171–180 of 509 posts
Can we please stop posting proposed legislation with highly editorialized titles? Most proposed legislation, even "bipartisan" will not go through are end up so diluted that it won't matter. Not that it's not worth fighting but this is clearly an attempt to garner clicks/votes and we should be fighting back here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I value my comments on HN at $5/view. I lose an estimated 50k/year to people not paying for the value they get from reading my comments.
You already licensed those comments to HN for distribution ;)
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
Companies will lose free marketing and word of mouth.
Companies will have to work harder to persuade the populace to acquire commercial flicks/sports. Youtube and cheap magnate streaming services win. Small studios or independent film makers, lose their free marketing distribution channels (personal opinion)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correction: They shipped the feature at launch but it had a bug where some copyrighted material was missed.
If you "ship" a feature that only works if it always works and it doesn't always work, does that really count?
Finally someone stands up for the little guys, like major league sports, film production companies, and cable networks
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."
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…
Remember all those pictures of drug busts we used to see? Police take the weight seized (including packaging) then multiply it by the the highest price they could justify as an estimate of the "street value". That's how a table full of weed gets valued at $100,000,000.
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…
Hasn't this been the case since... forever?
The difficulty in doing so is a big part of the problem. As per AOC's comments on twitter yesterday, at 2PM Members of Congress got 5000 pages of bill dropped on their desk with a vote call at 4PM.
The whole thing needs to be much more transparent.
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.