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

501–509 of 509 posts

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

#501

Post by viridian »

dvtrn wrote: post #160
cbsks wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The linked pdf is 5 pages. It seems like irresponsible journalism to not just include the text in any article written about it.

This is a problem I have with how a LOT of legal topics are covered, Bills, lawsuits and court cases are discussed, the merits opined, but nary a complaint, brief, motion or court opinion gets linked so I can read for my damn self what the actual law as voted on says. It’s more of a surprise when it IS linked or embedded to read than not

I agree in principle, but you wouldn't expect court documents in particular to exist for a new piece of legislation though. In this case we would want the proposed revision to the federal code.

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

#502

Post by viridian »

omanom wrote: post #428
dvtrn wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a problem I have with how a LOT of legal topics are covered, Bills, lawsuits and court cases are discussed, the merits opined, but nary a complaint, brief, motion or court opinion gets linked so I can read for my damn self what the actual law as voted on says. It’s more of a surprise when it IS linked or embedded to read than not

https://www.congress.gov/search https://www.congress.gov/member/thomas-tillis/T000476 I've had decent results consulting this site. The bill in question has not, as far as I can tell, been brought up for consideration yet anywhere so the only text that exists is that which is linked in the submission. Just looking at the co-sponsors alone , I'd be worried about this legislation.

The bill has been passed. It was added into the omnibus bill as a part of negotiating between the Dems and the GOP.

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

#503

Post by viridian »

runesoerensen wrote: post #425
jpindar wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it" - Nancy Pelosi (referring to the Affordable Care Act)

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pelosi-healthcare-pass-the...

This is an example of why I personally don't trust fact checkers any more. This gets a "mixture" rating, in spite of being:

a) quite literally factual - she said those exact words b) semantically similar in and out of context - Even if you read the whole speech she gave, she still seems to be implying that you need to have the act passed so that you can see what it looks like when implemented. She gives a rough draft of important desired outcomes (many of which ended up being false), but the point of that one one sentence remains the same: to establish that the bill needs to be passed in order for it's real implications to be understood.

To be honest, I half agree with Pelosi here, but snopes is definitely trying to provide her with some unwarranted cover here.

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

#504

Post by ddevault »

Kaveren wrote: post #493
ddevault wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

Ranked choice was rejected in MA because it was poorly explained to voters and they voted against it because they didn't understand it. A vote against ranked choice is a vote against your best interests, and that's an objective fact.

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

#505

Post by ulisesrmzroche »

woofie11 wrote: post #485
ulisesrmzroche wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the point of this comment? Why does your opinion matter so much? Truth is most (practically all) people want to watch Game of Thrones and are willing to pay for it.

And that's fine. The question at hand isn't whether people will pay for GoT, but whether they'll be used as an argument to pass laws like the DMCA, which says I'm not allowed to reverse-engineer technologies in my home, or ones which put bankrupt or put college students in prison. My claim is that if MPAA profits went down even 50%, society wouldn't be any worse off at all. On the other hand, we are worse off for DRM…

Then you’re arguing against politicians politicking. It’s not like its real people arguing for any of that.

I think most people would say were worse off if game of thrones was produced any different. You don’t like visual effects, but you’re in an extreme minority.

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

#506

Post by Afton »

trixie_ wrote: post #491
Afton wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't understand the point of your first sentence. I absolutely answered. What I didn't give you was some bad thing to make up for the bad thing that they did. Because I think that is stupid. Notice that I think punishment is generally stupid. I didn't say that people who use punishment are stupid. Sometimes they are, sometimes they're ignorant, sometimes they just have a blind spot, and sometimes they just disagree with this position.

> is a fundamental deterrent that has been used by societies around the world for thousands of years.

Lots of things have been done for thousands of years, and we now realize that some of them were bad ideas. I believe that punishment should absolutely go in the bucket of last resorts. IMO it represents an absolute failure of the imagination of our society.

Your last sentence doesn't make any sense, doesn't address any point I made, no matter how briefly. It's just you insulting me. I don't think that is likely to convince anyone. Like punishment, we do it because it feels good. I think we can be better than that. This is a point that we might not agree on.

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

#507

Post by Mindwipe »

Maarten88 wrote: post #350
Mindwipe wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really? Recognition of an exact pattern is computationally very easy. Examination of often subjective truths is objectively very hard?

I'm sure that, given the right incentives, that 'objectively very hard problem' would be 95% solved very quickly. Of course there are corner cases that are really hard, but that is no different than audio/video recognition, where a 95% solution (that also has many imperfections) gets forced on users anyway.

> I'm sure that, given the right incentives, that 'objectively very hard problem' would be 95% solved very quickly.

I'm sure that it's basically impossible. I think it's impossible even with full, proper general intelligence AI at scale, and that won't happen in my lifetime even if humanity collectively downs tools and works on nothing else.

Facebook has thrown a lot (lot lot) of resources at this, and it's clearly totally ineffective.

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

#508

Post by yakz »

1f60c wrote: post #175
yakz wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you "ship" a feature that only works if it always works and it doesn't always work, does that really count?

Yes? Bugs make it to prod all the time.

In this case, I don't see it as a 'bug' though... I would see something like not playing music at all or playing the same unencumbered song on repeat as a bug.

Playing only a single song just long enough to earn a copyright strike means this feature doesn't exist. Instead, it's an implementation of a checkbox on a settings screen that enables some side effects that are not what the text next to the checkbox describes.

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

#509

Post by moocowtruck »

ben_w wrote: post #77
qz2 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please get a different job?

This sounds like shooting the messenger. If it’s practical to break TOR (even just in part rather than in whole), it still will be even if @moocowtruck does change employer — you just won’t have anyone alerting you that you’re insufficiently cautious.

yep! and i wouldnt get a different job since this one pays very well :D
Post reply on HN