11 ms·

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

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 streaming services will not be affected. This affects platforms, not users. Illegal streaming will not be a felony. Creating a for-profit platform with intent to do illegal streaming will be.

vmception 6y ago
commercial is a simple as running ads
- anonunivgrad 6y ago
  Running ads on copyrighted content that you didn't pay for is pretty nasty. Is that your position, defending profiteering off of someone else's content?
  - sukilot 6y ago
    "someone else's" is a view of property rights that not all hold. "profiteering" (vs just covering costs) assumes facts not in evidence.
  - vmception 6y ago
    I didn't state a position. You assume I implied one. The point was that this will cast a wide net over many services, in response to people pointing out who it wouldn't affect as it didn't seem they considered how most "amateur streamers" operate.
roblabla 6y ago
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 that > (1) is primarily designed or provided for the purpose of publicly performing works protected under title 17 by means of a digital transmission without the authority of the copyright owner or the law; > (2) has no commercially significant purpose or use other than to publicly perform works protected under title 17 by means of a digital transmission without the authority of the copyright owner or the law; > or (3) is intentionally marketed by or at the direction of that person to promote its use in publicly performing works protected under title 17 by means of a digital transmission without the authority of the copyright owner or the law. From my understanding, this basically means they'll go after platforms (since they are the ones doing the act of offering to the public a digital transmission service). [0] https://www.tillis.senate.gov/services/files/A30B0C08-FB97-4F90-BB60-43283EB7AF35 https://www.tillis.senate.gov/services/files/A30B0C08-FB97-4...
- plussed_reader 6y ago
  " this law should really read the text instead of reading whatever nonsense the media is spinning." It doesn't take you more than a few hours to go over 5000 pages of text, Right?
  - cbsks 6y ago
    The linked pdf is 5 pages. It seems like irresponsible journalism to not just include the text in any article written about it.
    - dvtrn 6y ago
      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
      - omanom 6y ago
        https://www.congress.gov/search https://www.congress.gov/search https://www.congress.gov/member/thomas-tillis/T000476 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.
        viridian 6y ago
        The bill has been passed. It was added into the omnibus bill as a part of negotiating between the Dems and the GOP.
      - viridian 6y ago
        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.
gruez 6y ago
Does this change anything? Isn't criminal copyright infringement already a thing?
- dfxm12 6y ago
  Lookup "streaming loophole". This new law would make commercially offering a service of pirated content a felony whereas previously, it would have been a misdemeanor.
  - xtracto 6y ago
    Goodbye IPTV... it was really good while it lasted.
- sukilot 6y ago
  This is an alternate angle, which allows prosecution without trying to count how many copies were streamed.
elliekelly 6y ago
That's what the linked press release[1] says but looking at the wording of the bill[2] I'm not so sure it's that cut and dry: > It shall be unlawful to will-fully, and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, offer or provide to the public a digital transmission service that... The term "private financial gain" typically includes an individual receiving anything of value. I agree it doesn't come after the consumers of illegally streamed content but I don't think it's fair to say it only targets for-profit platforms. And it's certainly much broader than targeting "criminal organizations" as the linked (not HN) headline wrongly suggests. Someone uploading protected content in exchange for reddit gold could easily fall within this definition of criminal conduct. People who "trade" files with one another might fall within it, too. I think the linked press release is intentionally downplaying the scope. [1] "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 streaming services will not be affected." [2]https://www.tillis.senate.gov/services/files/A30B0C08-FB97-4F90-BB60-43283EB7AF35 https://www.tillis.senate.gov/services/files/A30B0C08-FB97-4...
- neuland 6y ago
  Yeah, I think people in this thread are really underestimating the ability for courts to over-apply laws that talk about commercial activity. If growing food on your own property for personal consumption can be "interstate commerce", then really any human activity can be justified as "commercial advantage or private financial gain".
  - csharptwdec19 6y ago
    I'd be curious to see if another lawyer could turn all of this on the heads of the 'digital market' as a whole. > and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, What if someone starts a streaming service where they get paid in 'tradable' items in a 3rd party game, where the EULA of said game makes it clear that that such items have no monetary value?
