# For all US Youtube users



## Broom2455 (Jun 30, 2011)

Copied and pasted from another site : http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/ten_strikes?akid=700.450896.5hVZPC&rd=1&t=1
URGENT: Congress Wants To Make Streaming A Felony

Tell Congress to oppose S. 978, the new "Ten Strikes" bill

Here they go again: The big business lobbyists who are behind the Internet Blacklist Bill are already making the sequel. THIS WEEK Senators will be voting on a "Ten Strikes" bill to make it a felony to stream copyrighted content -- like music in the background of a Youtube video -- more than ten times.

As the writers at TechDirt point out, under this bill you could go to jail for posting video of your friends singing karaoke:

The entertainment industry is freaking out about sites that embed and stream infringing content, and want law enforcement to put people in jail over it, rather than filing civil lawsuits.... We already pointed to one possibility: that people embedding YouTube videos could face five years in jail. Now, others are pointing out that it could also put kids who lip sync to popular songs, and post the resulting videos on YouTube, in jail as well.

That's right: Ten strikes and you could get jail time.  Less than two weeks ago, the Hollywood industry magazine, Variety, reported, "Industry lobbyists pressed House members on Wednesday to pass legislation that would make illegal streaming of movies, TV shows and other types of content a felony...."

Only days later, the MPAA is getting its wish. 

Here are the details of the bill :
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-978


----------



## DanishDevil (Jun 30, 2011)

Here is the actual bill's text:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-978

"Public performances" is what they're talking about. I don't think watching a movie by yourself or with family is considered a public performance, although I could be wrong. I think they are making it illegal to make money off of streaming content that's online.

People really need to read the actual bills themselves, and not somebody's interpretation of it.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jul 1, 2011)

well it could certainly be changed to affect youtube

im sure you saw that i think its tennessee made it illegal to share netflix accounts to the point the bill could be abused to prosecute family members that live in your home or friends that come over and use it etc.  It may be targeted at commercialized streaming but you know as well as anyone give them an Inch theyll take a mile lol 

in all honesty theres way to many of these bills in congress trying to black list websites or shut this down or make that illegal, i honestly feel my tax dollars are wasted because congress is spending way to much time and money on these stupid internet bills when we have far more pressing concerns then the MPAA and RIAA whom are representing corporations that are to slow to adopt changes that would improve there business.


----------



## DanishDevil (Jul 1, 2011)

And how many people have been prosecuted for sharing Netflix accounts with family members?

The judiciary branch's job is to interpret the law, and apply it when necessary. I don't think people are going to be put in jail over this if there is no true crime occurring. Some people are so paranoid and hateful about government that they overreact to everything they see and misconstrue laws to the point of insanity. Read the bills, and realize what they are intended for. I highly doubt we will ever see the effect of this bill if it passes.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jul 1, 2011)

well i just look at it this way 

when corporations get involved in are laws stupid shit happens

like the MPAA and RIAA demanding repayment to the tune of Half the Worlds GDP from 1 person lol tell me thats not asinine lol again give them an inch they take a mile,

and if these laws are so misunderstood and need interpretation etc why pass a law they cant enforce? wouldnt that make it a waste of congresses time to pass and argue over bills that will never really be enforceable by the government anyway?


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jul 1, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> and if these laws are so misunderstood and need interpretation etc why pass a law they cant enforce? wouldnt that make it a waste of congresses time to pass and argue over bills that will never really be enforceable by the government anyway?



Does congress do anything other than waste time and argue over pointless bills?


----------



## AltecV1 (Jul 1, 2011)

US government is a fking joke


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jul 1, 2011)

good point lolz we can all agree there really good at accepting bribes tho


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jul 1, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> good point lolz we can all agree there really good at accepting bribes tho



Don't forget sex scandals.


----------



## bbmarley (Jul 1, 2011)




----------



## alexsubri (Jul 1, 2011)

Well, this isn`t a suprise to me. In California they want to Tax The Internet and Amazon is already bailing out on the idea. Another one is last week they wanted to make it illegal to sell violent video games, but luckily, our First Amendment Right protect`s us from that silliness. Whoever wanted to make it illegal, needs to read the Constitution. 

Unfortunately, more and more of our freedom`s are being taken away by the very people who we elect. Too many American`s are using; government drugs (pain meds, pills), eating too much McDonald`s, and watching "Dancing With The Stars" too much to realize what is going on in OUR Country! 

