felony streaming – Techdirt (original) (raw)

from the this-just-seems-blatantly-corrupt dept

Late last year, we wrote about how bizarre it was that Senator Thom Tillis was trying to force through a felony streaming bill by attaching it to an end-of-the-year appropriations bill. There were so so many problems with this both in terms of what the bill would do, and in the procedural way it was done. First, Tillis got it attached to the “must pass” appropriations bill before he’d even introduced it. That meant that there was no debate and no direct votes on his bill.

You can kinda maybe (but not really?) see where that might make sense for uncontroversial bills, but the felony streaming bill… was not that. Long time readers of Techdirt will know that Hollywood has been pushing for a felony streaming bill for over a decade, and it was originally set to be attached to the infamous SOPA/PIPA bill until the internet rose up and made it clear that it would not accept Congress passing such a dangerous bill. Given that, you’d think that any one who had an honest reason for pushing such a bill would open it up to debate, rather than hide it away in a giant bill. That should give you one giant hint as to why Tillis pushed it the way that he did.

Second, there have been multiple reports about just how much Hollywood has invested in Senator Tillis. And we’ve heard from multiple people now that Tillis bristles at the idea that he’s somehow owned and operated by Hollywood lobbyists. Of course, it would help if he didn’t repeat their talking points at every turn, and turn around and introduce massive copyright reform that was basically an early Christmas gift for Hollywood.

But if Tillis wants to claim that he’s not just doing Hollywood’s billing, you’d think he would not have allowed this to happen. His chief staffer working on these copyright bills, Brad Watts, teamed up with Fox’s chief DC lobbyist, Gail Slater, to write an article patting each other on the back for getting the felony streaming bill passed.

I’ve spoken to multiple DC policy folks both inside and outside of Congress and literally none can think of any other example when a Congressional staffer and a top corporate lobbyist teamed up to write an op-ed together. It’s literally unprecedented. More than one person I spoke to expressed complete bewilderment that this op-ed even came to be. “How did no one in Tillis’ office not realize that this was a bad idea?” was the quote a staffer in another Senate office told me. “It’s shocking.”

But even worse than this out-and-out admission that Tillis does what Hollywood asks him to do, is the content of this article, which is not just revisionist history, but actually celebrates the sneaky way in which Watts (and apparently Slater!) helped sneak this bill through.

Some public policy issues are solutions in search of a problem, but unlawful streaming of copyrighted content is emphatically not one of those issues. U.S. Senators Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Patrick Leahy?s (D-Vt.) Protecting Lawful Streaming Act of 2020 (PLSA) became law in December 2020 as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. The importance of this law cannot be overstated. Not only did the PLSA modernize criminal copyright law in a long-overdue and positive direction, but it may also signal a new model for legislating digital copyright law going forward.

First of all, I call bullshit that this was “long overdue,” or that “the importance cannot be overstated.” The article notes, rightly, that legal streaming has become more common, but takes it on faith that “illegal streaming” somehow “costs the U.S. economy nearly $30 billion per year.” Their support for that is… a link to a CNN article quoting Tillis. So, Tillis’s staffer, who is in charge of all of his copyright efforts, is quoting his boss giving a citation that this same staffer almost certainly told his boss to say in the first place. Nifty.

The COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated the harm from unlawful streaming as worldwide lockdowns led to a surge in online streaming. Not surprisingly, this surge in streaming included an aggressive uptick in unlawful streaming. According to analytics firm Muso, the unlawful streaming of films alone increased by 33 percent globally during lockdowns. The rise was even higher in the United States at an eye-popping 41 percent increase in unlawful streaming during lockdowns.

I mean, I don’t want to make too many assumptions here, but maybe (just maybe) the reason for the uptick in illegal streaming was because millions of people lost their jobs, had no money because Senator Thom Tillis tried to block stimulus packages, and are stuck at home because there’s a global freaking pandemic going on. So, maybe it’s not like those people have the spare cash to sign up for authorized streaming services at this moment, and it’s not exactly a priority given everything else going on.

The article goes on to falsely claim that streaming not being a felony was “a loophole.” It was not. As was discussed when this first came up a decade ago, there were legitimate reasons why Congress chose not to make infringing streaming a felony offense. Indeed, there are strong arguments that copyright should solely be a civil offense, and never a criminal one. Making it criminal basically is making US law enforcement the private tort enforcer for Hollywood, which represents a massive subsidy to those industries, such that they no longer have to get their own hands dirty (or spend their own money) on taking infringers to court.