what2build 6y ago
The DMCA is never abused so I am sure would never be
PointyFluff 6y ago
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.
- Bud 6y ago
  Not a big shock to see both of Georgia's sub-human Senators, Loeffler, and Perdue, on the list of sponsors of this. Loeffler is a white supremacist. Perdue very actively traded on secret insider pandemic information to enrich himself during the period in which he, and basically all Republicans, were still lying about the pandemic to the American people.
  - t-writescode 6y ago
    Calling them subhuman makes the implication that a human would be above such acts - and by implication that the person making those claims would be above such acts and protects the person from self-reflection. It is dangerous to ever consider another person less than human.
- dang 6y ago
  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 https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25498551 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25498551 is also not ok. Could you please review the guidelines and use HN as intended?
1f60c 6y ago
> Creating a for-profit platform with intent to do illegal streaming will be. Hasn't this been the case since... forever?
sleepysysadmin 6y ago
>This affects platforms, not users. Illegal streaming will not be a felony. Creating a for-profit platform with intent to do illegal streaming will be. That is already a crime. It's called Commercial copyright infringement and comes with rather extreme. This is even in international law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agre... My read of this proposed bill is that it's not misleading. Illegal streaming by users becoming a felony. No different than what SOPA was proposing. Willful infringement becoming a felony is their goal and they will achieve it.
- Mindwipe 6y ago
  Criminal copyright infringement didn't cover streaming previously.
  - from 6y ago
    https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/eight-defendants-charged-running-two-largest-illegal-streaming-services-us https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/eight-defendants-charge... https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/16/men-plead-guilty-running-illegal-streaming-services-with-more-content-than-netflix-hulu/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/16/men-plead... https://torrentfreak.com/movie-pirate-pleads-guilty-faces-five-years-in-jail-forfeits-millions-of-dollars-191126/ https://torrentfreak.com/movie-pirate-pleads-guilty-faces-fi... I think it did. The Jetflicks (essentially bootleg Netflix for $10/month) founders plead guilty to criminal copyright infringement and money laundering just recently. There was also a case covered on TorrentFreak of someone in Nevada running a similar scheme who just plead guilty to criminal copyright infringement.
  - sleepysysadmin 6y ago
    >Criminal copyright infringement didn't cover streaming previously. Why not?
croes 6y ago
Isn't the use of an illegal service already a felony?
- Mindwipe 6y ago
  Not even remotely.
- bigwavedave 6y ago
  > Isn't the use of an illegal service already a felony? This doesn't cover the use of an illegal service. This goes after the platforms offering such content/services, not the individuals consuming the content/services.
  - croes 6y ago
    I'm not talking about the new bill. If it's already illegal they don't need another law to go after the users.
    - bigwavedave 6y ago
      This has nothing to do with users, so I'm not sure what your point is. A different example might help us communicate: > "Hey guys, that relatively new way of dealing drugs is no longer a misdemeanor, now it's a felony." > "But isn't using drugs already a felony?" > "... yes, they already have a law to go after users; this new law just reclassifies the type of crime it is for cartels offering drugs." > "Yeah, I'm not talking about the new bill. If it's already illegal they don't need another law to go after the users." No laws have changed for consumers. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, please clarify.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> 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 legislators should really start using this process against itself. The next time there is an omnibus bill like this, insert a line that says something like "every part of the December 2020 Coronavirus relief act not directly related to Coronavirus relief is repealed" and then let it sail through with that in the same way this did. Give them a disincentive to do things this way because they'll just lose it again next year.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > what business does any of this have in a Coronavirus relief bill? We didn’t have a coronavirus relief bill until yesterday. Bridging votes is part of policy negotiation.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    It is, but should it be? The large majority of people agree that there should be Coronavirus relief. The people refusing are only doing so in order to perpetrate a stick up on something they know everybody wants in order to get something in that not everybody wants. If you want your stupid garbage into the law, convince the majority of people that it's the right thing to do on its own merits. Horse trading against unrelated legislation is despicable, and doing it in the context of something people don't have time to read before they vote on it is even worse.
