Author Topic: Senate bill S.978 "allows" the NWO to shut down the prisonplanet forum  (Read 6319 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Effie Trinket

  • member
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,292

S.978 -- To amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes.

`(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if--

`(A) the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works; and

`(B)(i) the total retail value of the performances, or the total economic value of such public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner, would exceed $2,500; or

`(ii) the total fair market value of licenses to offer performances of those works would exceed $5,000;'; and

The bill had a hold put on it, by a Senator from Oregon but tomorrow it goes to the Senate Judiciary Committee to be considered. It can be killed, sent back or approved.

Coons and Klobuchar, who are co-sponsors of this bill(s.978), are also on the Judiciary Comitee.

Other Judiciary members include Leahy, Blumenthal, Feinstein, Franken, Grassley, Schumer, Whitehouse, Coons and Klobuchar. These 9 Senators are all co-sponsors of the "Protect IP Act" (S.968) which is another copyright bill waiting to be pushed through the Senate. So you know it will be approved for a vote.

s.978 - As Techdirt explains it: "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."

s.968 or the "Protect IP Act" - this will authorize the DOJ to file a civil action against the registrant or owner of a domain name that accesses a foreign infringing Internet site or the foreign-registered domain name itself."

And if your read further into the bill, this includes just hyperlinking to a site that contains copyrighted material.

I assume this is the way our representatives payback the entertainment business (movie, TV and music) for their extremely generous campaign donations.

The thought that a 19 year old kid, who has never been in trouble before, can end in in jail for 5 years, because he posted a link on his Facebook to a 3 minute clip of Napoleon Dynamite just really burns the shit out of me.

Call or Email your Senators urging them to vote against this...Feel free to cut and paste any this post and send it to other blogs or forums so they can call their Senators.

People Realizing New Anti-Streaming Criminal Copyright Bill Could Mean Jail Time For Lip Synchers
from the unintended-consequences dept

We recently wrote about the horrible bill introduced by Senators Amy Klobuchar, John Cornyn and Christopher Coons to extend criminal copyright law to include "public performances" as being potentially criminal. As we explained at the time, current copyright law is split into civil and criminal parts, with most violations being civil in nature. But this new bill -- unfortunately recommended by White House Copyright Czar Victoria Espinel -- would extend the criminal provisions to include "public performances." Supporters claim that the lack of a "public performances" provision in criminal copyright law was a "loophole" or an oversight. But that's incorrect. There are good reasons why public performances aren't covered by criminal copyright law, in that it rarely makes sense to consider them criminal issues.

Yet, because the entertainment industry is freaking out about sites that embed and stream infringing content, and want law enforcement to put people in jail over it, rather than filing civil lawsuits, this move was made to extend criminal copyright law. However, the idea and the suggestion were done with very little thought towards what this really means in an internet age, when almost everything you do online could be considered "a public performance." We already pointed to one possibility: that people embedding YouTube videos could face five years in jail. Now, others are pointing out that it could also put kids who lip sync to popular songs, and post the resulting videos on YouTube, in jail as well.

Now, of course, all of the supporters of this bill insist that's just crazy talk. After all, this bill is not intended for that purpose at all. It's solely intended to go after "criminals" who are doing these things for profit:

    The new law will not target “individuals or families streaming movies at home,” said a statement from Klobuchar. She said the bill will instead target “criminals that are intentionally streaming thousands of dollars in stolen digital content and profiting from it.”

That's nice to say, and I'm sure she means it. But this shows a massive misunderstanding of how the internet works. After all, plenty of people doing these kinds of videos may put some ads around them, and plenty of them get to be really, really big. And, as we've seen with ICE's domain seizures, they consider any use of advertising, even if it makes a pittance, to be "profiting from infringement." These days, everything has ads on it, and it's easy for anyone to sign up for a simple ad account and make a few bucks here and there for your activities online.

