411–420 of 509 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> has no commercially significant purpose or use other than to publicly perform works protected under title 17
It doesn't have to meet that criterion to fit the definition. It could meet clause 1 or (more likely on GP's examples) clause 3 instead).
Isn't this already illegal in the US? > bipartisan legislation that would punish large-scale criminal streaming services that willfully and for commercial advantage or private financial gain offer to the public illicit services dedicated to illegally streaming copyrighted material. > The Protecting Lawful Streaming Act would apply only to commercial, for-profit streaming piracy services.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 allo…
I think you're maybe misinterpreting his message - he describes our reality as if it is a video game that's been created for us to live in, which is my very point. Thinking of it this way allows one to see the system more clearly, and in turn manipulate it to one's own ends (and very easily, provided those embedded within it are unaware of the situation, which is very much the case).
If (even for the sake of discussion) one assumes this to be the case, then availing oneself of this very same technique (and do it better, leveraging superior thinking & magnitude of compute (via crowd-sourcing), lower requirements for stealth, etc) to fight back seems like a no-brainer to me.
Getting those who live within such a system to even consider this possibility on the other hand, this is not an easy task. I see no no-brainer way to go about this, other than just talking about it explicitly. I'm essentially proposing that we apply the very same systems analysis techniques that we would use at work to the very system we live within, but it seems this is a very non-intuitive idea.
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 title is misleading The title isn't misleading. You're just providing more details than exists in the title, which is the purpose of the link, which does provide that information. But more to the point, the most objectionable part of this isn't the specific details of the streaming changes. It's... what business does any of this have in a Coronavirus relief bill? It's preposterous. I feel like honest legislato…
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…
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."
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…
Username checks out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This title is misleading The title isn't misleading. You're just providing more details than exists in the title, which is the purpose of the link, which does provide that information. But more to the point, the most objectionable part of this isn't the specific details of the streaming changes. It's... what business does any of this have in a Coronavirus relief bill? It's preposterous. I feel like honest legislato…
> what business does any of this have in a Coronavirus relief bill? We didn’t have a coronavirus relief bill until yesterday. Bridging votes is part of policy negotiation.
The large majority of people agree that there should be Coronavirus relief. The people refusing are only doing so in order to perpetrate a stick up on something they know everybody wants in order to get something in that not everybody wants.
If you want your stupid garbage into the law, convince the majority of people that it's the right thing to do on its own merits. Horse trading against unrelated legislation is despicable, and doing it in the context of something people don't have time to read before they vote on it is even worse.
The problem, and the concern from groups like EFF, is that on the other hand people who are not really pirates (ie. their purpose is not to serve a substitute for buying the work) but who may violate copyrights in the process (ex. streamers who don't have distribution rights to music playing in the background) could be covered as long as they are in some way monetized, and it would not be hard to play this as a "major infringer" with a number of songs.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I could live with that if you didn't try to impose their values on me. I want to be free to write whatever code I want in the privacy of my own bedroom. I want to be free to understand my democratic government institutions. I want to be able to reverse-engineer things I own. I want to understand the world around me fully, and completely, to within the limits of my intellect. I want to build school systems where kids…
Sorry if I'm missing something here, but how does my enjoyment of a big budget movie correlate with I want to build school systems where kids learn to understand their world . What harm am I causing these kids that I am apparently unaware of?
It's an interesting case in that the internet has caused big media to push for stricter copyright enforcement and experiment with giving people less and less rights on their products, but at the same time the internet has made people much more aware of the downsides of copyright.