We need to vote out these corrupt politicians and restore America to what it once was, before America was hijacked by global bankers in 1913.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jul 1, 2011)

we cannot restore America... at least not yet we need to perfect the ability of bringing back the dead so we can resurrect the founding fathers,  Abraham Lincoln  and Cliff Burton,


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jul 1, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> we cannot restore America... at least not yet we need to perfect the ability of bringing back the dead so we can resurrect the founding fathers,  Abraham Lincoln  and Cliff Burton,



Screw Lincoln, Cliff could handle it himself.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jul 1, 2011)

nah we need Lincoln he gets us the *insert Racial joke* vote


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jul 1, 2011)

We should get Jesus too then. The religious nuts are high in numbers.


----------



## alexsubri (Jul 1, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> we cannot restore America... at least not yet we need to perfect the ability of bringing back the dead so we can resurrect the founding fathers,  Abraham Lincoln  and Cliff Burton,



Well, the only person that comes close to our founding fathers is Ron Paul. HE IS the Thomas Jefferson that once lived.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jul 1, 2011)

i dont want imitations i want the real thing, bring back the founding fathers so they can bitch slap kids that throw tantrums,  kick corporations in the taint, and give a general FU to the ppl who are lazy slobs that cant do shit for themselves and bleed the system  lol

i can see it now George Washington  kicking every Senator square in the balls as he recounts the founding of are nation lol


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jul 1, 2011)

DanishDevil said:


> "Public performances" is what they're talking about. I don't think watching a movie by yourself or with family is considered a public performance, although I could be wrong. I think they are making it illegal to make money off of streaming content that's online.


You make a good point about the terminology used in this bill.  It could be argued that a video on youtube is available to the public and therefore any time it is watched it is a "public performance".  I'm not sure how the law defines this term though.

Here, for your convenience, is the original vs proposed version of § 2319.

Original:


Spoiler



§ 2319. Criminal infringement of a copyright
. . .
(b) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1)(A) of title 17— 
(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500; 
(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a felony and is a second or subsequent offense under subsection (a); and 
(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.​
. . .

(f) As used in this section— 
(1) the terms “phonorecord” and “copies” have, respectively, the meanings set forth in section 101 (relating to definitions) of title 17; 
(2) the terms “reproduction” and “distribution” refer to the exclusive rights of a copyright owner under clauses (1) and (3) respectively of section 106 (relating to exclusive rights in copyrighted works), as limited by sections 107 through 122, of title 17; 
(3) the term “financial gain” has the meaning given the term in section 101 of title 17; and 
(4) the term “work being prepared for commercial distribution” has the meaning given the term in section 506 (a) of title 17.​


Proposed:


Spoiler



§ 2319. Criminal infringement of a copyright
. . .
(b) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1)(A) of title 17— 
(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500; 
*(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if--
(A) the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works; and
(B)(i) the total retail value of the performances, or the total economic value of such public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner, would exceed $2,500; or
(ii) the total fair market value of licenses to offer performances of those works would exceed $5,000; and​*(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a felony and is a second or subsequent offense under subsection (a); and 
(4) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.​
. . .

(f) As used in this section— 
(1) the terms “phonorecord” and “copies” have, respectively, the meanings set forth in section 101 (relating to definitions) of title 17; 
*(2) the terms ‘reproduction’, ‘distribution’, and ‘public performance’ refer to the exclusive rights of a copyright owner under clauses (1), (3), (4), and (6), respectively of section 106 (relating to exclusive rights in copyrighted works), as limited by sections 107 through 122, of title 17;*
(3) the term “financial gain” has the meaning given the term in section 101 of title 17; and 
(4) the term “work being prepared for commercial distribution” has the meaning given the term in section 506 (a) of title 17.​


Here's the closest thing I could get to a legal definition of "public performance", which I believe youtube falls under . . .


> § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
> Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
> . . .
> (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
> . . .​


Furthermore here's the definition of Criminal Infringement for 506 (a)(1)(A) of title 17.


> Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed—for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;


I'm not certain how they quantify "commercial advantage" or "private financial gain".  Based on the evidence accepted as proof of the aforementioned, much as you alluded, the case could be quite different . . . 

It is the decision of this poster, that Broom2455's description is true and accurate to the best of human capability.  Furthermore this bill is stupid to get all fire and brimstone over, it's insane and impossible to enforce.  The judiciary committee will puteth it in thine trashe.


DanishDevil said:


> People really need to read the actual bills themselves, and not somebody's interpretation of it.


Why the hell should we have to do it?  The stupid assclowns we elected never do! :shadedshu 


alexsubri said:


> Well, the only person that comes close to our founding fathers is Ron Paul. HE IS the Thomas Jefferson that once lived.


