The COVID-19 Stimulus Bill Would Make Illegal Streaming a Felony (hollywoodreporter.com) 114
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hollywood Reporter: Providing relief via direct assistance and loans to struggling individuals and businesses hit hard by COVID-19 has been a priority for federal lawmakers this past month. But a gigantic spending bill has also become the opportunity to smuggle in some other line items including those of special interest to the entertainment community. Perhaps most surprising, according to the text of the bill being circulated, illegal streaming for commercial profit could become a felony.
It's been less than two weeks since Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) released his proposal to increase the penalties for those who would dare stream unlicensed works. In doing so, the North Carolina senator flirted with danger. About a decade ago, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar made a similar proposal before it ended up dying as people worried about sending Justin Bieber to jail. This time, Tillis' attempt was winning better reviews for more narrowly tailoring the provisions toward commercial operators rather than users. That said, it's had very little time to circulate before evidently becoming part of the spending package. If passed, illegal streaming of works including movies and musical works could carry up to 10 years in jail. That's not the only copyright change either.
The spending bill also appears to adopt a long-discussed plan to create a small claims adjudication system within the U.S. Copyright Office. [...] Among the other parts of the omnibus bill of interest to Hollywood is an extension of Section 181, a tax provision that allows for immediate deduction of television and film production costs up to $15 million. That incentive was scheduled to expire at the end of the year, but would now get an additional five years.
It's been less than two weeks since Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) released his proposal to increase the penalties for those who would dare stream unlicensed works. In doing so, the North Carolina senator flirted with danger. About a decade ago, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar made a similar proposal before it ended up dying as people worried about sending Justin Bieber to jail. This time, Tillis' attempt was winning better reviews for more narrowly tailoring the provisions toward commercial operators rather than users. That said, it's had very little time to circulate before evidently becoming part of the spending package. If passed, illegal streaming of works including movies and musical works could carry up to 10 years in jail. That's not the only copyright change either.
The spending bill also appears to adopt a long-discussed plan to create a small claims adjudication system within the U.S. Copyright Office. [...] Among the other parts of the omnibus bill of interest to Hollywood is an extension of Section 181, a tax provision that allows for immediate deduction of television and film production costs up to $15 million. That incentive was scheduled to expire at the end of the year, but would now get an additional five years.
Again? (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems like just last week we were hearing about this kind of law.
But it was actually two weeks ago [slashdot.org].
And just like then, this change would effectively bring Internet-based streaming into alignment with other forms of copyright infringement, in terms of what threshold distinguishes felony infringement from mere torts.
Re:Again? (Score:5, Insightful)
We really need to find a way to disallow these sorts of bills where they toss in everything but the kitchen sink. It becomes far too easy to hide these little things. A coronavirus stimulus bill *should* be only about being a stimulus bill with nothing else added, neither poison pills, vitamin pills, or hiding pills in peanut butter so the dog will take it unknowingly.
There should also never be "I'll vote for this bill but only if you add my pet project inside it somewhere" amendments and the like. If there's any horse trading it should involve multiple bills at the very least. This won't make it any harder to pass legislation, it just makes it harder to hide the details of legislation.
Re: (Score:3)
If there's any horse trading it should involve multiple bills at the very least. This won't make it any harder to pass legislation, it just makes it harder to hide the details of legislation.
It wouldn't change anything much really. The bills they pass right now -- just the covid crap in this one -- are impossibly long to read. The Critters vote for documents they don't read. They vote for bullet points / talking points and that's it.
Of equal concern, due to its shameful absence, is that really and legislation should be passed on merit alone, and not whether or not any horses were traded within the legislation or somewhere. What kind of fantasy world do I live in, right?
Re: (Score:1)
If there's any horse trading it should involve multiple bills at the very least. This won't make it any harder to pass legislation, it just makes it harder to hide the details of legislation.
