EPTShe aint wrong all the time.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2905
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
She aint wrong all the time. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6230 Posts
That is so incredibly dangerous. A giant, eleventh-hour omnibus bill waved through sight-unseen is the perfect vehicle for McConnell to cement his agenda before Trump is forced out. Is this really happening? | ||
FlaShFTW
United States10154 Posts
What does this actually accomplish? What does this do from not just a legal perspective, but a utilitarian perspective? In what way is this bill beneficial to society? You get 3 years for your first offense, 10 years for a repeat offense? Bro, you can literally kill someone an get less than the repeat offense. You can commit vehicular manslaughter and get less. You can severely assault someone, rob someone, rape someone, and get less jail time and a fucking DMCA violation. Fuck you Tillis. What in the current Copyright Law isn't already enough? Fair use is practically useless in the majority of situations anyway, how much more do you need for copyright protection? The Twitch DMCA situation is proof that the DMCA/Copyright is severely behind the times and needs considerable amendments. This is a grotesque abuse of the legislative system to just throw random shit into an omnibus bill and I'm dumbfounded this is law right now. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8983 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25259 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7297 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11507 Posts
On December 22 2020 20:00 Zambrah wrote: This is always what happens when you have to appease Republicans, they will systematically fuck up anything you try to do the most outrageously awful shit. I'm almost glad the stimulus payment is so paltry so theres fewer ways to defend this... thing. As always, "What would Darth Vader do" works very well. Sure, we can give some scraps to the peasants, but I will totally hide some oppressive shit in there to protect the entertainment industry dinosaurs and the prison industry. War on drugs just doesn't provide as many customers for them anymore, we gotta find new ways to put people in prison. Thousands of prison guard jobs on the line. It seems as if no matter what republicans do, it is always really, really evil in some way. Sometimes you just need a bit longer to figure out what the evil thing is they are hiding in there, sometimes it is obvious from the start. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9118 Posts
Same here, this doesn't apply in any way to the kind of streaming you are thinking of. It specifically only applies to platforms whose only purpose is pirate streaming. It's the kind of websites that pop-up when your computer-illiterate acquaintances google "watch movies online for free". Don't get me wrong, I don't think further criminalization of piracy was in any way needed and I definitely don't think shit like this belongs in a must-pass spending bill, but let's stick to those points instead of wildly exaggerating the scope of the bill. | ||
|
Anc13nt
1557 Posts
I know this is related to old news but it's pretty hilarious how the "1 in quadrillion claim" was made using the reasoning (can find it at around 7 minutes) that I predicted. Actually lmao'd at that point because even a grade schooler who hasn't drank the Trump kkkoolaid would know their assumptions were silly af. The Republican party is complete f*cking joke. User was warned for this post. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 22 2020 20:22 Dan HH wrote: Same here, this doesn't apply in any way to the kind of streaming you are thinking of. It specifically only applies to platforms whose only purpose is pirate streaming. It's the kind of websites that pop-up when your computer-illiterate acquaintances google "watch movies online for free". Don't get me wrong, I don't think further criminalization of piracy was in any way needed and I definitely don't think shit like this belongs in a must-pass spending bill, but let's stick to those points instead of wildly exaggerating the scope of the bill. Reminds me very much of the Megaupload play of a decade ago and I expect it'd play out the same way - questionably legal enforcement over politically upsetting entities that could be construed as piracy enablers, and lots of implicit threats over major and minor mainstream players. Actual piracy doesn't really care about the legality of it and operates outside of the jurisdiction of nations where it's enforced anyways. And I sure hope you're not implying that the EU copyright law was a sensationalized nothing-burger. It wasn't the only player, but the time between then and now marks a very material decline in the "free as in freedom" nature of the internet, so the opposition to such laws was definitely on point. | ||
|
ugohome
7 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9118 Posts
