New Bill Would Criminalize Illegal TV Show Streaming

Source: Broadcasting & Cable

A bipartisan trio of Senators Thursday introduced a bill that would make illegally streaming TV shows or movies a felony.

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.

It is already a felony to download or upload that content, so the bill would just extend that to streaming a recommendation made by White House Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Victoria Espinel, The Copyright Alliance pointed out in praising the move.

In March, the Obama administration recommended that Congress clarify that streaming illegal content, in addition to downloading it, can be a felony.

Read more: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/468207-New_Bill_Would_Criminalize_Illegal_TV_Show_Streaming.php

---

I'm posting this as someone who's illegally streamed sporting events if I couldn't watch them on broadcast TV and some other content too. Now who's suffering more, the content owners or the poor viewers?

I'm so glad they have nothing more important to spend their time on.

donors.... guess we know what the priorities are. jobs is a nice slogan, but they have a job and they have donors to please.

as though it will be used against instead of for the most moneyed interests.

Our liberty, our rights, our well being and our happiness isn't 'a few more rules or laws' away, they are suffocating under the laws and rules we have.

I don't want more laws and regulation, I want good laws and regulation. I'd quite happily eliminate or supplant the laws that don't serve the public interest, and happily eliminate any government agency that serves business and corporate interests to the detriment of the common good.

I don't expect perfection. There will always be some corruption, some waste, some abuse of power. It does not at all follow, however, as the naive libertarian argument would have it, that simply making the government smaller and having fewer laws makes the system you're left with less corrupt, more fair, and more helpful to the common good than a bigger government with more laws.

With everything that is going on THIS is what they are spending their time on?
Jesus on a juice can.
:facepalm:

Surely they're not talking about taking away my Slingbox!

You'd be just fine.

However if you took that slinged content and distributed it and allowed anyone and everyone to get that sling stream, then that'll be illegal streaming. Private use is fine, because you paid for the content and the Slingbox is meant merely as a location shifting device.

Another way of looking at it is say this: I put up a live broadcast stream of a specific TV channel or even just an event on a channel and allowed others to have public access to this stream: i.e. I am distributing this content - without permission of the content creators - then that is illegal streaming.

as one defense would be for nonprofit educational purposes such as how the political videos section is managed

Youtube has a duty to ensure that no unauthorized material resides on their service. Youtube would be the bigger party to blame as it has done the unauthorized distribution, not you or DU. However the content owners still need to send Youtube a DMCA takedown notice.

The snippets we see on Youtube from TV news commentary shows (or News Entertainment if Fixed Noise clips are posted) are generally "fair use" anyway.

Even if Youtube did stream unauthorized content and one watched it, the defense is simple: one didn't know it was unauthorized content.

So as far as Youtube is concerned, it's Business As Usual.

I appreciate it.

if I am not mistaken.

Wrong place

"It is already a felony to download or upload that content"

Why just stop at a felony? Why not just shoot them on sight? Aren't they economic terrorists after all? No trial needed.

Will they have to go after the web hosts too?

No problem. We can re-purpose the Seal Team now that Bin Laden is dead!

The same stuff they pull on persuading individuals that downloading unauthorized distributions of media - you know the "you wouldn't steal a car... "

Basically put, it may well be legal in XYZ country to stream specific content. The legislation is clarifying that on US soil that if you're merely RECEIVING the stream from overseas that in itself is illegal. Unless the Great Firewall of the USA is really set up, there is not much that can be done.

Makes a grown man just want to find an island somewhere and give up.

No wonder we have so many people in prison and clogged courts; politicians can't seem to stop themselves from making more and more laws, and then adding on more to the laws they have already made. The end result is more fines, more trials and more people in jail.

but there is a quote from Atlas Shrugged that stuck with me when I read it:

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."


seems to fit here.

"Can you rule a thinking man? We don't want any thinking men!" Looks like the GOP used this as a blueprint for their bastardization of education rather than as the cautionary warning for which it was intended, telling me they don't pay any attention to their heroes. ;)

Todd in Cheesecurdistan

so no.

Services like Netflix, Hulu, etc. get the rights to stream the content. They pay the content creators/distributors to stream it (or in the case of Hulu, it's owned by content creators/distributors).

so it's not that different from watching it on regular TV.

They may end up with hardly any movies for free, anyways, movies that are worth watching.

So everyone is getting paid and paying.