  - danShumway 6y ago
    5,500 pages of bridging votes? A bill that's so large that people literally don't have the ability to read it before they vote on it? Policy negotiations are normal. This is not normal. I mean, heck, why bring up separate bills in Congress at all? Let's put off all legislation for the entire year and then we'll pass everything as one bill when it comes time for the spending bill. We don't even need to meet during the year, we'll just do the entire process via backroom deals and give people a few hours to sign on before they vote yes or no on everything for the entire year. It's not a broken legislative system, it's just compromise! /s Yes bills are complicated, yes, compromise is necessary, but also there are obvious lines we can cross where there's no reason for a bill to be so bloated and discordant, and this bill crosses those lines.
nevinera 6y ago
Yeah, but will that kind of nuanced phrasing get you to the top of a news aggregation site? ;-)
Digory 6y ago
This affects sharers, not freeloaders. "Platforms" are easy to create in the minds of judges. It creates felonies like: "Hey, if you'll chip in a few bucks, I can run a plex server for the dorm." or "Hey, neighbor, sure you can use my wifi to watch Netflix, if you'll pay half."
skeeter2020 6y ago
That's just how the press release on the sponsoring senator's web page spins it. It's essentially a combination of "don't worry if you've got nothing to hide" and "we're only going after the big bad criminals not everyday people who watch GoT once or twice". But look at the actual text; there is enough ambiguity and opportunity here to use this as the launching pad for very questionable prosecution. If you're in a P2P network and getting free media does it qualify as a commercial enterprise and material gain?
zenexer 6y ago
Looking at the text of the law, I disagree. It doesn’t require that the service be commercial. The criteria are loose and broad enough that while they may appear to target platforms, they could certainly be abused by creative lawyers to target individuals. Do you really trust that the RIAA won’t pressure prosecutors into targeting individuals? Heck, if you run a home media server, a good team of lawyers could probably convince a technologically-incompetent jury that you’re subject to this law.
- t-writescode 6y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, of course, but how do you read this part: > 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 that...
  - elliekelly 6y ago
    (for purposes of commercial advantage) _or_ (private financial gain)
  - zenexer 6y ago
    “Private financial gain” and “commercial advantage” are so broad that a decent lawyer could probably convince a carefully-selected jury that just about anything falls into one of those two categories. We found Google’s ad tracking code in your server! (No need to tell the jury how ubiquitous Google Analytics is.) Something like that.
uncomputation 6y ago
It’s also not “to be a felony soon.” The bill hasnt even passed.
mackal 6y ago
Fun fact, this is how Crunchyroll started. Illegal for-profit streaming site which eventually turned legal. And now Funimation is set to buy the site for $1.175b from AT&T.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
milankragujevic 6y ago
> Creating a for-profit platform with intent to do illegal streaming will be Wasn't this already a felony? I clearly remember getting into legal problems with MPAA when I was 15 years old and made an online version of Popcorn Time, and that wasn't P2P.
300bps 6y ago
If the law is passed it will be used as a sledgehammer to stop anyone from doing something they don’t like. It opens up the possibility of being interpreted as a for-profit platform. Locast is a non-profit platform that streams local channels. It’s been sued left and right by broadcasters. So far unsuccessfully. Is this law the next step in putting pressure on them and others?
kitotik 6y ago
There would be no YouTube if this were on the books back in the day.
chadash 6y ago
Note, it seems that the admins changed the title, with the new title being more accurate.
dang 6y ago
Yes, the submitted title was "Illegal Streaming to be a felony soon". That broke the site guidelines quite badly. They ask: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." We've changed it now. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
syshum 6y ago
Yes because copyright law is never abused far far beyond the plain text reading of the law... never /s
simonebrunozzi 6y ago
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).
piokoch 6y ago
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.

