Congress Holds Hearings on Unauthorized Public Performances [Part 2 of 2]
Some members of Congress are trying to get more information on legally streaming video content after several recent hearings in favor of further crackdowns on illegal streaming. The House of Representatives held a hearing with several witnesses giving testimony on June 1, but a bill had not been written yet. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a markup session on a draft of the bill (S.978 Criminal Copyright Infringement) on June 9, but it did not proceed to the floor yet. Update June 16, 2011: The S.978 bill was unanimously reported to the floor at markup on June 16 without further public discussion.
The bill was put off because concerns within it need to be addressed. Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT, was disappointed that parties, such as cable companies, had not brought their concerns prior to the markup session.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., began her statement talking about how IP is at the heart of America’s economic success, mentioning patented inventions that were created in Minnesota. She then turned to copyright. In the information economy, people steal not just physical property, but creativity, too. She supported some things that the Internet has revolutionized, but also lamented that it has made it easier to steal and profit. She gave statistics such as the billions of dollars lost to the global trade in pirated products per year, with money going out of American workers’ pockets and into thieves’ pockets, and the amount of products the US exports, emphasizing that we must protect and preserve America’s economic edge in the global marketplace.
Then Klobuchar addressed the S.978 bill, which would make public performances a crime eligible for felony charges. Currently, selling pirated CDs or DVDs over $2500 is a felony, while streaming “in the basement” is only a misdemeanor; this legislation fixes that “loophole.” These sites are making money without producing their own work. She then gave examples of how the money should go to the orchestra players and studio engineers and the hard-working Americans across the country. This bill will be a signal to people in our country, and in other countries, that America treats its IP theft seriously.
Klobuchar then spent a significant portion of her testimony explaining what the bill is not intended to do. She emphasized that this would not mean DOJ will go against innocent people who post a video or links on their blog; it is not intended nor does it allow law enforcement to prosecute people who stream to friends without intent to profit. This is only available when people willfully and knowingly violate copyright and profit from that violation, and is meant to provide tools to go after “the worst of the bad actors” by making them subject to felony liability; it does not criminalize any new behavior, and references existing law, as someone must already be committing a crime under current law. Evidence that someone is streaming online is not enough to establish willfulness. This will not affect legitimate business or contracts disputes; those will not be prosecuted, and the bill never intended to interfere with them. She was aware of concerns with the bill, and said she looks forward to working with all parties to address these concerns before moving the bill to the floor.
Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., gave a statement about the critical role IP plays in keeping our country competitive. He stated that criminal streaming is the same as criminally distributing bootleg CDs. He also made a point of clarifying that this bill does not criminalize YouTube or those who consume streaming content. Finally, he agreed that the bill should not move to floor until the stakeholders who are impacted resolve these unintended negative consequences. A solution to the unresolved issues “can, will, and must” be reached.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Tex., another co-sponsor, was not present, but he had provided written testimony for the record; it was not available at the session.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., spoke to say that he agrees with the goals of the bill, and that streaming is crime, but he shares the concerns of some of his constituents in New York, including the cable community that “has real concerns.” He said that as it is drafted, it does not approach good faith disputes well, but was confident that he will support it once this is worked out.
Ranking Member Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, also agreed that there are outstanding concerns, including from the cable satellite industries, and that they will be addressed before proceeding to the floor.
Update June 16, 2011: The S.978 bill was unanimously reported to the floor at markup on June 16 without further public discussion.
I can't believe this. There are so many people raging about how this bill is utter bullshit, and they don't know WHAT the are talking about because they are basing their opinions off the videos on youtube about how the bill allows youtube users, particularly video gamers, to be fined and put in jail.
I seriously can't believe that there are so many people who believe everything they are told.
The bill makes illegal streaming (or unauthorized public performance) for a commercial purpose or for private financial gain subject to felony liability; it is currently a misdemeanor. Felony means it's criminal, and so the government prosecutes, and penalties (fines and/or jail) are higher.
