than 10 times (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36320142)

We know this for a fact, because we alone saw it 30 times.

We have a gun aimed at your head (1)

hyp3rhippo (2224914) | more than 3 years ago | (#36320158)

but don't worry, we wont shoot

The obvious loophole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36320172)

The easiest way to get around this law would be to have or use a video hosting site that doesn't track view count. They'd be unable to prove that ten people watched it.

Since you know... (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 3 years ago | (#36320174)

...our jails aren't overcrowded enough, lets start throwing in every other internet user.

Wow - scary stuff (1)

KeenDawg (2205204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36320240)

Talk about scary - is everyone supposed to be an expert in copyright law?

Send google to jail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36320252)

Yeah, we could get sent to jail for linking to a youtube video while youtube brings in millions from the studios. Makes perfect sense.

BUMMER - The Death Of Pizza Movie Night (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36320284)

We entertain friends and neighbors - get a movie, buy pizza - but by definition (10 folks+ within 180 days, 'public' performance), I guess I get a "GOTO JAIL CARD".

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...