You'll Need Fifty Stimulus Checks To Pay The Damages You Might Get Hit With Under The CASE Act

from the so-stupid dept

It was only mid-day yesterday that it was confirmed that Congress has slipped in two controversial copyright provisions into the must-pass government funding bill. Last night, as everyone expected, that must-pass bill did indeed pass, and it will soon be law.

There are many, many reasons to be frustrated about this. First, just the way this was done is incredibly stupid. The government waited until the very last minute (with a couple of "extensions") to work out this agreement on a combination of the COVID relief bill (which is way too small and way too late for many, many people) and a bill to actually fund the government and avoid a shutdown. It's already ridiculous that we have to do this government funding bill each year, especially considering that Congress already approves a budget earlier in the year, and the appropriations bill is really just a fight over how to apportion what Congress has already agreed to spend. And then, because the appropriations bill is considered a "must pass" to keep large parts of the government funded, Congress lights it up like a Christmas tree with totally unrelated bills they couldn't get passed through normal process.

Incredibly, some politicians, like Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, seem proud of this practice:

I get why he's proud of getting some things into the bill, and many of the things he may be proud of are good. But many of them do not belong in this bill and should not be in a 5,000 page bill that was revealed mid-day and voted on hours later.

Incredibly, while the bill does have 2,000 pages of actual appropriations details, the other 3,000 pages are totally unrelated bills that Congress couldn't pass through the rest of the year. Even if you like the bills, even if you are mad that Congress is gridlocked at other times, that's no excuse to support this awful undemocratic process. Everything about it is bad.

Now, lots of people are still combing through the bill to find all the awful landmines that it's too late to do anything about, but the two that we've been talking about here are the copyright provisions. I've already explained multiple times why the felony streaming bill and the CASE Act are extremely problematic, so I won't go over either again. I will note that neither final provision is as bad as they were in earlier versions. Both were somewhat limited from truly terrible provisions to what is today merely awful. But that's nothing to celebrate.

As I said yesterday with regards to both bills, copyright law is controversial for a wide variety of reasons, but the biggest one is this: small tweaks to copyright law can have a massive impact on expression. Few people are even willing to grapple with the fact that significant parts of copyright law raise 1st Amendment issues. And when you rush through both of these bills (the felony streaming bill received literally no discussion or debate), you impact speech in a massive way. The felony streaming bill, even with its restrictions to platforms, may scare off many platforms from being willing to host streaming content, despite it being a key way in which many people -- especially younger generations -- express themselves these days.

The CASE Act, similarly, threatens to unleash a new generation of copyright trolling, at a time when we already have too much copyright trolling, threatening and shaking down people for money over incidental and accidental infringement. On top of that, especially in the midst of a pandemic when so many people are stuck at home and communicating, living, and working virtually, doing perfectly normal things can and will be seen as infringing. Nearly 15 years ago, law professor John Tehranian wrote about how on a random day that he tracked, he realized he (a copyright law professor!) probably committed 83 acts of infringement.

As we wrote a few years back, the only reason that copyright doesn't destroy speech is that he world has recognized a concept of copyright toleration -- which is that, more or less, copyright holders have mostly looked the other way at incidental and accidental infringements that happen all the time. The entire point of the CASE Act is to slam the door shut on the entire idea of copyright toleration, and open the floodgates for copyright holders to shake down basically anyone for such incidental uses -- telling them they could owe up to $30,000 as assigned by a non-judicial tribunal housed in the Copyright Office itself.

Supporters of the CASE Act say it's no big deal because you can opt-out of the process if you don't like it. But the opt-out process is unclear and potentially confusing. And, of course, in doing so, you are poking the copyright holder, and potentially egging them on to file an even more disastrous federal copyright lawsuit against you. But, honestly, just the mere threat of facing $30,000 fines from this new tribunal will cause many to shut up. It will cause many to pull down speech or never make it at all, because who wants to deal with that threat?

