New spin on SOPA to target LPs

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

SOPA 2.0? Obama Administration wants to pass part of SOPA. | Ship 2 Block 20

I think I remember saying somewhere that I didn't trust the Obama administration's opposition to SOPA/PIPA as far as I could throw it. Now here they are trying to push one of the nastier parts of if through the House and Senate. So yeah - called it! The wording is just as vague as before, but in this case its vague wording pertaining to streaming video, which affects live streams and Let's Plays in the sphere of gaming (and loads of Youtube videos as a whole).

You know, because that sort of thing is actually a moneymaker now and if companies can't get in on they cash they want it shut down. This could even fuck with PS4 and XB1, which seem to be embracing these concepts in their own ways (even if third parties might not be as eager).

The bill sets a disturbing precedent - the stuff we had to worry about in prior iterations of this shitheap of a bill. Would image sharing be next? Based on the vagueness, it could be.

But fear not, the democrats of my district re-elected Melvin Watts, who headed up the "experts" in the House on internet, computers and technology. The expert who stated he didn't understand a lot of what SOPA/PIPA meant and literally asked where the "nerds" were who could explain it. I'm sure he'll be placed in charge of this farce again.

[Malacite]

Re: New spin on SOPA to target LPs

Here we go again.

God damn it piss off, I'm banking on PS4's Twitch service to get me out of the hole I'm in.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: New spin on SOPA to target LPs

You do realize Twtich TV is a website, right?

[Malacite]

Re: New spin on SOPA to target LPs

Yes what's your point?

[Icemage]

Re: New spin on SOPA to target LPs

Hm. I don't see anything specific in the Task Force report that supports the premise of the article.

The only passage I see that might qualify is this:

Civil and Criminal Enforcement
A number of civil and criminal enforcement mechanisms have been used by the government to combat online piracy.218 The Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Homeland Security (DHS) have primary responsibility for such actions, with criminal investigations conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).219 . The DOJ has legal authority to seize property used in connection with copyright infringement. Through Operations in Our Sites, a program coordinated by the DOJ and the DHS, domain names of websites used to distribute pirated or counterfeit content have been seized. Operations in Our Sites has successfully targeted a number of sites devoted to piracy, but there are a number of limitations, including the limited resources available to the Attorney General to carry out the takedowns and jurisdictional issues that restrict seizures to domain names registered with a U.S. registry. As a result, domain names for websites with infringing content that are controlled by foreign registries, even if accessible by and targeted to U.S. consumers, can be very challenging for U.S. authorities to reach. Stemming such international infringement requires cooperation and coordination with other governments.223 It is also important to avoid potential damage from erroneous seizures. Challenges from domain name registrants have resulted in two cases being dropped and the return of the domain names to the registrants.224 . The DOJ also is empowered to bring criminal prosecutions for copyright infringement. The Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) of the Criminal Division implements the Department’s IP prosecution strategies, and provides domestic and international enforcement training.

In 1997, Congress created criminal liability for reproducing or distributing works of a certain value even if the infringer neither gains nor expects to gain anything of value in return. And in 2005, Congress created criminal penalties for infringement of works being prepared for commercial distribution. Both of these provisions are important for effective enforcement, because much online infringement is undertaken without a profit motive by infringers, but still has the potential for significant economic damages.

One recent high-profile case highlights the potential and the difficulty of government actions against foreign website operators. In January 2012, seven individuals and two corporations were charged in the United States with running an organized criminal enterprise responsible for worldwide online piracy, through the cyberlocker service Megaupload.com and other related sites. According to the indictment, these businesses generated more than $175 million in criminal proceeds and caused more than half a billion dollars in potential damages to copyright owners.230 Substantial assistance was provided by law enforcement entities around the world.

Such prosecutions can be effective in shutting down sites causing great harm to right holders, creators, and legitimate services, and in sending a strong public message. Still to be resolved, however, is how to deal with those users who are storing noninfringing content on the sites. Moreover, this level of resource allocation will not always be feasible. And the Megaupload case presented special circumstances, including the voluntary assistance of multiple foreign law enforcement entities, the availability of an extradition treaty, and Megaupload’s use of U.S. domestic registries, without which prosecution may have been impossible.

An additional hurdle to enforcement is the existence of an anomaly in the coverage of U.S. criminal law. While the willfully infringing reproduction and distribution of copyrighted works can be punished as a felony, willful violations of the public performance right are punishable only as misdemeanors. This discrepancy is an increasingly significant impediment. Since the most recent updates to the criminal copyright provisions, streaming (both audio and video) has become a significant if not dominant means for consumers to enjoy content online. The lack of potential felony penalties for criminal acts of streaming disincentivizes prosecution and undermines deterrence. The Administration and the Copyright Office have both called on Congress to amend the Copyright Act to ensure that illegal streaming to the public can be punished as a felony in the same manner as other types of criminal infringement. The Task Force now repeats that call.

That seems to be a relatively neutral stance that is being misinterpreted. Note the use of the word "criminal". They're not calling for all streaming of content to be classified as a felony; only that the potential for such prosecution be present so that law enforcement and the judicial system can apply stronger measures when appropriate.

Read the rest of the passage I quoted above it for the context.

There's also a vast swath of the report dedicated to evolving viewpoints regarding fair use, remixes, and other forms of usage.

It's also worth noting that a Let's Play and similar video game streaming is not directly piracy or copyright infringement, except (perhaps) insofar as the artwork and music go. Video games by their nature are an interactive medium, and it is virtually impossible to plausibly state a case for financial damage from this form of streaming. There are edge cases where the music might be licensed for other purposes and be present in a game, but again it's difficult to prove monetary damages, which is what copyright law tends to concern itself with.


Icemage

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: New spin on SOPA to target LPs

Well, except copyright law is also broken, incredibly dated, vaguely worded and obsolete in many respects. Any bill that is vaguely worded and is applicable to the entire public is worthy of deep scrutiny.

The whole thing really just needs to be burned down and rebuilt, but there are too many special interests lining pockets for that to happen.

[Icemage]

Re: New spin on SOPA to target LPs

Well, except copyright law is also broken, incredibly dated, vaguely worded and obsolete in many respects. Any bill that is vaguely worded and is applicable to the entire public is worthy of deep scrutiny.

Did you even read the PDF? That's exactly what it says.

The whole thing really just needs to be burned down and rebuilt, but there are too many special interests lining pockets for that to happen.

Yes, let's live in fantasy-land where things that won't happen... won't happen. In the real world, the best we can do is find the groups that have similar goals to our own and help them (in this case, video streaming sites, who would be under the gun if tougher guidelines were passed).


Icemage