And that's the problem. While I'm sure no one supporting this bill thinks it'll be used in this manner, and I'm sure law enforcement has no interest or intention to go after lip-syncing teens, we've all seen how laws like this get stretched and used to bring people up on charges, when no other law applies. Remember the Lori Drew case? That involved the feds stretching a "computer hacking" law to claim she "hacked" MySpace by creating a fake account on the service, allowing them to charge her with a felony. Similarly, we've seen officials charge people with wiretapping for merely wearing a helmet cam while riding a motorcycle.

The point is that when law enforcement wants to charge someone with a felony where there's no obvious match, they'll often stretch laws like this to find something they can use. And this extension of criminal copyright law to include a "public performance" seems ripe for misuse. If Klobuchar and the others are serious about this, they should go back to the drawing board and rewrite the bill so it's not nearly so broad and won't open up so many potential unintended consequences.

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.

Protect IP Act would create a lot of criminals

By William Jackson
Jun 13, 2011

The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved a draconian bill in a misguided effort to combat online piracy and counterfeiting.

S.968, the Protect IP Act — which has an annoyingly long and convoluted full title, created solely to provide a relevant acronym — was introduced by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). It was designed to “provide the Justice Department and rights holders with important new tools to crack down on rogue websites dedicated to infringing activities,” the senator said in introducing the bill.

Unfortunately, those tools are directed not against the infringing sites but against “specified U.S. based third-parties, including Internet service providers, payment processors, online advertising network providers and search engines.”

In other words, the bill lumps together almost every segment of the Internet infrastructure with the real criminals, making everyone responsible for the activities of the pirates and counterfeiters. It allows a judge to decide which domains can and cannot be accessed in this country and which results a search engine is allowed to return and penalizes advertisers for carrying the wrong ads.

The National Association of Attorneys General likes the bill, saying in a letter to Leahy and others that “this narrowly tailored response to clearly illegal activity would enable effective action against the worst of the worst counterfeiters and pirates online.”

The problem is that the bill is not narrowly tailored at all. Its overly broad definition of an Internet site includes all links, indexes and pointers to that site. This makes Google, Bing and any other site with the wrong hyperlink an accessory to www.criminal.crime.

The law would allow the U.S. attorney general to take action against the owners or operators of “rogue websites operated and registered overseas” and require a preliminary injunction or a permanent injunction from a court to obtain a temporary restraining order. But because the overseas domain is outside the U.S. court’s jurisdiction, the orders are served against third parties in the United States. Operators of Domain Name System servers would be required to cut the sites off, search engines would be prohibited from returning the link for any search, advertising services forbidden to sell the ads, and financial transactions would be halted.

Although there might be a reasonable argument for halting financial transactions, the advertising prohibition is hard to swallow in an era in which corporate political contributions have been declared protected speech. And as has been pointed out many times already, cutting off DNS resolution and blocking search engine returns are more typical actions for China than the United States and just plain wrong.

Leahy defended the bill in the Senate, saying that “few things are more important to the future of the American economy and job creation than protecting our intellectual property,” and that “in today's business and fiscal climate, the harm that intellectual property infringement causes to the U.S. economy is unacceptable.”

All well and good. Few are likely to come out in favor of trademark and copyright infringement. But this does not justify the totalitarian approach taken in his bill. In essence, Leahy is repeating the oft-heard refrain of law enforcement and government officials: “My job would be so much easier if I didn’t have to worry about civil liberties and personal rights!”

This is no doubt true. But we should not give up those rights just to make a difficult job easier. Enforcing intellectual property rights against violators in other countries is difficult. Those responsible for it should get on with the difficult job of crafting the international tools and agreements necessary to do the job while respecting basic liberties in this country.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Entertainment industry ordered to whore themselves for the electronic prison called "PROTECT IP"
By Sahil Kapur
Thursday, June 16th, 2011 -- 9:25 am 