vmception 6y ago

commercial is a simple as running ads

anonunivgrad 6y ago
Running ads on copyrighted content that you didn't pay for is pretty nasty. Is that your position, defending profiteering off of someone else's content?
- sukilot 6y ago
  "someone else's" is a view of property rights that not all hold. "profiteering" (vs just covering costs) assumes facts not in evidence.
- vmception 6y ago
  I didn't state a position. You assume I implied one. The point was that this will cast a wide net over many services, in response to people pointing out who it wouldn't affect as it didn't seem they considered how most "amateur streamers" operate.

roblabla 6y ago

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 that > (1) is primarily designed or provided for the purpose of publicly performing works protected under title 17 by means of a digital transmission without the authority of the copyright owner or the law; > (2) has no commercially significant purpose or use other than to publicly perform works protected under title 17 by means of a digital transmission without the authority of the copyright owner or the law; > or (3) is intentionally marketed by or at the direction of that person to promote its use in publicly performing works protected under title 17 by means of a digital transmission without the authority of the copyright owner or the law. From my understanding, this basically means they'll go after platforms (since they are the ones doing the act of offering to the public a digital transmission service). [0] https://www.tillis.senate.gov/services/files/A30B0C08-FB97-4F90-BB60-43283EB7AF35 https://www.tillis.senate.gov/services/files/A30B0C08-FB97-4...

plussed_reader 6y ago
" this law should really read the text instead of reading whatever nonsense the media is spinning." It doesn't take you more than a few hours to go over 5000 pages of text, Right?
- cbsks 6y ago
  The linked pdf is 5 pages. It seems like irresponsible journalism to not just include the text in any article written about it.
  - dvtrn 6y ago
    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
    - omanom 6y ago
      https://www.congress.gov/search https://www.congress.gov/search https://www.congress.gov/member/thomas-tillis/T000476 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.
      - viridian 6y ago
        The bill has been passed. It was added into the omnibus bill as a part of negotiating between the Dems and the GOP.
    - viridian 6y ago
      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.

gruez 6y ago

Does this change anything? Isn't criminal copyright infringement already a thing?

dfxm12 6y ago
Lookup "streaming loophole". This new law would make commercially offering a service of pirated content a felony whereas previously, it would have been a misdemeanor.
- xtracto 6y ago
  Goodbye IPTV... it was really good while it lasted.
sukilot 6y ago
This is an alternate angle, which allows prosecution without trying to count how many copies were streamed.

elliekelly 6y ago

That's what the linked press release[1] says but looking at the wording of the bill[2] I'm not so sure it's that cut and dry: > It shall be unlawful to will-fully, and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, offer or provide to the public a digital transmission service that... The term "private financial gain" typically includes an individual receiving anything of value. I agree it doesn't come after the consumers of illegally streamed content but I don't think it's fair to say it only targets for-profit platforms. And it's certainly much broader than targeting "criminal organizations" as the linked (not HN) headline wrongly suggests. Someone uploading protected content in exchange for reddit gold could easily fall within this definition of criminal conduct. People who "trade" files with one another might fall within it, too. I think the linked press release is intentionally downplaying the scope. [1] "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 streaming services will not be affected." [2]https://www.tillis.senate.gov/services/files/A30B0C08-FB97-4F90-BB60-43283EB7AF35 https://www.tillis.senate.gov/services/files/A30B0C08-FB97-4...

neuland 6y ago
Yeah, I think people in this thread are really underestimating the ability for courts to over-apply laws that talk about commercial activity. If growing food on your own property for personal consumption can be "interstate commerce", then really any human activity can be justified as "commercial advantage or private financial gain".
- csharptwdec19 6y ago
  I'd be curious to see if another lawyer could turn all of this on the heads of the 'digital market' as a whole. > and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, What if someone starts a streaming service where they get paid in 'tradable' items in a 3rd party game, where the EULA of said game makes it clear that that such items have no monetary value?

what2build 6y ago

The DMCA is never abused so I am sure would never be

PointyFluff 6y ago

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.