Sen. Klobuchar addressed these misunderstandings from blog posts and YouTube videos at a June 22, 2011 hearing; this bill is not intended to go after individuals or to criminalize things like karaoke, background music in videos, high school bands' performances. None of those typically have anything to do with for-profit activity. But your misunderstandings are okay and warranted! Even though this prosecutorial authority is only intended for going after illegal streaming done for a commercial purpose for private financial gain, and is not meant to affect noncommercial uses, critics argue that the language is not so clear.
Intellectual property protection has continually grown in scope and duration as time passes and new challenges to old business models emerge. The historic tendency of certain rights holders has been—and continues to be—to fight disruptive innovation by bringing lawsuits and lobbying for legislation. So it's good to be concerned with and aware of expanding copyright law!
One bill to be more worried about is the PROTECT IP Act (S.968). A variety of diverse and influential groups have recently written letters publicly opposing the bill, including a group of Internet technicians with significant DNS experience, a large group of Venture Capitalists, law professors, public interest groups, and the editorial boards of the New York Times and L.A. Times. Each of their letters contains numerous compelling reasons why the PROTECT IP Act is flawed, and each is worth reading. This wave of criticism will help ensure Congress is better informed of the technical, liberty, and innovation-related issues with the PROTECT IP Act. Accomplishing the titular goal of “preventing real online threats” should not give copyright owners, to quote the many prominent law professors, “the power to break the Internet.”
For more information on the PROTECT IP Act, check out another IP Brief article: http://www.ipbrief.net/2011/07/24/and-more-opposi…
Are you seriously telling me that all the people on youtube panicking over this Bill are panicking over nothing at all?
Now I feel dumb as i'm 1 of them…
Yup. A load of dumb journalists reported a load of information that was untrue, and then that filtered down to the youtube community. Typical of the media, after the concerns were put straight by the senators in charge of the bill, the journalists didn't do a follow up story, so a lot of people are getting the wrong end of the stick. You don't necessarily need to feel dumb, ultimately it's the journalists fault.
To be honest, it was Youtuber user dspgaming that has made me so alert on this matter, are you telling me he's wrong about this bill shutting down video game uploads?
The bill makes illegal streaming (or unauthorized public performance) for a commercial purpose or for private financial gain subject to felony liability; it is currently a misdemeanor. Felony means it's criminal, and so the government prosecutes, and penalties (fines and/or jail) are higher.
Sen. Klobuchar addressed these misunderstandings from blog posts and YouTube videos at a June 22, 2011 hearing; this bill is not intended to go after individuals or to criminalize things like karaoke, background music in videos, high school bands' performances. None of those typically have anything to do with for-profit activity. But your misunderstandings are okay and warranted! Even though this prosecutorial authority is only intended for going after illegal streaming done for a commercial purpose for private financial gain, and is not meant to affect noncommercial uses, critics argue that the language is not so clear.
Intellectual property protection has continually grown in scope and duration as time passes and new challenges to old business models emerge. The historic tendency of certain rights holders has been—and continues to be—to fight disruptive innovation by bringing lawsuits and lobbying for legislation. So it's good to be concerned with and aware of expanding copyright law!
One bill to be more worried about is the PROTECT IP Act (S.968). A variety of diverse and influential groups have recently written letters publicly opposing the bill, including a group of Internet technicians with significant DNS experience, a large group of Venture Capitalists, law professors, public interest groups, and the editorial boards of the New York Times and L.A. Times. Each of their letters contains numerous compelling reasons why the PROTECT IP Act is flawed, and each is worth reading. This wave of criticism will help ensure Congress is better informed of the technical, liberty, and innovation-related issues with the PROTECT IP Act. Accomplishing the titular goal of “preventing real online threats” should not give copyright owners, to quote the many prominent law professors, “the power to break the Internet.”
For more information on the PROTECT IP Act, check out another IP Brief article: http://www.ipbrief.net/2011/07/24/and-more-opposi…
Well, if you claim the anti-streaming bill is targeting the more troublesome bits of the illegal use of full TV episodes, films, and music rather than the game walkthrough and other videos designed to help the players on Youtube then some minor rewrites to the S.978 must be done so to prove these claims and thus restore some public confidence since as been so much public support AGAINST the bill.