Thread: Would you download a felony?

unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content is a significant problem that will only increase in severity if technology outpaces legal reforms

The things you hear when you don't have your elephant gun, a deep hole, and a sack of lime.

[Edit]
For the incredibly stupid, this is a bloody %$!*$# joke; don't get your nickers twisted.
[/Edit]

Seriously, didn't we pass that point on October 28 in 1998?

[Edit]
Added a random link for context.
[/Edit]

Soma

[Edit]
House Subcommittee Learns about Streaming | Beyond Clause 8
[/Edit]

O_o

Oh good heavens, if I'd have known someone would watch the video I wouldn't have posted the link. For everyone who hasn't watched it yet, you can get transcripts instead. Please, if you bother at all, read the transcripts instead.

Anyway, you need to look at the riders. As you know, or should know, I assume you know, copyright infringement isn't intended to be just a "You violated our copyright; pay us now!" kind of thing. A court, conventionally a jury, must decide that there has been infringement. This law and its riders are attempting to circumvent this by changing how copyright infringement cases are processed because of the felony charge. Further, in the context of this law, they are attempting to enlarge certain bits like the "willful infringement" context.

It isn't then just a simple update to the broadcast, production, and public performance related laws that already exist. Those laws do need to be updated in the context of the modern world, but they need to be done so in such a way as to conform to the relevant treaties, such as WIPO, without this overreaching attempt to criminalize by default.

It is sickening. It is like the burdensome intellectual property laws in a way. The average guy who misconfiguration a port and streams his entire movie collection for the world to see has a huge burden of proving that it was accidental and even if is proven the guy would have already been accused of a felony. (Just being accused of a felony carries a lot of baggage in this part of the world.) Civil defense is a huge burden when attempting to raise a defense against copyright protection because of the current state of laws; attempting to raise a criminal defense would be an entirely different level of abuse.

[Edit]
In order to provide context for the above, consider how difficult it is to even get the "USPTO" to consider reexamining a patent application for the sake or reduction as part of a defense. It is crazy. It is an unacceptable burden to place on the average citizen of anywhere.
[/Edit]

[Edit]
And not that it really matters, but no I don't condone copyright infringement or patent infringement.

I do however despise any law that places an unreasonable burden on defensive measures.
[/Edit]

Soma

Originally Posted by phantomotap

O_o

Oh good heavens, if I'd have known someone would watch the video I wouldn't have posted the link. For everyone who hasn't watched it yet, you can get transcripts instead. Please, if you bother at all, read the transcripts instead.

Anyway, you need to look at the riders. As you know, or should know, I assume you know, copyright infringement isn't intended to be just a "You violated our copyright; pay us now!" kind of thing. A court, conventionally a jury, must decide that there has been infringement. This law and its riders are attempting to circumvent this by changing how copyright infringement cases are processed because of the felony charge. Further, in the context of this law, they are attempting to enlarge certain bits like the "willful infringement" context.

It isn't then just a simple update to the broadcast, production, and public performance related laws that already exist. Those laws do need to be updated in the context of the modern world, but they need to be done so in such a way as to conform to the relevant treaties, such as WIPO, without this overreaching attempt to criminalize by default.

It is sickening. It is like the burdensome intellectual property laws in a way. The average guy who misconfiguration a port and streams his entire movie collection for the world to see has a huge burden of proving that it was accidental and even if is proven the guy would have already been accused of a felony. (Just being accused of a felony carries a lot of baggage in this part of the world.) Civil defense is a huge burden when attempting to raise a defense against copyright protection because of the current state of laws; attempting to raise a criminal defense would be an entirely different level of abuse.

[Edit]
In order to provide context for the above, consider how difficult it is to even get the "USPTO" to consider reexamining a patent application for the sake or reduction as part of a defense. It is crazy. It is an unacceptable burden to place on the average citizen of anywhere.
[/Edit]

[Edit]
And not that it really matters, but no I don't condone copyright infringement or patent infringement.

I do however despise any law that places an unreasonable burden on defensive measures.
[/Edit]

Soma

riders?