Senate Committee OK's Streaming Piracy Bill
Senate Committee OK's Streaming Piracy Bill
Posted 06/17/2011 at 10:13am
| by Brad Chacos
23
Comments
Print
In "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," an irate mob lynched the creator of the Infinite Probability Drive because the one thing they couldn't stand was a smartass. With the "Commercial Felony Streaming Act," the US government is doing its best impersonation of that angry mob. Nobody's going to be lynched on Capitol Hill, but the bill aims to punish smartass pirates who have been using a loophole in existing laws to stream copyright-protected works with minimal fear of prosecution.
The laws on the books currently make it a felony to upload or download copyrighted content, but the issue of streaming is never addressed head on. The proposed legislation, introduced by Senators Amy Klobuchar, John Cornyn and Christopher Coons, wants to make illegal streaming a felony as well. The bill only targets people who stream copyrighted content for commercial purposes; the Man comes a-knockin' if violators stream copyrighted materials more than 10 times in a 180-day stretch. In addition, the retail value of the stream must exceed $2,500 or the licensing costs of the streamed material needs to be more than $5,000.
The punishment? Up to five years in the slam. The Senate Judiciary Committee voted to approve the bill yesterday. Next stop, a full Senate vote. All signs point to the bill passing, so if you're in the streaming piracy business, consider checking out the "Help Wanted" section of the classified ads soon.
More like this
23
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
schneider1492
June 20, 2011 at 3:35am
i doubt anybody watching the streaming content would ever be charged under this law, as you would have to prove the person watching knew the site they watched it on did not have a license.
Chilly8
June 20, 2011 at 9:27pm
It only applies to those who transmit streams, and only those who are making a profit on it.
Chilly8
June 20, 2011 at 9:54pm
Also, if they started prosecuting people who merely watched streaming videos, there would be no room in the jails and prisons for anybody else.
The next time a major PPV fight is being broadcast by someone on Justin or Ustream, check out how many viewers there are? Do you really think the government is going to go after 123,000 viewers. Prison overcrowding is bad enough as it is now. During the Pacquioao-De La Hoya fight a few years ago, some Justin and Ustream channels streaming the fight had as many as 123,000 viewers
jherrlich
June 18, 2011 at 9:23am
I don't have a problem with the law as such, but who's going to be prosecuting this law? It's probably not going to be the FBI chasing you down. It'll be the record and movie studios, then it should fall under civil penalties and not criminal.
Silencer
June 18, 2011 at 6:34am
I knew they'd knock that sht down soon. Now they are. (Just in the U.S., of course.) Never got into the pirated movie streaming myself, because of the crap-tacular quality. I'm sure it'll return in the future, when IP masking technologies are more widely used.
(Edit: Hitchhiker's series of books absolutey rocked. I own them, ought to re-read them. Awesome.)
Earth's Hitchhiker's Guide 'Entry':
"Mostly harmless."
LOL! Two words! Hilarious! (Mostly Harmless, is also the title of one of the Hitchhiker's books.)
The answer to life, the universe, and everything?:
"42"
LOL! :O) (Hope I didn't mis-quote that horribly!)
If that 2nd one is a spoiler, let me know and I'll remove it... It's been a long-ass time since I read it.
Chilly8
June 21, 2011 at 8:56am
With IP maskiing, VPNS are the only thing that will work. This is becuase of the way that Flash media works. With a normal HTTP proxy, the http to access the web site goes through the proxy, but the RTMP for the stream does not. RTMP cannot traverse an HTTP proxy. So a subscription VPN service is the only foolproof way.
Silencer
June 21, 2011 at 2:26pm
Thanks for the lesson, I needed it!
I guess that I'm just imagining, that with all of the B.S. that's been accumulating, that we're all (most of us) going to be 'VPN'ing (or new similar techs,) pretty soon.
