Obama "IP czar" wants felony charges for illegal Web streaming

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/obama-ip-czar-wants-felony-charges-for-illegal-web-streaming.ars

by lotusleaf1987 • 15 years ago

161 78 15 years ago

zdw• 15 years ago

How about felony charges for everyone who worked for a company that was involved with the financial meltdown?

I think you'd scrape up a whole lot more guilty people in that circumstance, rather than demonizing a bunch of glorified slingboxes.

mcantelon3• 15 years ago

The Obama admin will generally prosecute the enemies of whoever pays them the most. We live in a representative democracy, but the representation seems to be auctioned off.

SkyMarshal• 15 years ago

Not just the Obama admin, but any that manages to get elected. You can't even hope to win a modern election without billions in funding from corporate or wealthy private interests. Even Obama's small-donor-oriented political machine raised roughly half its campaign funding from the former.

jbooth10• 15 years ago

The Obama admin has actually been better than every other administration about disclosing lobbyist visits, etc. See my link below. Note that no congressional offices or subcommittees have followed suit (and really, if you're spending lobbyist dollars and looking for results, swaying a subcommittee chair is so much easier than swaying the president, and might accomplish more).

I'd go as far as to say the problem is more "Washington in general and Congress in particular" than Obama. I mean, last week he was a socialist and now he's a plutocrat, too? The two philosophies are diametrically opposed, pick one.

yummyfajitas4• 15 years ago

While I don't like realtors much, I don't think it's fair to send them all to jail.

They all took a long position in housing and the market punished them soundly for it. They now need to find a new career. Sending them to jail is overkill.

Same for the millions of other people who contributed to the crisis - the real estate speculators/"homeowners" have lost lots of money. Construction workers have suffered 30% job losses.

What next, sending people to jail for buying into the pets.com IPO?

nostrademons• 15 years ago

I think he was thinking of the peoeple at AIG or Lehman Bros or Goldman Sachs, who generally walked away with million dollar bonuses even if they did lose their jobs. A good number of people would be quite happy to lose their job for a million dollars.

daniel-cussen• 15 years ago

He means it's extreme for the IP czar to make streaming a felony, and it would be less unreasonable to jail financiers.

shareme• 15 years ago

as I have stated before those felony laws already exist, both President and US Congress refused to enforce them and changed many of them at bankers request to avoid facing 'the music'..

nazgulnarsil2• 15 years ago

so is "those gosh darned greedy bankers caused everything" the accepted meme at this point?

danssig• 15 years ago

Frankly, yes. Do you realize that before CDOs were made Deutche bank and friends took precautions to make sure they wouldn't be classified as gambling? They knew the danger of what they were creating and sought to make sure it wouldn't be regulated.

jbooth10• 15 years ago

If anyone wants to see who she's heard from on the matter, you can just visit:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/visitor-...

and type "Espinel" into the search box on the little app.

My sample size of one visitor name typed into Google yielded an ATT exec.

snsr2• 15 years ago

The fact that any ip related 'crime' is deemed serious enough to be a felony disgusts me. Espinel is bought and paid for.

jrockway• 15 years ago

In the US, pretty much any crime other than jaywalking is a felony punishable by a mandatory sentence of 25-life in prison.

"Land of the free" indeed.

PostOnce• 15 years ago

I don't want people to pirate my software, but I'd rather file sharers and individuals get away free than have a felony on their record or go to prison. Civil penalties are a good idea, possibly light criminal penalties, not a felony though, much less prison time.

Commercial piracy is a different matter, and I don't have a thoroughly-considered opinion on what the punishment for it should be.

electromagnetic• 15 years ago

The truly disturbing thing is that the felony charge can destroy peoples lives, and destroy peoples attempts to even run a normal life.

I couldn't work my job with most felony charges, because I'm in construction and I work on other people's property my employer can't have me on payroll unless I'm bondable. If I have a criminal conviction my job is in danger, but if it's for theft I'm gone and I'm either forced to work under the radar or find a new job.

alexqgb2• 15 years ago

Kind of. But in spite of her fancy title, she's still just a staffer. But she reports to Biden, and as far as IP reform goes, he's as medieval as they come.

snsr2• 15 years ago

Thanks, my earlier comment reads as being more inflammatory than intended.

