Reply With Quote
factoid of the day: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3720526.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ve-part-of-it/You probably remember the online outrage over the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) copyright enforcement proposal. Last week, the Department of Commerce’s Internet Policy Task Force released a report on digital copyright policy that endorsed one piece of the controversial proposal: making the streaming of copyrighted works a felony.
As it stands now, streaming a copyrighted work over the Internet is considered a violation of the public performance right. The violation is only punishable as a misdemeanor, rather than the felony charges that accompany the reproduction and distribution of copyrighted material.
factoid of the day: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3720526.html
As as published composer (ugh!) I have mixed feelings about this. BMI licenses my music, when applicable, for a pittance. Most small internet stations (<20,000 TLH/mo ((Total Listening Hours))would pay BMI a flat fee around $40 - $50/mo. That's chicken feed. A violation should follow the same formula. If it's falling in the sub $500, wouldn't that be a very minor offense? Hardly a felony and certainly not criminal...much like it is today.
I don't get what the driver is for upgrading to a felony.
Apparently to "harmonize" penalties with the other two rights: reproduction and distribution.
Here's the Internet Policy Task Force paper:
http://www.uspto.gov/news/publicatio...greenpaper.pdf
Yeah, I read most of that :P
Streaming is not distribution anymore than airplay. Reproduction is a hazy area tho.
*commences reading of the .gov paper*
IMO, besides the excuses, I think it has everything to do with sites that stream live events that your cable co either charges more for (pay per view) or doesn't broadcast at all. Basically, it's quite different to go after these people if the maximum penalty is a misdemeanor vs a felony. The problem is how they word the law. SOPA/PRO-IP had very chilling open-ended wording. "public performance" can be a lot of things, from playing music over the internet to your phone playing a music ringtone. That's why wording is important.
But that is not reproduction, it's distribution. The language is and always has been, pretty straight forward for distribution issues.
I'll read on this tonight tho. At first blush, I'm spectacularly unconvinced we need this.
I think "streaming" actually falls within public performance, because there's no transfer of a copy, only remote viewing of a copy that's somewhere else. I could be wrong though.
Me too.
it's gonna be hard to address the criminals though. Some websites may be based in foreign countries, where the American laws don't apply, and americans can still download free movies & music from those sites as long as they exist.
Obama protecting corporate profits as usual
It's pathetic that President Uncle Tom was able to get a second term. LOL Republican party.
Wait till Hilary gets into office. She'll put Obama to shame as far as being a total corporate disguised as a liberal.
Already does, tbh.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
