Gov't Wants to Jail You For Embedding YouTube Vids

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

www.techdirt.com/articles/20110601/01515014500/senators-want-to-put-people-jail-embedding-youtube-videos.shtml

Embedding a YouTube video could soon be a felony...

Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos

from the not-understanding-the-technology dept

Okay, this is just getting ridiculous. A few weeks back, we noted that Senators Amy Klobuchar, John Cornyn and Christopher Coons had proposed a new bill that was designed to make "streaming" infringing material a felony. At the time, the actual text of the bill wasn't available, but we assumed, naturally, that it would just extend "public performance" rights to section 506a of the Copyright Act.

Supporters of this bill claim that all it's really doing is harmonizing US copyright law's civil and criminal sections. After all, the rights afforded under copyright law in civil cases cover a list of rights: reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works or perform the work. The rules for criminal infringement only cover reproducing and distributing -- but not performing. So, supporters claim, all this does is "harmonize" copyright law and bring the criminal side into line with the civil side by adding "performance rights" to the list of things.

If only it were that simple. But, of course, it's not. First of all, despite claims to the contrary, there's a damn good reason why Congress did not include performance rights as a criminal/felony issue: because who would have thought that it would be a criminal act to perform a work without permission? It could be infringing, but that can be covered by a fine. When we suddenly criminalize a performance, that raises all sorts of questionable issues.

Furthermore, as we suspected, in the full text of the bill, "performance" is not clearly defined. This is the really troubling part. Everyone keeps insisting that this is targeted towards "streaming" websites, but is streaming a "performance"? If so, how does embedding play into this? Is the site that hosts the content guilty of performing? What about the site that merely linked to and/or embedded the video (linking and embedding are technically effectively the same thing). Without clear definitions, we run into problems pretty quickly.

And it gets worse. Because rather than just (pointlessly) adding "performance" to the list, the bill tries to also define what constitutes a potential felony crime in these circumstances:

the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works

So yeah. If you embed a YouTube video that turns out to be infringing, and more than 10 people view it because of your link... you could be facing five years in jail. This is, of course, ridiculous, and suggests (yet again) politicians who are regulating a technology they simply do not understand. Should it really be a criminal act to embed a YouTube video, even if you don't know it was infringing...? This could create a massive chilling effect to the very useful service YouTube provides in letting people embed videos.

[mmhmm]

I'll have to look further into this before commenting, paul, other than to point out that ignorance is no excuse for the law. It never has been. You're responsible to know what's legal and what's not. Therefore, to ask if it's criminal to embed a YouTube video if you don't know it's infringing, the answer would PROBABLY be: Yes.

[henryclay]

Well, are we to toss our recorders into the circular file, too? I mean, will we still be able to recoird a TV program for later viewing?

Not according to existing laws , , , ,and the credits section of everything you see on the tube. They all say no copying is allowed.

But realistically, I believe the practice is already widespread and will be just abut impossible to shut down , , , , , , , as long as there is no profit incentive for doing the copying. That's because copyright laws prohibit making money off somebiody else's work without their say-so.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 3, 2011 12:48:44 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I'll have to look further into this before commenting, paul, other than to point out that ignorance is no excuse for the law. It never has been. You're responsible to know what's legal and what's not. Therefore, to ask if it's criminal to embed a YouTube video if you don't know it's infringing, the answer would PROBABLY be: Yes.

So, YouTube wouldn't be immune. The executives would go to jail, and the service shut down?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

IMHO, it's been a long time coming, but the old "we just host it, we're not responsible for anything our users do" shield companies like YouTube have been hiding behind will come to an end at some point. Quicker if they start putting users in JAIL for re-posting some video.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

Note to self: stop posting cute cat videos on Facebook.

[floridayankee]

A few weeks back, we noted that Senators Amy Klobuchar, John Cornyn and Christopher Coons had proposed a new bill that was designed to make "streaming" infringing material a felony.

The economy is fixed and the budget is balanced!

Well, it must be...The senate is moving on to this all important topic of embedding youtube videos.

Good job senate!

[/sarcasm]

Oh...and if one of these three azzclowns is your senator, please be sure to tell them in no uncertain terms to quit screwing around and get the f back to work.....

