3 ms·

Since most if not all of these platforms are based in countries more friendly towards infringement it’s really not going to do much of anything other than be an

Since most if not all of these platforms are based in countries more friendly towards infringement it’s really not going to do much of anything other than be another law that gets selectively applied and abused.

WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
This is the most realistic and useful comment I've read so far.
- xbar 6y ago
  Precisely. Some dozens of citizens performing relatively harmless individual acts of illegal stream will go to prison and have their lives ruined over twitch activities. It will be both chilling and pointless and sad, all at the hands of pro-corporate legislators who can't see the people for the dollars in the way. The law doesn't set a threshold of gain by the perpetrators and that will make it broadly abused: 16-year-olds tried as adults for terrorism and streaming due to videogame habits; security researchers revealing vulnerabilities; the poor trying to share an MMA fight with their friends. Streaming companies seem to be doing just fine.
mywittyname 6y ago
I'm absolutely positive the DoJ can find a way to bend the definition of "for-profit" to go after a person who shares their Plex service with other people. The question of "did they profit" is a pretty low bar to clear. And in an era where people mindlessly exchange money via Venmo and similar platforms, it's probably not going to be difficult to find a union of the set "was granted access to plex account" and "has exchanged money in the past." I've seen prosecutors try to sell some rather asinine arguments, so there might not even be a requirement for money to change hands to be considered selling "for-profit," maybe bringing over some pizzas once or something is enough.
- cogman10 6y ago
  Mind you, the law didn't say for profit. It said > for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain I'd not be shocked if the argument for "financial gain" is "I didn't lose money paying a viewing fee".

WarOnPrivacy 6y ago

This is the most realistic and useful comment I've read so far.

xbar 6y ago
Precisely. Some dozens of citizens performing relatively harmless individual acts of illegal stream will go to prison and have their lives ruined over twitch activities. It will be both chilling and pointless and sad, all at the hands of pro-corporate legislators who can't see the people for the dollars in the way. The law doesn't set a threshold of gain by the perpetrators and that will make it broadly abused: 16-year-olds tried as adults for terrorism and streaming due to videogame habits; security researchers revealing vulnerabilities; the poor trying to share an MMA fight with their friends. Streaming companies seem to be doing just fine.

mywittyname 6y ago

I'm absolutely positive the DoJ can find a way to bend the definition of "for-profit" to go after a person who shares their Plex service with other people. The question of "did they profit" is a pretty low bar to clear. And in an era where people mindlessly exchange money via Venmo and similar platforms, it's probably not going to be difficult to find a union of the set "was granted access to plex account" and "has exchanged money in the past." I've seen prosecutors try to sell some rather asinine arguments, so there might not even be a requirement for money to change hands to be considered selling "for-profit," maybe bringing over some pizzas once or something is enough.

cogman10 6y ago
Mind you, the law didn't say for profit. It said > for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain I'd not be shocked if the argument for "financial gain" is "I didn't lose money paying a viewing fee".