• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House wants new copyright law crackdown

jamesrage

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
We got a problem with out borders but they want to wiretap copyright violators.


White House wants new copyright law crackdown | Privacy Inc. - CNET News
The White House today proposed sweeping revisions to U.S. copyright law, including making "illegal streaming" of audio or video a federal felony and allowing FBI agents to wiretap suspected infringers.

In a 20-page white paper (PDF), the Obama administration called on the U.S. Congress to fix "deficiencies that could hinder enforcement" of intellectual property laws.
The report was prepared by Victoria Espinel, the first Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator who received Senate confirmation in December 2009, and represents a broad tightening of many forms of intellectual property law including ones that deal with counterfeit pharmaceuticals and overseas royalties for copyright holders. (See CNET's report last month previewing today's white paper.)

Some of the highlights:

• The White House is concerned that "illegal streaming of content" may not be covered by criminal law, saying "questions have arisen about whether streaming constitutes the distribution of copyrighted works." To resolve that ambiguity, it wants a new law to "clarify that infringement by streaming, or by means of other similar new technology, is a felony in appropriate circumstances."

Read more: White House wants new copyright law crackdown | Privacy Inc. - CNET News
 
Oh yeah. . . They definitely want to silence internet "sharing." What Obama likes to call "chatter." The kind of chatter that's bringing him down.

“You’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank all that high on the truth meter. With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, — none of which I know how to work — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation.”
Click to expand...

Hard for politicians to control the spin when there's so much information out there.


You know, this sort of thing? The kind of thing where we make him own his own words.

NOT GOOD!!!
male16-male-mad-angry-smiley-emoticon-000099-medium.gif
 
Marshabar said:
Oh yeah. . . They definitely want to silence internet "sharing." What Obama likes to call "chatter." The kind of chatter that's bringing him down.

Hard for politicians to control the spin when there's so much information out there.


You know, this sort of thing? The kind of thing where we make him own his own words.

NOT GOOD!!!
male16-male-mad-angry-smiley-emoticon-000099-medium.gif
Click to expand...

Free speech is a threat to Obama.

I expect that sites like this forum will come under attack from the Obama, because he spent his whole life around Communists and the twenty years in Rev. Wrights dhurch learning about Black Liberation Theology, which is Marxist.
 
jamesrage said:
We got a problem with out borders but they want to wiretap copyright violators.


White House wants new copyright law crackdown | Privacy Inc. - CNET News
The White House today proposed sweeping revisions to U.S. copyright law, including making "illegal streaming" of audio or video a federal felony and allowing FBI agents to wiretap suspected infringers.

In a 20-page white paper (PDF), the Obama administration called on the U.S. Congress to fix "deficiencies that could hinder enforcement" of intellectual property laws.
The report was prepared by Victoria Espinel, the first Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator who received Senate confirmation in December 2009, and represents a broad tightening of many forms of intellectual property law including ones that deal with counterfeit pharmaceuticals and overseas royalties for copyright holders. (See CNET's report last month previewing today's white paper.)

Some of the highlights:

• The White House is concerned that "illegal streaming of content" may not be covered by criminal law, saying "questions have arisen about whether streaming constitutes the distribution of copyrighted works." To resolve that ambiguity, it wants a new law to "clarify that infringement by streaming, or by means of other similar new technology, is a felony in appropriate circumstances."

Read more: White House wants new copyright law crackdown | Privacy Inc. - CNET News
Click to expand...

If there is nothing I hate more, it's the corporate welfare that goes to IP holders, special laws to protect their precious wares, for a lifetime.

Now they want to make it a felony for some forms of copyright violation, screw them.
 
They have already started by seizing legal domain names ... The Internet needs to be out of the US and any ones hands period.
 
What we really need is a complete overhaul of our copyright and patent laws. They haven't been seriously revised since the birth of the world wide web, and many of the laws don't really work anymore.

The White House is concerned that "illegal streaming of content" may not be covered by criminal law, saying "questions have arisen about whether streaming constitutes the distribution of copyrighted works." To resolve that ambiguity, it wants a new law to "clarify that infringement by streaming, or by means of other similar new technology, is a felony in appropriate circumstances."
Click to expand...