And, as law professor Eric Goldman notes, we did all this to get a stimulus package that will give a mere $600 to individuals... but that $600 likely won't cover your CASE Act bill, and you'll need many more stimulus checks to deal with the fact that you promoted a song you liked. It's a complete travesty.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 1st amendment, case act, chilling effects, copyright, covid, expression, felony streaming, speech, stimulus, tribunal


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 9:30am

    CASE Act unconstitutional right? Can groups like the EFF and FFTF take it down before the non-judicial tribunal is set up?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 9:41am

      Hopefully they do.
      :shrug:

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 9:56am

        Re:

        Tho its unlikely copyright toleration is going to change becasue its hard to see why most copyright holder would all of a sudden do this with it leading to a PR disaster.

        The big fear is someone pretending to be the copyright holder and telling everyone they could owe up to $30,000

        Eitherway hopefully the law is taken down fast before any true damage happens.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 9:53am

      Unschmonstitutional

      CASE Act unconstitutional right?

      Amendment VII

      In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved…

      Why Summary Judgment is Unconstitutional”, by Suja A. Thomas, Virginia Law Review, 2007

      For years, the Court and scholars have cited the now century-old Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. United States for the proposition that summary judgment is constitutional under the Seventh Amendment.

       . . .  In Part I of this Essay, I will demonstrate why summary judgment is unconstitutional.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 9:55am

        Re: Unschmonstitutional

        Really?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:17am

          Re: Re: Unschmonstitutional

          Really?

          The Unconstitutional Application of Summary Judgment in Factually Intensive Inquiries”, by Craig M. Reiser, Journal of Constitutional Law, 2009, p.11 in PDF:

          Although Professor Thomas has put forth a strong and interesting argument that summary judgment is, as a general matter, unconstitutional … this argument has been handily rejected in the seemingly few cases in which it has been raised.

          (Footnotes omitted.)

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:21am

            Re: Re: Re: Unschmonstitutional

            Ohh.
            Being fair here, i kinda don't think it would change much, in my honest opinion.
            But i see.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Cdaragorn (profile), 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:33am

            Re: Re: Re: Unschmonstitutional

            Perhaps you'd like to make a point? Throwing quotes around doesn't tell anyone what you're trying to say with them.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:52am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Unschmonstitutional

              … anyone…

              I'm conversing with another commenter.

              You sound like one of those Karens who oh-so strongly object to Spanish in Montana.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:54am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unschmonstitutional

                Some people don't get the message when usimg quotes on books is what he's getting at.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 11:01am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unschmonstitutional

                  Some people don't get the message…

                  Some people just want to speak to the manager whenever they ovehear other people using a communication style that the complainer dislikes.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 4:57pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unschmonstitutional

                    You don't know what a Karen is.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 6:18pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unschmonstitutional

                      … what a Karen is.

                      Karen is entitled to call 911 when she overhears people speaking in a style that she disapproves of.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2020 @ 9:34am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unschmonstitutional

                      Karen is a name thousands of people have that which means unless they are all villains it should not be villianized. What sort of no account low life would do that?

                      Can you imagine how little girls innocent of whatever crime you’re trying to convict them of feel being forced to grow up in this BS era of yours?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2020 @ 7:57am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unschmonstitutional

                        Karen, of course, cannot ever be expected to cope against stereotyping in her life.

                        After all, her name isn't Kashala —now that girl just has to deal. Or bleed out on grey, winter asphalt.

                         

                         

                        The year of Karen…”, by Julia Carrie Wong, The Guardian, Dec 27, 2020

                        [T]he backlash against Karen memes was practically foreordained. Complaints … were noteworthy mostly for how neatly they re-enacted the Karen dynamic.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          nasch (profile), 28 Dec 2020 @ 8:06am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unschmonstitutional

                          [T]he backlash against Karen memes was practically foreordained. Complaints … were noteworthy mostly for how neatly they re-enacted the Karen dynamic.

