16 ms·

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

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.
  - meragrin_ 6y ago
    But is the text of that PDF the same as the text in the monster bill?
    - roblabla 6y ago
      Yes, it is. You can trivially ctrl+f it to make sure.
- CDSlice 6y ago
  If by 5000 pages you mean 5, you might be correct if you are a really slow reader.
  - est31 6y ago
    The entire package that legislators are asked to vote upon is 5000 pages long. It starts on page 2539. https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-116HR133SA-RCP-116-68.pdf https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/file...
contravariant 6y ago
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 leverage to pressure you into doing things as failure to cooperate could easily be argued to make your platform intended for piracy.
- rndgermandude 6y ago
  >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 protection (DMCA takedown notices and resulting safe harbor) and if you can demonstrate you followed this in court, it would be a lot harder for the state to argue you deliberate did something wrong, especially if this concerns "user generated content" (harder, not impossible). Third, you're fucked already anyway, ask Kim Dotcom (from megaupload) about it. If the government wants to come after you, it will, regardless of this law, and even regardless of whether you set foot on US soil ever. >Secondly it gives the copyright enforcing industry a big amount of leverage to pressure you into doing things as failure to cooperate could easily be argued to make your platform intended for piracy. Again, the law sets out what you have to do to have liability safe harbor under 17 U.S. Code § 512. If you follow that, it would be hard for the music industry to argue otherwise, and it's also not their place to sue you under this law in the first place. It's criminal law, and therefore only the state can prosecute. However, the music industry certainly would try to nudge prosecutors into bringing charges under this law, and/or bring it up in an civil proceedings to bolster their case. It could backfire for them tho, if the state refuses prosecution, then you have an argument in civil court that what you're doing was not considered illegal and the state decided you are not an illegal streaming service (or at least, that there was no sufficient evidence to make that case). So I think it's not a great law, especially not if you want to do a (user content) streaming startup, but it's not that bad either.
panarky 6y ago
> for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, offer or provide to the public a digital transmission service that If it's a peer-to-peer streaming service where media consumers also serve media to other users, then the argument could be made that users themselves are providing the "digital transmission service". There may not even be an identifiable, centralized "platform".
- toyg 6y ago
  > has no commercially significant purpose or use other than to publicly perform works protected This seems tailored to kill PopcornTime.
  - grishka 6y ago
    Isn't PopcornTime free software, which means it has no commercially significant anything? Or is it meant to be read has no (commercially significant purpose) or (use)?
    - toyg 6y ago
      PopcornTime definitely has a commercially significant purpose, even if it’s free: it provides unrestricted access to large amounts of copyrighted material that has undisputed commercial value.
  - tinus_hn 6y ago
    You could use PopcornTime for showing copyright-free videos, they exist
    - toyg 6y ago
      The fact that one has to point out that they exist at all, is indicative of how popular or significant they are on that platform.
      - dylan604 6y ago
zenexer 6y ago
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 going to put pressure on prosecutors to go after individuals? Do you really think they’ll allow technically-competent jurors? I don’t trust anyone involved here. There’s no way this won’t be abused to go after average people.
- someguydave 6y ago
  Even if individuals are not prosecuted, arguably Plex the company offers a platform this bill is attempting to outlaw.
jmull 6y ago
Sounds like if I, e.g. have a podcast where I play and review songs (without permission), I can be charged with a felony if I, say, take paid ads on the podcast. Perhaps simply a monetized streaming channel where I dance to the current hits is enough to put me in jail... it’s certainly seems enough to at least put me on trial. I think you have to wonder: what’s insufficient about the civil and criminal laws? What is the current serious problem with streaming that this very strong law is needed to stamp it out? To me it seems inevitable that it will be applied much more strongly than what you are thinking. “Purpose”, “intentionally”, “significant”, “primarily” can be, and therefore probably will be, argued to have wide meanings.
- whiddershins 6y ago
  > has no commercially significant purpose or use other than to publicly perform works protected under title 17
  - pbourke 6y ago
    That seems like a thing that will be litigated. Who knows what it will mean after it’s been through the ringer of the US court system.
  - dmurray 6y ago
    It doesn't have to meet that criterion to fit the definition. It could meet clause 1 or (more likely on GP's examples) clause 3 instead).
    - ummonk 6y ago
      What's weird is that the bill doesn't have an or conjunction between clause 1 and 2 lol.
      - thaumasiotes 6y ago
        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.
xmichael0 6y ago
So sharing a Plex library with a few pirated videos is now a felony.
btown 6y ago
This makes me realize that torrenting is absolutely under attack here. If you look at (3), an activity doesn't even need to be for commercial gain if it's "intentionally marketed," and moreover it does not need to actually perform a work to be in violation - it simply needs to be marketed as such and "offer" a service. Which means that even an individual leeching a torrent (sending no copyrighted material in outbound packets) might arguably be in violation of the act, simply by sending out packets that advertise their membership in the network and the potential for them to upload copyrighted material. IANAL and this would need to be tested in court. But it's dangerous ground.