It wouldn't change anything much really. The bills they pass right now -- just the covid crap in this one -- are impossibly long to read. The Critters vote for documents they don't read. They vote for bullet points / talking points and that's it.
There is no way that congress critters read these bills. Many of them are so damn long that it's unlikely that they even have the time needed to read them prior to voting.
What's even worse is that it's obvious in some cases that they weren't even the ones who wrote the bill that they submitted under their own name. If your were elected to be a law maker, then it shouldn't be a donor who is writing bills for you.
It's worse than that (Score:5, Interesting)
Bills in most US jurisdictions are often only passed at the 11th hour before parliament is due to close. For the first few weeks they just waffle, and then it all comes to a head at the end. Bits of paper fly all over the place and some get stuffed into the final bill somehow.
I remember some conservatives boasting about how they got some anti-abortion provisions stuffed into some bill about snow clearing.
Nobody expects the actual politicians to read or understand the details. But their aids should.
In Australia (and other civilized places) bills are first "Tabled" as a draft. Then often sent to joint party committee for review, and to take public comments. Then finally voted on. And most bills are not very controversial, but you do not hear about those. Emergency bills (like COVID-19 ones) are passed without committee but almost always with a short sunset date.
There is, of course, horse trading. But it is explicit. Not bits of paper stuffed into a pile.
The US system has become entrenched in tradition. Both sides reckon that they benefit by it by getting things through. But I reckon that the Republicans are much, much better at playing this game than the Democrats.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The Australian approach mirrors the UK one (for obvious reasons).
In the UK I'm not sure if it's law or just convention but a bill must be on a single topic. If it's a bill on COVID support then it should only have COVID support clauses in it.
That's a key difference to the US and one that makes the US system feel corrupt and silly. In the UK (and Australia) you vote for a new law, or not. In the US you vote for a package of multiple disparate laws, with no ability to separate them into the individual issues
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK (and Australia) you vote for a new law, or not. In the US you vote for a package of multiple disparate laws, with no ability to separate them into the individual issues and measures.
To put this into terms that the average Slashdotter would understand: picture the above in terms of OS updates. The UK (and Australia) is like running apt list --upgradable, then picking and choosing which packages to update. The US is like Microsoft pushing Windows 10 feature updates on you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Critters vote for documents they don't read. They vote for bullet points / talking points and that's it.
Not really, they don't even bother with the bullet points. Instead, they vote for bills that they were paid to vote for.
Re:Again? (Score:4, Insightful)
it really would possibly change things because they tend to stuff bullshit like this into totally unrelated bills
A rep who rightly votes against bullshit riders gets drug out by the media as being against whatever the original bill was ostensibly for.
In this case, if a rep thinks that streaming content shouldn't be a god damn felony, and they vote against this bill, or force its delay; guess who gets called out as being against the american people, and making innocent people suffer through even more financial hardship, yadda yadda.
Re: (Score:2)
There is an easy way to solve that, make them sit a quiz on the bill before they can sign it, to prove they know the contents. Fail and they can not vote on the bill and their constitutions must be informed of that failing grade.
By law, elected representative should be fully aware of the contents of a bill before signing it and they should be required to prove it.
Re:Again? (Score:5, Informative)
We really need to find a way to disallow these sorts of bills...
Which is not that hard, as it turns out. You need to pass a single-subject bill. [wikipedia.org]
According to that piece 43 or your state constitutions have it as a rule, but apparently its too hard at the federal level, or something.
There are probably better ways of achieving the same thing, but it limits the opportunities for corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
States routinely limit legislative bills to a single subject. Why can't we do the same to Washington?
Re: (Score:2)
We can. Here's how:
Short of that, the only way you can get such a change to happen would be if you got a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress to agree that it was a good idea, which is never going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't take an amendment to the Constitution nor a 2/3rds majority to enact a bill limiting bills to a single subject. All it would take is for the majority of the House and a majority of the Senate to pass a bill that riders are not allowed on bills and then get the President to sign this new bill into law.