I think this is in reference to a company (I forget the name) that popped up last year. Basically, they were offering a Netflix-on-demand type of service, but without compensating the copyright holders. The company was literally inserting DVDs into their televisions, and streaming the television screen out to the web to whoever paid to watch it. They argued that this was no different than renting a DVD from a video store. The courts saw it differently and shut them down, but the legality of doing things like this is still in limbo until the Supreme Court takes it up or the copyright laws are rewritten.
 
Last edited:
Councilman said:
Free speech is a threat to Obama.

I expect that sites like this forum will come under attack from the Obama, because he spent his whole life around Communists and the twenty years in Rev. Wrights dhurch learning about Black Liberation Theology, which is Marxist.
Click to expand...

/facepalm...

Seriously? Again. Communism, Marxism and black liberation theology are not compatible.
 
Kandahar said:
What we really need is a complete overhaul of our copyright and patent laws. They haven't been seriously revised since the birth of the world wide web, and many of the laws don't really work anymore.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The problem is not the people stealing stuff, it is the copyright laws that are creating a market for such things, but limiting access to content. Not to mention that copyright laws are different from country to country and like it or not, the Internet has no borders. Take This domain name has been seized by ICE - Homeland Security Investigations it helps to stream live sports across the net. The US siezed the domain and yet the service is situated in Spain where it is LEGAL. So what the US did was shut down a fully legal service.. or at least try, since the site can easily be accessed from alternative domains. But the point is, what is there to stop the US from seizing say AL Jazerra.net or the Russian communist party domian? Nothing at the moment, as long as a judge can be convinced in the US.. that is frankly intolerable to say the least. No single country should have such much power over the internet.

And if we look at the copyright laws themselves, they are so outdated because the content providers refuse to innovate and join the web revolution. They still define rights depending on the country and region, which leads to movies and tv shows and music being released at different times if at all across the world. Of course people will steal stuff if they can because the content providers limit their access to it legally. If there was a global "Hulu" or similar service where people could buy (at a reasonable price) to view or download the newest US tv shows after they have been seen in the US.. it would be HUGELY popular. But the only places they exist is in the US, and some what in the UK (highly limited).

On top of that the content providers actually contribute to the stealing ironically enough. Most new DVD movies are released in Russia weeks if not months before they are in the US and western Europe, which of course means they are all over the net. Even sometimes before the movies come in the bloody cinema (hello A-Team the movie).
 
It really doesn't matter what Obama does, the righties will find a way to be mad about it...
 
PeteEU said:
Exactly. The problem is not the people stealing stuff, it is the copyright laws that are creating a market for such things, but limiting access to content. Not to mention that copyright laws are different from country to country and like it or not, the Internet has no borders. Take This domain name has been seized by ICE - Homeland Security Investigations it helps to stream live sports across the net. The US siezed the domain and yet the service is situated in Spain where it is LEGAL. So what the US did was shut down a fully legal service.. or at least try, since the site can easily be accessed from alternative domains. But the point is, what is there to stop the US from seizing say AL Jazerra.net or the Russian communist party domian? Nothing at the moment, as long as a judge can be convinced in the US.. that is frankly intolerable to say the least. No single country should have such much power over the internet.

And if we look at the copyright laws themselves, they are so outdated because the content providers refuse to innovate and join the web revolution. They still define rights depending on the country and region, which leads to movies and tv shows and music being released at different times if at all across the world. Of course people will steal stuff if they can because the content providers limit their access to it legally. If there was a global "Hulu" or similar service where people could buy (at a reasonable price) to view or download the newest US tv shows after they have been seen in the US.. it would be HUGELY popular. But the only places they exist is in the US, and some what in the UK (highly limited).

On top of that the content providers actually contribute to the stealing ironically enough. Most new DVD movies are released in Russia weeks if not months before they are in the US and western Europe, which of course means they are all over the net. Even sometimes before the movies come in the bloody cinema (hello A-Team the movie).
Click to expand...

That was a strangely coherent and well reasoned post. WHo are you, and what have you done with Pete?
 
Whovian said:
corrected.
Click to expand...

Funny, you seem to be the only one who has mentioned Bush.

