Reply With Quote
darrins gonna get the chair.
http://www.infowars.com/embedding-yo...n-be-a-felony/
Techdirt reports that Senate bill 978 – a bill to amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes – may be used to prosecute people for embedding YouTube videos.
According to Mark Masnick, if a website embeds a YouTube video that is determined to have infringed on copyright and more than 10 people view it on that website, the owner or others associated with the website could face up to five years in prison.
Read Masnick’s article here. He explains how the new law would expand copyright violations from reproducing and distributing to performing – including streaming video over the internet.
As readers of Infowars.com know, many videos are removed from YouTube after copyright owners complain about infringement. This happens with thousands of news clips every year. Most people are familiar with the now common black box replacing a video that says the video has been removed for copyright reasons.
If enacted, this law will go one step further and turn people who embed a copyrighted video into criminals. It will also set the stage to criminalize linking to copyrighted information — like corporate media news sources — and shut down the alternative media.
It will also make people think twice about putting up all kinds of videos, from news reports to clips from do entaries and other educational material.
It does not take a vivid imagination to realize the political implications of this legislation.
Here is the full text of the bill.
Addendum
It should be noted that outlawing certain activities on the internet is instrumental to the Obama administration’s copyright policy.
In March, the White House’s Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Victoria Espinel, provided Congress with a White Paper (available for download here), outlining a series of the Obama Administration’s recommended legislative changes to combat online piracy and counterfeiting.
“Significantly, the recommendations include making it a felony offense to stream infringing content and giving Federal agencies wiretapping authority to obtain evidence of criminal copyright and trademark offenses,” David Makarewicz wrote for Infowars.com on March 17.
Obama’s emerging policy on streaming media dovetails with his administration’s effort to seize web domains. The Department of Homeland Security now arrests web site operators under its “In Our Sites” program.
“On the pretext of protecting intellectual property from infringement and counterfeiters, it’s about fast-tracking Internet distribution and information technology rules to subvert Net Neutrality, privacy, and personal freedoms – global rules for unrestricted free trade, undermining universal, affordable free access, civil liberties, legitimate commerce, and the right of sovereign nations to go their own way,” writes Steve Lendman.
In addition to outlawing video streaming, new legislation “would impose a strong, top-down enforcement regime, with new cooperation requirements upon (ISPs), including perfunctionary disclosure of customer information. The proposal [the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement] also bans ‘anti-cir vention measures which may affect online anonymity systems and would likely outlaw multi-region CD/DVD players. The proposal also specifies a plan to encourage developing nations to accept the legal regime,” imposing consequences for opting out,” a Wikileaks do ent disclosed in May of 2008.
So-called “secondary copyright liability” will be used to criminalize what is now routine behavior on the internet. It will also be used by the political establishment to eliminate the internet activity – primarily in the form of alternative media – of those who oppose what is shaping up to be a totalitarian state.
darrins gonna get the chair.
Quite frankly embedding a video you know is copyrighted and not authorized for distribution by you should be a crime, just as posting it on youtube is.
They probably need a clearer definition of "distribution" to ensure linking to legally posted copyrighted articles isn't illegal. That would just be asinine.
As we heard Rand Paul wanting to imprison people who listened to subversive speeches, he probably wants to imprison people who watch illegal vids.
He's an authoritarian masquerading as a libertarian.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-03-2011 at 12:23 PM.
Infowars rocks
Sounds like a short lived bill that will probably die a quick death, as many bad ideas do.
If it passes a vote, I would be highly surprised.
I see the reasoning.
No problem with it.
lol because readers of Infowars are smart.As readers of Infowars.com know, many videos are removed from YouTube after copyright owners complain about infringement. This happens with thousands of news clips every year. Most people are familiar with the now common black box replacing a video that says the video has been removed for copyright reasons.
The chances of someone embedding a youtube video that infringes on a copyright are getting lower and lower.
Even if the bill passes, they should already think twice.It will also make people think twice about putting up all kinds of videos, from news reports to clips from do entaries and other educational material.
Every search engine is a felon then... that's how absurd this is...
Blake thinks you should be responsible for knowing what is copyrighted and what is not on youtube. Sounds resonable. Yup.
Blake doesn't know what he's talking about... not uncommon.
YouTube is basically extinct if this passes. Considering that copyright is inherently granted upon creation, anything uploaded or shared from YouTube can potentially be claimed as a copyright violation.
No I don't. Never said that. Nope.
ElNono still butthurt from the other thread... the quick dig at me here is disappointing but not totally surprising.
Doubtful.YouTube is basically extinct if this passes.
El No No does get butthurt alot. You think he would be used to getting ed so much in his ass.
You still don't understand a thing of what copyright law is, what it protects, and how it's prosecuted. I tried to take the time and explain, but unfortunately it's clearly over your head.
Nothing personal, tbh. I have better things to do. I'm sure that if the need arises, you'll be able to hire a lawyer and he'll bring you up to speed.
Obviously.