Check this out, especially the list, in the 2'nd half of this book, (and pass it on...) Google:
Everyone's Guide to By-Passing Internet Censorship
:O)
Chilly8
June 21, 2011 at 5:59pm
I found out about the RTMP problem a few years ago, when attempting to bypass Eurivision's geo blocking on their Olympics coverage. I found out that the RTMP was not going through the HTTP proxy, and that I had to use something stronger, like a VPN
Now if you are going to transmit streams on a proxy, I have tested various services, and you don't want to use Veetle, TVants, or StreamTorrent. This is becuase if the VPN goes down, you will begin transmitting your own IP then you are busted
Tests with Sopcast determine that it does not have this problem. If your VPN goes down, the Sopcast stream will go down and stay down, so you don't expose your IP and get into trouble. If you are going to stream live after this law passes, using Sopcast behind a VPN will be the safest way to do it.
Holly Golightly
June 17, 2011 at 10:10pm
If the people want to stream movies... Then let them!!! Government, you should be representing your PEOPLE, but instead, they go for the money and represent the money these executives give to them. First off, 5 years is a little too extreme, secondly, $2,500 to $5,000... What happens if I stream over $5,001? Lastly, 5 years imprisonment? Come on guys, this is just TV people are watching over the internet. It is like people lack common sense these days. What kind of graduates is Harvard bringing to the senate? Anyhow, the politicians shoudl defend the people's interests in streaming content. Film makers will keep filming... Even if it is free. It really is all about fame, the money is only second. I will continue to stream whenever I simply feel like. The people should fear not their government posting unforceable laws like this... It will cost them more to enforce it then to bring back that money to studios. The internet is the new TV... Get used to it!
schneider1492
June 20, 2011 at 3:09am
you miss understood, its not 2500 to 5000. those are separate things.
j814wong
June 18, 2011 at 8:53am
But this isn't fair to the content and rights owners. If an artists created a song and doesn't want it pirate, the government should protect the content of that artist. After all, it is HIS/HER content and so the artist is the one who chooses what to do with it. Pirating something an artist doesn't want pirated is going against their persoanl right of choosing what to do with content they own and havae rights to. People like a artist but they don't respect the artist's reasonable desire of not having their content pirated.
As I've said other times, respect and courtesy is a thing that is fading in modern society.
Even if the majority want to be able to pirate something, they still have to respect the owner or rights and content. If people want to listen to music, go on Pandora, Youtube, Last.fm or buy music.
If a artist, right and content owner doesn't have a stance on piracy, people can pirate but if they say they DON'T want their stuff pirated, it is only proper to respect their wishes and what they do with THEIR own content.
Asides from that, if people can merely pirate and stream stuff illegaly, they feel little motivation to work for it. This encourages laziness and other bad things. I'm in highschool so if I want something, I work for it. I won't expect something to be easily gotten without any effort. Even if there are sites like The Pirate Bay, I still would work for money to buy what I want. This improves my own sense of work ethic and promotes the idea of working for a reward.
On the basis of morals and ethics and such, piracy is wrong (Not because it is taking away theoretical sales)
Holly Golightly
June 18, 2011 at 11:37am
It really is not easy as you say it is. There is a load of technical terms that don't really don't give the artist the freedom you think there is.
Stores keep about 10% to 15% of the profits. Recording industry executives keep about 75% to 80%. That percentage has to then be broken down to pay for marketing, supplies, packaging, and shipping of course. All of this adds up. Often the artist has no choice but to accept only 5% to 25%. The less famous, the smaller the number obviously. So remember that when you buy an album, or song... Remember that less than 25% of your money goes to the artist, and the rest is for big fat lazy executives who live off of that money the artist worked so hard for. This sort of makes indy music the most morally correct, in terms of structure.
