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

261–270 of 509 posts

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

#261

Post by lemonspat »

panarky wrote: post #230
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…

> for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, offer or provide to the public a digital transmission service that If it's a peer-to-peer streaming service where media consumers also serve media to other users, then the argument could be made that users themselves are providing the "digital transmission service". There may not even be an identifiable, centralized "platform".

But is that "digital transmission service" run "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain"? I agree with your theory, but not sure why you removed the qualifier from your theory. This seems more targeted to PopcornTime than bittorrent

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

#262

Post by trixie_ »

exabrial wrote: post #195

I blame this on reaction-ism... We don't need a law for every little thing that happens. Non-violent offenders should _never_ face jail time.

Someone steals your identity, ruins your credit, drains you bank accounts, sells your crypto/stocks - leaves you with nothing. It wasn't violent so what happens to them?

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

#264

Post by samtheprogram »

JackFr wrote: post #238
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.

She needs to be more realistic on the constraints of the system within which she is working. Omnibus spending bills are huge. The COVID relief portion of the bill is huge. So the document, which contains the implementation details is gonna be pretty big. There’s now way around it More importantly though, you can’t reasonably budget more than a trillion dollars without some horse trading. AOC’s real problem is that sh…

No, representatives should be able to read the bill in full to determine if who they in particular represent would be for or against such a law. They don’t represent their higher ups, they represent their locality. Anything else is a failure in US democracy.

The complaint isn’t against a 5000 page law, it’s a 5000 page law with 2 hours to determine the vote. Regardless of party lines, whenever this happens we should rightfully hear complaints.

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

#265

Post by dota_fanatic »

JackFr wrote: post #238
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.

She needs to be more realistic on the constraints of the system within which she is working. Omnibus spending bills are huge. The COVID relief portion of the bill is huge. So the document, which contains the implementation details is gonna be pretty big. There’s now way around it More importantly though, you can’t reasonably budget more than a trillion dollars without some horse trading. AOC’s real problem is that sh…

> More importantly though, you can’t reasonably budget more than a trillion dollars without some horse trading.

Why? If the relief is federal, which I understand to be the case, no state or local level relief, then why must there be horse trading? Do the international relief in another bill. Do the illegal streaming is a felony in another bill. Etc.

It's like creating a massive program around a god function with globals instead of setting up sane module boundaries based on data structures and their relationships. You're gonna have a bad time.

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

#266

Post by panarky »

lemonspat wrote: post #261
panarky wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, offer or provide to the public a digital transmission service that If it's a peer-to-peer streaming service where media consumers also serve media to other users, then the argument could be made that users themselves are providing the "digital transmission service". There may not even be an identifiable, centralized "platform".

But is that "digital transmission service" run "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain"? I agree with your theory, but not sure why you removed the qualifier from your theory. This seems more targeted to PopcornTime than bittorrent

Getting media for free is "private financial gain".

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

#267

Post by tt433 »

adamcstephens wrote: post #232
tt433 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This same thing happens in the House.

I never said it didn't, Hastert was Speaker of the House when he introduced it, but it's since come to dominate the legislative process in both chambers. I trusted my use of the word infection conveyed that meaning

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

#268

Post by Imnimo »

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.

It would be an interesting experiment for a polling company to pick a sampling of legislation and see how much of a disconnect there is.

I feel like in this instance, the number of people who would say "congress should make cracking down on streaming a priority" is near zero, but maybe the number of people who would say "it should be illegal to intentionally host copyrighted material" might be pretty high.

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

#269

Post by saalweachter »

Evidlo wrote: post #88
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."

Yacht?

I wonder how hard it would be to get people to start pronouncing the "ch" in yacht. Maybe to rhyme with the German "nacht" rather than a hard "ch" as in "church".

I figure there are more people who enjoy doing silly things to bother other people than who enjoying yachting.

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

#270

Post by Finnucane »

foerbert wrote: post #227
setr wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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..

If only it were that simple. There's two major reasons I see why that doesn't happen. 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. The second reason is that it's…

And, of course, the current session is coming to an end very soon, and leadership could change. Two of the sponsors may soon be out of a job. Would the incoming administration sign off on this? Maybe, maybe not. So best jam it through now while no one is paying much attention.
Post reply on HN