Hey jack. Nice to see you sticking to the content, as usual.
Has Obamacare been undone yet? I thought it was a matter of weeks, since you said that judge was rushing everything. It's been what, months?
Another example of being completely unaware of how the justice system works.
You're a got. LoL@barrycare. I am well aware of what barry did and how long it will take to fix, . Blake is right, you're asshole is a hurting!!Hey jack. Nice to see you sticking to the content, as usual.
Has Obamacare been undone yet? I thought it was a matter of weeks, since you said that judge was rushing everything. It's been what, months?
Another example of being completely unaware of how the justice system works.
Why are you so mad, jack?
Did your priest 'touch' you when you were a kid?
Not surprised you have to coattail Blake because you can't come up with your own stuff, though.
(Cue some more references on the response)
Clearly over the head of the politician(s) endorsing the bill as well I would suppose?
You still don't understand a thing of what copyright law is, what it protects, and how it's prosecuted. I tried to take the time and explain, but unfortunately it's clearly over your head.
Nothing personal, tbh. I have better things to do. I'm sure that if the need arises, you'll be able to hire a lawyer and he'll bring you up to speed.
Definitely nothing personal on my end.
You claiming me not knowing what I'm talking about as being something that's not uncommon seems clearly personal though.........
if you would like me to point out exactly where you were caught not knowing what you were talking about, backtracking and saying "yes, Blake you were right", please let me know. I very much enjoy rehashing such pwnage.
yes.Obviously.
The 'over your head' statement has nothing to do with this bill, which I personally consider over-reaching, but not necessarily uncons utional.
It's what you stated that you understand under copyright law that's definitely over your head.
Actually, it's the other way around. If I'm saying that's not uncommon to find people being ignorant of certain laws, I'm actually doing the exact opposite of singling you out.
Unlike you, I have no problem accepting that I was wrong or misinformed.
You know, like when I asked you to point out where in the law your claim was stated, or why actual prosecutors charge people with a given crime which happens not to be the one you were championing and you were never man enough to acknowledge you had no idea what you were talking about?
Again, it's not uncommon for the ignorant not to know they're talking out of their asses. It takes an informed person to know they're right or wrong.
But if it does occur, too bad for those people, right?
Why? What is wrong in your world with the free flow of information?
It's like you think that linked videos/articles could only have negative ramifications for a site in the form of lost revenue. If that held true, then open-source wouldn't be used nearly anywhere.
It should be, if anything, a misdemeanor, especially if said website is not used for commercial gain.
I'm sure all authorities will show great deals of restraint, as they always do in these situations.
Where does the buck stop?
- If I link to a YouTube video that has no discernible copyright notice on it, what's stopping the owner of the video from suing me at any given point later on?
- If I grab my handycam and record my nephew playing in the living room, and it just so happens that there's a TV on in the back and gets captured in my film, do I have to seek permission from the copyright owner(s) of whatever was playing on the TV before I can share that video with my family?
I understand enough to form the opinion that copyright infringement is theft.
You still have you to make a valid point why I should "stop calling it theft".
But you did single me out using my name.Actually, it's the other way around. If I'm saying that's not uncommon to find people being ignorant of certain laws, I'm actually doing the exact opposite of singling you out.
I have it in quotes.
It's on this very page.
I have no problem accepting I was wrong or misinformed.Unlike you, I have no problem accepting that I was wrong or misinformed.
In this case, I still don't believe I am.
So you are saying I'm not man enough to admit I'm ignorant and don't know that I am wrong.You know, like when I asked you to point out where in the law your claim was stated, or why actual prosecutors charge people with a given crime which happens not to be the one you were championing and you were never man enough to acknowledge you had no idea what you were talking about?
Again, it's not uncommon for the ignorant not to know they're talking out of their asses. It takes an informed person to know they're right or wrong.
If you can prove that you are embedding a youtube video in good faith that you aren't infringing on a copyright, you have nothing to worry about.
Interesting that I explained this to you in the other thread, yet you remain ignorant of it.
If it's not a full watchable broadcast of the event/movie and it's shown to be incidentally in the background, I can't see that you would need such permission, but in the end it would depend on the video.- If I grab my handycam and record my nephew playing in the living room, and it just so happens that there's a TV on in the back and gets captured in my film, do I have to seek permission from the copyright owner(s) of whatever was playing on the TV before I can share that video with my family?
I'm again surprised at your ignorance in an area that I (and you) assumed you to be an expert in.
Not really. The intended purpose of YouTube is to allow distribution of materials that the uploader has the copyright for. The terms of service clearly defines what rights you are granting to YouTube (i.e. royalty free distribution as long as it's posted) and requires you to own the copyright of the material.
As long as it's the copyright holder uploading, playing, linking, embedding, etc, are all perfectly legal under YouTube's terms of service.
This bill is attacking video's uploaded by someone other than the copyright holder. TV episodes, sporting event broadcasts, newsclips, etc, uploaded by random people.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
