US Senators ignore unintended consequences of criminalizing embedding videos(techdirt.com)
techdirt.com
US Senators ignore unintended consequences of criminalizing embedding videos
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110616/16480114722/senators-unconcerned-about-massive-unintended-consequences-criminalizing-people-embedding-youtube-videos.shtml
14 comments
every other day there's a major news story about the security state
It's a great topic from the media point of view, because most people don't understand computer security or legislative process, and the people who understand one of those things often don't understand the other, so everyone is unhappy with everyone else. Conflict is an essential element of a dramatic story, and dramatic stories attract readers and sell advertising.
It's a great topic from the media point of view, because most people don't understand computer security or legislative process, and the people who understand one of those things often don't understand the other, so everyone is unhappy with everyone else. Conflict is an essential element of a dramatic story, and dramatic stories attract readers and sell advertising.
> This is basically like having no law at all, only instead of a central ruler we distribute it out to thousands of various prosecutors (and their associated political parties.)
Isn't that the central basis for the Prison-Industrial-Judicial Complex?
ie, law enforcement, judges, lawmakers, and all the companies and servicers who profit from increased incarceration rates?
Isn't that the central basis for the Prison-Industrial-Judicial Complex?
ie, law enforcement, judges, lawmakers, and all the companies and servicers who profit from increased incarceration rates?
Like when the prisons pay the judges? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=...
> You could almost devote a website to it.
Like these ones? https://www.eff.org/ http://lqdn.fr
Like these ones? https://www.eff.org/ http://lqdn.fr
Correct, the US Government does not exist anymore in the sense that most people think it does.
I agree, although this particular thing has nothing to do with the security state, and everything to do with the gradual co-opting of Congress and the legislatures by the content industry.
No it's not just you. It just seems the majority of the people have lost sight of the fact that Freedom is not free.
Arg, I hate that phrase. It may cost you something to protect your freedom from those who would take it, but the freedom itself does not have any inherent cost. Secondly, I hear that phrase being used to justify all sorts of things that I consider to be impinging on my freedom rather than increasing it, such as using my tax dollars to wage wars against countries that are not actually threatening my freedom at all.
I believe everyone has taken my comment the wrong way. When I say Freedom isn't free I absolutely do not mean we have to give up our rights to remain free. I mean we have to fight for our right to remain free!
And that was, if I recall correctly, the original intent of that message when it was said, far back in the day.
I was just today thinking about how so many sayings, like a few bad apples, reverse their meaning in a generation or few. References don't survive and witticisms are taken out of context.
It may cost you something to protect your freedom from
those who would take it, but the freedom itself does not
have any inherent cost.
Secondly, I hear that phrase being used
You're right, it's commonly known that freedom costs a buck o five.
fwiw I have been reading sky is falling stories like this for ten years now, but the sky has in fact remained in its original position.
You might want to check your data: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/Incarceration_...
Is that all due to copyright violation prosecutions?
I can probably tell you it's not due to people becoming more evil.
Are you sure? Is there an absolute measure of evil or just what a particular society considers evil?
As an example, when your graph started, people went to jail for sodomy. Now they don't. So if it's possible for society to reconsider something that was evil and decide it's not evil, surely the opposite must also be possible?
As an example, when your graph started, people went to jail for sodomy. Now they don't. So if it's possible for society to reconsider something that was evil and decide it's not evil, surely the opposite must also be possible?
Something like one-third of convictions are for victimless drug crimes as I understand it.
Come on, what are you actually trying to say?
I don't think more people in jail indicates the sky has fallen.
It has fallen for those. Boiling frog.
I just called John Cornyn's Washington office at 202-224-2934 and talked to an aide about S. 978 because I live in Texas.
He explained a few details of the bill to me like how it only applies when the economic value of the public video streaming is above $2500. I asked if this would include a blogger who makes more than $2500 from ads on his blog and he said yes. Then I gave an example of a blogger embedding a YouTube video which is copyrighted in a blog post, even if the blogger removes the video after finding out it is copyrighted, to which he just said "OK, I will notify John Cornyn".