Then, the article engages in some incredibly historical revisionism regarding the original attempt at making streaming a felony, and what happened with SOPA/PIPA.

Despite careful crafting by the legislation?s sponsors, PIPA and SOPA were met with opposition from a range of legitimate stakeholders representing internet and consumer equities. Their advocacy against PIPA/SOPA culminated in over 5 thousand petitions per minute to the U.S. Congress, about 4 million tweets on the legislation, and petitions submitted to Congress containing 8 million signatures.

Concerns about the felony streaming provisions in PIPA/SOPA centered on the perception that, as drafted, it could lead to criminal prosecution of individual artists who regularly used platforms such as YouTube to upload their performances.

Ultimately, the sheer intensity of the opposition to PIPA/SOPA culminated in the legislation being withdrawn from consideration. This opposition took creative content industries and legislators by surprise and resulted in an unwillingness, for many years, to address what was perceived as such a controversial, complicated, and even unfixable issue.

I mean, just the very idea that SOPA/PIPA were crafted “carefully” is laughable for anyone who knows the real story, in which Lamar Smith did a Leroy Jenkins move, yanking the bill away from Rep. Bob Goodlatte (who had tried to write a more carefully constructed bill) and lit it up like a Tillis-style Christmas tree for Hollywood.

Then there’s this fun bit of nonsense:

So, What Changed? Why Now? In the years since PIPA/SOPA, the entire internet and digital copyright ecosystem has changed. Simultaneously, traditional lines dividing content creator industries and tech-heavy startups have blurred, creating more shared interests and equities. Several internet platforms have evolved their business models and are now original content creators themselves.

No, what changed this time was that you refused to introduce it through the normal process, kept it hidden until after it was already lumped into the must pass appropriations bill that was being debated contentiously for other reasons between Congress and a lame duck President in the middle of a pandemic (and an insane propaganda campaign to undermine the results of an election). That’s what changed.

Senator Tillis and Leahy?s bill evaded the criticisms that the felony streaming provision in PIPA/SOPA received and does not capture individual internet users or legitimate businesses and content creators, including, likely to some people?s disappointment, Justin Bieber.

Members of Congress and copyright stakeholders across the board were invited to the negotiating table on an equal footing. Negotiations proceeded in good faith and no stone was left unturned as stakeholders gamed out the real-world implications of the draft legislative text.

No, this is not what happened. At all. I spoke to stakeholders from consumer rights groups and internet platforms, and they said that they were just as blindsided by this bill as we were. Again, if this was all about getting all the stakeholders together and coming up with a workable bill for everyone why didn’t Tillis just release it as normal? Why did he get it stuffed into the appropriations bill, and not even release the text of the bill until it was clear that there would never be an up-and-down vote on the bill itself?

And that’s also why this bill “evaded criticism.” Because it was done in a way and at a time when so much other stuff was going on.

That’s only underlined by the fact that Tillis’ top copyright staffer felt he could reveal “the sausage making process” in combination with one of Hollywood’s top lobbyists, without anyone blinking an eye. The fix was in, and that fix sure looks corrupt. At the very least, this is the kind of “soft corruption” that we’ve talked about before. Even if everything was legitimate, just the fact that Watts and Slater know they can co-author an article about how they got this controversial bill approved gives the public the impression of corruption, and supports the idea that Tillis is completely in the tank for Hollywood.

It damages public trust in government, as it underlines the idea that Senators like Tillis are there to serve the desires of their funders, and not the public he was elected to represent.

Filed Under: appropriations, brad watts, copyright, felony streaming, gail slater, pipa, sopa, streaming, thom tillis
Companies: fox

Senators Leahy And Tillis — Both Strongly Supported By Hollywood — Ask Merrick Garland To Target Streaming Sites

from the because-of-course dept

As you’ll likely recall, at the very end of last year, Senator Thom Tillis, the head of the intellectual property subcommittee in the Senate, slipped a felony streaming bill into the grand funding omnibus. As we noted at the time, this bill — which was a pure gift to Hollywood — was never actually introduced, debated, or voted on separately. It was just introduced and immediately slipped into the omnibus. This came almost a decade after Senators had tried to pass a similar bill, connected to the SOPA/PIPA. You may even recall when Senator Amy Klobuchar introduced such a bill in 2011, Justin Bieber actually suggested that maybe Senator Klobuchar should be locked up for trying to turn streaming into a felony.

