Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tillis Releases Text of Bipartisan Legislation to Fight Illegal Streaming

tillis.senate.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 509 posts

Re: Tillis Releases Text of Bipartisan Legislation to Fight Illegal Streaming

#111

Post by __david__ »

cspada wrote: post #5

From the article: "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 streaming services will not be affected."

Even so, why is copyright infraction criminal? This is fighting something that just doesn't need to be fought and ratchets up copyright to levels of importance that it just doesn't deserve. We need to be toning down copyright, not cranking it up.

Re: Tillis Releases Text of Bipartisan Legislation to Fight Illegal Streaming

#112

Post by jamesponddotco »

mminer237 wrote: post #25
Bancakes wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a common misconception that piracy is a loss of business. It's nothing more than an overestimation in profits. How can companies say they lose profit when the only realistic way I see for that is someone getting a refund and spending it on a competitor?

It may not be everyone, but there are a number of pirates who would buy a subscription to a legal streaming service if illegal streaming was not as easily available.

If legal streaming services were not profiling the crap out of me and what I do in their platforms, I would have stayed with them. I had a subscription with pretty much every single service available in my country, but back to Kodi[1], seed boxes, and private trackers I went.

Not to mention the Draconian DRM. I can play 4K games at 60fps on Linux, but I cannot play a 4K film from Netflix or listen to music from TIDAL with certain browsers. Fuck that.

[1] https://kodi.tv/

Re: Tillis Releases Text of Bipartisan Legislation to Fight Illegal Streaming

#113

Post by IdiocyInAction »

autosharp wrote: post #109
IdiocyInAction wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, but the second-order effects of you not paying may very well affect them in the future. If the studios get less revenue and have to pay more for enforcing IP law, they have less money for new productions and therefore less jobs and salary for the people producing the content. And I don't see why you should have a right to enjoy the fruits of their labor without paying.

Re: Tillis Releases Text of Bipartisan Legislation to Fight Illegal Streaming

#114

Post by cbsks »

plussed_reader wrote: post #104
roblabla wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The linked pdf is 5 pages.

It seems like irresponsible journalism to not just include the text in any article written about it.

Re: Tillis Releases Text of Bipartisan Legislation to Fight Illegal Streaming

#115

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

IdiocyInAction wrote: post #94
znpy wrote: post #17

Earlier 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…

Minimum wagers aren't who's buying ever-racheting copyright laws, via campaign funds.

Re: Tillis Releases Text of Bipartisan Legislation to Fight Illegal Streaming

#116

Post by elliekelly »

chadash wrote: post #9

This 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…

That's what the linked press release[1] says but looking at the wording of the bill[2] I'm not so sure it's that cut and dry:

> It shall be unlawful to will-fully, and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, offer or provide to the public a digital transmission service that...

The term "private financial gain" typically includes an individual receiving anything of value. I agree it doesn't come after the consumers of illegally streamed content but I don't think it's fair to say it only targets for-profit platforms. And it's certainly much broader than targeting "criminal organizations" as the linked (not HN) headline wrongly suggests. Someone uploading protected content in exchange for reddit gold could easily fall within this definition of criminal conduct. People who "trade" files with one another might fall within it, too. I think the linked press release is intentionally downplaying the scope.

[1] "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 streaming services will not be affected."

[2]https://www.tillis.senate.gov/services/files/A30B0C08-FB97-4...

Re: Tillis Releases Text of Bipartisan Legislation to Fight Illegal Streaming

#117

Post by CDSlice »

plussed_reader wrote: post #104
roblabla wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If by 5000 pages you mean 5, you might be correct if you are a really slow reader.

Re: Tillis Releases Text of Bipartisan Legislation to Fight Illegal Streaming

#118

Post by Blikkentrekker »

hexo wrote: post #8

"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.

This made me realize for the first time that I'm not sure as to what these “cost “the œconomy” x currencies” statements actually mean.

Certainly it's not about generating money ex nihilō, so what is the standard?

Re: Tillis Releases Text of Bipartisan Legislation to Fight Illegal Streaming

#119

Post by hoistbypetard »

judge2020 wrote: post #74
toomuchtodo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone spins up a Twitch clone in a more friendly jurisdiction.

Just like GDPR, doing business in a country subjects you to the laws of said country regardless of where you are incorporated. If this wasn’t the case, a lot of companies would only have to follow the laws of Panama or the Cayman Islands.

> doing business in a country

Doesn't that require having employees in, having facilities in, taking payments in or making payments to residents of said country?

Most of the streaming services this legislation is aimed at don't rise to that bar relative to the USA, as low as it is.

Re: Tillis Releases Text of Bipartisan Legislation to Fight Illegal Streaming

#120

Post by eljimmy »

Under current law, only violations of the reproduction and distribution rights of copyright owners can be charged as felonies, while criminal infringement via streaming (or “publicly performing”) can only be charged as a misdemeanor. This is known as the streaming loophole – and it is particularly harmful to the U.S. economy because streaming has become the most common form of criminal copyright infringement.

Says a lot about who these people represent when they're closing the streaming "loophole" while the corporate tax loopholes remain unchanged.

Post reply on HN