If the bill is vetoed by the President then it would fall onto the House and Senate to pass the bill with a 2/3rds majority in each.
If the vetoed bill doesn't pass the House and Senate with a 2/3rds
Re: (Score:2)
That would do it until they decide to pass another law that overturns the previous law. The purpose of a constitutional amendment is to make it hard to reverse.
Re: Again? (Score:2)
Iâ(TM)d add that anything that does not directly associate itself by nature should be part of a table of contents.
For example if the legal document is about culling of badgers, but there is an unrelated section on snakes and mushrooms it should be clear from the outset that this is in paragraph 1000. If it is not listed then it should be considered invalid, by definition that the reader may have been blindsided.
Re: (Score:1)
It's curious to me that unrelated things can be thrown in to begin with. Did they allow this kind of deception on purpose? I think this kind of practice should be illegal and deserve at least 20 years to lifetime in prison and a very big fine. Why? Because undoing a bill is way harder than to get it to pass. It's like on youtube, very easy to get banned, it's unheard of that someone have gotten unbanned.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need a punishment. You just don't recognise any multi-subject bills as changes to the law.
Pass any resolution they like, but only those that are properly constituted bills can become law.
WTF... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF... (Score:5, Informative)
...did this have to do with COVID relief?
Nothing. But it is normal for unrelated items to be dumped into a compromise bill. That is how compromises work when politicians don't trust each other. You can't say "I'll support your bill if you support mine next month" because you have no assurance the promise will be kept or even that your bill will come up for a vote.
"Laws are like sausages. It is better not to watch them being made." -- Otto von Bismarck
Re: (Score:1)
Call me naive, but I think it would be better if politicians had integrity and voted for or against laws only based on the merit of those laws instead of voting for strategic reasons. I don't think it's "normal" for politicians to play these kinds of games.
Yes, you are naive. (Score:2)
That is a very idealistic position to take, which unfortunately doesn't mesh well with the realities at play in politics.
People who want power but do not have integrity are drawn to political offices like roaches to rotten fruit. While it is true that "good" people who just want to make the world a better place also seek such positions, they commonly find that too hard and go volunteer for a charity or something instead. So the pool of candidates is already awash with the exact kind of person who shouldn'
Re: (Score:1)
Just make political office a required, random civic duty ala jury duty.
I'd honestly rather have that at this point than guaranteed corruption. At least we have a snowflake's chance in hell this way.
Re: (Score:2)
Just make political office a required, random civic duty ala jury duty.
Juries are notoriously easy to manipulate.
The saying among prosecutors is "You can indict a ham sandwich."
Randomized legislators will be the same, except with lobbyists benefiting instead of prosecutors.
Re: (Score:2)
That saying refers to a grand jury, where those facing indictment (or their lawyers) have no right to appear or present exculpatory evidence.
In a legislature, there are only lobbyists. There are no anti-lobbyists to represent the other side. So the analogy with a grand jury is apt.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the subject at hand but there are "anti-lobbyists". There are several topics where there will be one group lobbying for one side of an issue and another group lobbying for the opposite side. It may not seem like this is the case but it is. The problem is that the side with the fattest wallet is the side that usually wins.
Both the EFF and the ACLU do lobbying and I doubt that they are always (ever?) on the same side as the major corporation lobbyists.
Re: (Score:3)
Call me naive, but I think it would be better if politicians had integrity
Obviously, you just need to convince all the voters to only vote for perfect candidates.
Let us know when you've accomplished that.
for or against laws only based on the merit
The problem with that, is that most expenditures only benefit a minority. City people don't want to pay for farm subsidies and farmers don't want to pay for mass transit in the city. So the only way to pass both is to wedge them into a single bill.