Of course, this whole thing was a gift to the entertainment industry, who has been a big supporter of Senator Tillis. With the flipping of the Senate, now Senator Leahy has become the chair of the IP subcommittee. As you’ll also likely recall, he was the driving force behind the PIPA half of SOPA/PIPA, and has also been a close ally of Hollywood. So close, in fact, that they give him a cameo in every Batman film. Oh, and his daughter is literally one of Hollywood’s top lobbyists in DC.

So I guess it’s no surprise that Tillis and Leahy have now teamed up to ask new Attorney General Merrick Garland to start locking up those streamers. In a letter sent to Garland, they claim the following:

Unlawful streaming services cost the U.S. economy an estimated 29billionperyear.Thisillegalactivityimpactsgrowthinthecreativeindustriesinparticular,whichcombinedemploy2.6millionAmericansandcontribute29 billion per year. This illegal activity impacts growth in the creative industries in particular, which combined employ 2.6 million Americans and contribute 29billionperyear.Thisillegalactivityimpactsgrowthinthecreativeindustriesinparticular,whichcombinedemploy2.6millionAmericansandcontribute229 billion to the economy per year. In short, unlawful streaming is a threat to our creative industries and the economic security and well-being of millions of Americans.

If you’ve been following these stories long enough, you know where this number comes from. It’s from a report put out by the US Chamber of Commerce’s “The Global IP Center” and written by NERA Consulting. The US Chamber of Commerce has always been a huge backer of stronger copyright — mainly because the MPA pays them to be — and NERA Consulting releases reports for Hollywood all the time. This report is not nearly as bad as some of their earlier reports, but it still makes a ton of assumptions about consumption that seem unlikely to be anywhere close to reality.

Either way, Tillis and Leahy want Garland to get down to doing exactly what Hollywood wants:

Now that have you been confirmed, will you commit to making prosecutions under the PLSA a priority? If so, what steps will you take during your first one hundred days to demonstrate your commitment to combating copyright piracy?

How quickly do you intend to update the U.S. Attorneys manual to indicate prosecutors should pursue actions under the PLSA?

Hurry up and throw streamers in jail!

As if recognizing just how bad this looks, they did include one final point as a sort of nod towards the fact that the DOJ probably shouldn’t be going after ordinary everyday streamers.

When updating the U.S. Attorneys manual, what type of guidance do you intend to provide to make clear that prosecutions should only be pursued against commercial piracy services? Such guidance should make clear that the law does not allow the Department to target the ordinary activities of individual streamers, companies pursuing licensing deals in good faith, or internet service providers (ISPs) and should be reflective of congressional intent as reflected in our official record.

Just the fact that they need to include this certainly suggests that they know how dangerous the law they passed was, and how it could easily be misinterpreted and/or abused to go after such individuals or companies.

Hopefully, AG Garland realizes that he’s got more important things to do than being Hollywood’s latest cop on the beat.

Filed Under: copyright, felony, felony streaming, justin bieber, merrick garland, pat leahy, priorities, streaming, thom tillis

You'll Need Fifty Stimulus Checks To Pay The Damages You Might Get Hit With Under The CASE Act

from the so-stupid dept

It was only mid-day yesterday that it was confirmed that Congress has slipped in two controversial copyright provisions into the must-pass government funding bill. Last night, as everyone expected, that must-pass bill did indeed pass, and it will soon be law.

There are many, many reasons to be frustrated about this. First, just the way this was done is incredibly stupid. The government waited until the very last minute (with a couple of “extensions”) to work out this agreement on a combination of the COVID relief bill (which is way too small and way too late for many, many people) and a bill to actually fund the government and avoid a shutdown. It’s already ridiculous that we have to do this government funding bill each year, especially considering that Congress already approves a budget earlier in the year, and the appropriations bill is really just a fight over how to apportion what Congress has already agreed to spend. And then, because the appropriations bill is considered a “must pass” to keep large parts of the government funded, Congress lights it up like a Christmas tree with totally unrelated bills they couldn’t get passed through normal process.

Incredibly, some politicians, like Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, seem proud of this practice:

When a big bill like this comes together, your job as a lawmaker is to try to get as many of your legislative and funding priorities into the text as possible.

Throughout the day, I'm going to explain the provisions in the omnibus budget/COVID relief bill that I led.

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) December 21, 2020

I get why he’s proud of getting some things into the bill, and many of the things he may be proud of are good. But many of them do not belong in this bill and should not be in a 5,000 page bill that was revealed mid-day and voted on hours later.