Bud 6y ago
Not a big shock to see both of Georgia's sub-human Senators, Loeffler, and Perdue, on the list of sponsors of this. Loeffler is a white supremacist. Perdue very actively traded on secret insider pandemic information to enrich himself during the period in which he, and basically all Republicans, were still lying about the pandemic to the American people.
- t-writescode 6y ago
  Calling them subhuman makes the implication that a human would be above such acts - and by implication that the person making those claims would be above such acts and protects the person from self-reflection. It is dangerous to ever consider another person less than human.
dang 6y ago
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 https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25498551 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25498551 is also not ok. Could you please review the guidelines and use HN as intended?

1f60c 6y ago

> Creating a for-profit platform with intent to do illegal streaming will be. Hasn't this been the case since... forever?

sleepysysadmin 6y ago

>This affects platforms, not users. Illegal streaming will not be a felony. Creating a for-profit platform with intent to do illegal streaming will be. That is already a crime. It's called Commercial copyright infringement and comes with rather extreme. This is even in international law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agre... My read of this proposed bill is that it's not misleading. Illegal streaming by users becoming a felony. No different than what SOPA was proposing. Willful infringement becoming a felony is their goal and they will achieve it.

Mindwipe 6y ago
Criminal copyright infringement didn't cover streaming previously.
- from 6y ago
  https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/eight-defendants-charged-running-two-largest-illegal-streaming-services-us https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/eight-defendants-charge... https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/16/men-plead-guilty-running-illegal-streaming-services-with-more-content-than-netflix-hulu/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/16/men-plead... https://torrentfreak.com/movie-pirate-pleads-guilty-faces-five-years-in-jail-forfeits-millions-of-dollars-191126/ https://torrentfreak.com/movie-pirate-pleads-guilty-faces-fi... I think it did. The Jetflicks (essentially bootleg Netflix for $10/month) founders plead guilty to criminal copyright infringement and money laundering just recently. There was also a case covered on TorrentFreak of someone in Nevada running a similar scheme who just plead guilty to criminal copyright infringement.
- sleepysysadmin 6y ago
  >Criminal copyright infringement didn't cover streaming previously. Why not?

croes 6y ago

Isn't the use of an illegal service already a felony?

Mindwipe 6y ago
Not even remotely.
bigwavedave 6y ago
> Isn't the use of an illegal service already a felony? This doesn't cover the use of an illegal service. This goes after the platforms offering such content/services, not the individuals consuming the content/services.
- croes 6y ago
  I'm not talking about the new bill. If it's already illegal they don't need another law to go after the users.
  - bigwavedave 6y ago
    This has nothing to do with users, so I'm not sure what your point is. A different example might help us communicate: > "Hey guys, that relatively new way of dealing drugs is no longer a misdemeanor, now it's a felony." > "But isn't using drugs already a felony?" > "... yes, they already have a law to go after users; this new law just reclassifies the type of crime it is for cartels offering drugs." > "Yeah, I'm not talking about the new bill. If it's already illegal they don't need another law to go after the users." No laws have changed for consumers. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, please clarify.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> 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 legislators should really start using this process against itself. The next time there is an omnibus bill like this, insert a line that says something like "every part of the December 2020 Coronavirus relief act not directly related to Coronavirus relief is repealed" and then let it sail through with that in the same way this did. Give them a disincentive to do things this way because they'll just lose it again next year.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> what business does any of this have in a Coronavirus relief bill? We didn’t have a coronavirus relief bill until yesterday. Bridging votes is part of policy negotiation.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  It is, but should it be? The large majority of people agree that there should be Coronavirus relief. The people refusing are only doing so in order to perpetrate a stick up on something they know everybody wants in order to get something in that not everybody wants. If you want your stupid garbage into the law, convince the majority of people that it's the right thing to do on its own merits. Horse trading against unrelated legislation is despicable, and doing it in the context of something people don't have time to read before they vote on it is even worse.
- danShumway 6y ago
  5,500 pages of bridging votes? A bill that's so large that people literally don't have the ability to read it before they vote on it? Policy negotiations are normal. This is not normal. I mean, heck, why bring up separate bills in Congress at all? Let's put off all legislation for the entire year and then we'll pass everything as one bill when it comes time for the spending bill. We don't even need to meet during the year, we'll just do the entire process via backroom deals and give people a few hours to sign on before they vote yes or no on everything for the entire year. It's not a broken legislative system, it's just compromise! /s Yes bills are complicated, yes, compromise is necessary, but also there are obvious lines we can cross where there's no reason for a bill to be so bloated and discordant, and this bill crosses those lines.