                          There is literally nothing people named Karen can do. If they ask people to stop using their name as shorthand for a terrible person, they're "being a Karen." They must just put up with it until it goes out of fashion - not that that is the worst burden anyone is facing these days. I do feel for women of color named Karen, though, that must be especially grating.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      N O'Context, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:32am

      Re: It's Constitutional.

      CASE Act unconstitutional right? Can groups like the EFF and FFTF take it down before the non-judicial tribunal is set up?

      I know for sure but won't elaborate. For a fee you can ask the question of any lawyer.

      Big clue: Masnick should have explained the how long ago, but his corporatist agenda prevents it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    N O'Context, 22 Dec 2020 @ 9:54am

    EASY to avoid! DO NOTHING!

    First, this is yet again you fear that copyright will be enforced with practical measures, not left "a moral question" so that every Freetard and grifter can take and even "monetize" someone else's valuable products.

    You do NOT "support copyright", Maz, NEVER DID. You pretended did for 20 years, now you and pirates have brought on a new "framework".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      crade (profile), 22 Dec 2020 @ 9:55am

      Re: EASY to avoid! DO NOTHING!

      No reason to avoid it at all then. You can do nothing from a prison cell

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:09am

      Re: EASY to avoid! DO NOTHING!

      You mean like when that news outlet claimed ownership of a NASA feed & had it taken down?
      You mean like when that record label claimed they owned a bird song, then doubled down that for sure a wild bird in a forest was their rock song?

      Stupid people like to pretend that pirates are making money, they aren't.
      Stupid people like to pretend that piracy is just because people are evil not because a fat lazy industry forgot they were in the business of providing content to paying customers.
      Stupid people like to comment on TD and claim Mike is a pirate & loves pirates while ignoring that The Empire Strikes Back still hasn't made a penny.

      If they tell us a hugely profitable film hasn't made a single cent, how can we take them seriously claiming that piracy is costing them billions and billions?

      This is a gift to the copyright trolls, the number is no longer unimaginable to people accused, even less 'evidence' is required, & does nothing to solve the basic problem of charging us full price while demanding to control what we can do with what we purchased.

      Also, you're whining grows boring, please find a new schtick & try to be interesting... that dead horse you keep beating is already dust.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        N O'Context, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:18am

        Re: Re: EASY to avoid! DO NOTHING!

        You mean like when that news outlet claimed ownership of a NASA feed & had it taken down? ... and so on, with anomalies.

        NO, I mean like major motion pitchers STOLEN and illegally distributed soon as out on DVD, monetized by fat grifters like Kim Dotcom who got at least $175 million for merely hosting files that other people poured money and time into.

        In other words, the daily millions of thefts YOU PIRATES are doing should be reduced.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    crade (profile), 22 Dec 2020 @ 9:54am

    "As we wrote a few years back, the only reason that copyright doesn't destroy speech is that he world has recognized a concept of copyright toleration"

    It's more like the only reason copyright regime has survived at all is due to selective enforcement. This won't change. The regime can't survive if everyone suddenly gets sued for what they all know is normal behavior and realizes how bad it is, they need to pick and choose whatever best supports the agenda, this will just give them more tools to do it with.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      N O'Context, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:15am

      Re: Yeah, copyright is only enforced against violators!

      It's more like the only reason copyright regime has survived at all is due to selective enforcement.

      Listen, kid. Copyright has WIDE appeal among the populace world-wide. Everyone hopes to create and PROFIT from it. -- Copyright law is the mysterious "Step 2" (remember that site?) which Masnick puzzles on, the PRACTICAL way to reward creators.

      Pirates are not to be rewarded. They're now to be haled into Administrative Court and summarily (but fairly) made to pay for what stole.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:37am

        Re: Re: Yeah, copyright is only enforced against violators!

        copyright is favoured by corporations, and in particular those belonging tos associations like the RIAA, MPAA etc. That is companies that profit by taking control over the creative works of others, and keeping as much of the Income as possible to themselves. Also, a few people think that copyright will allow the to write one song or book that will not only allow them to retire, but also keep their children in luxury for their lives.

