Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Steve Weldon on March 16, 2011, 09:17:47 am
-
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.
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."
Link.. (http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20043421-281.html)
-
allowing FBI agents to wiretap suspected infringers.
Sounds like another excuse to spy on people. First think of a crime that most people won't really understand then tack on a measure to combat it which allows even greater surveillance making sure that that there is sufficient leeway in the wording to allow lots'n'lots of loverly function creep.
Or am I just being cynical here?
-
allowing FBI agents to wiretap suspected infringers.
Sounds like another excuse to spy on people. First think of a crime that most people won't really understand then tack on a measure to combat it which allows even greater surveillance making sure that that there is sufficient leeway in the wording to allow lots'n'lots of loverly function creep.
Or am I just being cynical here?
I don't think you're being cynical at all.
The way this reads to me.. they'll be able to find an excuse to wiretap anyone they want..
At least under the Bush admin you had to be suspected of real crimes related to terrorism, have a judge sign off, etc.. and then you were wiretapped.. and then only a handful.
Now you can get wiretapped for downloading a file they claim is copyrighted.. which means anyone with an internet connection. Before we were complaining our library list might be read.. now they can look in your computer and get your laundry list too..
YES WE CAN.. change.. sure is..
-
Is the fact that the American defence industry/forces are now squealing like kiddies for more sweeties in their fight against the 'cyber threat' any coincidence? A threat that many would argue is grossly exaggerated. However they dress up the deployment of extra resources in the future it is still a bid to gain more control over the internet, anybody would think that they are terrified of the rest of the world's population actually having some freedom to communicate without official or semi official filtering via traditional media outlets.
"The US military lacks the people and resources to defend the country adequately from concerted cyber attacks, the head of the Pentagon's cyber command has warned." AKA Wikileaks.
BBC, Cyber wars. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12768617)
-
Ah the dilemma of freedom v. security.
Rob C
-
Security against what exactly? It is what might be termed the Orwell Scenario where various states pretend to be at war with one another the better to subjugate their populations. If there are no convenient other states to fight or be prepared to fight against (The USSR was really handy to the control freaks) then let's invent the curse of terrorism for obligingly enough it's a war that can never be won.
-
allowing FBI agents to wiretap suspected infringers.
Sounds like another excuse to spy on people. First think of a crime that most people won't really understand then tack on a measure to combat it which allows even greater surveillance making sure that that there is sufficient leeway in the wording to allow lots'n'lots of loverly function creep.
Or am I just being cynical here?
Just cynical. Everyone needs to read the White House’s white paper before idly commenting on it.
The proposal is directed at “piracy and counterfeiting” in the online environment.
If you are not pirating or counterfeiting another’s property, the proposal is not directed at you.
It is proposed to clarify that copyright infringement [taking someone else’s copyrighted property] and streaming it, is a crime. It’s not clear that streaming it would be covered under current law.
If you are not streaming someone else’s copyrighted property, the proposal is not directed at you.
It is proposed to give law enforcement authority to seek a wiretap for criminal copyright and trademark offenses.
If you are not pirating, counterfeiting, or otherwise stealing another’s copyrighted property and distributing it to others online, the proposal is not directed at you.
Mike
-
And now for another healthy dose of cynicism.
The 'nothing to hide you've nothing to fear' argument is as old as the hills and just as worn and as certain as the hills being rained upon is the phenomena of function creep in legislation. I have a fifty Euro/doller/pound note here that says within five years of such legislation being enacted there will be complaints of it being used outside of it's original intention.
-
And now for another healthy dose of cynicism.
The 'nothing to hide you've nothing to fear' argument is as old as the hills and just as worn and as certain as the hills being rained upon is the phenomena of function creep in legislation. I have a fifty Euro/doller/pound note here that says within five years of such legislation being enacted there will be complaints of it being used outside of it's original intention.
It’s a proposal for a law that would protect a copyrightholder’s interest in his/her property if it happens to be transmitted online. Right now it’s clear that if someone takes your work, copies and sells it, it’s against the law.
