• 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

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

The government's strapped for cash - what do you expect?
 
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.

That's a bit silly don't you think? This law isn't about that, and anyways such streaming to your friends might be "fair use" anyways.

This law is about getting people who infringe hundreds or millions of times.
 
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.

No one forces artists to sign with labels. But doing so gives the artists access to millions of dollars worth of money to be used on advertising, studios, tours, etc.

Its a red-herring to bring up labels.
 
All this does is make it explicit that streaming copyrighted material is infringement, which it is.
'


Incorrect - streaming copyright ed content without PERMISSION TO DO SO [outside of using bits and pieces in accordance to fair use] is infringement - and no, this is not a petty game of semantics considering that 1. Everything you make that can be copyrighted is copyrighted from the start here in the 'states, and 2. That would not make sense on the grounds that people get permission to stream other people's content - not as common as illicit content by far, but it still does happen.

The only people that whine are those who don't like copyright law in the first place.

:bs

Baseless attacks / generalizations, eh?
 
The media industry can lobby for pretty much anything it wants. The public is ignorant and there is nobody with lobbying power to counter them. There is no way 120 year copyrights could stand up to real scrutiny, but nobody important cares. I think the best hope is that the courts will step up and throw out copyright laws on constitutional grounds.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
You would have to axe 95% of existing IP laws for failing to promote science or the arts.
 
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

Um... did you even bother to read the article?

They're talking about music, video, and software.
 
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.
Do you or do you not agree that this loophole should be closed?

I disagree with the idea of copyright infringements being a felony or even a misdemeanor and believe that this should stay a civil matter.
He had to resort to "WHY OBAMA NOT DO OTHER THING???" Sad. So very sad.

You don't think he has better **** to do than to waste his time with this kissing the asses of businesses?
 
Last edited:
Regarding streaming video for secondary party viewing.


It has generally been illegal for that too occur in one form or another. Any pay per view will generally have a warning that charging people to view the event at your home or business without authorization will be a copywrite offense
 
You don't think he has better **** to do than to waste his time with this kissing the asses of businesses?

I thought Conservatives didn't think he kissed business' asses enough. I'm getting confused by the logical circles being run here.

Perhaps if you had intellectual property, you'd feel differently. As the holder of a few copyrights for songs I've written, I rather like the idea that I should be paid for it, rather than just allowing anybody to steal it. Of course, it would be nice if somebody thought my songs worthy of stealing, but that's beside the point.

Businesses want to think that their property is being protected. If they come up with a great computer program (say a way to search the internet, or have online auctions...), they would like to think they might get financially compensated for it. It's only the whole idea of business in the first place.
 
Perhaps if you had intellectual property, you'd feel differently.

:roll:

You can "have intellectuall property" and still think this is atrocious, the extent which the business have been meddling with our laws. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[And how do you know he doesn't? Arguing against this bill, against copyright *as it is* doesn't tell you that.

As the holder of a few copyrights for songs I've written, I rather like the idea that I should be paid for it, rather than just allowing anybody to steal it.

Ah, but copyright is not a "right to profit" - it is about control. You get control over a work for a limited time to do with it as you please, then it goes to the public. In of itself, being able to profit is not what copyright is about, nor was it meant to have the amount of control over other people's technologies, and works that it does now.
Of course the fact that literal stealing doesn't factor into it is besides the point.
 
I thought Conservatives didn't think he kissed business' asses enough. I'm getting confused by the logical circles being run here.

Perhaps if you had intellectual property, you'd feel differently. As the holder of a few copyrights for songs I've written, I rather like the idea that I should be paid for it, rather than just allowing anybody to steal it. Of course, it would be nice if somebody thought my songs worthy of stealing, but that's beside the point.

Businesses want to think that their property is being protected. If they come up with a great computer program (say a way to search the internet, or have online auctions...), they would like to think they might get financially compensated for it. It's only the whole idea of business in the first place.

The problem is not the song writer, the movie maker or software maker. They should get compensated and their wares should be able to be distributed world wide.

The problem is, that the present laws are counter productive to you as a copyright "maker". Now with the Internet, you as a song writer can publish your songs online for free download or minimal payment. However if you went through one of the big music companies, chances are they not only will hike the price, but also limit access to certain markets and especially limit access online.

It gets even worse for movies and tv shows. Tv production companies could earn a nice fee for selling or renting out their tv shows on the net to people outside the US.. but they dont.. copy write laws forbid it. So people are forced to steal the content because the copy write laws prevent timely distribution.

Like it or not, we live in a world where waiting months or even years for products is seen as insane, but the movie/TV show (not so much music anymore and not software at all) live in the 20th century where things like borders and nationality actually matter. Do you really expect anyone to wait half a year before their favourite tv series comes on local TV, when they know they can watch it online? Of course not! And that is the main problem with movie and tv distribution now days.