nevinera 6y ago

Yeah, but will that kind of nuanced phrasing get you to the top of a news aggregation site? ;-)

Digory 6y ago

This affects sharers, not freeloaders. "Platforms" are easy to create in the minds of judges. It creates felonies like: "Hey, if you'll chip in a few bucks, I can run a plex server for the dorm." or "Hey, neighbor, sure you can use my wifi to watch Netflix, if you'll pay half."

skeeter2020 6y ago

That's just how the press release on the sponsoring senator's web page spins it. It's essentially a combination of "don't worry if you've got nothing to hide" and "we're only going after the big bad criminals not everyday people who watch GoT once or twice". But look at the actual text; there is enough ambiguity and opportunity here to use this as the launching pad for very questionable prosecution. If you're in a P2P network and getting free media does it qualify as a commercial enterprise and material gain?

zenexer 6y ago

Looking at the text of the law, I disagree. It doesn’t require that the service be commercial. The criteria are loose and broad enough that while they may appear to target platforms, they could certainly be abused by creative lawyers to target individuals. Do you really trust that the RIAA won’t pressure prosecutors into targeting individuals? Heck, if you run a home media server, a good team of lawyers could probably convince a technologically-incompetent jury that you’re subject to this law.

t-writescode 6y ago
I'm not a lawyer, of course, but how do you read this part: > 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 that...
- elliekelly 6y ago
  (for purposes of commercial advantage) _or_ (private financial gain)
- zenexer 6y ago
  “Private financial gain” and “commercial advantage” are so broad that a decent lawyer could probably convince a carefully-selected jury that just about anything falls into one of those two categories. We found Google’s ad tracking code in your server! (No need to tell the jury how ubiquitous Google Analytics is.) Something like that.

uncomputation 6y ago

It’s also not “to be a felony soon.” The bill hasnt even passed.

mackal 6y ago

Fun fact, this is how Crunchyroll started. Illegal for-profit streaming site which eventually turned legal. And now Funimation is set to buy the site for $1.175b from AT&T.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

milankragujevic 6y ago

> Creating a for-profit platform with intent to do illegal streaming will be Wasn't this already a felony? I clearly remember getting into legal problems with MPAA when I was 15 years old and made an online version of Popcorn Time, and that wasn't P2P.

300bps 6y ago

If the law is passed it will be used as a sledgehammer to stop anyone from doing something they don’t like. It opens up the possibility of being interpreted as a for-profit platform. Locast is a non-profit platform that streams local channels. It’s been sued left and right by broadcasters. So far unsuccessfully. Is this law the next step in putting pressure on them and others?

kitotik 6y ago

There would be no YouTube if this were on the books back in the day.

chadash 6y ago

Note, it seems that the admins changed the title, with the new title being more accurate.

dang 6y ago

Yes, the submitted title was "Illegal Streaming to be a felony soon". That broke the site guidelines quite badly. They ask: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." We've changed it now. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

syshum 6y ago

Yes because copyright law is never abused far far beyond the plain text reading of the law... never /s

simonebrunozzi 6y ago

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).

piokoch 6y ago

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.