WASHINGTON – Screenwriters who have shaped television programs such as The Late Show With David Letterman, CBS Radio News, How I Met Your Mother and Law & Order told a roomful of Capitol Hill staffers on Tuesday that a clampdown on Internet piracy would be consistent with the principles of net neutrality. "We support net neutrality – otherwise it is almost certain that most of the content consumers view will be produced by a relative handful of entities," said Michael Winship, president of the Writers Guild of America (East) and former senior writer for Bill Moyers Journal. "It is critical for the potential of the Internet and other digital media that diversity, accessibility, competitiveness and imagination not be stifled by multinational corporate behemoths that would restrict access for their own commercial gain." "Contrary to the assertions of some of its opponents, the Internet does not promote digital piracy," Winship said. "We strongly support Senator [Patrick] Leahy’s [(D-VT)] Protect IP Act." Part of the purpose behind the panel was to build support for the Protect IP Act, which the Writers Guild of America strongly supports. The measure would empower officials to crack down on digital theft of intellectual property by ordering Internet service providers and search engines to filter results and block websites authorities deem to be infringing on copyrights. Critics of Protect IP fear that it could be abused by officials to shut down websites, and the bill was put on hold last month by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), who said "the costs of the legislation far outweighed the benefits" and warned that it would "muzzle speech and stifle innovation and economic growth."

Few reporters were invited to the event, which featured a panel of ten screenwriter panelists and an audience of at least 60 Congressional staffers -- several of them worked for lawmakers who sit on the Judiciary Committee, which oversees Internet regulations and online piracy. One of the panelists forcefully warned that failing to effectively go after Internet piracy – in an age where more and more viewership of television shows occurs online – could extinguish the fire that fuels the television industry. "There's a popular misconception that when you steal content, you’re only stealing from rich corporations who don’t need the money," said Gina Gionfriddo, television writer for Law & Order and Cold Case and WGA Council Member. "But Internet piracy really takes income out of my pocket, out of the pockets of actors, writers, directors and technicians who create these programs." Winship and other screenwriters on the panel touted the vitality of a free and Internet – where no piece of information is prioritized over another – in fueling "entrepreneurial spirit" and sustaining the livelihoods of independent artists. "Many, many people in my profession believe that net neutrality is essential to the narrative of our work, to the endurance of our business, and even to the vitality of our democracy," said Duane Tollison, a news writer for CBS Radio Network and WGA Council Member.

Other panelists included Tom Rurecht, writer for How I Met Your Mother and former staff writer for the David Letterman; Daryn Strauss, creator of the web series Downsized and founder of; Thom Woodley, online video pioneer and founder of Diorama; Julie Ann Emery, creator, director and executive producer of the award-winning web series Then We Got Help; Thomas Poarch, co-creator, writer and producer of the web series Brosephs, and Michael Kantor, director, producer and writer of PBS documentary Broadway: The American Musical.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
"We the People" are forcing congress to defund Jay Rockefeller's Net Neutrality extortion operations
By Stephen C. Webster
Thursday, June 16th, 2011 -- 9:54 am

Money earmarked for the enforcement of net neutrality policies may not make it to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) this year, if House Republicans have their way. In an appropriations bill (PDF) which cleared the House Appropriations Committee yesterday, blocking out funds for financial services and government operations, legislative language specifically strikes tax dollars from being used to uphold the tenants of Internet regulations passed by the FCC in December, ostensibly requiring that wired data providers treat all traffic equally. Republicans have vowed for months to target net neutrality, with House Speaker John Boehner insisting that it amounts to "a government takeover of the Internet." While that's patently false, the rules do require wired Internet providers play fair with traffic from competitors' services and not use network management practices to slow down one type of data versus another. The rules do not apply to wireless Internet providers and violations are not treated as serious crimes. The latest appropriations bill contains language taken directly from a measure that failed in February, which sought to defund neutrality enforcement. Lawmakers in the House planned to debate the funding on Thursday.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately


  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,847
  • Commander
Bump (even though this is already stickied)
Automatic User Post Signature:
The message has to be put out in the right way.
Website Still Needs to be updated ||

Offline Kilika

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,762
  • Thank you Jesus!
They are going to do whatever they can think of, legal or illegal, to shut down any dissent online, and to protect their love of money under the guise of copyright law.
"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
1 Timothy 6:10 (KJB)