Tillis Releases Text of Bipartisan Legislation to Fight Illegal Streaming • Hacker News Board

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

#331

Post by VonGallifrey » Tue, Dec 22, 2020, 5:36 PM UTC

autosharp wrote: post #213

VonGallifrey wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How fast would you be able to switch the industry you are working in? I would guess that a lot of the jobs that are discussed in this thread are fairly specialised ones and if that industry would disappear they would be out of work.

The economic re-allocation doesn't have to be overnight or even in a single decade. It isn't as if the revenue suddenly goes to zero and the industry is nuked.

No matter how long it will take they will have to start fresh and whatever experience, knowledge and education they had becomes useless. Much more likely they simply become unemployed and stay that way.

That is an awful lot of time wasted of their lives.

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

#332

Post by onion2k » Tue, Dec 22, 2020, 5:36 PM UTC

rkachowski wrote: post #309

panarky wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting media for free is "private financial gain".

how so? you don't gain financially by receiving free media in any form, at best you avoid a monetary cost.

You're getting something that you'd otherwise have to pay for. That is legally considered a financial gain, even if it doesn't hold up to pedantic linguistic scrutiny. Legal definitions are often different to everyday language.

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

#333

Post by nocman » Tue, Dec 22, 2020, 5:36 PM UTC

JackFr wrote: post #238

seanc wrote: 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.

She needs to be more realistic on the constraints of the system within which she is working. Omnibus spending bills are huge. The COVID relief portion of the bill is huge. So the document, which contains the implementation details is gonna be pretty big. There’s now way around it More importantly though, you can’t reasonably budget more than a trillion dollars without some horse trading. AOC’s real problem is that sh…

No, the reason this is done is so that details of the law can be hidden in plain sight, to force people to vote 'yes' on the bill (for the things in the bill that will cause them political problems if they vote 'no'). Many lawyers excel at burying the world in a sea of words that are legally binding, in hopes that others either won't read them or can't read all of them due to time constraints.

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

#334

Post by Kranar » Tue, Dec 22, 2020, 5:38 PM UTC

mod wrote: post #330

Kranar wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, if you are the one distributing the podcast directly on a platform you control and the platform is primarily to distribute music you don't own the copyright to, it doesn't matter if you happen to be dancing while the music is playing, that is copyright infringement and under this law would be criminal. You can always have a podcast that reviews songs, and people have been reviewing songs for as long as there has…

"Vocal coach reacts!" I, for one, will be glad if these go away. (Plus, get them out of my feed, youtube. I don't watch them.) Apparently they're so successful that other people are doing it now. I saw someone totally unrelated to music reacting to amateur music songs.

Well those videos on Youtube won't be impacted by this. This law doesn't go after individuals who upload infringing content, rather it goes after the platform itself. It's unlikely Youtube will be affected by it.

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

#335

Post by mattficke » Tue, Dec 22, 2020, 5:38 PM UTC

The primary holding of the Supreme Court case that shut down Aereo[1] in 2014 was that their streams were "public performances", the category of violation that is being strengthened in this act. That decision is more consequential in light of this.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Cos.,_In...

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

#336

Post by rhino369 » Tue, Dec 22, 2020, 5:39 PM UTC

infogulch wrote: post #278

seanc wrote: 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.

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…

Interestingly, the Confederate constitution banned these types of bills.

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

#337

Post by uncomputation » Tue, Dec 22, 2020, 5:40 PM UTC

Dirlewanger wrote: post #328

uncomputation wrote: post #256

More of this “war on drugs” “tough on crime” mentality from Republicans? When will we learn?

You do realize this legislation is sponsored by Democrats, right?

It’s literally bi-partisan legislation, so yes by definition some Democrats sponsor it too. But it was introduced by a Republican and the excessive punitive measures on issues that have larger roots in society (punishing people isnt going to make them stop streaming illegally (“you wouldnt steal a car”)) I’m talking about came from the Republican party in the early 80’s, so let’s skip this “gotcha checkmate” mentality please

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

#338

Post by croes » Tue, Dec 22, 2020, 5:40 PM UTC

bigwavedave wrote: post #251

croes wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not talking about the new bill. If it's already illegal they don't need another law to go after the users.

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

#339

Post by emilecantin » Tue, Dec 22, 2020, 5:40 PM UTC

these_are_not_t wrote: post #302

sukilot wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think that piracy overall isn't a simple issue: trying to put every pirates in the same bag isn't going to work, because not everyone has the same set of motivations: some have issues with packaging, some with price, and perhaps there are other kinds of issues? What can be done on the other hand, is to figure out what are the main reasons for piracy (ie, on average, what are the driving factors), and what can be do…

You're right on price, there's definitely a certain nuance to be had there. I tried adding it to my original post, but it only diluted my point, so I kept it about convenience.

You won't ever get rid of piracy, but you can reduce it to negligible levels by offering what people want: a reasonable price & a good user experience. Music offers this currently, and piracy is pretty much a solved problem for them: only 2.9% of piracy is music [1]. I'd argue most people prefer having access to all the music they want on the device they want just a click away, for 10-15$ per month, than tracking down & downloading a good-quality torrent that won't give you a virus. Ad-sponsored versions are also an option here, and broadcast TV & radio's rich histories would indicate that's a pretty good business model. Just don't get greedy & do both (looking at you, Cable TV).

[1]: https://brandongaille.com/21-shocking-music-piracy-statistic...

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

#340

Post by Netcob » Tue, Dec 22, 2020, 5:40 PM UTC

colejohnson66 wrote: post #29

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?

The idea is that every pirate copy is a lost sale. Of course, that ignores people who would never buy the product if it cost anything. But it is partly true as some people would pirate over spending if it’s available. There’s also the flipside of some pirates turning into paid customers (think Photoshop). Then there’s the fact that the number is vastly inflated as some people use the $150,000 maximum fine as the cost…

It's relatively unusual to have a job as a teenager where I come from. So I had to make do with birthday/christmas gifts and pocket money. During my university days my budget was pretty much just rent and food. I could afford a PC, maybe a console for playing games, but hardly any games unless I'd buy used ones.

Movies and TV shows, all pirated. I'd buy some DVDs if I was really obsessed with something.

Eventually I got a job, and streaming / affordable PC games caught up with reality and met me half-way.

If you put a price on everything I pirated before that time, I'm not sure if I could have afforded that even if I stopped paying rent and buying food completely.

Too bad streaming is getting more fractured again. If I want to watch 6 TV shows, I have to subscribe to 5 streaming services.