
Obama "IP czar" wants felony charges for illegal Web streaming - lotusleaf1987
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/obama-ip-czar-wants-felony-charges-for-illegal-web-streaming.ars
======
zdw
How about felony charges for everyone who worked for a company that was
involved with the financial meltdown?

I think you'd scrape up a whole lot more guilty people in that circumstance,
rather than demonizing a bunch of glorified slingboxes.

~~~
mcantelon
The Obama admin will generally prosecute the enemies of whoever pays them the
most. We live in a representative democracy, but the representation seems to
be auctioned off.

~~~
jbooth
The Obama admin has actually been better than every other administration about
disclosing lobbyist visits, etc. See my link below. Note that no congressional
offices or subcommittees have followed suit (and really, if you're spending
lobbyist dollars and looking for results, swaying a subcommittee chair is so
much easier than swaying the president, and might accomplish more).

I'd go as far as to say the problem is more "Washington in general and
Congress in particular" than Obama. I mean, last week he was a socialist and
now he's a plutocrat, too? The two philosophies are diametrically opposed,
pick one.

~~~
harold
I disagree. For example:

The Obama administration has already failed to respond to more FOIA requests
than the Bush administration.

<http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=11758>

Obama Administration Aides meet with lobbyists off the White House grounds to
avoid logging meetings:

<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50081.html>

More than 40 former lobbyists work in top positions in the administration,
including three cabinet secretaries and the director of Central Intelligence.

[http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/former-lobbyists-
seni...](http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/former-lobbyists-senior-obama-
administration-positions)

~~~
jbooth
On your links:

#1) Your first link makes absolutely no reference to the Bush administration.
It supports my point, though, Obama created stricter guidelines instructing
the agencies to fulfill _more_ FOIA requests. And the agencies are falling
short for whatever bureaucratic reason, seemingly that they can't work through
the pile fast enough. Rome wasn't built in a day and all that. Thanks for the
link though, I didn't know Obama had done that. I approve.

#2) Some aides met with lobbyists off of white house ground to avoid logging
the meetings? You mean to avoid the policy that Obama put in place and that
had never existed before he was elected? Seems like he's working in the right
direction, to me. Now we just need Congress to implement a similar rule.

#3) Yeah, again, not perfect just yet. Want to compare/contrast with the
number of former lobbyists who worked in the Bush white house, on the McCain
campaign, or on John Boehner's staff?

If you're reasoning backwards from "I've decided I don't like Obama", you can
believe whatever you want.

But the guy's history and all of his public pronouncements since taking office
have been on the side of openness, and consistently against the influence of
lobbyists. He's actually created a bunch of initiatives for more openness, the
lobbyist visit thing and the data.gov thing being two of them.

It's just plain disingenuous to claim that Obama is less in favor of openness
than Dick Cheney.

EDIT: Wow. Not usually one to whine about the voting but the guy's links
actually say the opposite of what he's claiming. And he's upvoted. Just goes
to show, you can believe whatever you want and vote that way too.

~~~
defroost
> It's just plain disingenuous to claim that Obama is less in favor of
> openness than Dick Cheney.

If you want to prosecute to Julian Assange, you are not for openness in
Government. If you put Bradley Manning not in jail, but under the jail, and
refuse to let even Congressmen like Denis Kucinich even visit Manning to
witness first hand the conditions under which he is being held, you are not
for openness in Government. <http://antiwar.com/radio/2011/03/12/rep-dennis-
kucinich/> If you fire State Dept Spokesman P.J. Crowley because he makes an
off the record comment at MIT about the deplorable treatment of Manning, you
are not for more openness in government.
<http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/>

I voted for Obama. In many ways he is a huge improvement over Bush, but let's
be realistic, and face the facts.

Lastly, there was an article about whether Obama has lived up to his
transparency pledge on NPR yesterday.
[http://www.npr.org/2011/03/15/134540530/has-obama-lived-
up-t...](http://www.npr.org/2011/03/15/134540530/has-obama-lived-up-to-his-
pledge-on-transparency)

~~~
jbooth
Well, he has a better record on openness than his predecessors and everyone
else in both 2008 primaries with a couple exceptions (Kucinich and maybe Ron
Paul).

I mean, he did get into office and immediately push a bunch of initiatives
regarding openness. Maybe it didn't go as far as you or I would want but even
slowing the descent is an improvement.

~~~
scythe
The guy has a long track record of _saying_ he's going to do something, and
not doing it. Take his proclamation, upon entering office, that the detention
center at Guantanamo would be closed within a year. It's still open. Take his
statements back around 2004-2006 that we needed to decriminalize marijuana. It
took two years of the same issue rising to the top of polls for the guy to
even address it, and he brushed it off. Take his promise to fight for better
healthcare -- except during the voting, I heard more from Nancy Pelosi and
Harry Reid than I did from Obama. Or the whole "let's talk diplomatically to
Iran".

