Senate bill makes illegal Internet streaming a felony

"Those who illegally stream live video or audio over the Internet could face up to five years in prison under legislation recently introduced to the U.S. Senate.

Ars Technica reported that Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), John Cornyn (R-TX) and Christopher Coons (D-DE) proposed a bill last week that would make "illegal streaming" of copyrighted content a felony.

Under current law, copyright infringement already carries felony penalties, but questions have been raised about whether broadcasting audio or video live over the Internet could be considered the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/17/senate-bill-makes-illegal-internet-streaming-a-felony/

This isn't to protect copyrights, this is to protect the mass media, monopolistic practices that Congress has allowed for years

The public airwaves, are the publics, not the corporations

If they don't want a signal received then scramble it

Although I agree with you with respect to the motivation of the bill your language is incorrect in this case.

But the great majority of it isn't.

There really aren't that many places you can get completely free internet.

like beaches, interstate roadways, airways, etc., which are too important for one or more individual entities to own. We should own them collectively and decide amongst ourselves how best to use them.

And "collective decision making" in the USA basically boils down to who has the biggest checkbook most of the time.

obviously because they do not like the shift that consumers are moving away from premium channels to services like netflix

and of course their influence on net neutrality, where I do NOT have confidence that Congress will protect the public over the corporations

Even though not directly related, look at the Nevada lawfirm trying to stop sites from giving quotes with appropriate references as "copyright" infringments, is a very troubling sign

Seems to me that ARPANET was tax-payer funded. Not to mention how subsidies were granted for implementation.

Hell, the very computers we're all typing away on were developed largely due to government funded research, NASA, DARPA and so on but that doesn't mean that every computer is public property.

We can only own the hardware, we have to license the software technology and the 'public' can radically change the laws anytime they have enough influence to do so. Just ask Scott Walker. :sarcasm:

I know Maher's show is streamed online, but it's often a challenge to find it since HBO keeps getting sites shut down.

If HBO got smart, they'd stream it themselves on Sundays, make it a per show fee to watch it. Lots of us would do that and keep it legal.

Likely this stupid thing will pass, and the streaming sites will have to go offshore. They're not going to stop them.

Netflix, it sure seems to be going that direction

Privatized prisons for non-violent offenders!! Oh,yeah! A totally incarcerated workforce! :sarcasm:

The web is being very thoroughly scoured.

Why should this be any different?

direction this may be going. Radio broadcasts, lending a CD or a book to someone, etc. A company called replay TV used to skip commercials automatically, and they made it illegal, which helped bring that companies demise:

"On October 31, 2001, numerous TV companies, including the three major networks, filed a lawsuit against SONICblue, which at the time marketed the ReplayTV device. They alleged that the ReplayTV 4000 series was part of an “unlawful scheme” that “attacks the fundamental economic underpinnings of free television and basic nonbroadcast services” according to the lawsuit.

The TV industry attacked ReplayTV for two reasons:

1.The machines enabled people to record television programs and then watch them without commercials via the optional "Commercial Advance" feature.<4> This had the potential to undercut advertising revenues which the lawsuit called "the lifeblood of most television channels".
2.The machines allowed users to share programs they have recorded with others via the "Send Show" feature, which transmits digital copies of shows not only on a local network, but also over the Internet to other ReplayTV owners, thereby enabling people who had not paid for premium channels to watch premium content for free.
Both the “Commercial Advance” and the “Send Show” features were alleged to violate U.S. copyright and other federal and state laws, according to the TV industry plaintiffs, who wanted sales of the ReplayTV 4000 devices—slated for shipment on Nov. 15, 2001—stopped.<5>

The lawsuit against SONICblue was stayed when the company filed for bankruptcy protection in March 2003. In August 2003, the ReplayTV 5500 series went on sale without the “Autoskip” and “Send Show” features though the features continued to be enabled on the earlier models."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReplayTV

'It appears Klobuchar, Cornyn and Coons followed the White House's legislative recommendations. Their bill would make showing 10 or more "public performances" by electronic means in any 180-day period a felony if the total retail value of those performances tops $2,500 or the cost of licensing such performances is greater than $5,000.'

http://www.govtrack.us/
either by signing up for automatic email tracking of a bill or issue
or
searching for the bill on the govtrack website.

Currently the bill is in Committee on the Judiciary.
Date of scheduled consideration. May 19th SD-226. 10:00 a.m.

Will be interesting to see if it gets out of committee.
Franken,Leahy, Whitehouse, Schumer, Durbin and Feinstein are on that committee.( Dems, 8 Repugs.
If it gets out of committee, we should be able to see who voted for it.