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

431–440 of 509 posts

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

#431

Post by dllthomas »

dllthomas wrote: post #423
btown wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While that may indeed be the intent, an aggressive prosecutor could make a strong argument that individual streamers dancing or singing unlicensed karaoke are providing a digital service (the word "platform" never appears in the text) that "is intentionally marketed by or at the direction of that person to promote its use in publicly performing works." Which would now be a freaking felony.

Going by the quoted portion of the bill up thread, "platform" doesn't appear in the relevant portions text but neither does "digital service" - it says "digital transmission service". I am not certain whether that makes a difference.

From the definitions section of the bill as linked above:

> the term ‘digital transmission service’ means a service that has the primary purpose of publicly performing works by digital transmission;

So it probably makes less of a difference than we might hope.

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

#432

Post by fumar »

tootie wrote: post #257
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.

I did not make that claim. The post simply inspired the question based on some of the early commenters.

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

#433

Post by Miner49er »

nineplay wrote: post #353
Dirlewanger wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People pirate because organizations like the RIAA/MPAA have perverted the democratic process to ensure draconian consequences for downloading a couple megabytes of information. They don't care about paying artists more, they don't care about working to provide a platform to curb piracy, they only want to enrich their bottom lines. Fuck them, and fuck anyone else defending them.

> They don't care about paying artists more They are like any other corporation in not wanting to pay more. My employer doesn't want to pay me more. No one has yet used that as a justification for taking our product off the shelves and sticking it into their backpack. > they don't care about working to provide a platform to curb piracy That's usually where the 'tying in knots' comes in. "Why should I pay for a huge p…

> No one has yet used that as a justification for taking our product off the shelves and sticking it into their backpack.

Yes people have and do. Many people think it's morally fine to shoplift from large corporations in part because they exploit their workers.

An example of this is illegalism:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegalism

This type of thing is common in many variants of anarchism.

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

#434

Post by danShumway »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #235
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #220

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.

5,500 pages of bridging votes? A bill that's so large that people literally don't have the ability to read it before they vote on it? Policy negotiations are normal. This is not normal.

I mean, heck, why bring up separate bills in Congress at all? Let's put off all legislation for the entire year and then we'll pass everything as one bill when it comes time for the spending bill. We don't even need to meet during the year, we'll just do the entire process via backroom deals and give people a few hours to sign on before they vote yes or no on everything for the entire year. It's not a broken legislative system, it's just compromise! /s

Yes bills are complicated, yes, compromise is necessary, but also there are obvious lines we can cross where there's no reason for a bill to be so bloated and discordant, and this bill crosses those lines.

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

#435

Post by bigwavedave »

croes wrote: post #338
bigwavedave wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This has nothing to do with users, so I'm not sure what your point is. A different example might help us communicate:

> "Hey guys, that relatively new way of dealing drugs is no longer a misdemeanor, now it's a felony."

> "But isn't using drugs already a felony?"

> "... yes, they already have a law to go after users; this new law just reclassifies the type of crime it is for cartels offering drugs."

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

No laws have changed for consumers. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, please clarify.

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

#436

Post by SubiculumCode »

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…

One might argue that conglomerate bills are the result of deal making: You want this? I want this.

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

#437

Post by ViViDboarder »

rhino369 wrote: post #349
autosharp wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If what you’re saying so strictly true, yearly movie budgets would have been dropping year over year. With the obvious exception on the pandemic, is this what is happening?

Pay of individuals working on set, which the exception of huge name actors, is not really impacted by total movie revenue and they don’t often get dividends. Once the fixed cost is covered, which for most big movies it easily is, the rest is the gravy train for the investors.

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

#438

Post by smaddock »

I'd love to see legislature go through a process like public GitHub pull requests. If we could create a culture similar to the best practices of code reviews, that'd be great.

- Keep changes limited in scope for easier review.

- Open the process to the wider public for inspection.

- Transparent revision history.

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

#439

Post by thaumasiotes »

ummonk wrote: post #411
dmurray wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

What's weird is that the bill doesn't have an or conjunction between clause 1 and 2 lol.

That's not weird. The bill says "a transmission service that (1); (2); or (3)". That's just how English conjunctions work when you're joining more than two things.

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

#440

Post by dang »

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…

Yes, the submitted title was "Illegal Streaming to be a felony soon". That broke the site guidelines quite badly. They ask: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." We've changed it now.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post reply on HN