The very existence of Mrs Espinel's position speaks volumes - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9570293...

jevinskie• 15 years ago

It appears that "streaming" infringing content is considered to be a public performance and thus exempt from felony prosecution while "reproducing" or "distributing" infringing content does. I honestly fail to see much of a difference between "streaming" and "distributing" so I am in favor of making the laws more consistent. Whether they should warrant felonies is a different discussion.

archgoon• 15 years ago

You could also make it consistent by making public performances felony charges. I feel an Emerson quote coming on very shortly involving hobgoblins...

Note, you do raise a good point, I'm just not sure that the consistency we want is in the direction that we're going in. Like you say, a separate discussion.

smogzer• 15 years ago

Thought Crime ?

The fact that a government is acting against its citizens in behalf of a minority, now that should be a crime.

nhebb• 15 years ago

Now that you mention it, US District Judge Gladys Kessler just ruled a few weeks ago that the federal government has the right to regulate "mental activity": http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/23/dont-think-of-a-health-ins...

georgieporgie• 15 years ago

That seems to be really badly taken out of context. From the one and only quote within the page you linked:

As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power...However, this Court finds the distinction, which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little significance. It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not "acting," especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.

It doesn't look like he's saying that mental activity can be regulated by Congress, but rather the claim that deliberate choice not to do something is "mental activity" rather than "physical activity," and thus cannot be regulated, is a meaningless semantic game.

warfangle• 15 years ago

"Espinel suggests the creation of public performance rights for music on the radio, which the US already has for satellite broadcasting and webcasting. But the broadcasting lobby has opposed the move ferociously, claiming that its unique exemption from payment is because radio has such promotional force for artists."

I'm actually a fan of this portion of it. It brings radio broadcasting in line with the harsh limits put on webcasting. I'd rather it be the opposite - that the limits on webcasting were brought in line with the (lack of) limits on radio broadcasting, but this is a good second best.

The broadcasting establishment claims that radio is a huge promotional force for artists; why isn't the opposite true of webcasting (a la Pandora)? It would seem the promotion of artists is /better/ in webcasting, because the webcaster can link the listener directly to where they might purchase the artist's work - unlike in radio, where you must wait for the DJ to (maybe, once in a blue moon) announce what just played, and then have to google it yourself.

zinkem• 15 years ago

Because radio creates monoculture and monoculture has less overhead.

CWuestefeld• 15 years ago

There was "hope" for "change" from a regime that bullied citizens into supporting the government-blessed corporations. But this article shows (again) that our new regime still serves the entertainment industry (not to mention pharma companies).

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. We won't get fooled again.

cmelbye• 15 years ago

> We won't get fooled again.

Yeah, we will (unfortunately.)

JeremyBanks• 15 years ago

> We won't get fooled again.

What makes this time different than the last dozen?

etherael• 15 years ago

Instead you'll choose the other guy who will..

Oh wait.

rayiner• 15 years ago

Something something "living Constitution" something something.

I don't think I'd be going out on a limb if I said when the founding fathers penned the Copyright Clause, their original understanding only contemplated civil action.

warmfuzzykitten• 15 years ago

Perhaps the US could put these felons in Guantanamo?

patrickgzill• 15 years ago

A copyright infringement is a felony? Seriously?

Natsu• 15 years ago

It can be already, under the NET ("No Electronic Theft") Act, if memory serves. But the feds usually have better things to do than to prosecute people for that sort of thing.

Or at least they used to. It's clear that prosecuting infringers has become a priority recently. I expect more is to come.

InclinedPlane• 15 years ago

How many malicious botnets are in operation in the US alone today? What resources are being brought to bear by the government in shutting them down?

Priorities.

bane• 15 years ago

When everything is a felony, nothing is.

Obama "IP czar" wants felony charges for illegal Web streaming

Related Stories