Draconian copyright crackdown provisions are included in the omnibus stimulus bill which contains a lot more than just stimulus

Ordinary users can be fined up to $30,000 for uploading and sharing copyrighted images.
A copyright claims tribunal would be created to determine how to deal with copyright violations.

I like stimulus. Just sayin’.

To a non-American, the concept of tacking on unrelated bits of legislation to an important bill is bizarre. That is all. Good luck.

You don’t have to be non-American to think that it’s bizarre.

If the right wing “news” services ever told the truth they couldn’t get away with it. They just aren’t going to tell their viewers that Republicans are holding up a trillion dollar aid package because of some bullshit they want to tack on. They will just blame the Democrats. So nobody is going to lose any votes over it.

The linked story references only one specific lawmaker: Chris Murphy from CT. He’s a democrat who supports packing extra provisions into this bill, though it doesn’t say which provisions he supports.

The original sponsor of the CASE act (one of the copyright sections of this bill) appears to be Hakeem Jeffries, a Democrat: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2426

The “Felony Streaming” provision appears to have been introduced by Thom Tillis, a Republican.

I don’t think you can pin the blame for this on just one party. Check out Politico for a partial list of the provisions in this bill. It’s hardly one-sided.

It is bizarre and a fundamental flaw in our political system that is one of the chief reasons our system is broken. It gives Lobbyists a strong incentive to be the scum of the earth dirtbags most of them are. Its been railed against for over 70 years and probably a lot longer but we never do anything about it.

Absolutely right. This is one of those areas of politics where “both sides” truly is an accurate representation of the situation.

One of the problems is that the President does not have line item veto powers (some state governors do), so he has to either approve or reject the whole bill. So, yes, a lot of things get tacked on because if the central part of the bill is for something important and necessary, the President has little choice but to approve it or look like a villain when he doesn’t.

//i\\

I don’t think it’s ever happened, but under normal circumstances, I like to think a president could get away with saying, “the central tenet of this bill is good, and we all agree on it. I reject the added pork, and am vetoing accordingly. Send me back a bill with just the direct payments and I’ll sign it today.”

Congress only does the whole, “bicker until we’ve added all our wishlists to this must-pass bill” because they can get away with it. Saying, “stop this, and focus on the main problem” is absolutely something a strong president could do successfully without looking (too much) like a villain if he handled the messaging reasonably well.

These are not normal times, of course.

Oh, I bet Presidents have done that hundreds if not thousands of times over the years. We just don’t see that part of the sausage-making most of the time, unless the pending veto is something they’re grandstanding about wanting to veto.

This is just political horsetrading- both sides agreed to include these provisions as a condition of getting something else included as well.

As far as I know, the well-known “must-pass” bills always have tons of irrelevant provisions included from both sides. Maybe not in the long-past, but certainly in recent decades.

And then we get situations where members of Congress will vote against a bill because of some tacked on provision, and their political opponents will claim they voted against it because of other reasons than the real reason.

Dubya used to sign things with his “signing statements” where he said, “I’m signing this whole bill, but I’m not going to fund certain parts of it,” which nobody has ever successfully challenged in court.

The Constitution didn’t define the nature of legislation, so it’s up to Congress to decide what it is. So each bill is whatever they decide to put in it. Essentially there’s no such thing as “unrelated legislation,” because no bill has defined boundaries.

No, the president cannot do that. The Constitution gives Congress the power to decide what’s in it out. The present can only sign or veto the entirety of what Congress puts before em.

No, it does it because it is within their authority to do so, and by and large this ability has facilitated compromises, making politics and government function more smoothly. I’m not sure that giving the president a line-item veto would be an over-all benefit to the system. The president is already too powerful.

Saying it hasn’t been successfully challenged in court is misleading. No ruling has squarely addressed the significance of a signing statement, but in a 2005 case, the Supreme Court significantly gave a presidential signing statement zero weight in interpreting a statute. That strongly suggests that if it comes down to it, the law would say that presidential signing statements are meaningless.

The Confederate Constitution specifically said, ,“Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.”

It is true that they can’t do a line item veto, but they can absolutely communicate that they don’t like parts of legislation and that they’ll veto the entire bill unless the offending part is removed. That’s part and parcel of the US Federal political process where it concerns the President. That’s what @tofor and I were talking about- I bet it happens all the time, but we just don’t see it unless the President or Congress wants to make a political point in the media about it.

Not to defend copyright law in the US, which is getting out of control, but it goes after egregious streamers who pirate football games on sites like reddit. It turns what was once a jailable misdemeanor into a felony – again, not necessary, but enhancing the degree of punishment rather than breaking new ground on what is and isn’t legal.

The bigger problem I have is that it’s clear who owns congress. We have fucking 1 out of 4 people in this country who are in danger of going hungry on a given day and this is their priority?! Give me a Goddamn break.

The US Senate is getting its Roman Senate on.

That’s because there’s this thing called the veto.

There’s this other thing - or these other creatures - called lobbyists. Did you know that in addition to English, they have another language called “money”? “Money is speech” So says the Supreme Court, so says we all!