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

441–450 of 509 posts

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

#441

Post by viraptor »

dragonwriter wrote: post #399
infogulch wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> mutually tolerable compromise This is just politispeak for quid-pro-quo. If conglomerate bills are outlawed then maybe we can vote on issues instead of on whether everyone's back is sufficiently scratched.

> This is just politispeak for quid-pro-quo. Yes, compromise and quid-pro-quo are the same thing. So what? > If conglomerate bills are outlawed then maybe we can vote on issues instead of on whether everyone's back is sufficiently scratched. You are voting on issues either way, and, cynically, voting on whether everyone's back is sufficiently scratched, either way. A single subject rule, such as is in place in the Ca…

> Quid-pro-quo isn't the problem, being able to trade-off across issues is a good thing.

It can be a good thing sometimes. But it can be also used for "do the thing you'd otherwise never agree to for your thing to pass" which is more of an ultimatum. Or even, "yeah, and add an aircraft carrier to that" to block some effort completely. (I think that was a recent relief bill, but can't find the link now)

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

#442

Post by Technically »

IdiocyInAction wrote: post #94
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."

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…

Engineers get residuals?

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

#443

Post by dang »

chadash wrote: post #414
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…

The admins changed the title. The new title seems to be more accurate.

Yes - see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25510091.

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

#444

Post by dang »

PointyFluff wrote: post #165
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…

Either way, this is bullshit forced through into "must pass" legislation because they know this shit wouldn't pass otherwise. This is fundamentally evil. Our senators are a pile of shit-enabling shit.

Please don't post like this to HN. Perhaps you don't owe shit-enabling senators better, but you owe this community better if you're posting to it, and the site guidelines specifically ask you not to: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25498551 is also not ok. Could you please review the guidelines and use HN as intended?

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

#445

Post by dang »

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.

(This subthread was originally a reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25507339.)

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

#446

Post by ummonk »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #439
ummonk wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, fair enough. I'm just used to seeing most legal codes have a conjunction between each element of a list for clarity, or a description before the list whether each element needs to be satisfied or just one of them.

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

#447

Post by ev1 »

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…

Note that I am not a fan of overarching copyright and crazy patents as is the current US system, and think the DMCA is broken.

My opinion is that I dislike bringing up Kim as a martyr for this every time it comes around/find it somewhat damaging to the argument. The entirety of the data and all servers were hosted in the US. They had vendors in the US, they had a significant US connection and jurisdiction almost certainly applies.

It was/is relatively obvious to pretty much anyone looking in from outside that their existence was largely based upon infringement, like the equivalent of current 2020 file locker providers streamtape, streamhoe, vidlox, fastdl, mixdl, dropdl, videobin, mixdrop, mystream, abcvideo, or the past days of 2shared, 4shared, filesonic, uploadedto... You really only ever saw those links in a few places and you know what they are for, they magically stayed up for months. It isn't a "personal files" argument, they were pretty explicitly knowingly profiting off this kind of activity, especially with megavideo streaming loading every kind of malicious pop-everything ad known to humankind.

The same files/shows/movies rarely lasted more than a day or two on Mediafire or Box.

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

#448

Post by danShumway »

IdiocyInAction wrote: post #113
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.

No, but the second-order effects of you not paying may very well affect them in the future. If the studios get less revenue and have to pay more for enforcing IP law, they have less money for new productions and therefore less jobs and salary for the people producing the content. And I don't see why you should have a right to enjoy the fruits of their labor without paying.

> but the second-order effects of you not paying may very well affect them in the future

I'm not a copyright abolitionist, but I'm curious what the second-order effects are to giving money to companies like Disney that are using that money to expand IP laws, buy up competitors, and impose one specific view of cinema on the entire market?

People should obey laws because generally it's a good idea in a functioning society to obey laws. But to the extent that people can deprive companies like Disney of revenue without breaking the law, I kind of feel like they should do so. Not just by avoiding their products, but by making it harder for them to make money in general. It would be good at this point for companies like Disney to fail and for the media ecosystem to become more diverse.

There are extremely negative effects that come from allowing one corporation to own so much culture. I'm not going to break the law, but I'm also not going to lose sleep over Disney the corporation losing profits, because I want Disney to lose money, and I want them to produce less content. I don't want Disney to be the biggest media producer on the market, they're crowding other people out and using their leverage to control things they shouldn't be able to control.

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

#449

Post by ulisesrmzroche »

Kaveren wrote: post #406
theonemind wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that's because many people don't vote or take part in political advocacy That does not seem correct based on the study. 100% popular support increases chances of a measure passing by 0%. If even a small percentage remains politically active, 100% population support should make some difference, and it doesn't. Secondly, I believe it confuses cause and effect. At some level, people have cognizance that their efforts…

> Secondly, I believe it confuses cause and effect. People say a lot of things. People mostly agree with universal background checks for guns. It isn't the Evil Rich People preventing this from happening, and the NRA isn't particularly rich itself even though it's a popular bogeyman. People talk a lot about climate change until it's time to shape policy on it. Someone answering a poll question doesn't matter, what pe…

You don't have any data backing your claims.

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

#450

Post by cycloptic »

smhenderson wrote: post #370
woofie11 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sorry if I'm missing something here, but how does my enjoyment of a big budget movie correlate with I want to build school systems where kids learn to understand their world . What harm am I causing these kids that I am apparently unaware of?

I don't know how true this is (it could just be rumours) but I've heard multiple times from hardware vendors that the main reason they can't open source GPU drivers and firmware, or the code for a smart TV, is because of concerns about the DRM being cracked. It would be a pretty sad state of affairs if the end result of this copyright enforcement is that the general public just isn't allowed to know how a TV or a GPU works anymore, and that right becomes reserved only for the 5 big movie studios.
Post reply on HN