

New Law Will Shut Down TorrentFreak, Music Industry Expert Says - etaty
http://torrentfreak.com/new-law-will-shut-down-torrentfreak-music-industry-expert-says-110322/

======
eli
There is no "new law" nor even a proposed bill. There's a suggestion in a
whitepaper from law enforcement that they would benefit from expanded powers
and new laws. This should not be too surprising. Specifically they request
"Congress clarify that infringement by streaming, or by means of other similar
new technology, is a felony in appropriate circumstances." The issue is that
currently not everyone agrees whether streaming content you don't own counts
as unauthorized distribution or an unauthorized performance or something else.

And, uh, they kinda buried the lede on this one:

 _"As for his writings with regard to TorrentFreak, the recommendations put
forward by the White House do of course have no impact on sites that discuss
P2P technology. And no, streaming and P2P services that distribute licensed
content will not disappear either. It’s just the rambling of a pitiful person
who just hit the narcissist jackpot with this article. Congrats!"_

Guess that's one way to write a sensationalistic headline and then escape
blame for being totally bogus.

------
tyhjmhytgfv
They should pass one of these new laws banning drugs as well that will stop
drugs.

A law against murder might also be a good idea

~~~
drivebyacct2
This is worse, this is a law that some are interpreting in a fashion that
would prevent you from even discussing drugs or murder.

~~~
tyhjmhytgfv
Oh good then they wont be a problem anymore

------
hardtke
"unauthorized streaming of copyrighted material become a felony". How is it
possible to implement such a law and not make YouTube a felon? The decision in
the Viacom vs. Youtube said that YouTube was not guilty of copyright
violations because YouTube removes content once asked to do so and makes some
minimal preemptive efforts to filter copyrighted content. We need to assume
that Google will prevent any changes to the law that move the fine line on
which YouTube operates.

~~~
eli
YouTube isn't affected. Their streaming is authorized by copyright holders.

------
ianhawes
Source document:
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ip_white_paper...](http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ip_white_paper.pdf)

------
radioactive21
Sensationalist title, but I guess it might have been used to prove a point???

I agree with TorrentFreak and say that Moses Avalon went a bit too far. I
kinda see where Avalon is coming from, meaning things are going to shits, but
the entire diatribe is such a rambling of non sense it's hard to take Avalon
seriously.

I highly doubt there would be an attack on the media at such a level because
then you're blatantly stepping on freedom of speech, which I am sure media
sites would not be happy about, and would love to write up a storm.

~~~
joejohnson
I think this article title correctly summarizes the story. I don't think it is
ment to be sensationalist.

