[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Resistance See other Resistance Articles Title: Going to Jail for Linking & What Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s S. 978 Could Mean For You Earlier this month, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved S. 978, a bill that would expand the scope of felony criminal copyright infringement under federal law. While the legislation enjoys broad congressional support, a number of bloggers have slammed the bill on the grounds that it would allegedly impose criminal liability on lots of innocent U.S. Internet users. In this essay, I’ll answer a few “Frequently Asked Questions” about the legislation — and explain why you should care. Here are some links to get you up to speed: If I embed on my website a YouTube video that turns out to be infringing and ten people watch it, in what circumstances could I be charged with a felony under S. 978? Mike Masnick at TechDirt recently posed this question. To begin, federal law defines “public performance” in two ways: Streaming appears to fall under the second prong, as a recent White House Intellectual Property White Paper argued. Thus, if you post a copyrighted video online, each instance of your video being viewed likely constitutes a public performance. As Masnick points out, under S. 978, you may be open to criminal liability in such a situation. Terry Hart of Copyhype has a more nuanced view, arguing that even if the law would technically make criminals out of individuals who post infringing videos online, the chances of prosecution would be slim, especially given the limited resources of federal prosecutors and other considerations. Hart further notes that the higher standard of proof in criminal cases compared to civil infringement cases will serve as a check on rampant prosecutions. But this sounds an awful lot like, “just because they can doesn’t mean they will.” Hart’s arguments, therefore, are unlikely to alleviate the concerns raised by skeptics of S. 978. What does case law tell us about what must prosecutors do to prove that I’m guilty of willful infringement? For a prosecutor to show “willful” infringement, most courts have held that “the government must show the defendant specifically intended to violate copyright law.” (John Grimm, et al., Intellectual Property Crimes, 47 American Criminal Law Review 741, 770 (2010)). This requirement is in contrast to civil copyright lawsuits in which no such proof of “willful” infringement is necessary; only that infringement took place. Additionally, 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(2) states that, “evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.” In other words, merely posting an infringing video to YouTube can’t serve as the sole basis for proving you intended to violate copyright law. How frequently is criminal copyright infringement prosecuted? According to statistics cited by Terry Hart via the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 234 federal prosecutions have been commenced for criminal copyright infringement between 2006 and 2010. What sort of activity is this bill aimed at deterring? Are there bad actors out there who engage in large-scale copyright infringement for commercial gain by willfully linking to and/or streaming copyrighted works without actually reproducing or distributing said works? In Senator Amy Klobuchar’s own words: “Currently, if a criminal is selling pirated DVDs or CDs on a street corner, and they’re worth at least $2500, it is a felony. But if that same person is in their basement and felony streaming movies or books, whatever they could do, they could only be charged with a misdemeanor. This legislation fixes that loophole.” “[The legislation] does not go after legitimate businesses or innocent people who post a video or post a blog. In other words, the bill is not intended nor does it allow law enforcement to prosecute people who may stream videos and other copyrighted works to their friends without intending to profit from the work of the copyright owner. It also does not allow prosecutors to go after individuals that innocently post links on their blogs to copyrighted protected works.” Perhaps the most notable case involving a large-scale copyright infringer who only linked to infringing content is that of Brian McCarthy, who was charged with copyright infringement in March 2011. Allegedly, he operated a “linking site” on which he posted links to infringing content hosted on external websites. The criminal complaint (embedded here) alleges that he violated the copyright through “reproducing and distribution, including through electronic means.” It is unclear if merely linking to content amounts to reproduction and distribution. In any event, Klobuchar’s bill purports to target individuals whose conduct resembled McCarthy’s alleged behavior. How could Congress amend the Copyright Act to target these bad actors without putting casual, noncommercial infringers at risk of prosecution? One way to focus on the most egregious infringers would be to heighten the thresholds for infringement set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 506. As written the threshold is set at ten or more performances within 180 days, with 1) a retail value of the performances, or total economic value to either the infringer or owner in excess of $2,500, or 2) the total “fair market value” of licenses for those performances exceeds $5,000. If the legislation is truly aimed at the bad actors streaming massive amounts of content, setting the threshold above ten performances would more narrowly target the bill’s scope. And as Robert Cringely suggests, a person could reach the monetary value threshold for either a film or a song without much effort. Moreover, Kiernan Maletsky observes, “the value of an online video is totally speculative at this point.” To the extent that Congress wishes to establish a new legal avenue for criminally prosecuting entities engaged in large-scale infringement in the form of linking or streaming, setting the bar much higher than it is currently would not likely impede that effort. On the plus side, raising the threshold would do a great deal to assuage popular fears that posting a few videos online might land one in federal prison. Would S. 978 endanger online intermediaries, such as YouTube, that stream and/or link to user-generated content without screening it in advance? It is unlikely that the legislation would affect intermediaries like YouTube and others, given that the prosecution must prove the specific intent to infringe; that could be very difficult to establish for those websites. However, others believe criminal liability for those sites remains a very real possibility, citing the vagueness of the legislation.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
#2. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#0)
Ok, so now we cannot post embedded videos due to a copywrite issue. Fine. However, nowhere in that law does it not say we cannot post the URL site to the desired video.
How do we know if something is copyrighted, or not?
Hire an attorney to research it before you post a link. /Sarcasm What this is, is creating another law to use for selective enforcement to go after people the government doesn't like - say Mike Rivero or Jeff Rense.
There are no replies to Comment # 4. End Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||