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.
- meragrin_ 6y ago
  But is the text of that PDF the same as the text in the monster bill?
  - roblabla 6y ago
    Yes, it is. You can trivially ctrl+f it to make sure.
CDSlice 6y ago
If by 5000 pages you mean 5, you might be correct if you are a really slow reader.
- est31 6y ago
  The entire package that legislators are asked to vote upon is 5000 pages long. It starts on page 2539. https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-116HR133SA-RCP-116-68.pdf https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/file...

contravariant 6y ago

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 leverage to pressure you into doing things as failure to cooperate could easily be argued to make your platform intended for piracy.

rndgermandude 6y ago
>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 protection (DMCA takedown notices and resulting safe harbor) and if you can demonstrate you followed this in court, it would be a lot harder for the state to argue you deliberate did something wrong, especially if this concerns "user generated content" (harder, not impossible). Third, you're fucked already anyway, ask Kim Dotcom (from megaupload) about it. If the government wants to come after you, it will, regardless of this law, and even regardless of whether you set foot on US soil ever. >Secondly it gives the copyright enforcing industry a big amount of leverage to pressure you into doing things as failure to cooperate could easily be argued to make your platform intended for piracy. Again, the law sets out what you have to do to have liability safe harbor under 17 U.S. Code § 512. If you follow that, it would be hard for the music industry to argue otherwise, and it's also not their place to sue you under this law in the first place. It's criminal law, and therefore only the state can prosecute. However, the music industry certainly would try to nudge prosecutors into bringing charges under this law, and/or bring it up in an civil proceedings to bolster their case. It could backfire for them tho, if the state refuses prosecution, then you have an argument in civil court that what you're doing was not considered illegal and the state decided you are not an illegal streaming service (or at least, that there was no sufficient evidence to make that case). So I think it's not a great law, especially not if you want to do a (user content) streaming startup, but it's not that bad either.

panarky 6y ago

> for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, offer or provide to the public a digital transmission service that If it's a peer-to-peer streaming service where media consumers also serve media to other users, then the argument could be made that users themselves are providing the "digital transmission service". There may not even be an identifiable, centralized "platform".

toyg 6y ago
> has no commercially significant purpose or use other than to publicly perform works protected This seems tailored to kill PopcornTime.
- grishka 6y ago
  Isn't PopcornTime free software, which means it has no commercially significant anything? Or is it meant to be read has no (commercially significant purpose) or (use)?
  - toyg 6y ago
    PopcornTime definitely has a commercially significant purpose, even if it’s free: it provides unrestricted access to large amounts of copyrighted material that has undisputed commercial value.
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  You could use PopcornTime for showing copyright-free videos, they exist
  - toyg 6y ago
    The fact that one has to point out that they exist at all, is indicative of how popular or significant they are on that platform.
    - dylan604 6y ago

zenexer 6y ago

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 going to put pressure on prosecutors to go after individuals? Do you really think they’ll allow technically-competent jurors? I don’t trust anyone involved here. There’s no way this won’t be abused to go after average people.

someguydave 6y ago
Even if individuals are not prosecuted, arguably Plex the company offers a platform this bill is attempting to outlaw.

jmull 6y ago

Sounds like if I, e.g. have a podcast where I play and review songs (without permission), I can be charged with a felony if I, say, take paid ads on the podcast. Perhaps simply a monetized streaming channel where I dance to the current hits is enough to put me in jail... it’s certainly seems enough to at least put me on trial. I think you have to wonder: what’s insufficient about the civil and criminal laws? What is the current serious problem with streaming that this very strong law is needed to stamp it out? To me it seems inevitable that it will be applied much more strongly than what you are thinking. “Purpose”, “intentionally”, “significant”, “primarily” can be, and therefore probably will be, argued to have wide meanings.

whiddershins 6y ago
> has no commercially significant purpose or use other than to publicly perform works protected under title 17
- pbourke 6y ago
  That seems like a thing that will be litigated. Who knows what it will mean after it’s been through the ringer of the US court system.
- dmurray 6y ago
  It doesn't have to meet that criterion to fit the definition. It could meet clause 1 or (more likely on GP's examples) clause 3 instead).
  - ummonk 6y ago
    What's weird is that the bill doesn't have an or conjunction between clause 1 and 2 lol.
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      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.

xmichael0 6y ago

So sharing a Plex library with a few pirated videos is now a felony.

btown 6y ago

This makes me realize that torrenting is absolutely under attack here. If you look at (3), an activity doesn't even need to be for commercial gain if it's "intentionally marketed," and moreover it does not need to actually perform a work to be in violation - it simply needs to be marketed as such and "offer" a service. Which means that even an individual leeching a torrent (sending no copyrighted material in outbound packets) might arguably be in violation of the act, simply by sending out packets that advertise their membership in the network and the potential for them to upload copyrighted material. IANAL and this would need to be tested in court. But it's dangerous ground.