The proposal addresses the case of your work being transmitted over the internet. Not as clear, especially if there’s no charge to the viewer. Maybe the sender makes money just from advertizing.
Are you as paranoid about the laws that guarantee your property interest in the tangible items you own?
And I didn’t say nothing to hide nothing to fear. I said what I wrote. If you’re going to say you weren’t talking to me, then please find the courage in the future to identify who and what you’re responding to.
-
under fair rights usage -
"No less than 78 percent of political contributions from Hollywood went to Democrats in 2008, which is broadly consistent with the trend for the last two decades, according to OpenSecrets.org.
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20043421-281.html#ixzz1HI2kPv1V
"
Well, at least we know who they are working for.
Frank Worley
-
So just to be sure I am getting this right. This is a photography forum where the posters are arguing against enforcement of the copyright laws? Do any of you make your living in photography? Last time I looked copyright infringement is theft.
I know many photographers who don't hesitate to illegally download movies and tv shows from the internet but scream bloody murder if someone uses one of their images without permission. I have always found this a bit hypocritical.
Just my two cents. Without strictly enforced copyright laws, my livelyhood and my passion would be severely compromised.
-
under fair rights usage -
"No less than 78 percent of political contributions from Hollywood went to Democrats in 2008, which is broadly consistent with the trend for the last two decades, according to OpenSecrets.org.
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20043421-281.html#ixzz1HI2kPv1V
"
Well, at least we know who they are working for.
Frank Worley
“under fair rights usage”? What are you saying? That streaming an entire video would be “fair use”? "Fair use" is the correct term, btw.
Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. It allows limited use of copyrighted material. Examples of fair use include using or citing a segment of the work in commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, and teaching.
“Well, at least we know who they are working for.”
You get this from the fact that 78% of Hollywood’s contributions go to Democrats? How much is that? How does it stack up against the contributions from all other sources?
I don’t understand your opposition to a proposal to protect the creator of a work from seeing that work taken and shown on the Internet for free. Are you prepared to give up the laws that protect your rights in your property, and allow your property to be taken from you and used or sold with impunity?
Ironic that we share the same last name. It’s not a common name here in Arizona, but it is in parts of the country where people go to family reunions to meet women.
-
It’s a proposal for a law that would protect a copyrightholder’s interest in his/her property if it happens to be transmitted online. Right now it’s clear that if someone takes your work, copies and sells it, it’s against the law.
The proposal addresses the case of your work being transmitted over the internet. Not as clear, especially if there’s no charge to the viewer. Maybe the sender makes money just from advertizing.
Are you as paranoid about the laws that guarantee your property interest in the tangible items you own?
And I didn’t say nothing to hide nothing to fear. I said what I wrote. If you’re going to say you weren’t talking to me, then please find the courage in the future to identify who and what you’re responding to.
Well I thought it's pretty obvious that I was referring to your post but there you go, at least you found an excuse to accuse me of something unsavoury so I am happy for you.
Now, back to the matter in hand. This from the article originally linked to -
• Under federal law, wiretaps may only be conducted in investigations of serious crimes, a list that was expanded by the 2001 Patriot Act to include offenses such as material support of terrorism and use of weapons of mass destruction. The administration is proposing to add copyright and trademark infringement, arguing that move "would assist U.S. law enforcement agencies to effectively investigate those offenses."
See how wiretapping was originally intended to fight serious crime, then along came terrorism (of course) and weapons of mass destruction (is anybody still bothering to look for those BTW?) now we have copyright and trademark infringement. What next? Why not just give the authorities open access to all data and messages passed over the net and be done with it? Naturally other countries might complain seeing as a fair bit of global data transfer will pass through the US en route to somewhere else but ain't that just the joy of it as far as the cloak and dagger boys are concerned.
From reading the article I fail to see how this is going to help stills photographers, streaming is all about passing on dynamic files, not jpegs etc and I see no mention of these in the article whatsoever. What I do see though is a lot of lashing out at those darn foreigners who are out to rob the poor old US of A of their very last honest dollar.
