Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. senators introduce new pirate site blocking bill, "Block BEARD"

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–268 of 268 posts

Re: U.S. senators introduce new pirate site blocking bill, "Block BEARD"

#261

Post by rkomorn »

int_19h wrote: post #258
rkomorn wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed but at the same time, "everything" out of congress is propaganda sound bites, so I'm not going to pick on backronyms in particular. Having a short monicker for a bill remains useful. It's not like non-backronym bills in congress have names that accurately reflect what they seek to achieve.

Other countries do just fine with numbered bills.

In media? The non-US examples I know (my home country and where I live now) either refer to laws/proposals based on sponsor name or topic, or (when passed), the date it was passed.

Cursory googling about the UK suggests it's mostly either naked acts or "law of XYZ", but numbers.

The act names and backronyms are for public consumption.

Re: U.S. senators introduce new pirate site blocking bill, "Block BEARD"

#262

Post by burnt-resistor »

benreesman wrote: post #231
burnt-resistor wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You only rented licenses if you didn't receive physical copies or DRM-free downloads.

The button said "Buy" and it was next to one that said "Rent". I bought it. If they choose to make retrieving my purchase from the warehouse difficult, then I will take it by force with a torrent.

True, but that's marketing. Without a DRM-free digital copy, it's still "For as long as we allow you to have". Steam also doesn't allow selling "licenses" or whole accounts. All money paid to streaming and "buy" on most platforms is for temporary, pretend purchase. One exception of media distributors is GoG where offline, DRM-free copies are offered.

Re: U.S. senators introduce new pirate site blocking bill, "Block BEARD"

#263

Post by ahartmetz »

dessimus wrote: post #249
ozgrakkurt wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Games make way more money than movies but it also seems to be solved for games in the form of steam

Except there are times when exclusivity deals have games launch on other platforms first, and then get to Steam sometime later. Therefore, more like the movie model than the music model.

Only if you consider availability on release more important than availability later. Personally, I don't.

Re: U.S. senators introduce new pirate site blocking bill, "Block BEARD"

#264

Post by BrawnyBadger53 »

cvoss wrote: post #54
rcpt wrote: post #9

Our own great firewall

The Great Firewall of China is a censorship program. This proposed US legislation puts the power of blocking under the authority of its court system and only in the domain of copyright law. The courts are historically very concerned with upholding 1st Amendment rights to a degree that often (but not always) surpasses analogous rights in many sister liberal democracies. Anything that remotely smells of censorship woul…

Copyright law is a censorship program. It may not have been the intent presented when it was made but more and more it is used to suppress the speech of those who can't afford the legal battle. This is amplified by enforcement around it taking a guilty until proven innocent style since platforms that host speech are held liable for not taking immediate action.

Re: U.S. senators introduce new pirate site blocking bill, "Block BEARD"

#265

Post by smegger001 »

anon7000 wrote: post #236
tomwheeler wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The music industry figured this out: I pay Spotify, they have 95% of music content I could ever way, the UX is good enough. I have no reason to pirate music anymore. > Why is this so hard for the film industry? My theory is that the United States has compulsory licensing for music, but not movies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license#United_Stat... To my knowledge, a radio station or music streaming ser…

Yep. This kind of exclusivity agreement should probably be illegal across the board; they basically exist to make competition legally impossible. Great for business, sucks for people.

I dont know, that means if a streaming service created a show they would be forced to share it meaning no incentive for them to make their own content I prefer a limited time exclusively of 3-5 years for first party content then compulsory licencing of content. That would incentivise creation of new content as a positive market differentiator but also decincentivise removing old content as it would in effect be a negative differentiator.

Re: U.S. senators introduce new pirate site blocking bill, "Block BEARD"

#266

Post by smegger001 »

MSFT_Edging wrote: post #116
parliament32 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is precisely the problem, and the whole reason why we still pirate TV/movies. I would have no problem paying $XX to a unified service that has basically everything; I have no interest in paying a dozen different streaming platforms for effectively "cable packages" that often add/remove/shift content around. The music industry figured this out: I pay Spotify, they have 95% of music content I could ever way, the U…

> The music industry figured this out > Why is this so hard for the film industry Music industry runs on barely paying any artist that cant fill a stadium. Movie industry runs on constantly re-licensing content to min-max their returns from IP. Music industry can happily barely pay musicians via the spotify model, but the Movie industry can't continually re-license their stuff to a higher bidder if it's all on one si…

Honestly I dont know that I believe that narrative, music labels have been cheating the talent out of the proceeds of their work since Edison phonograph. Labels claiming to the artist that they dont make any money while they use creative accounting to charge any and every expense to the artist and is a long and storied practice in the industry. Artist are expected still to pay x% of sales revenue for "breakage fees" on digital downloads example. Breakage fees having been introduced to cover the loss to the breaking in transit of early brittle shellac phonograph records. ID dont know about you.but tje think the breakage cost of a mp3 file should be on the scale of negligible to nonexistent.

Re: U.S. senators introduce new pirate site blocking bill, "Block BEARD"

#267

Post by smegger001 »

jasode wrote: post #143
parliament32 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is precisely the problem, and the whole reason why we still pirate TV/movies. I would have no problem paying $XX to a unified service that has basically everything; I have no interest in paying a dozen different streaming platforms for effectively "cable packages" that often add/remove/shift content around. The music industry figured this out: I pay Spotify, they have 95% of music content I could ever way, the U…

>Why is this so hard for the film industry? It boils down to money. Movies & tv have higher monetary value to the studios than songs to the record labels. So the ip owners of video content get more revenue by restricting it as exclusives to their respective platforms rather than licensing it out to everybody and get a smaller fractional payment from an everything-unlimited-catalog video streaming service. E.g. HBO wo…

If its so valuable why are HBO and Disney killing already produced content making it unavailable (legally) on or off their platform. Why is the Willow TV show (sequel to the classic movie) removed it was one of their flagship early offering when they were starting their streaming service. Why is HBO killing finished movies like Batgirl and Wiley Coyote v Acme for the tax right off if they are such precious valuable content? Why is classic Looney Toons being broken up and sublicensed to everchanging array of shit tier streaming services. none of these moves makes since with the reason given

Re: U.S. senators introduce new pirate site blocking bill, "Block BEARD"

#268

Post by monksy »

int_19h wrote: post #199
myvoiceismypass wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Schiff is (D) Worth noting that this was introduced by Zoe Lofgren (D) the 77 year old that represents a big chunk of Silicon Valley. Disappointing.

The fact that some Democrats are introducing bills that mandate creation of infrastructure that can be easily repurposed to censor political viewpoints, during this administration no less, tells you all you need to know about how much disdain they really have for their electorate.

Oh I fully understand it. Duckworth and Durban both support KOSA related laws.. but yet the state has the great BIPA law.
Post reply on HN