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

151–160 of 509 posts

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

#151

Post by cookieswumchorr »

hoistbypetard wrote: post #119
judge2020 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

taking payments is here they can intervene, by forcing payment systems to block those platforms. Good thing we have crypto

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

#153

Post by contravariant »

roblabla wrote: post #85
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…

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…

Everyone seems to jump to conclusions a bit, though there's still some reason to be wary as I already see 2 ways that this would make it harder for someone to build a new streaming service.

Firstly it becomes very difficult to argue your streaming service has no 'commercially significant purpose' other than piracy when you're not making much money.

Secondly it gives the copyright enforcing industry a big amount of leverage to pressure you into doing things as failure to cooperate could easily be argued to make your platform intended for piracy.

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

#155

Post by neuland »

elliekelly wrote: post #116
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 com…

Yeah, I think people in this thread are really underestimating the ability for courts to over-apply laws that talk about commercial activity. If growing food on your own property for personal consumption can be "interstate commerce", then really any human activity can be justified as "commercial advantage or private financial gain".

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

#156

Post by vuciv1 »

caymanjim wrote: post #98

I'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…

your horse is pretty high

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

#157

Post by sukilot »

phkahler wrote: post #41

What 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?

It's just circular logic to fallaciously justify itself. "criminal organization" == "Any group of >1 person who breaks this law". The term isn't in the text of the law itself.

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

#158

Post by SommaRaikkonen »

elliekelly wrote: post #116
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 com…

You quoted the preamble but didn't quote the rest of the text: [...]transmission service that:

(1) is _primarily _ designed or provided for the purpose of publicly performing works protected under title 17 by means of a digital transmission without the authority of the copyright owner or the law;

(2) has _no commercially significant purpose or use other than_ to publicly perform works protected under title 17 by means of a digital transmission without the authority of the copyright owner or the law; or

(3) is _intentionally marketed by_ or at the direction of that person to promote its use in publicly performing works protected under title 17 by means of a digital transmission without the authority of the copyright owner or the law.

Emphasis are mine. It's clear to me through reading this that a service/platform that specifically aims and is marketed as streaming pirating content will suffer the consequences here.

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

#159

Post by sukilot »

emilecantin wrote: post #99

Gabe Newell (of Steam fame) has it right: Piracy is not a price problem, it's a service problem. Offer your digital goods packaged in a good service, and people will buy them (see: Netflix). Make it annoying to get your digital goods (through hostile "anti-piracy" software, bad UI, paltry device support, etc), and people will pirate instead. I'd argue the current trend towards exclusives / market fragmentation on vid…

Netflix is draining of quality content and people still pirate memberships. Not a good example.

If Netflix was working so well, all those other services wouldn't exist, because they'd have no customers.

You undermine your own argument by saying

> Piracy is not a price problem, it's a service problem

and then say

> for free.

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

#160

Post by dvtrn »

cbsks wrote: post #114
plussed_reader wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" 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.

This is a problem I have with how a LOT of legal topics are covered, Bills, lawsuits and court cases are discussed, the merits opined, but nary a complaint, brief, motion or court opinion gets linked so I can read for my damn self what the actual law as voted on says.

It’s more of a surprise when it IS linked or embedded to read than not

Post reply on HN