        However the Internet is home to a lot of self publishers in many fields, and these people make a living from their ability to create new works. Their creativity is what they sell, as in support me if you want me to create more works.

        Consider that all musicians that have a lifetime career in music have done so via live performances, which are not dependent on copyright. That means spending a large part of their lives on the road, and performing night after night, which is hard work.

        Apart from the likes J.K. Rowling of the world, the writers who have made writing a career have been prolific writers, like Arthur Clarke, or Isaac Asimov. They treated writing like a job, and that meant putting words on paper for their next check. Those with a lessor output have had to keep the day job.

        Strong copyright protection only benefits corporations and lawyers, while harming real creative people.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:39am

        What, precisely, would someone who downloaded an NES ROM have “stolen” by doing so? (You can replace “NES ROM” with literally any other kind of digital file. The question remains the same.)

        Also: How do you feel about corporations enforcing copyrights that those corporations own despite your assertion that they should have no legal rights and thus should have no right to legally enforce a property right?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          MightyMetricBatman, 22 Dec 2020 @ 11:28am

          Re:

          And one only suffers actual damage if the game corresponding to the NES ROM is available for purchase of a license at all.

          Copyright law has gone far beyond providing a temporary monopoly to encourage a public good to being a permanent monopoly for private enterprise for the most part.

          Good luck finding equipment or software that will play MP3s in 100 years.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 22 Dec 2020 @ 11:59am

            one only suffers actual damage if the game corresponding to the NES ROM is available for purchase of a license at all

            No, they don’t. Downloading a ROM of Super Mario Bros. doesn’t prevent Nintendo from continuing to sell access to/copies of Super Mario Bros. to anyone. Downloading that ROM also doesn’t take money from Nintendo that they didn’t already have, since the downloader never guaranteed their money to Nintendo in any way.

            Potential revenue is not actual revenue. Creating an unlawful copy of a thing is not theft. And downloading a ROM doesn’t cause any actual damage to Nintendo. Anyone who believes otherwise has been swayed by propaganda from copyright maximalists to believe even a single infringement is the same thing as stealing a car.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          crade (profile), 22 Dec 2020 @ 12:01pm

          Re:

          Well, if you magic fairy pretend that the NES ROM is somehow limited you could say they stole the NES ROM.. or if you magic fairy pretend that causing someone to lose profits is stealing you AND you magic fairy pretend that you knew profit loss was caused by the download you could say they stole the profits.

          Back in reality they stole the NES rom the same way Brad Pitt stole my haircut.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        crade (profile), 22 Dec 2020 @ 11:17am

        Re: Re: Yeah, copyright is only enforced against violators!

        Right... yet somehow it's infringed incidentally or accidentally by a copyright lawyer 83 times per day and anyone who says they don't infringe is lying to themselves unless they don't have a phone or internet.

        Universally infringed, selectively enforced. Won't change under case act.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    N O'Context, 22 Dec 2020 @ 9:54am

    You don't complain about MS-13 and $1800 to illegal immigrants.

    Of course you don't. Inviting virus-laden furrin gang members / illegals in middle of a pandemic, importing H1B and other labor when tens of millions citizens have been needlessly forced from jobs, doesn't trouble an America-hating corporatist at all. You complain only about what supports an individual Right of citizens directly in body of the Constitution.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Annoyed Washingtonian, 22 Dec 2020 @ 9:56am

    This is rather annoying to say the least, any chance that EFF and FFTF can get this CASE Act ruled unconstitutional? If not it needs to be brought to them ASAP!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jojo (profile), 22 Dec 2020 @ 9:57am

    I have had it up to here with this bullshit

    The idea that Congress can sneak in anything unrelated to the omnibus bill without debate during a pandemic is inherently bullshit. What the yearly bill actually feels like a Trojan assault on freedom of anything online.

