New Bill Ups Punishment For Hosts of Infringing Video Streams 278
halfEvilTech writes
"Two months ago, the Obama administration asked Congress to make illicit online streaming of copyrighted movies and TV shows a felony. Such a bill has now been introduced by two senators. 'Online streamers can now face up to five years in prison and a fine in cases where: They show 10 or more "public performances" by electronic means in any 180-day period; and the total retail value of those performances tops $2,500 or the cost of licensing such performances is greater than $5,000.'"
Re:Filled-up Prisons (Score:5, Informative)
Hell no, bucky, prison is a for profit industry these days. Prison is the new plantation. In California, for instance, prison industries are exempt from environmental and safety regulations. And state agencies are required to buy from a prison industry where one exists, even if the products are inferior, unsafe, and more expensive than those available on the free market.
The powers that be have every incentive to create more, and more ridiculous, crimes. After all, if you are wealthy and politically connected, you can commit any crime you like with impunity, so what does it matter to you that everything is now a crime?
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
Same damn reason corporations in general are running everything. In the past few decades, "capitalism" and "free market" has been twisted by those with lots of money and a vested interest in having as much power as possible to mean unbridled, unregulated, free reign to do anything they want. When someone tries to inject some common sense into the conversation, they get called Communists (the Cold War buzzword) and/or Socialists (its modern bogeyman equivalent), the FTC, FCC, and other organizations tasked with looking out for us get emasculated and de-funded, a bunch of flag waving and chants of "freedom!" happen, and people vote and act against their own self-interest. All the while, those very rich people get to pay 15% capital gains tax on most of their income while the rest of us pay way more, and those corporations that are screwing us over pay little or no tax in the name of "creating jobs" all the while planning how to more efficiently cut our salaries and benefits and ship our jobs overseas.
Other than posting meaningless messages on Slashdot, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to cancel your cable subscription and stop watching big content? Are you going to stop listening to everyone except independent artists? Are you going to stop going to/renting movies? Are you going to support and campaign for people who have strong consumer rights stances? Are you going to tell your family and friends, even when it's a bit awkward because they're the very "freedom!" chanters you're fighting, why they have to buy movies four times to watch them on four devices? Are you going to write to your Congresscritters and your local media, set up a blog, and otherwise try to get the word out? Are you going to donate time and money to organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation? Are you going to stop buying iPods, Blu-ray players, PS3s, Amazon Prime memberships, and Netflix subscriptions?
Yeah, that's what I thought. That is why the bullies get to keep pushing us around.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
Manufacturing accounts for the lion’s share of U.S. exports—accounting for 62 percent in 2008
Royalties from Intellectual Property (patents, film, software, tv, music) - 13.3 percent in 2008
Re:WTF? (Score:2, Informative)
Simple. You have a !#%!%!-up political system that lets big money buy politicians. Money exists, and some people have plenty of it. That's not the problem. The problem is that it can be applied in copious quantities to buy political influence -- so much money that the influence of individual voters, financially or by voting, becomes almost irrelevant. Everybody knows that is the root of the problem here. There are solutions to it, or at least ways to mitigate the problem.
Ban corporate and organizational/group donations. Limit personal donations per year and per party/candidate to some reasonable amount within reach of anyone. Oh, but that might be unconstitutional, you say? I can't think of anything more important than preventing the complete subversion of "one person, one vote" democracy by money. Amend the constitution if you have to. Something along the lines of "The Congress of the USA may make laws limiting financial contributions made to political candidates and political parties." Done.
Crazy idea? Would never work? Other democratic countries have managed to pass laws that limit the influence that money can have in the democratic process without voiding their constitutionally-protected freedoms. Why can't that beacon of democracy, the USA, manage to do it?
A felony for streaming video? Five years in prison? Even as a proposed bill this is some kind of joke. Apparently the RIAA/MPAA own US legislators. Maybe next they'll propose moving the capital to Hollywood.