As for YouTube... Not all music videos posted on there are 100% legal. Sometimes it is just a fan who posts a video of their favorite artists, while the record label has not sort out an agreement to post on YouTube or whatever. Some are more nicer than others. Most of the time the artist has no right to choose whether they want their stuff pirated or not. Of course they want to get paid for their work... But their passion is music, and fame is their goal... Both of which are achieved, and thus explains why they accept such small percentages from their record labels.
You are right about respect diminishing in this modern society, but we all have noticed that greed is also in record highs. There needs to be a middle ground... And it is not being met. Maybe if they lower the prices, or change subjects... Perhaps things will change, but right now, this just seems impossible. None the less, we can see an inverse relationship for sure.
schneider1492
June 20, 2011 at 3:22am
most artists are un-recouped. that means they actually get 0% until they meet a quota for record sales. the quota is usually some ridiculous amount that never happens. that leaves most artists with a set amount upon completion of an album, and they live off that till they make a new album.
if you don't believe me look it up!
Silencer
June 18, 2011 at 6:48am
"Government, you should be representing your PEOPLE, but instead, they go for the money and represent the money these executives give to them."...
Agreed. (BTW, you changed noun-verb agreement, or something, there. It threw me off for a sec.) But, agreed.
"First off, 5 years is a little too extreme,"...
Agreed.
"secondly, $2,500 to $5,000... What happens if I stream over $5,001?"...
Agreed.
"Come on guys, this is just TV people are watching over the internet."...
Agreed. Except, (just being honest,) movies too though. But, agreed.
"It is like people lack common sense these days."...
Agreed. (Honestly, I still think I'd put YOU in that category.) But agreed.
"What kind of graduates is Harvard bringing to the senate?"...
Agreed.
I can't read the rest of your post, or I'll have a stroke. (I'm almost serious here.)
I've disagreed with the vast majority of your other posted opinions that I've read. Which is why I responded to this one. L8r! :O)
allanon6666
June 17, 2011 at 3:12pm
So does the bill target only the people hosting the material or both them and the people watching the streams? Because I haven't been able to find a clear answer. Also, how is this going to affect people uploading music to youtube? I know that if it wasn't for people posting music on youtube, there would be bands that I love that I (most likely) never would have found.
Ghok
June 17, 2011 at 2:13pm
I don't really have a problem prosecuting someone who's hosting pirated movies for profit, the punishment seems a bit harsh though.
"The laws on the books currently make it a felony to upload or download copyrighted content"
How specific are they about this? If I go to Disney.com and download a picture of Donald Duck, am I commiting a felony?
tony2tonez
June 17, 2011 at 12:10pm
"So whare are you in for?"
- "1st Degree Murder"
"You?"
- "Content Streaming"
j814wong
June 17, 2011 at 2:52pm
Yes it may be a big difference but I hate pirates because they have no respect. No respect for those who own content and the rights. If a song belongs to a artist or company who doesn't want it pirated, so be it if, it is THEIR property so they choose how to sell it and what to do. If a artists says they don't mind piracy, then people can pirate all they want. But if they don't want it, pirates have no right to do so and should be punished for lacking respect and violating the rules.
Brad Chacos
June 17, 2011 at 12:53pm
Procreation, actually. But since that's a whole 'nother story with a completely different set of Senators, I'll change it to prosecution.
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
The gang discusses the GTX 690, Trinity, Ivy Bridge, Amazon, big-box stores, MMOs,...
This month's issue
Feature
Build a PC On Any Budget
Feature
Cloud Services Showdown
How-To
Encrypt Your External Drive
Build It
Upgrade an X58 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: Original RickRoll Video Returns to YouTube After 24-Hour Copyright Hiatus http://t.co/MaH9Sxyy1 day 23 hours ago
- maximumpc: Corsair has decided not to go forward with its $78 million IPO, citing weak equity market conditions http://t.co/A5a4DAzj1 day 23 hours ago
- maximumpc: Want to work at Maximum PC? Our Online Managing Editor, Alex, is moving away, so we need a new one. http://t.co/9Z7JCh0E3 days 21 hours ago
