Tillis Releases Text of Bipartisan Legislation to Fight Illegal Streaming • Hacker News Board

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

#491

Post by trixie_ » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 4:59 AM UTC

Afton wrote: post #472

trixie_ wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

We change the laws making it harder for it to happen again. We restrict the actions of the individual to make them less able to do it again. We attempt to understand the circumstances that led to them engaging in this behaviour and attempt to mitigate both directly in the case of the individual, and generally for the class of people that this particular criminal represents. IOW: We try to mitigate and reduce. I am no…

You never answered the question of what happens to someone who zeros out your net worth. Possibly decades of savings gone.

Mitigation and reduction is already being done. Punishment is a fundamental deterrent that has been used by societies around the world for thousands of years.

And somehow you contrived a solution in your imagination that you think is so correct that you can judge everyone else as dumb.

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

#492

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 5:34 AM UTC

ddevault wrote: post #225

Kaveren wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's because many people don't vote or take part in political advocacy. it doesn't make society in "oligarchy". our democracy actually works really well, even with gerrymandering and some voter disenfranchisement. if all those people actually voted frequently, the policy outcomes would be a lot different. compare this to actual oligarchies where opposition parties actually can't accomplish anything because they're…

It's not because people aren't voting - it's because our votes are not equal. We don't have "one person, one vote" here - we have "one dollar, one vote", and those with more dollars get more votes. Citizen's United infamously set that in stone. Meanwhile, rampant gerrymandering, court packing, and other anti-democratic tactics have been heavily abused over the past few decades of Republican control to further erode a…

[deleted]

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

#493

Post by Kaveren » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 5:37 AM UTC

ddevault wrote: post #225

Kaveren wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's because many people don't vote or take part in political advocacy. it doesn't make society in "oligarchy". our democracy actually works really well, even with gerrymandering and some voter disenfranchisement. if all those people actually voted frequently, the policy outcomes would be a lot different. compare this to actual oligarchies where opposition parties actually can't accomplish anything because they're…

It's not because people aren't voting - it's because our votes are not equal. We don't have "one person, one vote" here - we have "one dollar, one vote", and those with more dollars get more votes. Citizen's United infamously set that in stone. Meanwhile, rampant gerrymandering, court packing, and other anti-democratic tactics have been heavily abused over the past few decades of Republican control to further erode a…

> Citizen's United infamously set that in stone.

The alternative is that you can't make documentaries about a candidate's bad climate change policy and monetize it as you would a non-contentious issue.

> That the average American has approximately zero influence in politics is a mathematical, deliberately orchestrated truth.

Neither does the individual "economic elite", defined as anyone in the top 10%.

People can complain about the two party system all they want, but ranked choice voting was just rejected in Massachusetts, the most liberal state there is (and I'd be correct to assume that Democrats have more reason to desire this than Republicans).

Gerrymandering is bad and needs to be disposed of. We aren't an oligarchy because there's some gerrymandering.

Money in politics is vastly overrated, and there isn't even that much money in the field to begin with. Bernie Sanders didn't lose his 2020 primary because of money, Trump didn't win his 2016 primary because of money.

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

#494

Post by someguydave » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 5:44 AM UTC

zenexer wrote: post #297

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…

If I were to share a Plex server with some friends, and that Plex server were to primarily include pirated content (say, whatever we couldn’t get through other streaming services), I’m sure an argument could be made that it’s public and is therefore subject to these laws. Would a reasonable person with technical knowledge agree that such a scenario falls under this law? No. But do you really think the RIAA isn’t goin…

Even if individuals are not prosecuted, arguably Plex the company offers a platform this bill is attempting to outlaw.

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

#495

Post by simonebrunozzi » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 8:38 AM UTC

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…

They could have done it 10-15 years ago, and Youtube and YouPorn would have not skyrocketed. (it's well known that their initial growth was mostly due to illegal videos being uploaded by users).

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

#496

Post by piokoch » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 9:53 AM UTC

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…

I think that is perfectly correct approach, it should not be allowed to steal someone's profit.

Although I am a bit surprised since this law also applies to movies that are not profitable. In such cases producers should be happy that someone wants to give access to them despite loosing money while doing it.

One notable example of such unprofitable movie is "Return of the Jedi", which, after 40 years, has not provided any net income. Not even one cent. I am really impressed by heroism of all those movie producers that keep working so hard even though they earn nothing.

Or maybe it is not true that those movies are not profitable, maybe, for some strange reason, law enforcement is able to track all those pesky pirates, fish them from New Zealand hideaways, but is and was not able to retrieve a single tax dollar from movie studios for the past 70 years.

That's a puzzle which is apparently somehow missed by venerable members of US Congress and Senate.

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

#497

Post by boobsbr » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 12:07 PM UTC

SamuelAdams wrote: post #49

This should be fun for a service like Twitch. What happens when a streamer on their platform starts playing a game with a copywritten song playing on the game's radio or background? Many times the streamers themselves are not aware that this is a crime.

My issue with these copyright strikes on streams is: who will actually watch a stream just to listen to a song played in the background of a videogame with all the game sound effects and dialog and streamers talking?

It's the worst listening experience ever. It's much easier to just go to YouTube and listen to the song uploaded by an official channel.

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

#498

Post by boobsbr » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 12:10 PM UTC

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #21

> Last year, one study reported that digital video piracy costs the U.S. economy $29.2 billion a year. "One study," funded by people who also -- just by mere coincidence -- gave a lot of money to Thom Tillis' election campaign.

My opinion is that it costs nowhere near that absurd amount. People who pirate stuff most likely will not buy the content anyways. It doesn't cost them anything if people don't want to buy their product.

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

#499

Post by boobsbr » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 12:13 PM UTC

533474 wrote: post #174

Simple -- people who cannot afford films will stop watching or streaming sports. Companies will lose free marketing and word of mouth. Companies will have to work harder to persuade the populace to acquire commercial flicks/sports. Youtube and cheap magnate streaming services win. Small studios or independent film makers, lose their free marketing distribution channels (personal opinion)

Additionally, the fragmentation of streaming services just creates inconvenience and resentment among the users for having to subscribe to N different services to consume media.

I see it happening with digital game stores: my friends refuse to buy anything outside of Steam. It goes as far as not even getting free games from Epic, Ubi or GOG, because they'll have to create another account in another service.

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

#500

Post by znpy » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 1:11 PM UTC

aequitas wrote: post #122

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."

But think of the trickle down effect. If rich people can't buy yachts, a rich yacht manufacturer can't reap profits while paying minimum wage to it's workers.

oh don't be silly