Yes and I'm Aretha Franklin.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jul 1, 2011)

Hey it's hard not to support anything that subjects me to less crappy ass music when I'm just trying to watch an ecig review or some dude damn near kill himself or whatever.


----------



## alexsubri (Jul 1, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> i dont want imitations i want the real thing, bring back the founding fathers so they can bitch slap kids that throw tantrums,  kick corporations in the taint, and give a general FU to the ppl who are lazy slobs that cant do shit for themselves and bleed the system  lol
> 
> i can see it now George Washington  kicking every Senator square in the balls as he recounts the founding of are nation lol










streetfighter 2 said:


> You make a good point about the terminology used in this bill.  It could be argued that a video on youtube is available to the public and therefore any time it is watched it is a "public performance".  I'm not sure how the law defines this term though.
> 
> Here, for your convenience, is the original vs proposed version of § 2319.
> 
> ...



You have the right for your own opinion  However, have you actually read about Ron Paul and what he stand`s for? He`s published several NY Times Best Sellers books. [I happened to have read one of them] and he is the only person left that can save USA from complete take over by the global elite. He knows this and this is why he is a lot more popular in 2011 than 2008. First they ignored him in 1980s when he ran as an Independent, then they laugh at him in 2008, and now they fight with him in 2011. Might I add, he has delivered 4,000 miracles (babies) as a Doctor for free, or at a low cost once our "Big Brother" made us have Medicare, Insurances, etc...in the 70s. But, I suggest you actually take your time and read more about him with an open mind to see what he can do for us and not be a puppet (last none puppet was JFK --that`s a different story). Come to talk about it, he just raised about +4.4 million dollars (and still counting) in 1 week, without any big wigs contributing. Just give`s you an idea on how many people support him now.


----------



## 95Viper (Jul 1, 2011)

Dam*, must have that re-direct virus... I clicked on the link to a TPU thread and ended up in GN.

On topic, this bill is just another attempt at the corporate world and the government(and, it is not just the US gov) to control/profit from what you see/hear/do.

Wake up all you lemmings!


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 1, 2011)

Meh, it only effects actual illegal use of the content.  Since Fair Use still applies I could care less.


----------



## KainXS (Jul 2, 2011)

based on what I read if I sit on my couch and videotape myself playing crysis with a song in the background on my radio then upload it to youtube its illegal for someone to watch it 10 times right . . . . . . and thats sad.

Its too broad I don't think it will get passed.



crazyeyesreaper said:


> well i just look at it this way
> 
> when corporations get involved in are laws stupid shit happens



but this isn't new, congress looks at the corporations first then the people, always have, because they believe corporations want to help people.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 2, 2011)

> “public performances by electronic means” 10 or more times over a 180 day period, and if either the total economic value of those performances exceeds $2500 or the cost of getting the copyright holder’s permission to perform exceeds $5000, then you can potentially get fined and put in jail for 5 years.
> Copyright holders have rights to reproduce a copyrighted work, to distribute it, to modify it, and to perform or display it. This bill makes no sense since the material is already protected in a sense that it makes it illegal to show copyrighted content for profit.





> performing or displaying the protected material in a place open to the public or  in which it can be viewed by a “substantial number of persons” (not a small family or friends setting); or
> to transmit or communicate to such a place by using “any device or process,” regardless of whether the people viewing the material are in different locations and viewing it at different times, or in the same location viewing it at the same time



The bill would potentially make streaming any copyrighted material illegal, doesn't matter which context its used in everything would be illegal.

Fair use exists and copyright laws already exist so i don't understand the need for this new bill. What they want you to do is pay for or ask for permission for everything you ever use that is copyrighted.

Streaming copyrighted material like streaming a full movie is already illegal since your distributing the material, its like piracy via streaming... having your tv turned on in the background of a video would now be illegal but before it would be termed fair use. Playing the radio in a streamed video could be illegal.

EDIT: the reason congress listens to corporations is due to lobbying and the amount of money they put into lobbying activities


----------



## ctrain (Jul 4, 2011)

fair use would still apply. also games / streaming of them would probably just be covered in the terms of service, granting you permission to do whatever you want.

it's not meant to hurt that kind of stuff, just a bad side effect of being written by people who have no idea in the slightest as to how the internet works... and the fact that it's vague as fuck doesn't help either. the backlash will be of comical proportions, especially when the people who wrote it start finding trouble themselves from stupid shit like cellphone ringtones in public.


----------

