3 ms·

You quoted the preamble but didn't quote the rest of the text: [...]transmission service that: (1) is _primarily _ designed or provided for the purpose

You quoted the preamble but didn't quote the rest of the text: [...]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. Emphasis are mine. It's clear to me through reading this that a service/platform that specifically aims and is marketed as streaming pirating content will suffer the consequences here.

elliekelly 6y ago
I envy your gift of statutory clarity. It isn't clear to me. And I can't imagine I'm the only lawyer who can spot the squishy bits of this legislation ripe for manipulation. The three paragraphs you've quoted are "or" elements. A person need only violate one of the three to be criminally liable. Paragraph 2 is broad enough to include just about anything.
- SommaRaikkonen 6y ago
  Since you're a lawyer, please clarify for me one part so that I can understand. The paragraphs are presented as: 1 - condition 1; 2 - condition 2; or 3 - condition 3. Does this mean that condition 1 should be applied all the time (1 and 2 _or_ 1 and 3) or (1 or 2 or 3) in order to be liable?
  - mlyle 6y ago
    1 or 2 or 3.
  - elliekelly 6y ago
    As the other person commented, I read it as 1 or 2 or 3 though I'll admit this bill has exceptionally poor drafting. Typically to avoid that sort of confusion the "chapeau" would say something like "it shall be unlawful for a person to do one or more of the following" or "it shall be unlawful for a person to do (all of) the following". You can see an example of drafting for (1 and 2) or 3 in paragraph 4 of the definitions section to give you a better idea of how the language and structure would differ in this section if it were intended to be read as (1 and 2) or (1 and 3).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

elliekelly 6y ago

I envy your gift of statutory clarity. It isn't clear to me. And I can't imagine I'm the only lawyer who can spot the squishy bits of this legislation ripe for manipulation. The three paragraphs you've quoted are "or" elements. A person need only violate one of the three to be criminally liable. Paragraph 2 is broad enough to include just about anything.

SommaRaikkonen 6y ago
Since you're a lawyer, please clarify for me one part so that I can understand. The paragraphs are presented as: 1 - condition 1; 2 - condition 2; or 3 - condition 3. Does this mean that condition 1 should be applied all the time (1 and 2 _or_ 1 and 3) or (1 or 2 or 3) in order to be liable?
- mlyle 6y ago
  1 or 2 or 3.
- elliekelly 6y ago
  As the other person commented, I read it as 1 or 2 or 3 though I'll admit this bill has exceptionally poor drafting. Typically to avoid that sort of confusion the "chapeau" would say something like "it shall be unlawful for a person to do one or more of the following" or "it shall be unlawful for a person to do (all of) the following". You can see an example of drafting for (1 and 2) or 3 in paragraph 4 of the definitions section to give you a better idea of how the language and structure would differ in this section if it were intended to be read as (1 and 2) or (1 and 3).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]