Now, you may say that the Federal government shouldn't be funding either farm subsidies or mass transit. But that is a libertarian
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't say "I'll support your bill if you support mine next month"
That is not how you compromise in a government, that's how you compromise in a primary school playground.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing. But it is normal for unrelated items to be dumped into a compromise bill. That is how compromises work when politicians don't trust each other. You can't say "I'll support your bill if you support mine next month" because you have no assurance the promise will be kept or even that your bill will come up for a vote.
There is a rather good assurance that the promise will be kept if you believe the person you made the agreement with has integrity. The assurance is that at some point in the future they will need your help again to pass a bill that they support. If they renege on their promise to support your bill then you won't be willing to support their bill in the future. Since they will need your support at some point in the future they are obliged to support your bill as well.
Now if you don't believe that the person
Re: (Score:2)
Not watching the sausage being made is how you end up getting sold rotten meat.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I would say that medical billing restrictions in a COVID bill are a lot more appropriate than tacking on a rider dealing with Internet streaming.
Re: (Score:2)
Once you've built the big machinery of political power, remember you won't always be the one to run it.
P. J. O'Rourke
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck the little guy. Give Hollywood what it wants.
Re: (Score:2)
According to The West Wing, which I legally streamed from Netflix, it's called a Christmas Tree Bill.
Because all the elected officials gets to put on an ornament.
Re: (Score:1)
Not a rider (Score:2)
This can't be a rider. Our esteemed congress pulling a fast one on us? Why would one even consider such a preposterous notion.
Re: (Score:2)
I keep telling you, the EFF needs to have a line item in their budget for hookers and blow. Why won't anyone take my recommendations seriously?
Re: (Score:3)
Too bad the courts ruled that a line item veto is unconstitutional. https://www.thoughtco.com/pres... [thoughtco.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably not great, either. It gives one person way too much power.
Re: (Score:1)
Ridin' that dick, Brosephina.
Why is this allowed? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can someone explain to me why this is legal? Why is there no law that specifically bans passenger legislation in bills?
Does anyone really think it's "fair" and democratic to smuggle in stupid shit that would *never* pass on its own into critical bills with a harsh deadline? It's obviously a circumvention tactic for bypassing the democratic system in place, and everyone knows it. Shouldn't a post-Trump society be extra careful about safeguarding the democratic process?
Re: (Score:2)
Even if such a law were passed, it could just as easily be swept away by a future Congress. Constraining the legislative powers of Congress would require a constitutional amendment, and Christ, even if the will was there to do it, how in the hell would you even word such an amendment?
Re: (Score:3)
Then lets make it a constitutional amendment, limiting the power of Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress doesn't have to start the process for that. The states could get together for a Constitutional Convention and pass an amendment themselves (would need 2/3rds of the states to agree though).
Re: Why is this allowed? (Score:1)
"Off-topic additions to bills are federal crimes. Punishment: 20 years, loss if citizenship, life sentence for repeat offenders. No immunities apply. Attempts to change this amendment are null and void and result in the same punishment. *Any* citized is legally obliged to carry out this punishment in case offical legally empowered courts don't. Failing to do so results on the same punishment too."
There. Worded.
Don't be overwhelmed. Yes, I mean all of that and expect you to back me up, and to expect the same
Re: (Score:2)
Is that a statute or a constitutional amendment? And how is "off-topic" defined? As I said, I have no problem with getting rid of bills packed with unrelated clauses, but too sharp a definition and it may make legislation exceedingly difficult to draft and even harder to debate and gain passage, too loose and it's worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if such a law were passed, it could just as easily be swept away by a future Congress.
Which is why limiting bills of appropriation to just budgetary matters is in the constitution of functioning democracies.
The USA can no longer be considered a functioning democracy. Here we have a clear example of tyranny.
