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

251–260 of 509 posts

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

#251

Post by bigwavedave »

croes wrote: post #205
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…

Isn't the use of an illegal service already a felony?

> Isn't the use of an illegal service already a felony?

This doesn't cover the use of an illegal service. This goes after the platforms offering such content/services, not the individuals consuming the content/services.

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

#252

Post by vel0city »

Traster wrote: post #70
mminer237 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Look at Spotify, iTunes, YouTube and Netflix. Laws don’t stop piracy, good legal options stop piracy. The reason people pirated music wasn’t because the piracy sites were great, it’s because music companies wanted to charge ridiculous prices for something they would broadcast on the radio for free.

Music companies don't broadcast music on the radio for free, they charge radio companies certain amounts per play depending on the reach of that radio station.

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

#253

Post by Spooky23 »

tt433 wrote: post #201
setr wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn’t the collective default be to simply vote “no” if it’s given like this I don’t know why the behavior would exist otherwise..

The key problem is essentially the Hastert rule and its infection of the Senate. Legislation is only considered by leadership, who only concern themselves with counting beans.

The Senate is a gross and antidemocratic institution, but this sort of thing is not unique to the Senate. The nature of legislative bodies is such that compromise and voting while holding your nose is a thing everywhere.

The supreme power of the leadership more a symptom of the 50/50 political split, which empowers the party machinery. The legislative leadership weren’t household names at most points in time.

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

#254

Post by DanBC »

SamuelAdams wrote: post #49

This should be fun for a service like Twitch. What happens when a streamer on their platform starts playing a game with a copywritten song playing on the game's radio or background? Many times the streamers themselves are not aware that this is a crime.

> Many times the streamers themselves are not aware that this is a crime.

It's not a crime. What criminal law is being broken?

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

#255

Post by pluc »

JorgeGT wrote: post #121
pluc wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

twit.ch?

Already owned by Com Laude ("Strategic Domain Name Solutions & Brand Protection") so Twitch probably covered their bases here.

Wouldn't have posted it if it was available ;)

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

#257

Post by tootie »

fumar wrote: post #13

If 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.

You'll need a huge citation that this against the populace's wishes. I'd wager 99% of Americans still want theft to be illegal.

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

#258

Post by FireBeyond »

blackearl wrote: post #107
fumar wrote: post #13

If 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.

A day? Closer to 90 minutes. The bill was delivered at 2pm, and the vote, on the floor, was at 4pm.

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

#259

Post by prewett »

Mindwipe wrote: post #218
JKCalhoun wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. Perhaps the studios should quadruple the price of streaming to recoup their losses. But of course that would send even more to piracy.... It makes you wonder if Steve Jobs was correct that people that pirate (songs, Napster back in the day) would be willing to pay for music if it was easy (iTunes) and cheap ($0.99). I'm not sure if I agree but it is an interesting foil.

> It makes you wonder if Steve Jobs was correct that people that pirate (songs, Napster back in the day) would be willing to pay for music if it was easy (iTunes) and cheap ($0.99). I'm not sure if I agree but it is an interesting foil. Steve literally proceeded to launch a software app store that had DRM out of the wazoo, so even he didn't believe it.

Jobs convinced the music tracks studios to let him sell DRM free tracks on iTunes, so it seems to me like he believed it. I don't know if iTunes music is still DRM free, though.

But even it weren't, content creators unwillingness to let Apple sell DRM free media is not evidence that Jobs agrees with them.

[1] https://www.computerworld.com/article/2541387/itunes-starts-... [2] https://www.macworld.com/article/1138000/drm-faq.html

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

#260

Post by mistermann »

foerbert wrote: post #227
setr wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn’t the collective default be to simply vote “no” if it’s given like this I don’t know why the behavior would exist otherwise..

If only it were that simple. There's two major reasons I see why that doesn't happen. First, a 'no' vote is still taking a position. It requires additional explanation to differentiate "no because I couldn't understand it in time" and "no because I think it's a bad idea." That's a fair bit of nuance, which these days is... well often difficult to accurately and easily convey to others. The second reason is that it's…

> First, a 'no' vote is still taking a position. It requires additional explanation to differentiate "no because I couldn't understand it in time" and "no because I think it's a bad idea." That's a fair bit of nuance, which these days is... well often difficult to accurately and easily convey to others.

This is very true, but why, in the year 2020, is it still true?

Why does it seem like we can argue only about object level matters, and almost no one [1] can see that the framework we run politics on top of is fundamentally flawed? Would it maybe help if we were to consciously force ourselves to conceptualize society/humanity as a video game, that has parameters and behaviors, and the state of the system can be acted on, but our actions will only be effective if the game allows it?

[1] A rare exception to this in my opinion is Jimmy Dore's initiative to force a floow vote on Medicare for All

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Medicare+for+All%22+%22ji...

What I like about this approach is that it kind of pulls the "invisibility cloak" off of political claims and rhetoric, exposing the truth that lies inside. It appears that he's going to lose this battle (a vote will not be held), but even so it has forced a new level of propaganda to be deployed into the memeplex on very short notice, making it much easier for the average Joe to see through it. I think this is a good strategy: take away control of the playing field, so politicians can't use pre-written and memorized rhetorical talking points to dismiss obvious desires like affordable healthcare, which has fairly bi-partisan support among voters.

https://www.newsweek.com/69-percent-americans-want-medicare-...

It doesn't really matter if M4A is not achieved (that's where we're at anyways) - the main strategic goal imho should be to bring awareness to the public mind of the notion that politicians are not being truthful (notice I am not saying they are lying) when they say that their goals and actions are to execute "the will of the people", or do what is "best" for the American population. Politics, as it is, is largely all theatre, although even the participants themselves may not actually be consciously aware of it.

"All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players."

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/56966/speech-all-the-...

Post reply on HN