by Mattmovies » Fri Mar 18, 2011 2:18 pm
My first thought is one that I'm tired of thinking: Why is the White House concerning itself with this when there are much bigger issues at this very hour?
I don't think the definition of "streaming" is clearly defined here, and I wonder if they actually understand the term, or if in writing the law they are leaving a big loop hole to fill up our supermax prisons with everyone who participates in a forum favorite videos thread. And babies that dance to Prince songs, solitary confinement for them.
The confusion to me is whether the broadcaster is going to get punished, or if the audience member is getting punished. Is this, essentially, letting a movie theatre without a copyright play a movie and having the cops wait outside the theatre to arrest all the viewers (most of whom don't know they are committing a crime)? I don't have much of problem with shutting down You Tube as it is sustained on copyright infringement which is against the law already. Coming after people that go to You Tube and use the service is entrapment. Even going after the uploaders is ridiculous. If You Tube can't find a way to keep that material off, then they should be shut down until they can. Though I'm sure there's something in the contract for uploaders that deflects the blame from You Tube.
What I think this means is that the government is trying to take up more of a role in regulating copyright. Most of the time copyright holders have to find the infringers and send a cease and desist notice. Then take them to court if they don't cease. I can imagine it would be much easier to call the FBI and have them go in with machine guns, bust down their door and throw them in prison for uploading (or rewatching) Monty Python's dead parrot sketch.