Re: (Score:2)
Omnibus bills are hardly restricted to the United States. You find them in pretty much ever democracy. We get them here in Canada, they can be found in Britain. It's a bit different in most Westminster parliaments, as usually there's a government that commands a majority of seats in Parliament, and there's less need for packing all kinds of unrelated measures in bills, since the government can make a dozen different bills and guarantee passage. But they still happen even up here in Canada. Sometimes even wh
Re: (Score:2)
Even if such an amendment were passed it could just as easily be swept away by a future constitutional amendment. Just because some may be undone in the future doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to change it now.
Re: Why is this allowed? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"Shouldn't a post-Trump society be extra careful about safeguarding the democratic process?"
Put down your TRUMPet already! You, like most people, easily confuse real democracy (which doesn't exist) with a Representative Republic, which is what most countries are (most Western countries) or claim to be (Russia, China, etc).
I won't argue with you about how "representative" each of these places are, down to the individuals "in charge". Besides the Bismarck quote above, I'll repeat a couple of quotes I've oft h
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's not against the law yet: https://www.prnewswire.com/new... [prnewswire.com]
Unsurprising DemocRAT Cronyism! (Score:4, Funny)
Of course the democRATs will use big government in service of their media masters! A government big enough to give you a one-time payment of $600 is big enough to throw you in jail! This is exactly what statism leads to! Hope you're all happy with Biden!!!
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC)
Oh.
Re:Unsurprising DemocRAT Cronyism! (Score:4, Interesting)
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC)
Amy Klobuchar.
Neither branch of the kleptocrat party [wikipedia.org] is better than the other when it comes to the most important matter: filling their own coffers, no matter the cost for society.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Of course the democRATs
Just so you're aware, that's all I've read of your post.
You destroyed your own credibility and made the rest of your comment irrelevant as a result.
Re: (Score:1)
egg, meet face.
It's gonna pass (Score:2)
No it's not. (Score:1)
Stop flopping and bending over to the enemy at the slightest whiff of headwind, what's wrong with you?
Don't you know about self-fulfilling prophecies?
USA != World (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's still an American website.
Re: USA != World (Score:1)
And it runs on Chinese chips.
And is viewed on a German IP adress.
How is any of that relevant?
Ok I call EA games to the stand! (Score:2)
Ok I call EA games to the stand!
Question when you got the right for the music in the game did that also cover game steaming use of it? In all markets?
Question when the rights ended did you put in an forced update to remove that music from the game?
Question did you make the game steaming mode setting work in QA? With all music tagged the right way? for each market?
As Long As You Don't Charge For Streaming (Score:1)
Then it isn't illegal. Problem solved. Just don't charge more than it costs to run the streaming site.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called a hobby. Google it.
Re: As Long As You Don't Charge For Streaming (Score:2)
Save your keystrokes. He's a Ferengi-American. Their culture is different. They don't get other purposes in life than making the $$$ go up for its own sake. ;)
good thing is right to an attorney and jury trail (Score:2)
good thing is right to an attorney and jury trail with this
Re:conservatism in it's purest form (Score:5, Informative)
It's conservatism, pure and simple. Literally, the word "conserve". Maintain the status quo, no matter what it is.
Political conservatism has nothing at all to do with conservation of the status quo. You need look no farther than Margaret Thatcher for an example of a conservative politician who strongly advocated change to the status quo.
Hallmarks of conservative philosophy in the United States are limited Federal powers, strict interpretation of the Constitution, adequate enforcement of laws, and personal responsibility and accountability.
Any resemblance between the modern Republican party and conservative philosophy is happenstance. The United States have no champions of conservative thought; just a bunch of bitter old men trying to cling to power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Holding up Margret Thatcher as a representative conservative. Sorry, but that's so, so, soooo last century. She does NOT represent the conservatism of the last 3 decades. First, she was willing to change things.
This is not in fact an indication that she was not conservative. The problem is your time-frame.