I tried my best to express my concern that millions of people including myself could be charged with a felony if this bill gets passed, but I don't think my effort will work. I don't think the people passing this bill, like my Texas senator John Cornyn, can see the dangers in making it illegal to embed videos. Maybe they just don't care because they don't use the internet the same way younger / technology efficient people use it?
He explained a few details of the bill to me like how it only applies when the economic value of the public video streaming is above $2500. I asked if this would include a blogger who makes more than $2500 from ads on his blog and he said yes. Then I gave an example of a blogger embedding a YouTube video which is copyrighted in a blog post, even if the blogger removes the video after finding out it is copyrighted, to which he just said "OK, I will notify John Cornyn".
I tried my best to express my concern that millions of people including myself could be charged with a felony if this bill gets passed, but I don't think my effort will work. I don't think the people passing this bill, like my Texas senator John Cornyn, can see the dangers in making it illegal to embed videos. Maybe they just don't care because they don't use the internet the same way younger / technology efficient people use it?
They don't care because they haven't heard the other side of the story, nobody's employing lobbyists to defend medium-time bloggers.
Moreover, many senators and congressmen, especially Cornyn, have determined that "capitalism" means "support entrenched business interests through favorable legislation" rather than all that hooplah about competition we learned in school.
Moreover, many senators and congressmen, especially Cornyn, have determined that "capitalism" means "support entrenched business interests through favorable legislation" rather than all that hooplah about competition we learned in school.
I liked how the Economist put it (that was about GW Bush): "Being business-friendly is not the same as being market-friendly."
I believe you got snookered by the aide. The crime is conditioned on $2500 of income to the infringer, _or_ $2500 loss to the copyright holder, _or_ a $5000 or more licensing fee for said content.
It is not clear, if those damage requirements are met, that there is any requirement -- other than non-zero economic advantage from the infringement, as required by 506 (a)(1)(A) -- that the infringer actually made lots of money as a result of the instance of copyright infringement.
It is also unclear what "total retail value", "total economic value", and "fair market value" (all of which are used in the bill) mean in the context of a form of property that is given artificial monopoly status. If someone uploads an unreleased Justin Bieber video to youtube and it gets 1 hit, then Bieber releases that video in a limited collector's edition at $2600 USD, is that youtube uploader a felon?
The text of the bill is very short: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.978: (include the last ':') And 18 USC 2319 which it affects is also very short: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2319.html
It is not clear, if those damage requirements are met, that there is any requirement -- other than non-zero economic advantage from the infringement, as required by 506 (a)(1)(A) -- that the infringer actually made lots of money as a result of the instance of copyright infringement.
It is also unclear what "total retail value", "total economic value", and "fair market value" (all of which are used in the bill) mean in the context of a form of property that is given artificial monopoly status. If someone uploads an unreleased Justin Bieber video to youtube and it gets 1 hit, then Bieber releases that video in a limited collector's edition at $2600 USD, is that youtube uploader a felon?
The text of the bill is very short: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.978: (include the last ':') And 18 USC 2319 which it affects is also very short: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2319.html
I see only one commenter who has clearly read the bill, looked up the sections of the USC that it modifies, and has tried based on that to start discussing what the bill actually does and its actual contents, instead of the largely made-up stuff based on third hand sources that most people want to discuss.
He's getting voted way down.
Stop doing that, please. The end result of that kind of down voting is to discourage people from putting research into the comments, and the overall quality of discussion goes down.
He's getting voted way down.
Stop doing that, please. The end result of that kind of down voting is to discourage people from putting research into the comments, and the overall quality of discussion goes down.
US Senators ignore the unintended consequences of criminalizing everything.
John Cornyn is an unmitigated disaster. It's unfortunate that the TX Democratic party has a tenth of a snowball's chance in hell of ousting him.
This is yet another reason we need term limits. Career politicians and bureaucrats are massive facilitators of regulatory capture.
This is yet another reason we need term limits. Career politicians and bureaucrats are massive facilitators of regulatory capture.