    I am not mad about the CASE act passing. It’s still a bad idea, but the overwhelming consensus in the House proved that it’s path to law was somewhat inevitable. But I am more mad that this, the Tillis bill and that absolute territory porn ban were being passed without debate. This is becoming problematic and extremely shady. There needs to be a law that prevents bills that were not debated or not approved by judiciary bodies from being shoved into end-of-the-year legislation. It’s a pipe dream, but it would be a nice check on the Congress in rushing laws.

    But the saddest thing is seeing my party, the Democratic Party, something that I’ve been apart of since registration at the end of my teenage years, not only didn’t raise an iota of a fuck in regards to these bad ideas, not only support these horrendous bills, but have the gull to make defecating on the first amendment bipartisan. Most of the Democrats in the Congress have became no better than their Republican counterparts. I’ve never felt so betrayed by my own party.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      N O'Context, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:11am

      Re: I have had it up to here with this bullshit

      But the saddest thing is seeing my party, the Democratic Party,

      You've been HAD. This is the first of many betrayals. They (The Establishment that controls both parties and serves the Globalists) are going for all the marbles this time.

      They say: Just shut up and take the vaccine.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:40am

        Oh good, you’ve outed yourself as an anti-Semitic anti-vaxxer.

        Surprised you didn’t toss some anti-trans sentiment in there for a trifecta, Brainy. You’re losing your edge.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Thad (profile), 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:20am

      Re: I have had it up to here with this bullshit

      There needs to be a law that prevents bills that were not debated or not approved by judiciary bodies from being shoved into end-of-the-year legislation. It’s a pipe dream, but it would be a nice check on the Congress in rushing laws.

      How?

      You get that Congress is the body that passes laws, right?

      Hint: it can repeal them, too. You can't meaningfully restrict Congress with a law that's passed by Congress. If Congress passed it, that means Congress can repeal it just as easily.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:21am

        Re: Re: I have had it up to here with this bullshit

        Exactly.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        N O'Context, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:28am

        Re: Re: I have had it up to here with this bullshit

        You get that Congress is the body that passes laws, right?

        Gee, "Thad", and others, sounds like what you want is some control over entrenched tyrants. While I don't agree on THIS topic, and especially not on the unmentioned $1800 grants to illegal immigrants which I bet you're for and most Americans are NOT, the only proven remedy to tyrants is Common Law. Learn it.

        Your only hope is to stop The Rich from becoming literal Royalty again.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Jojo (profile), 22 Dec 2020 @ 11:06am

        Re: Re: I have had it up to here with this bullshit

        Preventing a bill from becoming law isn’t what I had in mind. I’m just saying is that bills that have not gone through the lawmaking process or at least approved by a judiciary body should not be included into the omnibus bill. It’s impossible, but There has to be some level of check against that.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Thad (profile), 22 Dec 2020 @ 11:43am

          Re: Re: Re: I have had it up to here with this bullshit

          It’s impossible

          Yes, it's impossible. Passing a law that will meaningfully restrict Congress is impossible, because Congress could just repeal any such law, because that's how lawmaking works.

          The only way to pass a law restricting Congress that can't be repealed by Congress is through a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            TaboToka (profile), 22 Dec 2020 @ 2:50pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: I have had it up to here with this bullshit

            through a constitutional amendment.

            The 27th Amendment:

            • submitted September 25, 1789;
            • ratified May 5, 1992 (recorded as May 7th)

            Ratified 202 years, 7 months after submission, keep hope alive!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:35am

      Re: I have had it up to here with this bullshit

      Can not find any info that the ban was added as a rider to the covid bill, I read that it not added.

      It does not seem its being added.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 5:06pm

        Re: Re: I have had it up to here with this bullshit

        It's not a covid bill, it's a government funding bill. The covid relief bill was also crammed into the omnibus spending bill - but then, it's about spending.