Thatcher was willing to change things provided that they were changed back to how they were in about 1790 when the rich industrial classes were starting to intermarry with the existing agricultural aristocracy. No rules, no safety nets, no law except that which protected the rich from the poor. Thatcher saw the Work House as a sop to the left wing. As far as she was concerned, the unemployed should be starved int
Re: conservatism in it's purest form (Score:2)
You need look no farther than Margaret Thatcher for an example of a conservative politician who strongly advocated change to the status quo.
Recent hugely popular tv series reminded us how she was stabbed in the back for that in the 90s.
WTF does this have to do with COVID-19 stimulus? (Score:3)
This is exactly the sort of crap that people are so sick of tired of hearing about making its way into necessary legislation. The points of the COVID relief bill that people have been hearing about never mention things like this being slipped in by special interest groups who hold the public hostage until their pet legislation is approved. Those who put this kind of stuff into legislation need to have their names explicitly listed as the one who added it---at least then we might be able to follow the money.
Awww, how nice (Score:2)
A Christmas present for Disney.
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware that democrats control congress (have majority) today, which is where this bill is being created right now? Let's see if they disallow this and other provisions which have nothing to do with COVID relief. Are you a betting person? Want to make a wager, put your money on the democrats doing the right thing?
Re: Republicans (Score:2)
We have a split congress. Dems control the house, gop the Senate
Personally (Score:2)
I would be all for making " sneaking in pet projects which have absolutely nothing to do with the parent bill " a felony as well :|
I swear we could replace the entirely of leadership in this country with chimpanzees and no one would notice the difference . . . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Wanna bet?
We would definitely notice how smooth our country would run. We don't need a government. Anarchy 4 life.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely, or at least that general and especially emergency budgets should be firewalled from legislation related to criminal matters.
NOT the "entertainment community" (Score:1)
Most of us do NOT want to be a literal Mafia against our fans. Artists want to give the world something. Money is just a nice side-effect.
This is purely the act of organized crime that leeches on crearive people since the first sheet music was printed.
Thugs that have never done more in their lives than push cocaine into lines, snort it, fuck/rape prostitutes, and trick victim artists into contracts to leech on them.
Make no mistake: Every time you side with imaginary property, you collaborate with and streng
Tax break is a gift to conservatives (Score:2)
Don't be fooled by the Uniparty (Score:2)
This is the new normal, since Reagan was President and Tip O'Neil was House Speaker. With a big standoff between the parties on many stated philosophical points, but leaders of both parties in congress wanting their usual political pork so they can earn all their bribes (err..."campaign contributions") there is a bi-partisan problem in DC - how to get all the pork you want/need without angering your own base voters. The solution of the Uniparty (the "establishment" wings of both parties, who actually have m
Constitutiona Challeng? (Score:2)
Eighth Amendment:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.[95]"
up to 10 years in jail for what amounts to non-violent, non theft, copy right infringement?
yeah, right, that is going to get challenged pretty fast.
Re: (Score:1)
I would say so.
Here is everyone's task list:
1. Call you congressperson and senator.
2. Creating content? Hook up with other artists and use what they have. Creative Commons licenses go a long way.
3. Create content under the Creative Commons and fuck the corporate crap.
4. Stop buying or consuming content controlled by these stupid laws. If they don't want to play nice neither do we.
Re: (Score:2)
That never stopped them before, i.e. suing people for millions because they uploaded a movie or even a single song.
Let's invade (Score:2)
I think it's about time we invaded America. I hear that's what you do to countries run by tyrannical government and who have a local oil industry.
Let's export some democracy. Yeeehaww!
Who's going to be against that? (Score:2)
Not only do you need to profit for it, it needs to be classified as commerce. That is to say, you made a business of selling streaming access to content you do not own.
Not only can't I imagine any senator voting against that, I can't understand anyone being against it either, even on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Sony Music accuses [some Twitch streamer that hates Playstation] of criminal acts for profiting via streaming footage of [some Xbox-exclusive game featuring music licensed from Sony Music] to thousands of viewers.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, that's pretty fucked-up.
Re: (Score:2)