That's right - your tax dollars will go to hunting down these damn thieves who want to stream films, TV shows, live sport online without paying for it! Wiretaps are going to go to this ridiculous effort, AND before you know it this will create a precedent for criminalizing torrents and other file sharing methods, given that "foreign-based and foreign-controlled Web sites and Web services raise particular concerns for U.S. enforcement efforts."

Whoa, so basically this means that if I were to steal a CD at a store, I'd get slapped with a charge for shoplifting, but if I were to watch a PPV game on the Internet that I didn't pay for, that constitutes felony? No wonder Hollywood and the media giants fucking love politicians.

Any news on media companies finding better ways to provide content for us paying consumers?

I don't want to distract them too much from their pirate-hunting and politician-lobbying, but it still pisses me off how difficult it can be to access certain content if you live in the wrong place.

Even in the UK, which is generally not too bad, there are certain things like The Daily Show which are no longer shown here, and yet are also inaccessible online (well, unless you find a workaround, which is no doubt illegal in some way). Not to mention different release dates...

It feels like there are a lot of people in this world who need to be reminded what century we're in.

and i would be one of those who illegaly watched The Daily Show on their website, cos i'll be damned if i'm letting More4 take it away from me lol

It seems like the law effects the actual providers of said illegal content, which I am okay with. It is a very dirty practice, and steps should be taken to prevent it.

That's what I was thinking, too, that it targets the source of the streaming, not the consumer. Not quite analogous to shoplifting if that's the case.

Well the authorities consider downloading streaming, don't they?

This is good news, I was concerned that they might have time to actually, you know, work on fixing serious issues.

The new ACTA proposed treaty is supposedly worse than ever, too. Yeah and statutory damages for copyright infringement were meant to be levied versus commercial infringers, not individuals. But now we have multimillion dollar verdicts over less than 2 dozen songs being shared.

What you're describing is already illegal and there is already a way to deal with it. We don't need this. It won't, read up a few lines in this post. They're actually, with a straight face, adding copyright infringement right alongside terrorism when promoting this. This doesn't prove what you might think it does, it proves the whole terrorism thing was bullshit from the beginning.

After reading the white paper, it isn't clear that the authorities consider downloading the same as 'streaming' under the scope of these recommendations. What it does say is: That would make it seem like the recommendations target those who are providing the content, not those who download it. I didn't read anywhere in the paper a definition of what is to be consider streaming with respect to transmittal and reception, with regard to the specific statutes referenced. Without following each referenced statute, I'm not certain if they included the same ones that got end-users in trouble for using Napster and such, and thus am not certain that streaming is considered a legal term that covers both sending and receiving for all of this type of content.

To further muddy the point, earlier in the paper it states: which would seem to support that downloading (acquiring) is streaming.

Based on the rest of the paper, it's seems primarily focused in the information / content providers, not the end-users. I may very well be incorrect but the paper itself isn't particularly clear on the point, though maybe it is if one traces back through all of the statutes.

What makes you think that you know what I think they're thinking?

The trick has been in use for some time. During the last decades of the Roman Empire, hiding a sack of grain from the "state farmer" ( the guy who bought the right to make you pay your taxes ) in order to ensure that you actually had something to sow the next year, qualified you as "hostis populi".

My head hurts.

I was using "you" in the plural sense, replying to you specifically because your post was already skirting the point I was making.

However I know what "you" (singular) are thinking because I'm so smart:)

One of the reasons why one should use one instead of you, because you never know what one is intending to say with the use of the word "you" in that context. ;-)

Prohibition will only strengthen the mob, as this time the mobs will work together.