        I am not sure how you are not seeing that it literally passed, never mind that it was shoved into the omnibus bill.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 7:07pm

          Re: Re: Re: I have had it up to here with this bullshit

          I know the copyright stuff was put in it but what about the Ban he was talking about?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Jojo (profile), 22 Dec 2020 @ 7:15pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: I have had it up to here with this bullshit

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              That One Guy (profile), 22 Dec 2020 @ 7:53pm

              'Blackmail'? Never heard of it, that some strange food?

              I don't see what the problem with the bill is, I mean what could possibly go wrong by creating a single database full of the names of people who have been involved in pornographic content that needs to be easily accessible for any site to check content against, alongside multiple databases run by those sites filled with personally identifiable information regarding who's posting porn?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Jojo (profile), 22 Dec 2020 @ 8:48pm

                Re: 'Blackmail'? Never heard of it, that some strange food?

                Bruh.

                Two words: Unintended Overreach. My problem with this bill is that it isn’t just against porn, but it’s an indirect attack on the freedom of expression and privacy. What happens when content that isn’t porn but has nudity or adult themes? That content could end up being swept into the deluge. The bill isn’t just asking for a database, but also upload filters to delete erotic videos, pictures, even fictional drawings, unless the actors taking part has written evidence of consent.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  That One Guy (profile), 22 Dec 2020 @ 9:11pm

                  Re: Re: 'Blackmail'? Never heard of it, that some strange food?

                  Oh it's a terrible bill top to bottom to be sure, put together by someone absolutely terrified of the naked body and/or pandering to those that are and who doesn't care what damage they might cause in the process.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2020 @ 4:27am

                  Re: Re: 'Blackmail'? Never heard of it, that some strange food?

                  It part of the effort of the US government to out China China when it comes to deciding what is acceptable for public consumption. They are enabling censorship in the name of protecting copyright, the children, women or whatever else they can use as an excuse for more censorship.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Jojo (profile), 22 Dec 2020 @ 7:13pm

          Re: Re: Re: I have had it up to here with this bullshit

          https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/5054?r=4&s=3

          So far, according to the website, SISEA has been introduced, read twice, and has been referred to a committee for analysis and have not been introduced in congress. Last action was Dec. 17th, six days ago. This could mean one of two possibilities:

          1. The page hasn't been updated and the bill somehow was able to be sneak into the omnibus bill. Or:

          2. SISEA missed the Omnibus train and thus going through the usual process for bills.

          I'd like to believe the second route because there could be a chance to stop SISEA in its tracks. Also after all the heavy news of the CASE act passing and the Copyright wet dream reform, I REALLY want to be optimistic about something.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    N O'Context, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:07am

    OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!

    Here it is again:

    EASY to avoid! DO NOTHING!

    First, this is yet again you fear that copyright will be enforced with practical measures, not left "a moral question" so that every Freetard and grifter can take and even "monetize" someone else's valuable products.

    You do NOT "support copyright", Maz, NEVER DID. You pretended did for 20 years, now you and pirates have brought on a new "framework".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      N O'Context, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:09am

      Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!

      (Less than tive minutes, just made a couple comments in other topics, and found these censored! Way to go, "Free Speech" Techdirt! -- Your action mainly serves to keep reasonable people from commenting here.)

      You don't complain about MS-13 and $1800 to illegal immigrants.

      Of course you don't. Inviting virus-laden furrin gang members / illegals in middle of a pandemic, importing H1B and other labor when tens of millions citizens have been needlessly forced from jobs, doesn't trouble an America-hating corporatist at all. You complain only about what supports an individual Right of citizens directly in body of the Constitution.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:15am

        Re: Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!

        That's not even related to this.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          N O'Context, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:20am

          Re: Re: Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!

          You don't complain about MS-13 and $1800 to illegal immigrants.

          Questioned by AC who apparently doesn't know that's in the bill too, SO relevant.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:31am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!

            We're talking Tech, not MS-13.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              N O'Context, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:34am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!

