Techdirt reports that Senate bill 978 – a bill to amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes – may be used to prosecute people for embedding YouTube videos.
According to Mark Masnick, if a website embeds a YouTube video that is determined to have infringed on copyright and more than 10 people view it on that website, the owner or others associated with the website could face up to five years in prison.
Read http://www.techdirt.com/ar
He explains how the new law would expand copyright violations from reproducing and distributing to performing – including streaming video over the internet.
As readers of Infowars.com know, many videos are removed from YouTube after copyright owners complain about infringement. This happens with thousands of news clips every year. Most people are familiar with the now common black box replacing a video that says the video has been removed for copyright reasons.
If enacted, this law will go one step further and turn people who embed a copyrighted video into criminals. It will also set the stage to criminalize linking to copyrighted information — like corporate media news sources — and shut down the alternative media.
It will also make people think twice about putting up all kinds of videos, from news reports to clips from documentaries and other educational material.
It does not take a vivid imagination to realize the political implications of this legislation.
Here is the full text of the bill. http://www.govtrack.us/con
http://www.infowars.com/embedding-youtube-videos-may-soon-be-a-felony/
The controversial PROTECT IP Act unanimously passed the Senate Judiciary Committee today. When the PROTECT IP Act becomes law U.S. authorities and copyright holders will have the power to seize domains, block websites and censor search engines to prevent copyright infringements. Introduced just two weeks ago, the bill now heads over to the Senate for further consideration and another vote..
The U.S. Government continues to back legislation that opens the door to unprecedented Internet censorship.
Two weeks ago a group of U.S. senators proposed legislation to make it easier to crack down on so-called rogue websites, and today th...e Senate’s Judicial Committee unanimously approved the bill.
When the PROTECT IP Act becomes law the authorities can legitimately seize any domain name they deem to be facilitating copyright infringement. All that’s required to do so is a preliminary order from the court. But that’s just the start, the bill in fact provides a broad range of censorship tools.
In case a domain is not registered or controlled by a U.S. company, the authorities can also order search engines to remove the website from its search results, order ISPs to block the website, and order ad-networks and payment processors to stop providing services to the website in question.
Backers of the bill argue that the PROTECT IP Act is needed as an extension of the already controversial domain seizures. As reported previously, it is now relatively easy for a seized website to continue operating under a new non-US based domain name.
Not everyone agrees with this stance. Yesterday several Internet giants including Google, Yahoo, eBay and American Express asked the Senate Committee not to adopt the bill, warning it would “undoubtedly inhibit innovation and economic growth.
However, the concerns raised by the companies did not affect the vote today.
“Today the Judiciary Committee took an important step in protecting online intellectual property rights. The Internet is not a lawless free-for-all where anything goes,” commented Senator Orrin Hatch. “The Constitution protects both property and speech, both online and off.”
“The PROTECT IP Act targets the most egregious actors, and is an important first step to putting a stop to online piracy and the sale of counterfeit goods,” Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said commenting on the importance of the bill.
“Both law enforcement and rights holders are currently limited in the remedies available to combat websites dedicated to offering infringing content and products. These rogue websites are often foreign-owned and operated, or reside at domain names that are not registered through a U.S.-based registry or registrar,” Leahy added.
Similar comments were made by the other Committee members and the various entertainment industry lobby groups..
http://www.informationlibe
This was the Reply from Senator Sherrod Brown .
Dear Mr. Szabo:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts about legislation to combat online infringement and digital theft.
Last Congress, the Senate considered, but did not pass, legislation entitled the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA). The aim of this legislation was to assist the Department of Justice in tracking and shutting down "rogue websites." These sites provide unauthorized downloads, streaming, or direct sale of copyrighted material. Similar legislation, entitled the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act, was recently introduced in the Senate. The PROTECT IP Act narrows the definition of "rogue website" in an effort to target only the most egregious purveyors of digital theft and counterfeit crime.
Illegal file sharing and unauthorized copying of digital material prevents musicians, producers, filmmakers, software designers, and many others from reaping the fruits of their labor. Such activity has the potential to stifle artistic creativity and compromise electronic innovation. Ultimately, intellectual property theft costs our economy billions of dollars and can result in hundreds of thousands of lost jobs.
However, I have also heard from individuals with concerns about the scope of this legislation, as well as its First Amendment implications. I take these concerns seriously.
Should this legislation come before the full Senate for a vote, I will certainly keep your views in mind. Thank you again for getting in touch with me.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts about legislation to combat online infringement and digital theft.
Last Congress, the Senate considered, but did not pass, legislation entitled the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA). The aim of this legislation was to assist the Department of Justice in tracking and shutting down "rogue websites." These sites provide unauthorized downloads, streaming, or direct sale of copyrighted material. Similar legislation, entitled the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act, was recently introduced in the Senate. The PROTECT IP Act narrows the definition of "rogue website" in an effort to target only the most egregious purveyors of digital theft and counterfeit crime.
Illegal file sharing and unauthorized copying of digital material prevents musicians, producers, filmmakers, software designers, and many others from reaping the fruits of their labor. Such activity has the potential to stifle artistic creativity and compromise electronic innovation. Ultimately, intellectual property theft costs our economy billions of dollars and can result in hundreds of thousands of lost jobs.
However, I have also heard from individuals with concerns about the scope of this legislation, as well as its First Amendment implications. I take these concerns seriously.
Should this legislation come before the full Senate for a vote, I will certainly keep your views in mind. Thank you again for getting in touch with me.
Sincerely,
Sherrod Brown
United States Senator
Stay connected with what's happening in Congress. Sign up here for regular updates on the issues you care about the most:http://brown.senate.gov/ne
United States Senator
Stay connected with what's happening in Congress. Sign up here for regular updates on the issues you care about the most:http://brown.senate.gov/ne
If this passes IT WILL be the END of SzaboServices.com the rest!
These guys are so up the corporate ass they know no difference, I still say it's time for HOUSE cleaning!
Thanks For The Memories, it's been nice!
But see, what I use is from the RSS feed that the copyright holder releases, which HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED to BE USED! Which on my page is all static (NOTHING THERE) per say!
These guys are so up the corporate ass they know no difference, I still say it's time for HOUSE cleaning!
Thanks For The Memories, it's been nice!
But see, what I use is from the RSS feed that the copyright holder releases, which HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED to BE USED! Which on my page is all static (NOTHING THERE) per say!
