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

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

#341

Post by Trombone12 » Tue, Dec 22, 2020, 5:40 PM UTC

cogman10 wrote: post #207

rndgermandude wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. It is a bit of a concern, but I see it less of a concern than you. First, we're talking criminal law here, so the state has to argue their case and prove your guilt, not you have to prove your innocence. Second, you still get 17 U.S. Code § 512 liability pro…

I think the main issue I've got with this law is the fact that current laws already seem to cover it. It doesn't make sense to me why we needed additional criminal enforcement around, of all things, media streaming. I'm really not a fan of how much our government bends over backwards to protect Disney's IP. Kim Dotcom is a great example for how much protection is already enjoyed by copyright holders. It's crazy to ex…

Uh, that was about a very small bit of two songs that were very similar/identical. The notion that you can't just steal a large part a song and it'll be legal because it's not the full work is a pretty obvious one. Beyond that a ship-of-Theseus type ambiguity kicks in regarding to how much is needed to be taken for it to be thefth, as it does for most things that can be taken apart.

I guess it is worrying that the trial didn't decide if bits that small are protected or not before going on to decide if infringement happened, but I think this is mostly worrying for Katy Perry as it indicates that the hired lawyers are bad at their job.

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

#342

Post by ntsplnkv2 » Tue, Dec 22, 2020, 5:41 PM UTC

dessant wrote: post #64

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.

There's probably more truth to it when turned around: there are a number of pirates who would buy content, if it would be easily accessible. This is a self-inflicted wound by media companies, and they are attempting to solve the issue by sending people to prison, instead of taking the money people are ready to spend on their content.

This is so true.

Want to watch show X? Oh, you need Amazon prime. Show Y? Netflix. Show Z? HBO Max. Live sports? You need some BS cable package that costs a ridiculous amount.

Media companies get all mad about IP and yet create walled gardens everywhere. They get no sympathy from me.

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

#343

Post by franciscop » Tue, Dec 22, 2020, 5:41 PM UTC

jariel wrote: post #286

znpy wrote: post #17

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."

The next time you watch something on Netflix go ahead and watch the credits and you'll see the names of the hundreds of mostly regular people who made that thing. In addition, it's worth nothing, that most actors are not remotely rich, they're barely making it if that. Netflix and the Studios profit margins are similar to other distributors, and after all is said and done, most of them are not 'rolling in it', at lea…

> The content is made by people, just like physical things are, if they don't get paid, it doesn't get made, it's that simple.

This is patently not true. Maybe it's true for a subset of the high end content like Netflix series, but the vast majority of creative content e.g. music or paintings are not made with the primarily goal of being paid. Some good examples are how Myspace gave way to thousands of artists, the works on Deviantart or how Open Source is made by volunteers.

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

#344

Post by Mauricebranagh » Tue, Dec 22, 2020, 5:42 PM UTC

setr wrote: post #186

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.

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..

Move next business :-) or more sensibly table it so the non relevant to the budget is removed.

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

#345

Post by ucm_edge » Tue, Dec 22, 2020, 5:43 PM UTC

ryneandal wrote: post #183

mumblemumble wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I can't find it right now, but I swear there was a study that showed that people who pirated content also on average spent _more_ on digital entertainment. I remember pirating video games about 10-15 years ago to see if they were worthwhile, since the demo scene had pretty much died down. I'd end up buying the games I played through to completion as well.

That's basically where I am with streaming sites. Exert minimal effort to find version of mediocre quality, let it run for a bit and then decide if I want to actually pay for the content or just stop watching.

The other big thing is that the illegal streaming site has everything. So part of the whole "Okay I want to actually pay for the HD version of this" is "Okay now is this on Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, HBO Max, or...?"

I've honestly mostly just gone back to dvd.com. It has everything (except for digital only stuff that never got a Bluray/DVD release), you can actually get 5.1 or 7.1 sound, and since I live 45 miles from the San Jose facility it's 1 day shipping.

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

#346

Post by globular-toast » Tue, Dec 22, 2020, 5:43 PM UTC

hexo wrote: post #8

"Last year, one study reported that digital video piracy costs the U.S. economy $29.2 billion a year." Well, I'd say that it in fact saves $30 billion a year. People can use it to buy more important stuff - such as food.

If everyone had more money to spend on food, then food would be more expensive. People having more money doesn't generate value, it just drives inflation.

But the quote you are replying to makes no sense anyway. It doesn't "cost the economy". This is that same old fallacy that says if the economy has "grown" and there's more bits of paper moving around that we are somehow better off. If anything a bigger economy just means we spend too much of our finite lives trying to make sure others don't get more than we do. It doesn't correlate to a better way of life at all.

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

#347

Post by proverbialbunny » Tue, Dec 22, 2020, 5:43 PM UTC

joseph_grobbles wrote: post #58

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.

Lyndon B. Johnson - “If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.” Play on a particular grievance or issue of a voter and they'll let you do almost anything else. Be anti-immigrant and you can destroy social wellness programs, stomp on unions, etc.

It's sad how true that quote is.

The average person votes on rhetoric not actions, like voting record. All you got to do is give them a reason to vote for you, and it helps to have an excuse for your actions to prevent political attacks (like the quote above) and your voters will turn a blind eye to everything else.

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

#348

Post by xmichael0 » Tue, Dec 22, 2020, 5:44 PM UTC

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…

So sharing a Plex library with a few pirated videos is now a felony.

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

#349

Post by rhino369 » Tue, Dec 22, 2020, 5:45 PM UTC

autosharp wrote: post #109

IdiocyInAction wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are all the people, from the film crew to the VFX artists and engineers that work on the IP that is being stolen "rich people yatch (sic!) money"? You can say what you want about IP law; you wouldn't be able to enjoy many big-budget productions if it wouldn't exist. Many jobs, high-paying and low-paying, wouldn't exist. Of course, the business model for content distribution is somewhat nonsensical and the time until…

Those people are not making less if I don't pay for a movie. The marginal revenue is all yacht money profits.

On one single movie, no, but the expected revenue for a movie informs their negotiations (and the demand for their services). The reason high tens of millions of dollars are spend on VX for blockbusters is because they make a lot of revenue.

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

#350

Post by Maarten88 » Tue, Dec 22, 2020, 5:46 PM UTC

Mindwipe wrote: post #222

Maarten88 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, also it's incredible how it is possible to fully automatically recognize and block music and video's, and go after and punish the perpetrators, but this seems wholly impossible for blatant disinformation and lies on the same websites. When there is money at stake, laws en enforcement can accomplish things that are unthinkable when it is at the expense of the common good.

Not really? Recognition of an exact pattern is computationally very easy. Examination of often subjective truths is objectively very hard?

I'm sure that, given the right incentives, that 'objectively very hard problem' would be 95% solved very quickly.

Of course there are corner cases that are really hard, but that is no different than audio/video recognition, where a 95% solution (that also has many imperfections) gets forced on users anyway.