Live data from Hacker News

Tillis Releases Text of Bipartisan Legislation to Fight Illegal Streaming

tillis.senate.gov

291–300 of 509 posts

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

#291
post #263

Not an American. One thing I don't understand is how a non essential/time-critical bill like this is allowed to be put alongside critical funding related matter? For that matter how multiple completely independent laws are passed by a same vote?

Setting aside whether it's a good idea to encourage this: in practice today, combining laws is a reliable way for different groups to compromise.

If group A wants a policy that B doesn't want, and B wants a policy that A doesn't want, then combining those policies into one law is an easy and reliable way to compromise. You know that the whole bill will either pass, or it won't -- Congress votes on entire bills rather than parts of it, and the president doesn't have line-item veto power.

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

#292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 objec…

> 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?

For those interested in the first question, and the answer to why the second question is not the right way to go, check out Adam Curtis's most recent film, HyperNormalisation [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation

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

#293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're an oligarchy, that's why: 'that rich people and organizations representing business interests have a powerful grip on U.S. government policy. After examining differences in public opinion across income groups on a wide variety of issues, the political scientists Martin Gilens, of Princeton, and Benjamin Page, of Northwestern, found that the preferences of rich people had a much bigger impact on subsequent polic…

that's because many people don't vote or take part in political advocacy. it doesn't make society in "oligarchy". our democracy actually works really well, even with gerrymandering and some voter disenfranchisement. if all those people actually voted frequently, the policy outcomes would be a lot different. compare this to actual oligarchies where opposition parties actually can't accomplish anything because they're…

> actual oligarchies

> some voter disenfranchisement

> denied access to elections

> legitimate election fraud

> serious voter intimidation

I don’t completely disagree with you: people do have agency at the end of the day in the US. That said, let’s be careful not to fall into Scotsman fallacies where we don’t accept more subtle forms of oligarchy because they don’t fit our “1984”-esque imagination. Southern states have long histories of subtle voter disenfranchisement (requiring licenses or certificates that Black Americans have in lower percentages, placing polling stations in strategic locations, requiring money to discourage the poor from voting (who lean left), etc.) and it’s short-sighted to “No true Scotsman” that and say “well, it’s not an actual oligarchy because technically people still can vote.” One, in the vein of Niemoller’s “First they came...”, it ignores warning signs or red flags difficult to reverse until it’s too late. Second, it puts the focus on the individual. Sure, people can still vote. They can take off their $#!@ job for a few hours even though their boss is an @$$#@!€ and they need every dollar they can get, take the bus to the voting station 30 minutes away, wait in the line for potentially hours (I waited in just the primary line for 8 hours and I lived in West LA (Democrat, richer, etc.) at the time), only to be told they need a driver’s license which they’ve never had because they’ve never been able to afford a car. Or they actually do have, but this is just one person and most of their friends aren’t voting. Sure, this is possible. But then I ask you to reflect on the purpose of a democratic government if not to enable fair, free, and accessible elections? Especially now that the incumbent president is sueing and refusing to accept the results in a - I don’t way to say decisive, but clear perhaps - election, I guess I would like to know what it takes to consider that “legitimate election fraud”? Is it simply missing the f@$cist aesthetic of red, black, echo-y microphones over a rabid crowd, tanks and semi-automatics down the streets? Once again, once things progress to that level, it might be too late, but that doesn’t mean our current circumstances are any “less” of an “actual oligarchy” just because theyre not as obvious. IMO

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

#294
post #179

- Everyone discussing this law should really read the text 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.

I have no idea if this happens in practice, but if I was put in this situation, I’d employ my staff. Give each person 50 pages and regroup in an hour.

Since most of the bill is presumably the same as earlier drafts, we’d be mostly just looking for red flags. Heck, in theory you could even run it through a diff tool!

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

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole problem is enormous "conglomerate" bills in the first place. It's absurd that everyone is forced to evaluate and have a single opinion/vote on all these completely separate issues as a unit. How much political BS is hiding in these massive bills, quid-pro-quo, back scratching, intentionally opaque text that nobody can understand the implications of until long after it's been jammed through... its disgusting…

> It's absurd that everyone is forced to evaluate and have a single opinion/vote on all these completely separate issues as a unit. They aren't forced to, except by their own (collective) consent. They could vote to split the bill, propose smaller bills and vote down the bigger ones in preference, etc. Conglomerate bills are a tool to reach mutually tolerable compromise.

> mutually tolerable compromise

This is just politispeak for quid-pro-quo. If conglomerate bills are outlawed then maybe we can vote on issues instead of on whether everyone's back is sufficiently scratched.

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

#296
The amazing thing is, once we had a working technology where bittorrent was hooked up to a video player. It was called Acestreams.

It went away for reasons, one of which was the fact that people want to monetize ads and they can't do that if they can't control the stream.

As a technology however, it worked perfectly.

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

#297
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…

If I were to share a Plex server with some friends, and that Plex server were to primarily include pirated content (say, whatever we couldn’t get through other streaming services), I’m sure an argument could be made that it’s public and is therefore subject to these laws.

Would a reasonable person with technical knowledge agree that such a scenario falls under this law? No. But do you really think the RIAA isn’t going to put pressure on prosecutors to go after individuals? Do you really think they’ll allow technically-competent jurors?

I don’t trust anyone involved here. There’s no way this won’t be abused to go after average people.

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

#298
post #179

- Everyone discussing this law should really read the text 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.

Every third bill in congress is like that. They all have teams of lawyers at their behest to explain and go through all aspects of it.

It was hurried, yes. But hardly unusual.

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

#299
In practice what will this do to streams provided by commercial services like Twitch, where someone has copyrighted music playing in the background. Or the more political streams that play other videos and even share news articles. Will that kind of stuff be shut down?

Also, It will be interesting to see how “THEY” go about picking away at Section 230.

Post reply on HN