Do term limits help or hinder? After all, if we had term limits then the average congressman would need to go off and find a new job once he's finished in congress. And there's no shortage of folks (whether companies, unions, NGOs, foreign governments, or any ol' well-funded group you like) who'd just love to give cushy well-paid jobs to former congressmen who had been suitably sympathetic to their interests during their time in congress.
More churn in Congress would decrease the value of any one congressperson to private industry, and would also reduce the tendency of members of Congress to amass large numbers of markers that they call in later.
It would also change the entire dynamic of Congress, to be less of a club and more of a transitional job, people coming from some other job -- some of them perhaps even hoping to do the right thing regardless of political fallout -- and then disappearing from the public stage and moving on to another stage their lives, rather than turning elected service into their lives.
A seminal paper on this subject from 1968, The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives, by Nelson Polsby: http://crespin.myweb.uga.edu/polsby.pdf
It would also change the entire dynamic of Congress, to be less of a club and more of a transitional job, people coming from some other job -- some of them perhaps even hoping to do the right thing regardless of political fallout -- and then disappearing from the public stage and moving on to another stage their lives, rather than turning elected service into their lives.
A seminal paper on this subject from 1968, The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives, by Nelson Polsby: http://crespin.myweb.uga.edu/polsby.pdf
1968 was a long time ago. Term limits have been implemented all over the place. In reality, it means that politicians stop being responsible for their actions, and you get white elephant projects and unusually brazen bribery.
As it is almost half of congressmen (43%) register as lobbyists after leaving government.
Holy jesus christ, where did you get those numbers? That is deeply concerning.
Not only are they career politicians, but they can't do anything else but lobby to take taxpayer dollars? Are you kidding me?!!
Not only are they career politicians, but they can't do anything else but lobby to take taxpayer dollars? Are you kidding me?!!
Why would they do anything else? I imagine the pay and perks are great.
Besides, after a career in Congress reading bills that were written by lobbyists, a lot of the new lobbyists are probably looking forward to get a chance to actually write some bills.
Besides, after a career in Congress reading bills that were written by lobbyists, a lot of the new lobbyists are probably looking forward to get a chance to actually write some bills.
You make a good point.
Maybe what really needs to be done is that the politicians need to be told that we don't need any more laws (except for the law that says no more laws.)
Then they'll have nothing to do and therefore no incentive to be elected.
Maybe what really needs to be done is that the politicians need to be told that we don't need any more laws (except for the law that says no more laws.)
Then they'll have nothing to do and therefore no incentive to be elected.
Since 1998, 43 percent of the 198 members of Congress who left government to join the private sector have registered to lobby
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying#United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying#United_States
Sometimes I think the lawmakers should be in jail.
I imagine ex-bureaucrats are useful to hire because of all the connections they made while in office. If there are term limits and the churn rate is high, that doesn't leave much time to build those connections while in office, or to keep them after they've left.
There's already a revolving door between K-street and Congress, so hugh3's point is valid. Yours is too, I guess.
I think some setup that turns politician into a job that you do in between real jobs instead of a career in itself would be ideal, I just don't have any ideas that would necessarily work. Term limits do work with Presidents and seem to help with Mayors in a lot of cities (if you think city machines are bad now, non-term-limited mayors would make them worse).
I think some setup that turns politician into a job that you do in between real jobs instead of a career in itself would be ideal, I just don't have any ideas that would necessarily work. Term limits do work with Presidents and seem to help with Mayors in a lot of cities (if you think city machines are bad now, non-term-limited mayors would make them worse).
Well, there are only so many positions that corps paying for government officials can give away. If there were terms limits and a high churn rate, eventually the market would be saturated. They can't hired all the Senators that voted for their bills.
Hey, I really want to be on your side in this argument, but that number of positions is certainly greater than 535, right? More of those than there are elected federal positions.
The 535 number only counts one 'round' of Congress-critters. Let's assume the max term is 2 years, and all Congress-critters are in lock-step on their terms. So 535 leave Capital Hill, and enter industry and a new wave of 535 enter Congress. In 2 years, when it's time for them to leave (and enter industry), industry now has a workforce of 1070 ex-Congress-people (assuming that all of them enter industry). That number will continue to grow unless the industry positions after leaving office are capped (and the greater the cap, the greater the market saturation on these industry positions are). If that's the case, then those industry positions are consequentially less valuable.
I think term limits are probably ineffective, if only because so many staff stick around even as the names on the offices change, and they hold so much of the power.
Rather than instituting term limits, we could try what the founders set up, and arrange for senators to be representatives of state legislatures, not state populations. Same problem exists, but I'd imagine its harder to buy the backing of a few hundred politicians than one.
The unintended consequences are often the point of the law. By being "unintended", the crafters of the law creates a small intellectual barrier to understanding the ramifications of the law that perhaps half the population fail to overcome. This is enough to get just about anything through without considerable widespread public opposition.
Bingo.
The MAFIAA wants to criminalize any sharing of content unless they stamp it with their blessing.
This law basically kills youtube and ad-supported blogging.
I'm surprised Google isn't all up in arms over this, two potential sources of revenue are greatly impacted by this legislation.
This law basically kills youtube and ad-supported blogging.
I'm surprised Google isn't all up in arms over this, two potential sources of revenue are greatly impacted by this legislation.
Yes. Every policymaker knows that the US jails more people than any other country, both in percentage and total. "Unintended" is a sad attempt at a fig leaf.
Any action we do can have unintended consequences (not to mention known tradeoffs), and we deal with them by using experience and fixing problems as they come up. But this case is far beyond that.
Any action we do can have unintended consequences (not to mention known tradeoffs), and we deal with them by using experience and fixing problems as they come up. But this case is far beyond that.
The thing about unintended consequences is that law enforcement will often use them to get what they otherwise cannot get. If you're investigating a group of people on Offense A but can't gather enough evidence to make an arrest and charge, you can arrest them on anything else you can stick them with, and suddenly they're in your control and potentially more pliable.
Part of the solution to the problem is we need more tech savy people working on capitol hill--party preferences regardless. The federal government usually lags several years behind the industry standards for information technology and the people writing or reviewing proposed policies for technology regulation are much more likely to have a BA in Government or Poli Sci than a BS in engineering or CS.
If I go to a friends' house and watch a movie and that movie happened to be pirated (and I was not aware) could the law logically be extended so the government could arrest me for viewing pirated content even if I didn't know it was pirated? Or what about the "viral" video defense where companies will release promos or "restricted" content under false names to drum up interest in a product. I could see a defense attorney arguing the uploading account could be used by someone in AA industries to create interest in a product and there was no way their client could have known.
If I go to a friends' house and watch a movie and that movie happened to be pirated (and I was not aware) could the law logically be extended so the government could arrest me for viewing pirated content even if I didn't know it was pirated? Or what about the "viral" video defense where companies will release promos or "restricted" content under false names to drum up interest in a product. I could see a defense attorney arguing the uploading account could be used by someone in AA industries to create interest in a product and there was no way their client could have known.
One man's unintended consequence is another man's tool in the power-(ab)using chest. What makes you think the effects are unintended?
Depends on who's doing the intending.
The companies hiring the lobbyists know exactly what they're doing.
The lobbyists are too blinded by dreams of cocktail party cachet to care what they're doing (on this or anything).
And the legislators have only heard one side of the story. They're too busy dialing for dollars most of the time to actually read up on this stuff.
The companies hiring the lobbyists know exactly what they're doing.
The lobbyists are too blinded by dreams of cocktail party cachet to care what they're doing (on this or anything).
And the legislators have only heard one side of the story. They're too busy dialing for dollars most of the time to actually read up on this stuff.
"potentially putting people in jail for embedding YouTube videos or just putting up YouTube lip synching videos. "
Sounds like FUD
If you read the amendment here http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.978:
It updates this http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00002319---...
Which references this http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_0...
which then says the following
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180–day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
Basically, if you don't profit from it, you're cool so YouTube is safe.
Sounds like FUD
If you read the amendment here http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.978:
It updates this http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00002319---...
Which references this http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_0...
which then says the following
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180–day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
Basically, if you don't profit from it, you're cool so YouTube is safe.
B) and C) are basically "It's on the internet and a studio paid for its production". So they're always true.
Now we only need an argument that you were doing it for private financial gain, to satisfy A). If you have adwords on the blog you're embedding the youtube video on? Sounds like a felony to me.
The word "felony" should really be reserved for crimes that hurt people.
Now we only need an argument that you were doing it for private financial gain, to satisfy A). If you have adwords on the blog you're embedding the youtube video on? Sounds like a felony to me.
The word "felony" should really be reserved for crimes that hurt people.
"The word "felony" should really be reserved for crimes that hurt people."
Oh, I agree and don't agree with the law. Just stating that it's not as overreaching as stated by the linked article.
I do not know much about the law I believe this comes down to interpretation by a judge which I hope will use their best judgement. I know there are cases where judges have been ignorant but that's why we have an appeals process.
I'm certain that if court rooms are filled with bloggers embedding videos that these will either be thrown out in most cases or the law will be altered.
I'm more worried about letters from lawyers to bloggers and others trying to bully them around with this law. The lawyers may know they can't win but may be able to scare someone enough to cough up cash to not go to court.
Personally, I'd like an anti-bullying law to prevent companies from sending templated emails for profit.
Oh, I agree and don't agree with the law. Just stating that it's not as overreaching as stated by the linked article.
I do not know much about the law I believe this comes down to interpretation by a judge which I hope will use their best judgement. I know there are cases where judges have been ignorant but that's why we have an appeals process.
I'm certain that if court rooms are filled with bloggers embedding videos that these will either be thrown out in most cases or the law will be altered.
I'm more worried about letters from lawyers to bloggers and others trying to bully them around with this law. The lawyers may know they can't win but may be able to scare someone enough to cough up cash to not go to court.
Personally, I'd like an anti-bullying law to prevent companies from sending templated emails for profit.
My trust in the courts to do the right thing went out with Eldred vs Ashcroft. And there's no appealing that one.
No, you missed the point. A, or B, or C,
If you posit that B or C are always true, you don't need A You only ever need one of the three.
If you posit that B or C are always true, you don't need A You only ever need one of the three.
These are "or"s, not "and"s.
Also from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act
The bill's title "Commercial Felony Streaming Act" is a red herring. The intent (as was in the 1997 act linked above) is to prosecute any and all copyright infringement.
Also from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act
The NET Act amended the definition of "commercial
advantage or private financial gain" to include the
"receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value,
including the receipt of other copyrighted works"
The bill's title "Commercial Felony Streaming Act" is a red herring. The intent (as was in the 1997 act linked above) is to prosecute any and all copyright infringement.
I could be wrong but I thought it read A and B or C.
which means anyone embedding a disputed video on a page with adsense then is profiting from it?
Yes, if someone is taking works from others without permission and posting it on a website where they make a profit, they should be fined and possibly jailed if they are repeat offenders.
The law just gives companies more ammunition in the event of a case where someone is actually stealing content. There are sites that do nothing but stream movies and music for profit without giving anything to the content owner. They are clearly criminals.
It's up to the court system to determine if the company has a case or not. I commented to note that the sky isn't falling and bloggers won't be thrown in jail by the thousands.
Common sense will prevail in the end although some battles will have to be fought out in courts to set precedents.
Nothing new here IMHO.
The law just gives companies more ammunition in the event of a case where someone is actually stealing content. There are sites that do nothing but stream movies and music for profit without giving anything to the content owner. They are clearly criminals.
It's up to the court system to determine if the company has a case or not. I commented to note that the sky isn't falling and bloggers won't be thrown in jail by the thousands.
Common sense will prevail in the end although some battles will have to be fought out in courts to set precedents.
Nothing new here IMHO.
"Yes, if someone is taking works from others without permission and posting it on a website where they make a profit, they should be fined and possibly jailed if they are repeat offenders."
What was wrong with this being a civil matter? We have ways of providing redress that aren't "sticking someone in jail", which is just fantastically expensive in a number of ways.