Incredibly, while the bill does have 2,000 pages of actual appropriations details, the other 3,000 pages are totally unrelated bills that Congress couldn’t pass through the rest of the year. Even if you like the bills, even if you are mad that Congress is gridlocked at other times, that’s no excuse to support this awful undemocratic process. Everything about it is bad.

Now, lots of people are still combing through the bill to find all the awful landmines that it’s too late to do anything about, but the two that we’ve been talking about here are the copyright provisions. I’ve already explained multiple times why the felony streaming bill and the CASE Act are extremely problematic, so I won’t go over either again. I will note that neither final provision is as bad as they were in earlier versions. Both were somewhat limited from truly terrible provisions to what is today merely awful. But that’s nothing to celebrate.

As I said yesterday with regards to both bills, copyright law is controversial for a wide variety of reasons, but the biggest one is this: small tweaks to copyright law can have a massive impact on expression. Few people are even willing to grapple with the fact that significant parts of copyright law raise 1st Amendment issues. And when you rush through both of these bills (the felony streaming bill received literally no discussion or debate), you impact speech in a massive way. The felony streaming bill, even with its restrictions to platforms, may scare off many platforms from being willing to host streaming content, despite it being a key way in which many people — especially younger generations — express themselves these days.

The CASE Act, similarly, threatens to unleash a new generation of copyright trolling, at a time when we already have too much copyright trolling, threatening and shaking down people for money over incidental and accidental infringement. On top of that, especially in the midst of a pandemic when so many people are stuck at home and communicating, living, and working virtually, doing perfectly normal things can and will be seen as infringing. Nearly 15 years ago, law professor John Tehranian wrote about how on a random day that he tracked, he realized he (a copyright law professor!) probably committed 83 acts of infringement.

As we wrote a few years back, the only reason that copyright doesn’t destroy speech is that he world has recognized a concept of copyright toleration — which is that, more or less, copyright holders have mostly looked the other way at incidental and accidental infringements that happen all the time. The entire point of the CASE Act is to slam the door shut on the entire idea of copyright toleration, and open the floodgates for copyright holders to shake down basically anyone for such incidental uses — telling them they could owe up to $30,000 as assigned by a non-judicial tribunal housed in the Copyright Office itself.

Supporters of the CASE Act say it’s no big deal because you can opt-out of the process if you don’t like it. But the opt-out process is unclear and potentially confusing. And, of course, in doing so, you are poking the copyright holder, and potentially egging them on to file an even more disastrous federal copyright lawsuit against you. But, honestly, just the mere threat of facing $30,000 fines from this new tribunal will cause many to shut up. It will cause many to pull down speech or never make it at all, because who wants to deal with that threat?

And, as law professor Eric Goldman notes, we did all this to get a stimulus package that will give a mere 600toindividuals…butthat600 to individuals… but that 600toindividuals…butthat600 likely won’t cover your CASE Act bill, and you’ll need many more stimulus checks to deal with the fact that you promoted a song you liked. It’s a complete travesty.

Just to put things in perspective, you're going to need 50 stimulus checks to cover the damages demanded by a copyright owner in your first CASE Act proceeding https://t.co/OjrvhmdGED

— Eric Goldman (@ericgoldman) December 22, 2020

Filed Under: 1st amendment, case act, chilling effects, copyright, covid, expression, felony streaming, speech, stimulus, tribunal

Congress (Once Again) Sells Out To Hollywood: Sneaks CASE Act And Felony Streaming Bill Into Government Funding Omnibus

from the but-why? dept

As we warned about earlier this month, it appears that Congress has in fact put two very controversial copyright provisions into the government funding “omnibus” bill that will be voted on later today. As you may have heard, last night Congress worked out a “deal” on both a 900billionCovidrelief/stimuluspackageandthegiant900 billion Covid relief/stimulus package and the giant 900billionCovidrelief/stimuluspackageandthegiant1.4 trillion omnibus government funding bill, which is being voted on today. There had been concerns raised all month about how — under pressure from Hollywood — Congress might try to sneak two dangerous copyright provisions and one trademark provision into the omnibus.

Since the “deal” was announced last night, people have been scrambling to find out what’s actually in the fucking bill which is being voted on shortly. It’s just come out that, indeed, all three controversial copyright and trademark provisions are in the bill. The CASE Act will supercharge copyright trolling exactly at a time when we need to fix the law to have less trolling. And the felony streaming bill (which was only just revealed last week with no debate or discussion, includes provisions that are so confusing and vague no one is sure if it makes sites like Twitch into felons.

The fact that these are getting added to the must pass government funding bill is just bad government. And Congressional leadership should hear about this.

