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

201–210 of 509 posts

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

#201

Post by tt433 »

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..

The key problem is essentially the Hastert rule and its infection of the Senate. Legislation is only considered by leadership, who only concern themselves with counting beans.

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

#202

Post by SommaRaikkonen »

elliekelly wrote: post #182
SommaRaikkonen wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You quoted the preamble but didn't quote the rest of the text: [...]transmission service that: (1) is _primarily _ designed or provided for the purpose of publicly performing works protected under title 17 by means of a digital transmission without the authority of the copyright owner or the law; (2) has _no commercially significant purpose or use other than_ to publicly perform works protected under title 17 by mean…

I envy your gift of statutory clarity. It isn't clear to me. And I can't imagine I'm the only lawyer who can spot the squishy bits of this legislation ripe for manipulation. The three paragraphs you've quoted are "or" elements. A person need only violate one of the three to be criminally liable. Paragraph 2 is broad enough to include just about anything.

Since you're a lawyer, please clarify for me one part so that I can understand. The paragraphs are presented as:

1 - condition 1;

2 - condition 2; or

3 - condition 3.

Does this mean that condition 1 should be applied all the time (1 and 2 _or_ 1 and 3) or (1 or 2 or 3) in order to be liable?

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

#203

Post by sleepysysadmin »

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 affects platforms, not users. Illegal streaming will not be a felony. Creating a for-profit platform with intent to do illegal streaming will be.

That is already a crime. It's called Commercial copyright infringement and comes with rather extreme. This is even in international law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agre...

My read of this proposed bill is that it's not misleading. Illegal streaming by users becoming a felony. No different than what SOPA was proposing. Willful infringement becoming a felony is their goal and they will achieve it.

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

#204

Post by [deleted] »

contravariant wrote: post #153
roblabla wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Everyone seems to jump to conclusions a bit, though there's still some reason to be wary as I already see 2 ways that this would make it harder for someone to build a new streaming service. 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. Secondly it gives the copyright enforcing industry a big amount of le…

[deleted]

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

#205

Post by croes »

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…

Isn't the use of an illegal service already a felony?

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

#206

Post by hiram112 »

input_sh wrote: post #69
moocowtruck wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

part of my job is to monitor tor and find people from using it, easier than you'd think.. so i wouldn't bankshot on that alone

...and judging by your comment history, you work for USPS? The fuck does your job have to do with Tor?

Interesting. I think a lot Darknet activity goes through Tor. The resulting drug purchases to and within the US will end up going through USPS. If I had Congressional funds to go after illegal drug shipments made through Darknet sites, I'd definitely be using Tor to make purchases from the biggest dealers on the most popular sites, and then investigating the source addresses, the types of packaging used to conceal the shipments, etc.

While I think it's immoral and a waste of taxpayer money to go after small time users buying personal quantities of drugs and controlled meds, it would be a satisfying and interesting job to help take down large suppliers of fentanyl laced drugs that are causing ODs all over the country.

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

#207

Post by cogman10 »

rndgermandude wrote: post #192
contravariant wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone seems to jump to conclusions a bit, though there's still some reason to be wary as I already see 2 ways that this would make it harder for someone to build a new streaming service. 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. Secondly it gives the copyright enforcing industry a big amount of le…

>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 expand that.

The other thing that really concerns me about this is how easily it could go wrong. Music, in particular, seems to be filled with legal landmines. Imagine hosting your own webpage for your band covering pop songs. Do you now have to fear federal prosecution?

Cases like this

https://variety.com/2020/music/news/katy-perry-dark-horse-re...

Terrify me for what it'll mean for media. Why? because it wasn't a clear cut "No, don't be stupid, these are totally different songs".

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

#208

Post by Mindwipe »

croes wrote: post #205
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…

Isn't the use of an illegal service already a felony?

Not even remotely.

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

#209

Post by Mindwipe »

sleepysysadmin wrote: post #203
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 affects platforms, not users. Illegal streaming will not be a felony. Creating a for-profit platform with intent to do illegal streaming will be. That is already a crime. It's called Commercial copyright infringement and comes with rather extreme. This is even in international law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agre... My read of this proposed bill is that it's not misleading. Illegal…

Criminal copyright infringement didn't cover streaming previously.

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

#210

Post by IdiocyInAction »

HlessClaudesman wrote: post #188
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…

The film & recorded music industries were built in an era of information scarcity, maintained by tightly controlled distribution. We now live in an era where information is infinite and everywhere. Criminalising people isn't going to turn back this fundamental sea change.

Information is infinite, but creating it is still not free. Creating the media that people consume via these streaming services costs millions of dollars and manhours. You are right that media companies have to adapt to the changing times, but simply saying that it should all be freely available is not a solution. I can imagine a future where this may be a feasible solution, but we are not there yet.

What is also a problem is that prosecuting copyright infringement presents a nasty threat to privacy protections.

Post reply on HN