Have been some back and forth about whether or not S.978 in the Senate and the crime of transfer of the provisions of the soup in the House of Representatives, in fact, to Justin Bieber at risk jailtime for downloading videos self-repeating songs without permission from the copyright owner. There seemed to be enough to wander in the two statutes can be interpreted in this way, and seems very disturbing for a variety of reasons. First, you do not want something that many people do every day to suddenly become a crime. Second, any law that is vague enough that this can happen is a law that should not happen. Prison risks Bieber even much attention. However, defenders of the law up and down, I swear it's ridiculous and the law does not, in fact, endangered Bieber. Many people (especially in our comments) are based on an analysis of recent law graduate Terry Hart, who rejects the arguments of those who think that Bieber is at risk. Hart's analysis was echoed by other sources, including Billboard, and now supporters of the legislation argue that there is no debate here. Bieber is not at risk.

analysis found that Hart was missing, especially when the subject was the inclusion of videos. Hart focuses primarily on whether
load

is a public performance - the crucial point of these projects is that they are certain forms of serious crime or public executions. But there is more than just the load. Anyway, when the Harvard law professor, Jonathan Zittrain appeared last week in Colbert, discussing SOUP, used the example of Bieber, Bieber said he was facing three years in prison at instead of five people had been mentioned. In my post, I pointed with my thinking that I may integrate the video Bieber responsible for the performance. Zittrain has sent me to speak, and after going through the details with him, it seems I was wrong, and Zittrain's analysis of meaning. Hart's analysis, on the other hand, seems to be missing many key points. With permission, I publish parts of our email discussion.

First, the question of whether or not three or five years, Zittrain says that if you follow the details of the bill (which is difficult because changes SOUP two existing laws, and we must keep track of what you say what, and what changes in the language), it is likely that Bieber faces three years for his first video upload. The point is that section 201 of the soup, that would change Article 506 of the copyright in several ways. But what matters is 17 USC 506 (a) (1) (b) no, (a) (1) (a). If you do not want to follow, (b) as part of the explanation of criminal copyright infringement, said the following qualifications:

for public performance by digital transmission, during any period of 180 days, one or more copyrighted works, when the total retail value of the copies or phonorecords or public action, is more than $ 1000 ...

Bieber is what could be accused of doing. So if you look at the corresponding status (Title 18, Section 2319), the party said that five years, 17 USC 506 (a) (1) (a) instead of 17 USC 506 (a) (1) (b ). The relevant section (b) (which is 18 USC 2319 (c) (1)) states that "no more than 3 years imprisonment or a fine of an amount specified in this title, or both." Three years it is

Well ... except that if so read the next section, 18 USC 2319 (c) (2), you realize that three years shall count as one video. A second video could net six years:

be imprisoned for not more than 6 years or a fine of an amount specified in this title, or both, if the offense is a felony and is a recurrence in subsection (a)

Oops. Worse than five years.

But what Hart mantra that Bieber has nothing to fear, for a loading process is not a show. This analysis seems to be quite lacking. Zittrain points out that Hart seems to talk about something else (the load), rather than the act of causing can be made:


Nobody said that public action is caused by the simple act of uploading or downloading a file - so this analysis will after straw men. The question is whether placing a file on YouTube and investment parameters that can be transmitted - in fact, expected that the only reason the file there - resulting in a performance as it is transmitted many people. Unfortunately, the answer might be yes. The definition of a public performance under 17 USC 101: To perform or display a work "public" (1) to perform or display it in a public place or any place where a significant number of people outside the normal circle of a family knowledge and taxes are collected, or (2) transmit or communicate a performance or exhibition of the work at a place determined by clause (1) or the public by any device or process, whether members of the public can receiving the performance or representation received in the same place or in separate locations at the same time or at different times. The fact that YouTube could be responsible for the execution of work (or may or may not have a license if the license is only for her) is not relevant, you can have more than one party liable for a violation. In fact, consider integrating the video on its own page - meaning that if the page uses its own server at home (the simplest case of liabilities) or a third party hosting service with which he had contracted or let put it there? No doubt, put it in a location server is not sufficient to "wash" the responsibility of the person who put it there. (Again, not knowing if the third server could be responsible, too. It starts to involve DMCA safe harbors) contributors YouTube have their own small service home page, where their videos are integrated. So yes, these videos is likely that public performances.

Find best price for : --Harvard----Justin----YouTube----Zittrain----Bieber----SOPA--