The full omnibus bill is over 3,000 pages long, so you can search through it for your favorite bit of nonsense. Felony streaming is on page 72. The CASE Act starts on page 77.

There’s a reason that copyright is generally controversial. Small changes can not only have a massive impact, that impact can be on the public’s ability to express themselves. The idea that two such bills should be jammed through in this manner is a total and complete travesty. People should be mad about this and should hold the Congressional leadership of both parties responsible. This is not good governance. This is sucking up to Hollywood at the expense of the public.

Filed Under: case act, congress, copyright, felony streaming, free speech, omnibus, small claims, thom tillis

Tillis Release Details Of His Felony Streaming Bill; A Weird Gift To Hollywood At The Expense Of Taxpayers

from the and-why-through-omnibus dept

Earlier today, we wrote about reports detailing the latest attempt to push through a bill to make streaming copyright-covered works online a possible felony, this time being pushed by Senator Thom Tillis, who wanted to attach it to the federal spending omnibus bill. As we noted, Tillis was pushing back on some of the criticism, saying that the bill is very narrowly tailored and wouldn’t be used to criminalize random people. Of course, the response to that is twofold: (1) if this is the case, why haven’t you released the text and (2) why are you shoving it onto a must-pass funding bill without any of the normal debate and discussion?

This afternoon Tillis dealt with the first part of this by finally releasing the text of the bill. And he’s somewhat correct in noting that the bill is narrowly tailored. That doesn’t make it good or necessary. The key bit is this:

PROHIBITED ACT.?It shall be unlawful to willfully, and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, offer or provide to the public a digital transmission service that

> ??(1) is primarily designed or provided for the purpose of publicly performing works protected under title 17 by means of a digital transmission without the authority of the copyright owner or the law; > > ??(2) has no commercially significant purpose or use other than to publicly perform works protected under title 17 by means of a digital transmission without the authority of the copyright owner or the law; or > > ??(3) is intentionally marketed by or at the direction of that person to promote its use in publicly performing works protected under title 17 by means of a digital transmission without the authority of the copyright owner or the law.

So, the argument is that the “narrow” tailoring here is such that it only applies to websites, not users, if that site is “primarily” engaged in streaming unlicensed copyright-covered works, has no significant purpose other than that, and intentionally markets itself as such.

And, to Tillis’ credit, this is much more narrowly tailored than previous such bills. It still doesn’t explain why the text is only just being released now or (more importantly) why this has to be added to a must-pass Christmas Tree government funding bill.

To some extent, the thinking behind this bill is that it’s focused on a very specific set of circumstances. There have been websites out there that stream content they host, and those already faced felony charges for the hosting — but this seems to extend that to sites that stream the content that is hosted elsewhere. Of course, there is a much bigger question of why is this a criminal issue in the first place? It is yet another example of Hollywood trying to pass off what should be a civil issue, where the movie studios and record labels have every right and ability to sue these companies in court, and turn them into an issue that the US taxpayer now has to deal with? It’s basically a giant subsidy to Hollywood, taking a private dispute and putting it on the public dime.

As Public Knowledge says in its response to the bill’s release, “we do not see the need for further criminal penalties for copyright infringement.” Indeed.

The end result is that this bill is not as horrific as past felony streaming bills, and is, in fact, narrowly tailored. However, that does not change the fact that moving copyright issues away from civil disputes to be handled by copyright holders, to the federal government, is something that we should not support. Indeed, it should be seen as somewhat odd that a Trump-supporting Republican, who claims to be for keeping government out of business, is directly subsidizing Hollywood by having the federal government and US taxpayers take over their own civil legal dispute by turning them into criminal issues.

And, more importantly, none of this explains why the bill should be released at the last moment, and then dumped into the must-pass federal spending bill. It’s a bad idea. If Tillis really thinks this bill is good and necessary, he should have to defend it as such through the regular process bills go through.

Filed Under: copyright, criminal copyright, felony streaming, platforms, streaming, thom tillis

Not This Again: Senator Tillis Tries To Slide Dangerous Felony Streaming Bill Into Must Pass Government Funding Bill

from the guys,-we've-done-this-before... dept

We’ve documented that Senator Thom Tillis is working on a massive copyright reform bill for which he’s asked stakeholders for input (we provided some). He’s expected to unveil that bill next week (which seems like a suspiciously short turnaround from asking for ideas to actually releasing a bill). Yet, apparently, he decided that he couldn’t even wait for that process to play out to try to push forward the latest incarnation of the infamous felony streaming bill which Tillis is pushing to add to the must-approve government spending omnibus bill (similar to how others are trying to add the CASE Act to that bill).