If knowledge-based jobs are even more insecure than manual labor. Although it might become hysterically tragic, to see so many people walking around on the verge of nervous breakdowns.

And to think there are some "content creators" here on DU who support these kinds of laws.

And just how many jobs does this create? It's good to see that they are so concerned with the well-being of their constituents.

A felony? Seriously guys?

Who are paying their ISP and surfing the net, not making profit, just as consumers?

Shutting down hulu would be sad. And how about youtube? Don't these sites prohibit the illegal stuff now? I remember when hulu wouldn't show some programs, over songs that were part of them, but they couldn't get the owners to accept their payments. Some of those songs no one would ever know if they weren't shown there.

Same thing with youtube. They've sent a lot of business to record producers that would have never had that free advertising without their tunes being in videos.

Youtube deletes videos that copyright claims are made on, and has been doing it for a long time. If you begin to download something and it's not legal, they stop it. If something is not available in the USA, even though it's distributed worldwide, you can't see it.

IDK what the OP is talking about, why this is needed now.

This sounds like censorship to shut down Wikileaks and stop progressives from getting their ideas out, to compare the lies the conservatives are putting out by showing what they say under Fair Use, the way that Media Matters does.

It sounds likek they are forcing everyone to listen to conservative media or else. Yes, I'm that paranoid.

Who are paying their ISP and surfing the net, not making profit, just as consumers? How are we supposed to know it's not legal?

Shutting down hulu would be sad. And how about youtube? Don't these sites prohibit the illegal stuff now? I remember when hulu wouldn't show some programs, over songs that were part of them, but they couldn't get the owners to accept their payments. Some of those songs no one would ever know if they weren't shown there.

Same thing with youtube. They've sent a lot of business to record producers that would have never had that free advertising without their tunes being in videos.

Youtube deletes videos that copyright claims are made on, and has been doing it for a long time. If you begin to download something and it's not legal, they stop it. If something is not available in the USA, even though it's distributed worldwide, you can't see it.

IDK what the OP is talking about, why this is needed now.

This sounds like censorship to shut down Wikileaks and stop progressives from getting their ideas out, to compare the lies the conservatives are putting out by showing what they say under Fair Use, the way that Media Matters does.

It sounds like they're driving people to conservative media or else. I smell Righthaven and Koch Industries. Yes, I'm that paranoid.

The Obama administration has made protection, security and privacy of online content a priority given its push for universal broadband as a critical infrastructure component of the country's future.

this whole thing is about a clear as mud.

Are they talking about bit torrent sites/newsgroups or are they talking about tube streaming sites, like YouTube, etc.? The groups who are applauding this seem to be industry artisans.

It's aimed purely at the small guy and basement geeks who say, capture the video of a television or cable TV broadcast (paid or unpaid) and stream it on the web for all to see without the permission of the content owners. That was previously in a "grey area" and the legal clarification closes that loophole. This also closes the loophole on unauthorized re-streaming (e.g. the stream is intended for the US only, and someone opens up the stream to be viewed outside the States).

Summary:
Downloading the latest Ubuntu release via Bittorrent is still OK.
Downloading the latest broadcast of Doctor Who from BBC One via Bittorrent wasn't Ok and still isn't.
Watching your Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Video on Demand is still OK.
Watching Youtube is still OK because Youtube presents itself as having permission to stream such content and if they find out they have no permission they take it down.
New - Watching a particular TV station via an unauthorized stream is now unlawful.

Makes sense now.

I say 'odious' because of this:

What is to stop a hungry prosecutor from charging someone with a felony for having a webcam on for another purpose (not streaming content specifically) that happens to have copyrighted content in the background?

Many decent webcams these days can stream HD content. Is there any protection here for simple accidents?

Youtube took it down because a copyright claim.

There was a song you could just barely hear in the background. It was not a music video, it was just playing on the radio.

He couldn't cut the music out and without leave the sound of his kid talking when he tried to edit it to post again.

Do you know it's illegal to sing 'Happy Birthday' because it's copyrighted? In your own home, no less.

There should be a time frame for reimbursement for artistic content, or a way to give them revenue, not all this punitive stuff.

:thumbsdown:

Netflix is licensed by the copyright holders of the content. Same with Hulu.

...is sending these phonies to Congress as "representatives of the people."

- Hey Amy, John, Christopher and Patrick, GTH.


K&R

attitude in the mid 1700s........that led to something.

Isn't something that is illegal criminal already?

n/t