              We're talking Tech, not MS-13.

              Allowing in MS-13 gang members -- with some loony "liberal" notion of rescuing them -- and $1800 grants to illegal immigrants is IN the bill. You and Masnick aren't complaining of that because suits your agenda, even though passed the same horrible way. Period.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:36am

                Grammar Correction

                "You and Masnick aren't complaining of that because suits your agenda, even though passed the same horrible way. Period."

                You forgot to put "it" in your sentence. So i fixed for ya.

                "You and Masnick aren't complaining of that because it suits your agenda, even though passed the same horrible way. Period."

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:40am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!

                Also, you should take that topic to a different site.
                This is Techdirt, not PoliticDirt.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Stephen T. Stone (profile), 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:50am

                Allowing in MS-13 gang members -- with some loony "liberal" notion of rescuing them -- and $1800 grants to illegal immigrants is IN the bill.

                Please cite the exact part of the stimulus bill that contains this language. It must say what you say it does — that the bill will not only allow MS-13 gang members to legally immigrate into the United States, but also gives to illegal immigrants three times the amount of money being sent to legal citizens who qualify for the second stimulus check.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:09am

      Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!

      Quit your damn spamming.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        N O'Context, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:23am

        Re: Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!

        Quit your damn spamming.

        First, my comments are on-topic and civil, NOT spam as you LIE.

        Second, quit your damn censoring. Any idea that goes against the amazing piratey / leftist / corporatist agenda you kids parrot is automatically censored here, because your notions can't stand ANY dissent.

        (Sounds like A. Stephen Stone, again too chicken to use account.)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:30am

          Re: Re: Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!

          (Sounds like A. Stephen Stone, again too chicken to use account.)

          I know they're on topic, but you keep spamming, there's a good reason why you get censored.

          Secondly, I'm not stephen a stone. I'm just a random person.

          Thirdly, maybe if you stopped S-P-A-M-M-I-N-G, maybe you wouldn't be C-E-N-S-O-R-E-D.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:34am

            And no, i'm pretty sure Stephen would comment on this.
            He's no chicken.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              N O'Context, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:39am

              Re: Oh, so you know A. Stephen Stone personally?

              And no, i'm pretty sure Stephen would comment on this.

              He's no chicken.

              Surely all you've seen of him is his keyboard commando spewing here, right? And from that you form a solid opinion of his bravery, while also certain that I'm just simply evil?

              And while railing at spamming, YOU ARE OFF-TOPIC! Your comments here are indistinguishable from spam, then, ever think of that?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            N O'Context, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:36am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!

            I know they're on topic, but you keep spamming, there's a good reason why you get censored.

            Well, at least you admit it's censoring! More honest than Maz and other fanboys, so THANKS!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Code Monkey (profile), 22 Dec 2020 @ 11:30am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!

            Actually, he's being moderated, not censored. If he were being censored, he would be allowed to shitpost anywhere on the internet.

            He's only being moderated here because he's an asshole, and TD readers have only a certain amount of tolerance for assholeness.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:46am

          my comments are on-topic and civil, NOT spam

          You’ve admitted in the past that you submit your comments multiple times for the sake of getting at least one past the spamfilter. You’ve recently taken to spamming multiple replies to yourself after one comment gets through. The spamfilter catches your posts for a reason — and it’s not “viewpoint discrimination”.

          You know, not commenting here won’t kill you. It might even help you get your obvious mental illness(es) under control. Let go of your hateful obsession, Brainy — if for no reason other than to heal yourself.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Toom1275 (profile), 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:10pm

          Re: Re: Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!

          First, my comments are on-topic and civil,

          [Asserts facts never in evidence]

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:21am

      Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!