If you don’t recall, felony streaming has been a goal of the recording industry for the past decade. Back in 2011, Senator Amy Klobuchar pushed the bill, and even Justin Bieber spoke out against it, noting that he built his entire fanbase by streaming his own covers of songs on YouTube. At the time, Bieber said that rather than locking up people for streaming copyright covered content online, we should lock up Senator Klobuchar for trying to pass such a bill.

Even if you don’t trust Justin Bieber’s legal analysis of the bill, it might help to read the analysis done by Harvard law professor Jonathan Zittrain, who highlighted just how dangerous a felony streaming law would be — likely turning millions of individuals into potential felons, should law enforcement suddenly decide to turn on them. The whole idea of making streaming copyright covered works a felony is ridiculous. As it stands now, it can be a misdemeanor, and even that is crazy. Copyright should be a civil issue, not a criminal one. The standards to make it criminal are insanely low — such that tons of people could face criminal liability for doing things that seem perfectly normal. The threat to free speech (which is the key thing we raised in our comments on Tillis’ larger copyright reform) should not be ignored:

?A felony streaming bill would likely be a chill on expression,? said Katharine Trendacosta, associate director of policy and activism with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. ?We already see that it?s hard enough in just civil copyright and the DMCA for people to feel comfortable asserting their rights. The chance of a felony would impact both expression and innovation.?

Of course, as the American Prospect article notes, it’s not at all difficult to understand why Tillis is trying to shove such a dangerous, anti-free speech bill through an omnibus spending bill, rather than having to debate and defend it through normal process. Because this:

Tillis, the chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee, was recently re-elected for another six-year term by a margin of less than 2% over his Democratic opponent. In the final stretch of his campaign, Tillis received a surge of campaign contributions from PACs affiliated with entertainment companies and trade groups that lobby Congress for aggressive copyright enforcement against internet users, including prison time for unauthorized streaming.

You don’t say. How odd. Or, rather, how totally expected, and totally corrupt.

In the third and fourth quarters of 2020, Tillis? campaign and leadership PAC received donations from PACs affiliated with the Motion Picture Association, Sony Pictures, ASCAP, Universal Music Group, Comcast & NBCUniversal, The Internet and Television Association, Salem Media Group, Warner Music, and others in the entertainment and cable industry that seek to suppress the unauthorized sharing of content. Many other entertainment industry PACs gave Tillis contributions earlier in the 2019-20 cycle, totaling well over $100,000, according to Federal Election Commission records. Executives of Fox Corporation, Sony Entertainment, Charter Communications, and CBS also made large donations to Tillis in the third quarter of this year.

After the Prospect article linked above and quoted here began to get attention, Tillis took to Twitter to push back on it, claiming it’s inaccurate, and that his (still unpublished) proposal is “narrowly tailored” such that the DOJ can only use it to “prosecute commercial criminal organizations.” Which… is the same argument that was made a decade ago with Klobuchar’s similar bill. But it ignores that the standards for what makes a “commercial criminal organization” regarding copyright are insanely low. Under current law, it means that you gain some sort of “commercial advantage or financial gain” in which you reproduce or distribute (or, in this case stream) at least 10 works, “with a retail value of more than $2,500.”

Assuming this definition is then applied to streaming as well, all it really means is that if a streamer uses 10 copyright works, within a 180 day period, for which he or she gains some sort of financial gain, they can now be considered “commercial criminal organization.” That’s… a ton of Twitch and YouTube streamers.

And, either way, if the bill is really nothing to be concerned about, why hasn’t Tillis released the text and why is he pushing it into this must pass bill?

Filed Under: christmas tree bill, copyright, criminal copyright, felony streaming, government funding, omnibus, thom tillis

Harry Reid Wants To Attach Part Of SOPA To Surveillance Reform Bill

from the that-would-be-a-mistake dept

See the update at the bottom of this post.

Late last night I started hearing rumors that Senator Harry Reid was looking to slip a little something extra into the USA Freedom Act: a key part of SOPA. As you should know by now, last week, Reid surprised many by moving for a cloture vote on the USA Freedom Act. While still controversial in civil liberties circles, many are supportive of this bill as a good first step in surveillance reform — including EFF and ACLU — while others are perhaps reasonably concerned about what the bill actually provides. Yesterday, the big tech companies came out in favor of it.

