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

211–220 of 509 posts

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

#211

Post by nineplay »

caymanjim wrote: post #98

I'm disgusted by the comments on HN every time media theft is mentioned. It costs money to make movies, TV shows, and music. There are millions of people whose careers depend on it. Most of the people involved make less than your average HN media pirate. Yes, like everything else, the people at the top make more. Yes, there are shitty UIs, DRM, and absurd rules preventing fair and convenient use of media even if you…

I agree though it's one of the most genuinely unpopular opinions on the internet. People will contort themselves into knots explaining why it's perfectly OK to consume a product without paying for it - in fact, they assure us, they are doing the producers a favor.

I find it pretty disheartening. Pirating is a minor vice in the grand scheme of things but something about the self-righteous defense of it suggests how easily people throw out considerations of right and wrong in order to save a few bucks.

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

#213

Post by autosharp »

VonGallifrey wrote: post #189
autosharp wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will spend the money somewhere else and that is where they will be working in the future.

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.

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

#214

Post by csharptwdec19 »

neuland wrote: post #155
elliekelly wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what the linked press release[1] says but looking at the wording of the bill[2] I'm not so sure it's that cut and dry: > It shall be unlawful to will-fully, and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, offer or provide to the public a digital transmission service that... The term "private financial gain" typically includes an individual receiving anything of value. I agree it doesn't com…

Yeah, I think people in this thread are really underestimating the ability for courts to over-apply laws that talk about commercial activity. If growing food on your own property for personal consumption can be "interstate commerce", then really any human activity can be justified as "commercial advantage or private financial gain".

I'd be curious to see if another lawyer could turn all of this on the heads of the 'digital market' as a whole.

> and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain,

What if someone starts a streaming service where they get paid in 'tradable' items in a 3rd party game, where the EULA of said game makes it clear that that such items have no monetary value?

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

#215

Post by woofie11 »

IdiocyInAction wrote: post #137
woofie11 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I already don't enjoy many big-budget productions. I find niche Youtubers catering to my interests to be a better use of my time -- recently, we've been binging on 3Blue1Brown. I'm also finding very little relation between production budget (which mostly goes into things like SFX) and my enjoyment. Some of my favorite films were very low budget, from Dr. Horrible to some Bruce Campbell flicks. Good writing makes a hu…

Then don't watch those movies. The fact is, many people enjoy these things - there's market research on that - and you are not the target audience. The sum amount of enjoyment from a big budget production is much higher than what 3B1B produces (who I also like!). And that enjoyment would not exist if not for IP law.

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 learn to understand their world.

If your enjoyment of big-budget movies doesn't infringe on that, go ahead and enjoy them. Since it does, I'll fight every step of the way. Perhaps I'll lose, but I'll fight.

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

#216

Post by cogman10 »

mywittyname wrote: post #145
dawnerd wrote: post #43

Since most if not all of these platforms are based in countries more friendly towards infringement it’s really not going to do much of anything other than be another law that gets selectively applied and abused.

I'm absolutely positive the DoJ can find a way to bend the definition of "for-profit" to go after a person who shares their Plex service with other people. The question of "did they profit" is a pretty low bar to clear. And in an era where people mindlessly exchange money via Venmo and similar platforms, it's probably not going to be difficult to find a union of the set "was granted access to plex account" and "has e…

Mind you, the law didn't say for profit. It said

> for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain

I'd not be shocked if the argument for "financial gain" is "I didn't lose money paying a viewing fee".

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

#217

Post by nobody9999 »

andjd wrote: post #166

The headline is misleading because it misstates the status this legislation is in. Any senator or congressperson can release proposed legislation like this. The vast, vast majority of it never gets further -- Especially ones released right before the end of the term. Senator Tillis can introduce this legislation again next year, but nothing is going to happen with this bill before it dies an unceremonial death on Jan…

>The headline is misleading because it misstates the status this legislation is in. Any senator or congressperson can release proposed legislation like this. The vast, vast majority of it never gets further -- Especially ones released right before the end of the term

IIUC, this legislation was included in the $2.3 trillion spending bill (900 billion for COVID "relief" and 1.4 trillion to keep the government running until next September) already passed by Congress.

If it hadn't been passed (or Trump vetoes the bill) the government will shut down in a matter of hours.

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

#218

Post by Mindwipe »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #146
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.

Interesting. Perhaps the studios should quadruple the price of streaming to recoup their losses. But of course that would send even more to piracy.... It makes you wonder if Steve Jobs was correct that people that pirate (songs, Napster back in the day) would be willing to pay for music if it was easy (iTunes) and cheap ($0.99). I'm not sure if I agree but it is an interesting foil.

> It makes you wonder if Steve Jobs was correct that people that pirate (songs, Napster back in the day) would be willing to pay for music if it was easy (iTunes) and cheap ($0.99). I'm not sure if I agree but it is an interesting foil.

Steve literally proceeded to launch a software app store that had DRM out of the wazoo, so even he didn't believe it.

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

#219

Post by autosharp »

IdiocyInAction wrote: post #170
autosharp wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will spend the money somewhere else and that is where they will be working in the future.

Without meaning to offend, that is not a good argument. If you rob a store and the employees have to quit their job, saying "I will spend the money somewhere else and that is where they will be working in the future" would not absolve you of the responsibility that you have indirectly damaged their livelihood.

The money/goods that I rob from a store cost a lot to reproduce, unlike movies. And I would scare people.

This is more like me buying from store A than from store B. Am I robbing store B?

Surely not giving to charity is worse than any other economic reallocation?

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

#220

Post by AnthonyMouse »

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 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 legislators should really start using this process against itself. The next time there is an omnibus bill like this, insert a line that says something like "every part of the December 2020 Coronavirus relief act not directly related to Coronavirus relief is repealed" and then let it sail through with that in the same way this did. Give them a disincentive to do things this way because they'll just lose it again next year.

Post reply on HN