Music has gone into a change, very very very slowly but it is STILL living in the wacko world of copy write. I use Spotify, which is free with commericals, or pay with none. I can get a ton of music, new and old streamed to my PC or smart phone all fully legal. With such a service my "stealing of music" has gone from a bit to zero. But the industry STILL lives in the past, because Spotify cant get access to the US as of yet, despite being popular in Europe, because... you guessed it.. the music companies not wanting to give permission in the US (but the same companies have no problem in Europe!?). Also there are still restrictions on certain songs.. which I can access in Spain but can in UK and visa versa.. but thankfully the popular stuff is not that stupid.

My point is.. we live in a very connected world where the old time borders and language barriers have all but disappeared, but big business still live in the past and have for the last 20+ years refused to change and only done it kicking and screaming.
 
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.


May or may not know that a site called Pirate Bay is doing something illegal...

May or may not know that a file called DVD screener is illegal...

May or may not know that Adobe software files are illegal when they come with 'cracks'...

May or may not know... that's rich.:2funny:
 
Last edited:
May or may not know that a file called DVD screener is illegal...

IMO debatable, since the law on that, and court rulings on things of that nature seem to flip flop all the time.
 
May or may not know that a site called Pirate Bay is doing something illegal...

May or may not know that a file called DVD screener is illegal...

May or may not know that Adobe software files are illegal when they come with 'cracks'...

May or may not know... that's rich.:2funny:

Depends on the country.. Spain, Brazil and many others, it is not illegal to download copywrited material.. it is illegal to sell it. Also one of the sites that the Feds "shut" down was as I have stated... situated in Spain and fully legal here. If the feds have a problem with it, then block it in the US, but quit forcing US laws on other nations.
 
Let's be real. This is about the White House.

The Obama White House doing something. Doing anything.

They far-rights will just find fault in anything he does.

Look at the first posts in the thread -- they didn't even understand that this is about copyright law be enforced with changes in communications and information technology.
 
Let's be real. This is about the White House.

The Obama White House doing something. Doing anything.

They far-rights will just find fault in anything he does.

Look at the first posts in the thread -- they didn't even understand that this is about copyright law be enforced with changes in communications and information technology.

This is really a non or bi partisan issue, copyright law has been unjustly extended to cater to corporate interests.
Both parties have done this extensively, not just Democrats or Obama.

I mean hell, Pete and I completely agree on it, that's gotta say something.
 
Depends on the country.. Spain, Brazil and many others, it is not illegal to download copywrited material.. it is illegal to sell it. Also one of the sites that the Feds "shut" down was as I have stated... situated in Spain and fully legal here. If the feds have a problem with it, then block it in the US, but quit forcing US laws on other nations.

The pirates have gotten creative in slipping around the law. Bit Torrents are mostly unenforceable.

The Feds and MPAA are just getting creative in making pirating harder. They'll never stop it. But they can make it more difficult. It's similar to drug trafficking.
 
Let's be real. This is about the White House.

The Obama White House doing something. Doing anything.

They far-rights will just find fault in anything he does.

Shifting the goalposts much?
 
This is really a non or bi partisan issue, copyright law has been unjustly extended to cater to corporate interests.


That's like saying shoplifting and petty theft laws cater to retail stores interest.

Corporations own the copyright.

Both parties have done this extensively, not just Democrats or Obama.

Enable law enforcement to better enforce the law.

I mean hell, Pete and I completely agree on it, that's gotta say something.

Pirating doesn't have a negative effect on your livelihood?
 
People who don't want to pay for the work of others complaining about it? Say it isn't so!
 
That's like saying shoplifting and petty theft laws cater to retail stores interest.

Corporations own the copyright.

If IP were a physical product you'd be right but I really really don't feel like getting into semantics at the moment.

The facts are that IP length of ownership has been increasing to perposturous levels in the last 100 years.

Dead people shouldn't be able to own stuff and neither should corporations be able to retain monopolies for 90 years or more, by legal fiat no less.

Enable law enforcement to better enforce the law.

It doesn't have to be this way.

Pirating doesn't have a negative effect on your livelihood?

That has nothing to do with what Pete and I agree on.
 
That's not true either.
Nice sweeping generalization.

Ah so you only want to pay for certain products? Well that's nice. You're only advocating the thievery of items you like. That makes all the difference.
 
Ah so you only want to pay for certain products? Well that's nice. You're only advocating the thievery of items you like. That makes all the difference.

If I made my arguments by inserting whatever words I wanted, into my opponents mouth, I'd be a super success like you. :doh
 
If I made my arguments by inserting whatever words I wanted, into my opponents mouth, I'd be a super success like you. :doh

Your inability to simply run around and not present any real arguments is all I need. You and other attackers of copyright laws are nothing more than defenders of what in any other context would be considered thievery. Nothing more than little whiny simpletons who don't produce anything but want to get the work of others for free.
 
Back
Top Bottom