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 3, 2011 13:04:21 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

A few weeks back, we noted that Senators Amy Klobuchar, John Cornyn and Christopher Coons had proposed a new bill that was designed to make "streaming" infringing material a felony.

The economy is fixed and the budget is balanced!

Well, it must be...The senate is moving on to this all important topic of embedding youtube videos.

Good job senate!

[/sarcasm]

Oh...and if one of these three azzclowns is your senator, please be sure to tell them in no uncertain terms to quit screwing around and get the f back to work.....

[ugonow]

If it was your work people were accessing free you might see it differently.Me, not so much so.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 3, 2011 13:23:29 GMT -5 ugonow said:

If it was your work people were accessing free you might see it differently.Me, not so much so.

I'd love it. But then, I subscribe to Grateful Dead marketing theory.

The Dead, if you are not familiar with them, set up whole areas for bootleggers to record their music and share it with their friends.

The remained the top selling live performance group for decades.

An idea shared isn't lost, it's multiplied.

[Deleted]

So, let me see.. first we get the technology to see all kinds of things, and, basically, if you scratch your arse in public it could end up on You tube... the they tell us it is illegal to do these super-duper things we now do all the time? Got it..

So, my opinion is-- with Yank on my first one-- get your arses back to work, and second, my very own-- do not scratch your arse in public..

[ugonow]

<<<<<<the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works>>>>>

I think it is more or less a pirating issue, not a ass scratching issue.[unless of course one copyrighted ass scratching] Those Warner bros just don't get the hip free stuff idea.

[txbo]

The bill (S. 978) was introduced by Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), and Christopher Coons (D-Del.), and came the same day that Sen. Patrick Leahy (D- Vt.) re-introduced a bipartisan bill to give the government more tools to shut down Web sites that traffic in stolen intellectual property, including TV shows and movies.

[mmhmm]

Jun 3, 2011 12:50:27 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jun 3, 2011 12:48:44 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I'll have to look further into this before commenting, paul, other than to point out that ignorance is no excuse for the law. It never has been. You're responsible to know what's legal and what's not. Therefore, to ask if it's criminal to embed a YouTube video if you don't know it's infringing, the answer would PROBABLY be: Yes.

So, YouTube wouldn't be immune. The executives would go to jail, and the service shut down?

As I said, I'll have to look further into this as I don't feel really enlightened enough to comment on the guts of the deal. Yet, in answer to your question, at this point I'd say: Yes. YouTube would not be immune and those involved in the publication of illegal material would be subject to whatever punishment the law dictated. Even the ignorance of executives is no excuse for the law.

[burnsattornincan]

This could put a serious constraint on Mr. billisonboard's attempt at humor on this board.

[floridayankee]

Jun 3, 2011 13:23:29 GMT -5 ugonow said:

If it was your work people were accessing free you might see it differently.Me, not so much so.

If I actually made a video and copyrighted it, and it ended up being accessed free on youtube, I'd go after the bonehead that posted it there...not the unknowing viewers that like and embed my work.

Have you ever looked at youtube guidelines?

Posting copyright-infringing content can lead to the termination of your account, and possibly monetary damages if a copyright owner decides to take legal action (this is serious—you can get sued!). Below are some guidelines to help you determine whether your video is eligible or whether it infringes someone else's copyright. You can also find copyright FAQs within our Help Center.

About youtube:

Founded in February 2005, YouTube allows billions of people to discover, watch and share originally-created videos. YouTube provides a forum for people to connect, inform, and inspire others across the globe and acts as a distribution platform for original content creators and advertisers large and small.

I would sort of expect content to be distributed and shared if posted on a website built for distributing and sharing.

[billisonboard]

Jun 3, 2011 14:15:29 GMT -5 burnsattornincan said:

This could put a serious constraint on Mr. billisonboard's attempt at humor on this board.

[glow=red,2,300]Attempts?[/glow] [glow=blue,2,300]Attempts you say!!!![/glow]
[glow=green,1,300]"Give me youtube or give me a 5 year jail term!"[/glow]Apologies to Mr. Henry

[billisonboard]

[glow=red,2,300]"I'll give you my youtube when you pry my mouse from my cold, dead hand"[/glow]

[burnsattornincan]

In all honesty Mr. billisonboard, your material is of good quality, usually.