Jamesrage doesn't even seem to disagree with the idea that this loophole should be closed. He had to resort to "WHY OBAMA NOT DO OTHER THING???" Sad. So very sad.

Do you or do you not agree that this loophole should be closed?
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
It really doesn't matter what Obama does, the righties will find a way to be mad about it...
Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter what Obama does, the Lefties will support him 110%.
 
PeteEU said:
Exactly. The problem is not the people stealing stuff, it is the copyright laws that are creating a market for such things, but limiting access to content.
Click to expand...

Bah cant edit for some reason... suppose to be by not but there..
 
Once upon a time that copyright stuff was a civil matter, iirc. How did the gov get snookered into take care of that stuff? Let Warner Bros pay for their own court costs.
 
Absolutely ridiculous for this to be a felony.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
This has nothing to do with "righties."
IP corporate welfare is loved by both parties, with almost the same enthusiasm.
Click to expand...

Too true. Around here there are even a lot of so-called libertarians who support IP with the same enthusiasm.

It is so refreshing to hear somebody else acknowledge copyrights and patents are a form of corporate welfare.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Once upon a time that copyright stuff was a civil matter, iirc. How did the gov get snookered into take care of that stuff? Let Warner Bros pay for their own court costs.
Click to expand...


When Disney lobbied to extend copyrights way back when, nobody thought it would have evolved overall to something so absurd.
 
A Federal FELONY? To download a movie, especially when you may or may not know whether the site has legal rights to offer it?

Holy crap. Bit harsh.
 
Goshin, I think its aimed more at the person who would be offering the movie than you for downloading it, but I may be incorrect.

That said, the fact you could get a federal felony for streaming a Washington Redskins game so that your friends who live in San Francisco can possibly watch it when their cable provider doesn't show the game is ridiculous. Yes, it may be cutting into the pocket books of the NFL an DirectTV by theoritically causing you not to buy the Sunday Ticket (which there's no gaurantee without the streams you'd do that anyways), but not in any fashion that a felony would be appropriate punishment.
 
jamesrage said:
We got a problem with out borders but they want to wiretap copyright violators.


White House wants new copyright law crackdown | Privacy Inc. - CNET News
The White House today proposed sweeping revisions to U.S. copyright law, including making "illegal streaming" of audio or video a federal felony and allowing FBI agents to wiretap suspected infringers.

In a 20-page white paper (PDF), the Obama administration called on the U.S. Congress to fix "deficiencies that could hinder enforcement" of intellectual property laws.
The report was prepared by Victoria Espinel, the first Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator who received Senate confirmation in December 2009, and represents a broad tightening of many forms of intellectual property law including ones that deal with counterfeit pharmaceuticals and overseas royalties for copyright holders. (See CNET's report last month previewing today's white paper.)

Some of the highlights:

• The White House is concerned that "illegal streaming of content" may not be covered by criminal law, saying "questions have arisen about whether streaming constitutes the distribution of copyrighted works." To resolve that ambiguity, it wants a new law to "clarify that infringement by streaming, or by means of other similar new technology, is a felony in appropriate circumstances."

Read more: White House wants new copyright law crackdown | Privacy Inc. - CNET News
Click to expand...

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. All this does is make it explicit that streaming copyrighted material is infringement, which it is. The only people that whine are those who don't like copyright law in the first place. This law does nothing new.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If there is nothing I hate more, it's the corporate welfare that goes to IP holders, special laws to protect their precious wares, for a lifetime.

Now they want to make it a felony for some forms of copyright violation, screw them.
Click to expand...

Caught in the middle are the artists. On one hand, people are stealing their songs without paying for them, which deprives them of their rightly due royalties. And, on the other hand, the RIAA is screwing them, and sucking their blood, like the vultures they are. Is there any way out of this dilemma for those who write the songs? Actually, there is. Nine Inch Nails started the trend, which consists of giving the middle finger to the record companies, and publishing their own content straight to the internet. What they lost in royalties, they more than made up for in their share on increased ticket sales for their concerts, due the exposure their songs gained from being offered free of charge, over the internet. Other artists are joining the bandwagon too.

So, on one hand, I believe that unauthorized downloading is theft, but on the other hand, I believe that the practices employed by the money grubbing thugs at the RIAA are going to lead to it's eventual downfall.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom