How about a better title, @dang?
Tillis Releases Text of Bipartisan Legislation to Fight Illegal Streaming
101–110 of 509 posts
Re: Tillis Releases Text of Bipartisan Legislation to Fight Illegal Streaming
#102What is their definition of criminal organizations? I can understand the distinction between users and service providers. I understand users, posters, and creators. It seems to targeting only the service provider, but only if they meet some definition of "criminal organization". Is that just a way to selectively enforce?
>Is that just a way to selectively enforce?
Doubtful. If other US policies are anything to judge by, it is a way to brand normal organizations as criminal organizations for media purposes and to be able to use other tactics against them (civil forfeiture, 'throwing the book at them', etc).
See: US Drug War re: Heroin
Say, a BLM chapter has a copywritten song playing in the background and is taking donations on stream, that would check the boxes of:
- for profit - streaming copywritten content
It may not be written exactly like this, but I have zero doubt it will eventually be used this way.
Streaming is only going to become more pervasive and copyrights are extremely broad + can be basically infinite extendable which allows the justice system to roll up and brand orgs as criminal.
Re: Tillis Releases Text of Bipartisan Legislation to Fight Illegal Streaming
#103"Last year, one study reported that digital video piracy costs the U.S. economy $29.2 billion a year." Well, I'd say that it in fact saves $30 billion a year. People can use it to buy more important stuff - such as food.
Yes, also it's incredible how it is possible to fully automatically recognize and block music and video's, and go after and punish the perpetrators, but this seems wholly impossible for blatant disinformation and lies on the same websites.
When there is money at stake, laws en enforcement can accomplish things that are unthinkable when it is at the expense of the common good.
Re: Tillis Releases Text of Bipartisan Legislation to Fight Illegal Streaming
#104This title is misleading: > The Protecting Lawful Streaming Act would apply only to commercial, for-profit streaming piracy services. The law will not sweep in normal practices by online service providers, good faith business disputes, noncommercial activities, or in any way impact individuals who access pirated streams or unwittingly stream unauthorized copies of copyrighted works. Individuals who might use pirate s…
This appears to be correct from reading the (very short) text[0]. Everyone discussing this law should really read the text instead of reading whatever nonsense the media is spinning. Here's the full text of what is being prohibited: > PROHIBITED ACT. > — It shall be unlawful to willfully, and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, offer or provide to the public a digital transmission service…
" this law should really read the text instead of reading whatever nonsense the media is spinning."
It doesn't take you more than a few hours to go over 5000 pages of text, Right?
Re: Tillis Releases Text of Bipartisan Legislation to Fight Illegal Streaming
#105"Last year, one study reported that digital video piracy costs the U.S. economy $29.2 billion a year." Well, I'd say that it in fact saves $30 billion a year. People can use it to buy more important stuff - such as food.
I read on a post somewhere that if you replace "the economy" with "rich people yatch money" a lot of headlines make more sense. "Last year, one study reported that digital video piracy costs the U.S. rich people yatch money $29.2 billion a year."
It's still funny money.
You can't just take that $4 price tag for streaming a movie through Apple TV or wherever, and multiply it by the number of movies people illegally stream, and get a number that makes any sense. The idea that American households would spend an extra $230/year on average on movie rentals, if only those nasty content pirates would get out of their way, is just absurd. Especially when you consider that most American households were never using these illegal streaming sites in the first place. Most of that average would have to be propped up by teenagers and college students who simply don't have an extra $2000/yr of disposable income to spare.
Re: Tillis Releases Text of Bipartisan Legislation to Fight Illegal Streaming
#106Re: Tillis Releases Text of Bipartisan Legislation to Fight Illegal Streaming
#107If the United States’ populace elects its officials, why do the representatives act against the populace’s wishes? Is this typical of all governments with elected representation? Are they solving different organizational problems that most people are not aware of? I am curious how such a system arises, maintains itself, and is resilient to change.
It's not even possible to have our good representatives help. They had a 5500+ page bill thrown together then said, if you don't vote on this tomorrow, people won't get a measly $600.
How are we even supposed to know what got crammed in there? You'd need a 100 person team, fluent in legalese, reading through 50+ pages to simply learn what comprises this monster in the 1 day they gave them to vote on it.
Re: Tillis Releases Text of Bipartisan Legislation to Fight Illegal Streaming
#108If the United States’ populace elects its officials, why do the representatives act against the populace’s wishes? Is this typical of all governments with elected representation? Are they solving different organizational problems that most people are not aware of? I am curious how such a system arises, maintains itself, and is resilient to change.
We do elect our officials, but the way legislation gets pushed through is typically lobbied by special interests. In some cases the laws themselves are written by those same special interests rather than written by the legislative bodies. https://publicintegrity.org/politics/state-politics/copy-pas...
So why elect our officials?
Re: Tillis Releases Text of Bipartisan Legislation to Fight Illegal Streaming
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read on a post somewhere that if you replace "the economy" with "rich people yatch money" a lot of headlines make more sense. "Last year, one study reported that digital video piracy costs the U.S. rich people yatch money $29.2 billion a year."
Are all the people, from the film crew to the VFX artists and engineers that work on the IP that is being stolen "rich people yatch (sic!) money"? You can say what you want about IP law; you wouldn't be able to enjoy many big-budget productions if it wouldn't exist. Many jobs, high-paying and low-paying, wouldn't exist. Of course, the business model for content distribution is somewhat nonsensical and the time until…
Those people are not making less if I don't pay for a movie. The marginal revenue is all yacht money profits.
Re: Tillis Releases Text of Bipartisan Legislation to Fight Illegal Streaming
#110I'm disgusted by the comments on HN every time media theft is mentioned. It costs money to make movies, TV shows, and music. There are millions of people whose careers depend on it. Most of the people involved make less than your average HN media pirate. Yes, like everything else, the people at the top make more. Yes, there are shitty UIs, DRM, and absurd rules preventing fair and convenient use of media even if you…
No, other people are unilaterally making up rules and applying them to me. I would happily live in a society without IP, but am not permitted to do so. Those who support IP demand it globally, at the barrel of a gun.