What is becoming clear from this and another recent thread is that a fundamental rethink and appraisal of copyright law and the use of the net as a distribution medium is required. Personally I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that anything I put on the web is going to be regarded by many as public property and I therefore use it thoughtfully. If we refer back to the point about tangible items then should I leave my furniture out in the street and it gets stolen would I be better advised to press for tougher laws or simply lock it up?
-
Ah...the freest nation on earth!
-
Well I thought it's pretty obvious that I was referring to your post but there you go, at least you found an excuse to accuse me of something unsavoury so I am happy for you.
Now, back to the matter in hand. This from the article originally linked to -
• Under federal law, wiretaps may only be conducted in investigations of serious crimes, a list that was expanded by the 2001 Patriot Act to include offenses such as material support of terrorism and use of weapons of mass destruction. The administration is proposing to add copyright and trademark infringement, arguing that move "would assist U.S. law enforcement agencies to effectively investigate those offenses."
You quote the “serious crime” language from the article.
If someone steals my car, that’s a felony. If the police have sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that a certain person was involved, search warrants and wiretaps may be in order.
By the same token, if it should be discovered that there is a conspiracy to steal my car, search warrants and wiretaps may be in order if evidence establishes probable cause that certain persons are conspiring to commit this crime.
A felony is a “serious crime.” But, in the scheme of things, the theft of my car is not a very weighty matter. Unless I was an important person, which I’m not.
My car is worth maybe $14,000. But what is the SuperBowl worth? If someone captured that and streamed it for free, or a modest charge, how much would have been stolen from the holders of the copyright for that event? Quite a bit. Maybe more than $14,000.
The web is ablaze with stories of “32-year-old Texan Bryan McCarthy,” who was arrested for criminal copyright infringement for his alleged operations at ChannelSurfing.net. McCarthy was charged with criminal copyright infringement for “reproduction and distribution” of copyrighted material. He was convicted it seems.
The rhetorical question is repeated in the reports of McCarthy’s plight that if he “streamed” and that’s a criminal offense already, why is a change in the law required?
Because courts don’t write statutes, they just interpret them. What a Texas court finds to be a one crime, a New Hampshire court may see as a different one. Unguided by a statute that plainly defines the activity, courts can come to widely different conclusions based on the widely different arguments and evidence presented to them.
As you said, “a fundamental rethink and appraisal of copyright law and the use of the net as a distribution medium is required.” You’re right. And that’s what Obama’s proposal seeks to do.
But is also seeks legislative action on economic espionage and drug offenses, particularly counterfeit drugs that violate a manufacturer’s patent rights.
The proposal will be discussed and debated and massaged and worked over and beat up in Congress and hearings will be held. Or it may not be considered at all. It’s not a presidential edict, after all.
-
Ah...the freest nation on earth!
Wow! Is this the kind of insightful comment you're allowed to make if you're a "full member"? It really illuminates the discussion. Yes it does.
-
Wow! Is this the kind of insightful comment you're allowed to make if you're a "full member"? It really illuminates the discussion. Yes it does.
oh boy....them's fighten words!
No really, i mean in in every way with a huge hint of sarcasm, yet no smile on my face. The hypocracy and continued paradoxical laws that the good oll USA makes, yet continues to preach to world how they have it best.
You know, you've managed to pick a fight with more than me hey - is that a newby thingo.
"If you are not pirating, counterfeiting, or otherwise stealing another’s copyrighted property and distributing it to others online, the proposal is not directed at you" said the neocons when the patriot act was devised.
-
and yet, the biggest "Corporation' that was 'made in free America' continues to fight for legal action, and today lost, to infringe on millions of copyright owners.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/23/google-online-library-plans-thwarted
Maybe if the US govt stopped worrying about the individual so much and focused on there lapdogs, corporate interests?
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703460404575244763621501220.html
ring a bell....
-
You quote the “serious crime” language from the article.
If someone steals my car, that’s a felony. If the police have sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that a certain person was involved, search warrants and wiretaps may be in order.
