Streaming videos to be illegal?

[Dreadylocks]

Just saw this in my fB feed.

http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/ten_strikes/

Obviously it's a good thing to stop people intentionally infringing on copyright, but this is a little far. If my grandpa wants to make a video of himself singing Happy Birthday to send to me, he could actually face jail time? Ouch.

Where does copyright infringement stand as far as 'crime' goes? I know it's not legal to infringe a copyright, but does that actually mean it's a criminal action or not since you never get 'charged' with infringement, but can only be sued in civil courts?

Anyway, enjoy the article

 

[CamVader]

I've spent a lot of time reading about and drawing my own conclusions on this subject. In this particular example, one has 10 strikes before prosecution would be a possibility. Imagine having 10 chances to illegally copy and use Windows 7 without fear of reprisal? I don't think Bill Gates would go for it.

I don't think this bill will go anywhere, either. What I think will happen with non-commercial works that violate copyright law is this or something like this: you upload your video, youtube detects copyrighted material, youtube pops up a paypal page and demands $2.00 to publish your video. They money is then dispersed to copyright holders.

 

[gpforet]

Regarding the legality:

Copyright violations are prosecuted under section 2319 of title 18 of the U.S. code and is considered a ciminal act. What makes it difficult to prosecute is the owner has to provide a victim impact statement (typically identifying a monetary value of the damage incurred by the copyright violation). Not sure the owners of "Happy Birthday" (currently owned by a subsidiary of Times/Warner) would go thru the trouble of trying to determine a financial impact of your grandpa sending you a video of him singing the song.

Also, I'm a little wary of articles like this. In reading the actual bill being proposed, the proposed changes still attach the monetary impact clause, which means the prosecution would have to show a value in lost revenue due to the infridgement. According to the bill, the lost value would have to exceed $2,500 in order to presecute.

Granted, you may still receive a cease and desist order if permission was not obtained, but I think the author of the Demandprogress article has failed to mention the monetary impact clause intentionally and, therefore, with an agenda. The proposed bill is very clear that BOTH the 10 strikes AND the monetary impact (above $2,500) have to be met before a person can be prosecuted.

My guess (and it is a guess) is that they bill is directed towards those uploading torrents of music and movies, and not the youtube videos of Sally lip-synching to the latest hip-hop song. Especially considering the slaughter job youtube does to audio. Don't know about you, but I would not pay for an audio recording of the quality delivered by Youtube.

 

[Tinalera]

Regarding the legality:

Copyright violations are prosecuted under section 2319 of title 18 of the U.S. code and is considered a ciminal act. What makes it difficult to prosecute is the owner has to provide a victim impact statement (typically identifying a monetary value of the damage incurred by the copyright violation). Not sure the owners of "Happy Birthday" (currently owned by a subsidiary of Times/Warner) would go thru the trouble of trying to determine a financial impact of your grandpa sending you a video of him singing the song.

Also, I'm a little wary of articles like this. In reading the actual bill being proposed, the proposed changes still attach the monetary impact clause, which means the prosecution would have to show a value in lost revenue due to the infridgement. According to the bill, the lost value would have to exceed $2,500 in order to presecute.

Granted, you may still receive a cease and desist order if permission was not obtained, but I think the author of the Demandprogress article has failed to mention the monetary impact clause intentionally and, therefore, with an agenda. The proposed bill is very clear that BOTH the 10 strikes AND the monetary impact (above $2,500) have to be met before a person can be prosecuted.

My guess (and it is a guess) is that they bill is directed towards those uploading torrents of music and movies, and not the youtube videos of Sally lip-synching to the latest hip-hop song. Especially considering the slaughter job youtube does to audio. Don't know about you, but I would not pay for an audio recording of the quality delivered by Youtube.

Just amazing reading that, and applying it to Happy Birthday-Dready, you may have to send some forms in triplicate along with a good lawyer and have grandpa sign various waivers before embarks on that project "Dready's Happy Birthday Video" copyright Dreadylocks Grandpa


On a more serious note, it is sounding like to me another effort to try and get a grasp and herd in these types of technologies (nevermind closing the door on a long since empty barn it sometimes feels like).

I would like to see something reached that would be appease everyone-the creators get their due monies while allowing the public a no/low cost way of managing these technologies and the sharing.

The youtube idea actually isn't a bad one!