~~~
brown9-2
Many of those things can't be done unilaterally. The president can't force
something threw that Congress isn't interested in (medical marijuana, the
Gitmo closing).

------
snsr
The fact that _any_ ip related 'crime' is deemed serious enough to be a felony
disgusts me. Espinel is bought and paid for.

~~~
PostOnce
I don't want people to pirate my software, but I'd rather file sharers and
individuals get away free than have a felony on their record or go to prison.
Civil penalties are a good idea, possibly light criminal penalties, not a
felony though, much less prison time.

Commercial piracy is a different matter, and I don't have a thoroughly-
considered opinion on what the punishment for it should be.

~~~
electromagnetic
The truly disturbing thing is that the felony charge can destroy peoples
lives, and destroy peoples attempts to even run a normal life.

I couldn't work my job with most felony charges, because I'm in construction
and I work on other people's property my employer can't have me on payroll
unless I'm bondable. If I have a criminal conviction my job is in danger, but
if it's for theft I'm gone and I'm either forced to work under the radar or
find a new job.

------
jbooth
If anyone wants to see who she's heard from on the matter, you can just visit:

[http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-
room/disclosures/visitor-...](http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-
room/disclosures/visitor-records)

and type "Espinel" into the search box on the little app.

My sample size of one visitor name typed into Google yielded an ATT exec.

------
smogzer
Thought Crime ?

The fact that a government is acting against its citizens in behalf of a
minority, now that should be a crime.

~~~
nhebb
Now that you mention it, US District Judge Gladys Kessler just ruled a few
weeks ago that the federal government has the right to regulate "mental
activity": [http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/23/dont-think-of-a-health-
ins...](http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/23/dont-think-of-a-health-insuran)

~~~
georgieporgie
That seems to be really badly taken out of context. From the one and only
quote within the page you linked:

 _As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as
opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial
guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power...However, this
Court finds the distinction, which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little
significance. It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a
choice to forgo health insurance is not "acting," especially given the serious
economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice.
Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something
or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise
is to ignore reality._

It doesn't look like he's saying that mental activity can be regulated by
Congress, but rather the claim that deliberate choice _not_ to do something is
"mental activity" rather than "physical activity," and thus cannot be
regulated, is a meaningless semantic game.

------
warfangle
"Espinel suggests the creation of public performance rights for music on the
radio, which the US already has for satellite broadcasting and webcasting. But
the broadcasting lobby has opposed the move ferociously, claiming that its
unique exemption from payment is because radio has such promotional force for
artists."

I'm actually a fan of this portion of it. It brings radio broadcasting in line
with the harsh limits put on webcasting. I'd rather it be the opposite - that
the limits on webcasting were brought in line with the (lack of) limits on
radio broadcasting, but this is a good second best.

The broadcasting establishment claims that radio is a huge promotional force
for artists; why isn't the opposite true of webcasting (a la Pandora)? It
would seem the promotion of artists is /better/ in webcasting, because the
webcaster can link the listener directly to where they might purchase the
artist's work - unlike in radio, where you must wait for the DJ to (maybe,
once in a blue moon) announce what just played, and then have to google it
yourself.

~~~
zinkem
Because radio creates monoculture and monoculture has less overhead.

------
CWuestefeld
There was "hope" for "change" from a regime that bullied citizens into
supporting the government-blessed corporations. But this article shows (again)
that our new regime still serves the entertainment industry (not to mention
pharma companies).

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. We won't get fooled again.

~~~
cmelbye
> We won't get fooled again.

Yeah, we will (unfortunately.)

------
jevinskie
It appears that "streaming" infringing content is considered to be a public
performance and thus exempt from felony prosecution while "reproducing" or
"distributing" infringing content does. I honestly fail to see much of a
difference between "streaming" and "distributing" so I am in favor of making
the laws more consistent. Whether they should warrant felonies is a different
discussion.

~~~
archgoon
You could also make it consistent by making public performances felony
charges. I feel an Emerson quote coming on very shortly involving
hobgoblins...

Note, you do raise a good point, I'm just not sure that the consistency we
want is in the direction that we're going in. Like you say, a separate
discussion.

------
rayiner
Something something "living Constitution" something something.

I don't think I'd be going out on a limb if I said when the founding fathers
penned the Copyright Clause, their original understanding only contemplated
civil action.

------
patrickgzill
A copyright infringement is a felony? Seriously?

~~~
Natsu
It can be already, under the NET ("No Electronic Theft") Act, if memory
serves. But the feds usually have better things to do than to prosecute people
for that sort of thing.

Or at least they used to. It's clear that prosecuting infringers has become a
priority recently. I expect more is to come.

------
warmfuzzykitten
Perhaps the US could put these felons in Guantanamo?

------
InclinedPlane
How many malicious botnets are in operation in the US alone today? What
resources are being brought to bear by the government in shutting them down?

Priorities.

------
bane
When everything is a felony, nothing is.