By the same token, if it should be discovered that there is a conspiracy to steal my car, search warrants and wiretaps may be in order if evidence establishes probable cause that certain persons are conspiring to commit this crime.
A felony is a “serious crime.” But, in the scheme of things, the theft of my car is not a very weighty matter. Unless I was an important person, which I’m not.
My car is worth maybe $14,000. But what is the SuperBowl worth? If someone captured that and streamed it for free, or a modest charge, how much would have been stolen from the holders of the copyright for that event? Quite a bit. Maybe more than $14,000.
The web is ablaze with stories of “32-year-old Texan Bryan McCarthy,” who was arrested for criminal copyright infringement for his alleged operations at ChannelSurfing.net. McCarthy was charged with criminal copyright infringement for “reproduction and distribution” of copyrighted material. He was convicted it seems.
The rhetorical question is repeated in the reports of McCarthy’s plight that if he “streamed” and that’s a criminal offense already, why is a change in the law required?
Because courts don’t write statutes, they just interpret them. What a Texas court finds to be a one crime, a New Hampshire court may see as a different one. Unguided by a statute that plainly defines the activity, courts can come to widely different conclusions based on the widely different arguments and evidence presented to them.
As you said, “a fundamental rethink and appraisal of copyright law and the use of the net as a distribution medium is required.” You’re right. And that’s what Obama’s proposal seeks to do.
But is also seeks legislative action on economic espionage and drug offenses, particularly counterfeit drugs that violate a manufacturer’s patent rights.
The proposal will be discussed and debated and massaged and worked over and beat up in Congress and hearings will be held. Or it may not be considered at all. It’s not a presidential edict, after all.
Lots of chit chat about the price of everything but nothing about the value of having the government (any government) not being licensed to poke its nose it to yet more of your business. As a photographer I think a small amount of piracy is not only unavoidable but even acceptable if it means one less excuse for wire tapping of the internet, we all have to live within society as well as take pictures after all. If the big studios and media are all in tears about having their content knicked then it behoves them to make it more secure rather than go blubbering to the government for yet more and ultimately ineffectual legislation. Their customers can then opt to pay any extra to get the real thing rather than have yet more state snooping imposed upon the rest of the population.
The rethinking of what copyright means and the use of the web as a marketing tool to small traders (and even larger multi media companies) as most photographers are has nothing to do with government but everything to do with stepping back from the whole internet edifice and having a good look at where it is now and where it is going. I'm beginning to think that too much of the on line activity indulged in by photographers and other small businesses is a knee jerk reaction to the latest internet fads rather than a balanced and considered use of the resource, but that's a subject for another thread.
-
I think there are two basic questions we should ask ourselves in the evaluation of this proposed law:
1. Should piracy of copyrighted materials be a criminal or civil offense. Or both. It is not necessary for something to be criminal to have caused damages and to sue/collect for those damages. I'm sure we can all think of 1000's of examples, many more serious than copyright infringement.
2. AND if we do say it should be criminal, at what point/level is someone breaking the law? I guarantee that if you surfed the web today, that you have downloaded (via browsing) unauthorized copyrighted material. I guarantee you there are many instances of unauthorized copyrighted material on YouTube. Watching this material is effectively downloading/streaming copyrighted material. If it should be criminal, how big are you willing to build our jails and how many taxes are you willing to pay to jail these "criminals?"
I personally have no issue with a copyright holder being able to sue for infringement and collect damages. What I take issue with is the proposed methods and lengths allowed law enforcement personnel in their quest to find infringer's. And I take issue with it being a criminal offense if the material is for personal use. I would support it being a criminal offense if the material was being stolen for commercial gain.
Wiretapping of our internet use should be a giant red flag to anyone concerned with the expectation of privacy. This is why wiretapping authorizations have historically been such a high bar to justify.
-
No, i am not saying that. Sorry, i reversed the order of two words. i was excerpting a portion of the article, as allowed.
When laws are written in this country, i have found it useful to "follow the money" to understand some of the potential implications of the legislation.
"but it is in parts of the country where people go to family reunions to meet women."
Sorry, i don't know the reference.
Frank Worley