      So, include 10 seconds of some work whose copyright is held by a corporation, and the creator gets landed with a large bill, or an even larger bill to prove fair use. Bills like this are destructive of creative expression by making publishing risky, especially in areas like music where similarity between works perfectly normal.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:11am

    Is it possible for a human with excellent speed reading skills to read the entire bill within the allotted time before voting commences?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 10:25am

    Being fair here...

    https://archive.is/Unele
    "Under the CASE Act, respondents are made aware of their right to opt out and given numerous opportunities to do so. First, they are served notice, in compliance with the requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They are no more likely to ignore this notice then if the notice were for a federal court proceeding. In fact, they are less likely to ignore the notice because it will include a prominent statement about their right to opt out and the consequences of not opting out. In addition, the CASE Act also gives respondents about triple the amount of time to respond (60 days) than in federal court, and the Copyright Claims Board itself sends a follow up notification about the pending case and the consequences of not opting out."

    https://archive.is/Y4del

    "If you get a DMCA takedown, chances are you're not going to jail."

    I kinda doubt it, but if you disagree, i respect your opinion.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 11:21am

      Re: Being fair here...

      *"As much as this sounds likly. YT & Twitch will suffer 0 ill effect from this bill. Alot of individuals WILL go under a bus for minor infractions as an example needs to be made. Make NO mistake Google and Amazon are behind this more than you know"
      -BrightBulb Photography

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lEGcL8Y1vqg*

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 2:23pm

        Re: Re: Being fair here...

        At least the lawyers at Google, Amazon, Microsoft et al.

        I was tweeting with a lawyer that was all happy for this law because it gives him a way to go after "infringers of IP" that use counter-notices. He wants a way to force YT and Twitter to ban these people as "bad actors". No way this is going to be abused by big companies and trolls.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 22 Dec 2020 @ 11:45am

    'Here's $600, and there's a lawsuit for $30,000...'

    Because if one thing needed to be made easier when money is tight and some people are depending on government assistance to be able to eat and not be homeless it's being able to be sued for actions with no demonstrable harm, brilliant.

    Nothing says 'I absolutely cannot defend this bill honestly' like slipping it into a completely unrelated must-pass bill, and every politician who made use of such a sleazy tactic deserves not praise but to be called out as the dishonest person they have shown themselves to be.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 11:51am

      Re: 'Here's $600, and there's a lawsuit for $30,000...'

      Fun Fact: Ron Wyden didn't know the case act was in the bill until he voted for it.
      Shocking.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 22 Dec 2020 @ 12:40pm

        Re: Re: 'Here's $600, and there's a lawsuit for $30,000...'

        In which case his guilt may not be as bad as those who slipped unrelated bills into the must-pass one but he still screwed up and deserves to be called on it. If you don't know what's in the bill before you then you have no business voting on it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2020 @ 2:25pm

          Re: Re: Re: 'Here's $600, and there's a lawsuit for $30,000...'

          When has that ever stopped Congress. They drop a 3000+ page bill on the congress-people's desk, often with hand-scrawled notes, give them a very short (purposefully too short) window for them to read it, and then they force the vote. Its strategic ass-hattery by those in power.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2020 @ 5:32am

      Re: 'Here's $600, and there's a lawsuit for $30,000...'

      https://twitter.com/i/events/1339940506109763586

      Trump wants to amend it by raising the checks to $2000.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2020 @ 7:10am

        Re: Re: 'Here's $600, and there's a lawsuit for $30,000...'

        I think he is tossing crap in the gears.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2020 @ 7:52am

          Re: Re: Re: 'Here's $600, and there's a lawsuit for $30,000...'

          At least he's delaying it.
          Double-edged sword, though, cause with people losing their homes and a shutdown coming, this may be a problem.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 23 Dec 2020 @ 9:28am

        Re: Re: 'Here's $600, and there's a lawsuit for $30,000...'

        Sounds like desperation to get some positive PR on his side for once, and given it's all other people's money it's free for him so win-win.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 22 Dec 2020 @ 11:56am

    CAN we?

    decide how much to pay these idiots?
    Its our money, we should know what we WANT to do with it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
.

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.