However, yesterday evening I heard through the grapevine that Reid also had a little “gift” he was planning to add to the bill, and I’ve spent a big part of last night tracking down any details I could find. Basically, Reid wants to attach a part of SOPA to the bill: the felony streaming provisions. You may recall that this was the dangerous plan that was a part of SOPA and a companion to PIPA (though not directly in it) that would have turned merely streaming infringing works into a felony. This got a ton of attention after Fight for the Future created its Free Justin Bieber campaign, after noting that Bieber came to fame by streaming lots of videos of music he didn’t license the rights to. Even after SOPA died, the White House still listed the felony streaming stuff in its big wish list. And, just a few months ago, the Justice Department told Congress it wanted streaming to be a felony too.

The reality is that this would be a pretty big expansion of criminalizing copyright infringement. As we explained years ago, there’s a reason why “performance” isn’t considered a felony in copyright law. Expanding the criminalization of copyright, especially for something as simple as streaming content puts a ton of people at risk. And yes, according to Harvard law professor Jonathan Zittrain, someone doing what Bieber did would face jail time, which is ridiculous.

So why is Reid suddenly doing this? What we’ve heard is that it’s a “favor” to his friends at UFC — Ultimate Fighting Championship — who are based in Las Vegas, in Reid’s home state of Nevada. Reid and UFC go back for years, with UFC being big supporters of Reid, and UFC has worked with Reid on a number of campaigns. UFC has also been one of the biggest supporters of expanding and abusing copyright law for years. The organization has sued its biggest fans, has sued streaming sites like Justin.tv (and lost) and even claimed copyright on videos it has no rights to, taken by fans.

So it’s no surprise that with Reid and UFC being so chummy — while UFC has staked out a strong public position to expand copyright criminalization — that Reid would like to do this “favor” for his friends. But it’s a massive slap in the face to the tech industry — Reid’s second such massive slap this year. Remember, earlier this year, after the tech industry had finally, finally gotten a few important pieces (not nearly enough, but a great start) for patent reform to the finish line, Harry Reid got a phone call from the trial lawyers and killed the whole thing? If he actually goes through with this plan, it will be yet another massive slap in the face to Silicon Valley. Perhaps that’s the reputation Harry Reid wants. The Senator who gives out personal favors to friends, and stands in the way of innovation. I can’t imagine that will go over well in the long run. Furthermore, it’s almost as if Reid has totally forgotten what happened around SOPA. I can assure him that those who fought against SOPA have not forgotten.

The last I’ve heard on this so far is that Reid is still looking for a bit more support to attach this to the USA Freedom Act. Hopefully no one gives it to him, and this idea simply goes back in the trash can where it belongs.

Update: Senator Reid’s office has posted a response to this story claiming that this is all spin from “Republicans who want to tank” the USA Freedom Act. That’s not actually true. While I’m not going to reveal my (multiple) sources on this, Reid’s explanation is not at all accurate. We confirmed this with multiple sources — nearly all of whom are in favor of the USA Freedom Act. We did hear one rumor that there was an effort under way to get a Republican on board to support this plan, but we didn’t report that because we couldn’t get detailed confirmation on it. What we’re now hearing from others, however, is that Reid’s office is trying to point the finger directly at one specific Republican Senator, and we have a request in to his office to see if he wants to comment.

Filed Under: copyright, criminalization, felony streaming, harry reid, justin bieber, over criminalization, streaming, ufc, usa freedom act
Companies: ufc, zuffa

When Even The Librarians Are Against SOPA…

from the damn-pirates,-all-of-them dept

Supporters of SOPA keep trying to pretend that the only people who could possibly be against the bill are those who profit from infringement. That’s crazy. The concern here has nothing to do with infringement, but how SOPA is ridiculously overbroad, and will create massive problems and liability for activities that most people consider perfectly reasonable and legal. I’d love to see how the defenders of SOPA try to tar and feather the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries and the Association of College & Research Libraries who have written a letter warning about SOPA, with particular concern on the new “felony streaming” parts of the bill — the ones that backers don’t fully understand themselves.

The libraries highlight two key concerns. The first is how Section 201(c) of SOPA appears to significantly change the definition of “willful” infringement. As you may know, under current Copyright law, if you’re found guilty of “willful” infringement, statutory damages can rise from a maximum of 30k(fornotwillful)allthewayuptoamaximumof30k (for not willful) all the way up to a maximum of 30k(fornotwillful)allthewayuptoamaximumof150k. Plaintiffs in copyright lawsuits often claim every infringement is willful, but there are actual standards. SOPA appears to change the standard for willfulness in a massive way — such that a lot more infringement would be deemed willful. In fact, it would go all the way to the level of saying nearly every infringement was willful (with the exception of “innocent” infringement, which is almost never allowed by courts).

