"That guy needs to be locked up," Bieber said after hearing about the bill, apparently not immediately remembering Amy is generally a woman's name.

Snerk.

the_sidewinder: [bitsandpieces.us image 400x600]

/oblig

Well, I coulda gotten through my day without seeing that and been better for it.

Thanks a lot, cockbite.

I will feel so much safer when these felons are locked up. It's the only way to preserve our freedom.

No, who ever you are at the bottom of the article, I think Bieber knows the legislation enough to see it'd have cock blocked his whole career. Which started with him singing other peoples works on YouTube.

Jamdug!: THIS is really what her constituency is funders are after? Doubt it. Why don't you focus on education and employment, toots

Isn't copyright infringement a civil matter anyways? If this goes through, a judge will probably find the law unconstitutional, or something.

electrify,

Copyright contains both a civil and criminal element in the legislation (as does Patent law).

Think about it, when police go round up the people selling knock-off (infringing) DVDs on the street corners, they are actually using the copyright act as the basis for their actions. Those people are arrested and charged with a crime.

Electrify: Isn't copyright infringement a civil matter anyways? If this goes through, a judge will probably find the law unconstitutional, or something.

Copyright Infringement is civil, Counterfeit goods an actual crime. There seems to be a push to move mass infringement towards being classified as counterfeiting or at the very least being dealt with on the same level.

Slaxl: This could have been great if it had a hero tag. Imagine that, a hero tag for Justin Bieber... maximum trolling.

/however I do agree with his stance.

His stance of not being able to tell men and women apart? Is his next single going to be a cover of Lola by the Kinks?

"Justin Bieber must have been misled about the content of this bill," she said in a statement, according to the Star Tribune. "It's not about people posting their personal work on the web..."

Bieber got started posting covers to Youtube, and this bill would have banned his works. Maybe he's smarter than TPM thinks he is (even if he has trouble discriminating between the sexes).

Jamdug!: FTA:
"Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), who's sponsoring legislation to make it a felony to profit from streaming unlicensed content online"

THIS is really what her constituency is after? Doubt it. Why don't you focus on education and employment, toots.

Constituents are for votes and photo ops. Lobbyists set the legislative agenda.

Guys, I'm as against DRM and anti-piracy laws as much as the next, but this bill (at least the senator's explanation of it, I haven't read through it myself) seems like a good idea. The whole point of the anti-copyrightists is to allow the free flow of information, not for people to profit from the work of others. Upload content, let people download it to their hearts content, but please, don't engage in the same commercialism that the record companies do.

Jamdug!: FTA:
"Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), who's sponsoring legislation to make it a felony to profit from streaming unlicensed content online"

THIS is really what her constituency is after? Doubt it. Why don't you focus on education and employment, toots.

I agree. This is a problem with our government officials who got into office or is being paid in campaign funds to push their or someone else's agendas regardless of party. Education and economics don't bring in much campaign money.

I think this explains it in laymen terms decently.

OK, I looked into the bill, and apparently it will make it so I can't stream TV and movies on [site name redacted], so I retract my above sentiments. Screw this bill.

They say that this law would not be used for such things as keeping the Bieber from posting a video of someone singing a cover tune on youtube....but that was what they said about the Patriot Act....then in a tiny midwest Iowa town a man was driving around the block yelling at his exgirlfriends house......He was charged with Terrorism....
Remember ANY law made by congress will be twisted to fit even the vaguest possible meaning....

anusofuranus: They say that this law would not be used for such things as keeping the Bieber from posting a video of someone singing a cover tune on youtube....but that was what they said about the Patriot Act....then in a tiny midwest Iowa town a man was driving around the block yelling at his exgirlfriends house......He was charged with Terrorism....
Remember ANY law made by congress will be twisted to fit even the vaguest possible meaning....

See DUI laws.

Warlordtrooper: this bill makes it illegal to make "lets play" videos for video games, hell even popular youtube commentators would be shut down. No more video strategy guides or stuff like that.

Big part of why I've heard about it, I have a couple hundred videos that would get pulled, the fun part is even if copyright owners are fine with or WANT you to post the videos (I usually record indie or flash games which gives them free attention for a publicly free product) the government suddenly has the right to prosecute you, it's no longer up to someone actually deciding whether your actions infringe their copyright or if they care about it.

sonorangal: Jamdug!: FTA:
"Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), who's sponsoring legislation to make it a felony to profit from streaming unlicensed content online"

THIS is really what her constituency is after? Doubt it. Why don't you focus on education and employment, toots.

I agree. This is a problem with our government officials who got into office or is being paid in campaign funds to push their or someone else's agendas regardless of party. Education and economics don't bring in much campaign money.

Q: And how much campaign money are we talking about?

A: A metric ass ton per individual

Paradoxically, divide those campaign donations by a population of 300 million to see how cheap your freedom is.

evilmrsock: the_sidewinder: [bitsandpieces.us image 400x600]

/oblig

Well, I coulda gotten through my day without seeing that and been better for it.

Thanks a lot, cockbite.


In case it makes your day better again, note probability that the 12 year old who posted it was trolling is very high.

/used to say stuff like that to piss off my dad; kids = immature humor
//"I don't care if you're a "wonder", Stevie, that's Coolio's song so get your own lol"
///typing "ur" instead would have gotten us smacked though

Two guys are talking in a bar. One guy says "I have the smallest head in the world." The other guy says "I have the smallest penis in the world." They decide to go to the Hall of Records to see who's right. Afterwards they meet up outside. The first guy says "Whaddaya know, I do have the smallest head in the world." The other guy says "Who the hell is Justin Bieber?"

A Wild Snorlax: Guys, I'm as against DRM and anti-piracy laws as much as the next, but this bill (at least the senator's explanation of it, I haven't read through it myself) seems like a good idea. The whole point of the anti-copyrightists is to allow the free flow of information, not for people to profit from the work of others. Upload content, let people download it to their hearts content, but please, don't engage in the same commercialism that the record companies do.

Define "profit". Define "profit from the work of others". If I embed someone's youtube video on my blog, and my blog contains google ads that make me money, am I now a felon? If I host a website where I freely give away music (possibly illegitimately) but I host ads to pay for hosting, am I now a felon? If I host someone's copyrighted work and embed it in an article where I critique the music, and people pay to read my articles, am I a felon?

"free flow of information" doesn't exclude profit. And it shouldn't either.

Compare the notion to open-source software, where content producers explicitly WANT their work to be shared widely. The GPL and most other free software licences don't prevent open-source programs from being sold for profit. If they did, their software wouldn't be free and it would be difficult to share, because the line is extremely blurry between covering my operating costs and my time versus "profiting from someone else's work".

Beiber himself got popular because he shared his work on YouTube. Are YouTube's operators felons now because YouTube made money off of Beiber's work while he became popular?

Profit is revenue minus expense.

So if I share music at a financial loss, I'm not a felon, right?

/:P

Justin Bieber Advocates Bondage, Imprisonment for Women

/now that's a hot headline

Corporations donating money to government officials who pass laws that benefit corporations....

What an incestuous relationship.

I do believe that the "Occupy Wall street" protesters and the "Tea Party" share in a common cause.

/Oblig