On December 22 2020 23:00 LegalLord wrote: Reminds me very much of the Megaupload play of a decade ago and I expect it'd play out the same way - questionably legal enforcement over politically upsetting entities that could be construed as piracy enablers, and lots of implicit threats over major and minor mainstream players. Actual piracy doesn't really care about the legality of it and operates outside of the jurisdiction of nations where it's enforced anyways. And I sure hope you're not implying that the EU copyright law was a sensationalized nothing-burger. It wasn't the only player, but the time between then and now marks a very material decline in the "free as in freedom" nature of the internet, so the opposition to such laws was definitely on point. On most subjects, pointing out that something that was hyped as a massive game changer is now a vague collective memory would elicit a "huh" rather than an "I hope you're not implying it was a nothing-burger". Those aren't the only options. I'm fully on board with opposing expansions to copyright, what I take issue with is the hyperbolic and emotionally charged nature of the reporting and discussion on those topics. They always start by default from beyond the worst case scenario and only go up from there. I honestly can't tell if or how the EU copyright reform changed the way I use the internet, it certainly doesn't feel like it did. I do know the most popular talking points regarding it didn't lead to anything, websites that weren't already using Content ID before it still aren't. And the snippet tax on aggregators failed, though honestly I didn't particularly care about this part to begin with. The endless white noise drama about Youtube and Twitch practices is primarily driven by advertiser demands as they both got more and more corporatized with each passing year. Ironically, GDPR (the privacy law) had a much more visible impact, many North American websites were unavailable for EU visitors while they sorted out their data collection, some still are. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7888 Posts
On December 22 2020 23:08 ugohome wrote: it's not just republicans to blame for the broken corpo-fascist US government of the wealthy. Well, the Koch brothers didn't support Obama... | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15687 Posts
On December 22 2020 23:08 ugohome wrote: it's not just republicans to blame for the broken corpo-fascist US government of the wealthy. When one group does something "100" and another group does something "10", it doesn't make sense to pretend they are the same thing. Citizens United and various other examples point to the republican party empowering large corporations and moneyed interests in a clearly greater way. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On December 22 2020 15:58 FlaShFTW wrote: Excuse me while I might use poor language and vent a bit, but holy fuck does this absolutely fucking suck. Senator Tillis has a fucking nut as his brain. What does this actually accomplish? What does this do from not just a legal perspective, but a utilitarian perspective? In what way is this bill beneficial to society? You get 3 years for your first offense, 10 years for a repeat offense? Bro, you can literally kill someone an get less than the repeat offense. You can commit vehicular manslaughter and get less. You can severely assault someone, rob someone, rape someone, and get less jail time and a fucking DMCA violation. Fuck you Tillis. What in the current Copyright Law isn't already enough? Fair use is practically useless in the majority of situations anyway, how much more do you need for copyright protection? The Twitch DMCA situation is proof that the DMCA/Copyright is severely behind the times and needs considerable amendments. This is a grotesque abuse of the legislative system to just throw random shit into an omnibus bill and I'm dumbfounded this is law right now. He in fact, used the logic you're citing here as why it needed to be added : that the DMCA was outdated. He just took the view it wasn't draconian enough. The thing about his act is that it's really vague, so courts are going to have a hell of a time interpreting it. It's not as bad as some of the initial reports made it sound : it's targeted exclusively at people running commercially motivated streams of copyrighted materials without any other motive. Here's the relevant text. Ridiculous that it's a 5800 page (! yes, it's twice as long as the previous record for longest) omnibus bill. I'm pretty sure twitch streaming is exempt, unless the streamer in question is explicitly streaming pirated content and only pirated content. The issue is that it will open them up to frivolous claims, where they have to prove that they aren't motivated by it. It got narrowed a little bit by the house. (I've added emphasis) and some of the non-profits that protect individuals are less opposed to it, though still think it's pointless (as we already had good enough protections). PROHIBITED ACT.—It shall be unlawful for a 2 person to willfully, and for purposes of commercial advan- 3 tage or private financial gain, offer or provide to the public 4 a digital transmission service that— 5 ‘‘(1) is primarily designed or provided for the 6 purpose of publicly performing works protected 7 under title 17 by means of a digital transmission 8 without the authority of the copyright owner or the 9 law; 10 ‘‘(2) has no commercially significant purpose or 11 use other than to publicly perform works protected 12 under title 17 by means of a digital transmission 13 without the authority of the copyright owner or the 14 law; or 15 ‘‘(3) is intentionally marketed by or at the di- 16 rection of that person to promote its use in publicly 17 performing works protected under title 17 by means 18 of a digital transmission without the authority of the 19 copyright owner or the law Full bill : (The copyright section starts on page 2540 ) https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-116HR133SA-RCP-116-68.pdf https://kotaku.com/covid-relief-bill-still-includes-felony-streaming-act-1845929782 There was more to it than just Tillis' moronic amendment - two others. They also added the CASE act, which is a much better (though still very flawed and likely unconstitutional) set of reforms. It establishes an extra judicial tribunal to hear copyright cases. This is so that, in theory, smaller IP holders can resolve claims without expensive litigation. I fully expect to see it abused into the ground by copyright trolls, but the motives were at least in the right place. This panel would be made up of three members of the Copyright Office and two other attorneys knowledgeable in copyright law.