"Common sense will prevail in the end"
Evidence?
What was wrong with this being a civil matter? We have ways of providing redress that aren't "sticking someone in jail", which is just fantastically expensive in a number of ways.
"Common sense will prevail in the end"
Evidence?
The court will say "OK you embedded a YouTube video that was copyrighted and made $2500 or more from advertisements so yes you have broken this new law". The court will only decide if a blogger has met all the requirements of this new law. If they have, and millions have, then they will be guilty of a felony. No matter if they get the least possible punishment that is still a felony!
Even if someone is found innocent they will still have paid thousands of dollars to defend themselves!
I don't trust courts to be just. The time I had to deal with a judge in court I was not treated fairly and was presumed guilty. Therefore, please don't tell me the courts will determine a fair and just outcome.
Judges and the court system are just a bunch of disconnected old people who you hope to never have to deal with.
Even if someone is found innocent they will still have paid thousands of dollars to defend themselves!
I don't trust courts to be just. The time I had to deal with a judge in court I was not treated fairly and was presumed guilty. Therefore, please don't tell me the courts will determine a fair and just outcome.
Judges and the court system are just a bunch of disconnected old people who you hope to never have to deal with.
Another twist: what if the >$2500 profit was unintentional? Not a stupid question.
I once posted an AP photo on my website. Just a minor "fair use" thing for a few friends. Longer story short: within hours, DrudgeReport.com linked to it, AP lawyers threatened me, and traffic was so heavy I couldn't even access my own website to remove the pic. Had I adwords or some such to generate a few measly dollars to offset pocket-change costs, and rendered the image as a video instead (sensible for the content) the sudden attention could have easily generated a felony-inducing profit.
Unintended consequences indeed.
I once posted an AP photo on my website. Just a minor "fair use" thing for a few friends. Longer story short: within hours, DrudgeReport.com linked to it, AP lawyers threatened me, and traffic was so heavy I couldn't even access my own website to remove the pic. Had I adwords or some such to generate a few measly dollars to offset pocket-change costs, and rendered the image as a video instead (sensible for the content) the sudden attention could have easily generated a felony-inducing profit.
Unintended consequences indeed.
"Common sense will prevail in the end although some battles will have to be fought out in courts to set precedents"
seriously? first, there's certainly no evidence that common sense will prevail. second, why on earth would you want costly and lengthy legal battles (including very real consequences for whoever is at the center of them) to find common sense when you could write it into law in the first place??
seriously? first, there's certainly no evidence that common sense will prevail. second, why on earth would you want costly and lengthy legal battles (including very real consequences for whoever is at the center of them) to find common sense when you could write it into law in the first place??
I think it's total bullshit that all your comments are getting downvoted. I don't like this law, but I'm not going to take it out on you.
This may be a silly (& uninformed) question, but are there any strong lobbyists that are representing the interest of us hackers?
I guess we have the EFF, but what's the power structure look like? Are the odds stacked against us?
(NB: I use the term "us" loosely to refer to the common ideals found often on HN)
I guess we have the EFF, but what's the power structure look like? Are the odds stacked against us?
(NB: I use the term "us" loosely to refer to the common ideals found often on HN)
Just one more way the feds can go after a group of people they don't like. It is like all of the mobsters getting charged with tax evasion instead of their actual (if any...) crimes. The same will hold true in the future: XYZ leader of ABC "radical" environmental group was put in jail because...he/she had a parody video mocking Exxon on their website.
This is getting ridiculous. So it looks like eventually the internet will be colonized and taken over by the government soon enough. Where is our next frontier for freedom of speech, open data, and endless cat videos? The internet is supposed to be free and unhinged.
Authoritarianism + Campaign Contributions make for a lousy cocktail.
What it looks like is that we've reached the point with the legal system that the trick is to make huge swaths of behavior illegal, then selectively enforce the law. This is basically like having no law at all, only instead of a central ruler we distribute it out to thousands of various prosecutors (and their associated political parties.)
I don't want to be all "the sky is falling" but heck if I can see where we can continue like this for a lot longer.