This rule of construction creates a negative implication that a person is a willful infringer if the person did not have a good faith reasonable basis in law for believing that his conduct was lawful. Thus, if a court finds that the person’s belief was unreasonable, the court might consider him a willful infringer, even if the person in good faith believed his actions were legal. Under current law, however, this level of intent constitutes ordinary infringement, not willful infringement. In other words, the rule of construction could have the effect of collapsing the three levels of intent into two: willful infringement and innocent infringement. The willful infringement level would swallow the ordinary infringement level, thereby significantly broadening the range of activities subject to criminal sanctions.

Next up, the libraries point out that SOPA, unlike S.978 (the Senate’s streaming bill), takes away the requirement that infringement be for commercial purposes to be declared criminal. For libraries, that’s clearly a scary change. The libraries fear that under SOPA, they’re hugely liable and at risk of being dragged into court:

In this environment, the criminal prosecution of a library for copyright infringement is no longer beyond the realm of possibility. For this reason, we strongly oppose the amendments described above, which would increase the exposure of libraries to prosecution. The broadening of the definition of willful infringement could result in a criminal prosecution if an Assistant U.S. Attorney believes that a library?s assertion of fair use or one of the Copyright Act?s other privileges is unreasonable. This risk is compounded with streaming, which SOPA would subject to felony penalties even if conducted without purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain.

Those damn “pirate” libraries, huh?

Filed Under: felony streaming, free speech, librarians, sopa, streaming
Companies: american library association

US Copyright Office Still Out Of Touch; Supports PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE & Felony Streaming Bills

from the whatever-the-entertainment-industry-wants dept

The US Copyright Office, for years, has remained totally out of touch with the mess that copyright has become, often acting as the entertainment industry’s voice within the government. There was some hope that when longtime boss Marybeth Peters finally left, that the Copyright Office would bring in some new blood who might actually recognize how hindering and damaging copyright law is today, and seek to actually help bring copyright law into the modern era. So much for that plan. New boss Maria Pallante has released a new report detailing the “priorities” of the Copyright Office… and its the entertainment industry’s two favorite bills: PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE and the felony streaming bill. The full report (pdf) also supports the RIAA bailout bill/performance rights act, also known as the extra tax on radio stations, forcing them to pay to advertise music. While there are a few nods towards things like orphan works, it seems like the Copyright Office is about more of the same failed policies… just ratcheted up further.

In other words, the US Copyright Office remains totally out of touch with what’s happening in the world and online these days, and how both of these bills will have massive unintended consequences; criminalizing perfectly reasonable behavior, putting massive burdens on job-creating entrepreneurs and startups, limiting investment into innovation, and fundamentally breaking important parts of the internet. But if it gets a few more dollars into some legacy Hollywood studio’s pockets… well, the US Copyright Office is all for that. Sad. The US Copyright Office should be and could be a leader in fixing a broken copyright system. Instead, it appears to want to double down on the failed policies of the past, believing that greater enforcement and harsher punishments for actions done by millions is the answer. Scary stuff, but not surprising.

Filed Under: e-parasite, felony streaming, performance rights, protect ip, us copyright office

Justin Bieber: Senator Klobuchar Should Be Locked Up For Felony Streaming Bill

from the free-bieber,-jail-klobuchar dept

Earlier today we wrote about how Justin Bieber’s lawyers were threatening the folks behind the FreeBieber advocacy project, which highlights some of the problems with Senator Amy Klobuchar’s dangerous and ill-thought out bill to make streaming video a possible felony. It appears that his “people” didn’t discuss this much with Bieber himself. During a radio interview, the host asked Bieber about the law, explaining how it would make streaming a felony, and his response was that Klobuchar “should be locked up,” a point he reiterated a few times.

They then go on to discuss it a bit, and Bieber talks about the importance of being able to upload and stream videos and to perform other people’s songs. He talks about how people “need the freedom” to perform songs. He also notes that it’s “awesome” when others perform his works. Of course, Klobuchar’s office claims that Bieber must have “misunderstood” the bill, but he’s right. The bill is “silly,” and targets exactly the wrong thing. It’s good to see him speaking out on this subject, and it shows how Klobuchar (and the House supporters of E-PARASITE, which also has a similar felony streaming law), need to rethink this bill.

Filed Under: amy klobuchar, felony streaming, justin bieber