[8] For works registered for copyright, the maximum statutory damage would be US$15,000 per work and US$30,000 per claim, while unregistered copyrighted works are eligible for half those amounts. The Claims Board may also issue other lesser penalties such as notice to cease infringement.[9] The process is opt-out; once a claim is filed, all parties have a sixty day period to respond in which they may reject the use of the Claims Board, in which case the case would then be required to be heard in federal courts.[5] Otherwise, once parties have agreed to the process and filed all counterclaims, the Claims Board will make a final determination and assessment of penalty.[8] The Claims Board are non-binding and allow for appeals in federal courts though the determinations of the Claims Board cannot be vacated or modified save for exceptional cases.[8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CASE_Act#cite_note-18 The other aspect, Trademark Modernization Act, I'm not sure of the actual effect and it's a little obscure (no wikipedia article and is focused on fraudulent trademarks). The Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 is in part a response to the surge in fraudulent trademark filings, largely originating from China, that both the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and Congress have been grappling with over the last year. Perhaps most notably, in a stated effort to better protect consumers by minimizing confusion about goods and services, the bill would restore the rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm when a trademark violation has been proven (thus clarifying eBay v. MercExchange). | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 23 2020 03:41 Mohdoo wrote: When one group does something "100" and another group does something "10", it doesn't make sense to pretend they are the same thing. Citizens United and various other examples point to the republican party empowering large corporations and moneyed interests in a clearly greater way. Democratic politicians are just as corrupt and the bill has about the same pork and special interest rules changes from them. You put far too much stock in Democratic relative purity. Remember for next time myself or others criticize the Democrats, and the thread tries to distance itself from those politicians. When push comes to shove, they stan for their political party. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15687 Posts
On December 23 2020 04:08 Danglars wrote: Democratic politicians are just as corrupt and the bill has about the same pork and special interest rules changes from them. You put far too much stock in Democratic relative purity. Remember for next time myself or others criticize the Democrats, and the thread tries to distance itself from those politicians. When push comes to shove, they stan for their political party. "Corrupt" needs defining here. My point is relating to empowering the wealthy and large corporations. You can't pretend Democrats and Republicans want large corporations and banks to be the same amount of powerful or have the same morals regarding limiting their power. Can you point me towards major republican politicians speaking against the ethics of billionaires? Publicly funded campaigns? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 23 2020 04:20 Mohdoo wrote: "Corrupt" needs defining here. My point is relating to empowering the wealthy and large corporations. You can't pretend Democrats and Republicans want large corporations and banks to be the same amount of powerful or have the same morals regarding limiting their power. Can you point me towards major republican politicians speaking against the ethics of billionaires? Publicly funded campaigns? Have you seen the billions that Silicon Valley has been plowing into Democratic campaigns? And how much they’re spending on lobbyists? The rhetoric is just a ruse; Democrats will carve the same exemptions and policy that they’re lobbying for, while making overtures to the public on closing loopholes and sticking it to big business. You better drop the 100-10 talk, because it basically consists of claiming Democrats farts don’t stink as bad. Spend some time looking at the stimulus/covid bill and ask yourself what share of the bill is really Republican pork and changes. As if the problem in Washington is really the words that come out of politicians mouths; cmon now. | ||
KwarK
United States42660 Posts
On December 23 2020 04:35 Danglars wrote: Have you seen the billions that Silicon Valley has been plowing into Democratic campaigns? And how much they’re spending on lobbyists? The rhetoric is just a ruse; Democrats will carve the same exemptions and policy that they’re lobbying for, while making overtures to the public on closing loopholes and sticking it to big business. You better drop the 100-10 talk, because it basically consists of claiming Democrats farts don’t stink as bad. Spend some time looking at the stimulus/covid bill and ask yourself what share of the bill is really Republican pork and changes. As if the problem in Washington is really the words that come out of politicians mouths; cmon now. Surely the difference here is that the left leaning posters in this topic don't actually like the Democratic Party and defend it only to the extent of pointing out that they're not as bad as the people trying to overturn the election whereas you seem to routinely defend the indefensible from Republicans. If you wish to argue that "our guys" are just as bad then you first need to explain why they're "our guys" and not just a group of assholes we hate slightly less than the group of bigger assholes. | ||
| ||
