It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New bill upgrades unauthorized Internet streaming to a felony

page: 2
20
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
my concern is copy paste video, would that fall under this law ????? say cnn or other news says it is copy right protected but i copy and paste it here, did i just not break the law????




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Streaming can mean anything. Essentially, if you stream copyrighted material while watching You-Tube, you've just violated this proposed law and could be subject to the full penalty.

I'd have to say that at least 90% of the streaming media sites available on the Internet today carry illegal media.
edit on 17-5-2011 by CodeRed3D because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by CodeRed3D
 
so copying youtube is a no no, cnn is a no no, any "copy protected" is a no no???? well just turn off ATS then.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by CodeRed3D
 
so copying youtube is a no no, cnn is a no no, any "copy protected" is a no no???? well just turn off ATS then.



That may be the ultimate goal.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wewillallbefree
This is going to kill Justin.TV


No its going to kill US from watching Justin TV. We here in Europe, wont be effected.


Maybe this is an solution. It has helped me to watch all the video's that are normally blocked in my country

hotspotshield.com...
edit on 17-5-2011 by TribeOfManyColours because: (no reason given)


anchorfree.com...
edit on 17-5-2011 by TribeOfManyColours because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by OldCorp
 
i agree with you your for TPTB or your not and if your not then your part of the problem, an enemy of the state if you will how does it feel to be an out law??



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Watch an episode of GI Joe on your computer and lose your right to vote and bear arms.

That seems perfectly rational.


Hey, isnt that Klobuchar woman the one that people on ATS were parading around as a (D) version of Palin a couple of years ago?

Will Klobuchar run for pres?

Klobuchar for pres

Funny.


edit on 17-5-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)


Naa, you didn't read it right. It only applies to those who are streaming, not those who are watching the streaming. It is like walking down an alley and seeing your neighbor illegally streaming Independence Day outside with his/her projector on the side of his/her house. You won't get in trouble for watching, but the person showing it will get into a ton of trouble.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Hmm...

Anyone know why Google Video shut itself down a little while ago ?
Convenient timing...
Something they know that we don't maybe ?



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   
Americans are discovering they have more affordable choices than cable and satelitte providers offer. Subscribers are cancelling and that's costing them money. When the wrong people lose money new laws are forced.

I've been without cable for over a year and dont miss it, or the $75/mon bill, at all. I can see all the shows worth watching, get all the news and follow my favorite sports team online.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Wewillallbefree
 


Jusin.T.V is one of the the best sites around.
These cyber laws are getting more and more ridiculous.

edit on 18-5-2011 by SimpleKnowledge because: none



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   

The text of S. 978 isn't yet available from the official THOMAS system, but Klobuchar's office sent us a copy of the brief bill. Under current law, "reproducing" and "distributing" copyrighted works are felony charges and cover P2P transfers and Web downloads. But streaming is a "public performance" rather than a "distribution"—and holding a public performance without a proper license is not a felony. S. 978 adds "public performance" to the felony list.


We need to see the entire text of the thing but if this is accurate, it would seem that a lot of talk radio, internet television shows that are news related, commentaries that mention sources would fall under the "public performance" language of this so called law. Example. I Bill Xam read from the local newspaper and comment on the article as a public performance over the internet. That, it seems to me, would fall under this law. And that is a violation of the first amendment.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   
So that means no more Youtube content here at ATS.
You know, the ones of news stories and other material that we use to create a lot of threads with?
That alone should tell you how STUPID and OTT this is.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   
It's laughable that the big corporations and their lawyers keep talking about protecting the artists, when most of the time it is the corporations who hold the copyright on material, not the artists.
I remember reading an article, must be about 3 or so years ago now, abour RIAA. Up to the date of the report, it had collected around $400 Million in fines, both from individuals and companies for copyright infringement. However, it transpired that not one cent had actually been passed on to the artists, whom they claim to be protecting. It had mostly gone on lawyers fees! Now isn't that a surprise!


The more that is criminalised, the more the lawyers get in prosecuting the perps. The more people are sent to jail, the more the private prison industry gets in taxpayer money to hold them, whilst at the same time putting them to work for profit.

I just find it so incredible that the vast majority of people remain so ignorant of these issues, and even cheer on the people who are taking their rights away.


It's also obvious that it is the corporations and lawyers who are making policy and legislation, the politicians are, for the most part, too dumb to think up this stuff themselves, but are happy to take the "inducements" from the corporations for doing their bidding.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


What if we create our own content and license it ourselves?

What then?



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Thanks for the heads up this is the first I herd about this but it isn't surprising since they've been trying to extend these laws over and over again for the last several decades. this is a major threat to the ability to obtain a decent education at a reasonable price. I've gone into this on a few posts in the past and decided to follow up you're post with another blog entry.

They're using these tactics to make sure that only the privileged class can get a decent education. the implications of this may go beyond what they claim as it has in the past.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
What concerns me the most is the "public performance" terminology that is used.

Does this mean that ANY public performance of copyrighted material will be a felony?

What about karaoke, cover bands, kids acting, and even whistling?

Where will it stop?

J.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
This is absurd this will effectively kill you tube. I love you tube because anyone can come on there and voice their opinion or become a you tube star. I make videos with my own footage or pictures or gameply from the sims I often put a song on there in the background. I am not a musican so I cant make up my own songs. I always cite my source for anything I use. Wouldn't this law voilate the fair use act? When will this hit the USA there already is a bill making lip syncing a crime or is this new bill part of that?



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Both Senators serve the lobbyists...It only makes sense that they would introduce a bill that would turn media sharing into a felony...And a felony is a very serious offense that is usually reserved for violent criminals.
What I am wondering though...is how exactly they will determine who has streamed unauthorized media on the internet? How will they keep tabs on people's IP addresses?...or will they go around looking through facebook accounts that link to unauthorized media?
It may be up to ISPs and media providers such as youtube and google that would have to defend against such policy.
I don't think it will pass though...big business still benefits from this more than not.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by J-in-TX
What concerns me the most is the "public performance" terminology that is used.

Does this mean that ANY public performance of copyrighted material will be a felony?

What about karaoke, cover bands, kids acting, and even whistling?

Where will it stop?

J.


This is exactly what I was just thinking! Screw just the internet this is far more expansive than we are giving it credit for. This may be the largest attack on the 1st amendment we have seen thus far! Public Performance could mean hosting movie night now makes you "streaming". There is going to be some outcry about this!



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
I already notice that you tube blocks certian content. I get notices that I have voilated copyright for simply using a song in my videos. Is it going to get so complex that when I use a quote from a rerference or book for college will I get in trouble? I take online courses.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join