Page 2 of 30 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 890
  1. #31
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Post Count
    22,105
    It's a distinctly different crime than stealing. In copying something, the original is still there. Are you denying them money? Yes. But it's not the same crime.

  2. #32
    let's pink Avante Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    33,718
    It's a distinctly different crime than stealing. In copying something, the original is still there. Are you denying them money? Yes. But it's not the same crime.
    Even though the owner did not physically produce the copy, you are making and taking the copy without permission.

    I'm not arguing on how it should be looked at in regards to punishment for the crime. I'm saying it's still stealing.

  3. #33
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    89,611
    so the govt shut down his website, he decided he wasn't doing anything wrong, set up another website and finally got arrested for it.

    He made $90k in ad space according to the link.

    Explain why I should have a problem with his arrest.
    First of all, the guy made no copies of anything. He simply linked to streams. He's no more guilty of doing that than, say, Google or Bing.

    Making money off online advertising is not a crime, AFAIK (for now, anyways)

    Also please explain why you want Disney to enforce copyright laws instead of the government.
    The government is not the copyright holder. If Disney feels that their copyrights are being stepped on, they're free to sue and then the justice system gets involved and determines if the claim has merit, etc.
    That's how it always has worked.

    Why do we need to foot the bill for the investigation, or give up our privacy rights for something we have nothing to do with. It's not like we're assigned part of the copyright.
    _____________________________

  4. #34
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    89,611
    I still don't see what we, taxpayers, get out of this for spending a shitload of money and giving up our rights...

  5. #35
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    31,292
    The protected class gets the benefit of a law addressing one of their major complaints and presumably will give their votes to their political benefactors. Also, may stimulate more interest in securing copyrights, since the state will apprently bear the cost of certain infractions.

  6. #36
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Post Count
    22,105
    Even though the owner did not physically produce the copy, you are making and taking the copy without permission.

    I'm not arguing on how it should be looked at in regards to punishment for the crime. I'm saying it's still stealing.
    But it's not stealing. It's copying. There's an obvious difference. Why you keep insisting that there isn't is curious.

    You're saying that dloading a pirated track would be the same thing as stealing the master copies of those recordings.

  7. #37
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    31,292
    You're saying that dloading a pirated track would be the same thing as stealing the master copies of those recordings.
    The legal environment created by the ACTA treaty may tend to encourage this view.
    Last edited by Winehole23; 03-19-2011 at 04:30 PM. Reason: ACTA, not DMCA; fever of 103F

  8. #38
    let's pink Avante Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    33,718
    First of all, the guy made no copies of anything. He simply linked to streams. He's no more guilty of doing that than, say, Google or Bing.

    Making money off online advertising is not a crime, AFAIK (for now, anyways)
    but he wouldn't have made money from the online ads had he not redistributed the content (without permission) which he did not produce himself.

    I'm not sure how you can compare that to Google.

    The government is not the copyright holder. If Disney feels that their copyrights are being stepped on, they're free to sue and then the justice system gets involved and determines if the claim has merit, etc.
    That's how it always has worked.

    Why do we need to foot the bill for the investigation, or give up our privacy rights for something we have nothing to do with. It's not like we're assigned part of the copyright.
    From your view of it not being theft, that's a fair assessment.

    Imo, it's still theft, and therefore have no problem with government enforcement.

  9. #39
    let's pink Avante Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    33,718
    But it's not stealing. It's copying. There's an obvious difference. Why you keep insisting that there isn't is curious.
    If you take a book and copy the contents without paying for it, you are stealing the intellectual property.

    Pretty much the same thing with music or videos.

    You're saying that dloading a pirated track would be the same thing as stealing the master copies of those recordings.
    If I understand what you are referring to, then yes I would think so.

  10. #40
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    2,683
    But it's not stealing. It's copying. There's an obvious difference. Why you keep insisting that there isn't is curious.

    You're saying that dloading a pirated track would be the same thing as stealing the master copies of those recordings.
    Dude I tried this a couple times and inferred that he was a fucking idiot. Good luck.

  11. #41
    Pimp Marcus Bryant's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    1,020,170
    Instead of finding another way to monetize, it's time to lawyer up.

  12. #42
    Pimp Marcus Bryant's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    1,020,170
    Soon enough, if not already, the general legal nostrum of presumed innocence will become presumed guilt, with leniency allowed for all good citizens. The incessant American desire to criminalize non-violent 'crimes,' as well as to protect individual rights to the point of absurdity and standardize each individual has played no small role in this outcome.

  13. #43
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    89,611
    but he wouldn't have made money from the online ads had he not redistributed the content (without permission) which he did not produce himself.

    I'm not sure how you can compare that to Google.
    Except he didn't redistribute anything. He didn't host nor copy any videos.
    Linking is exactly what Google does, and monetizes it through online ads, which is no different than what this guy did.

    From your view of it not being theft, that's a fair assessment.
    It's not debatable. You still have to show why it's called copyright infringement instead of simply fitting into theft.

    Imo, it's still theft, and therefore have no problem with government enforcement.
    You're obviously wrong. The question you dodged and still won't answer is what's in it for the taxpayer?
    Last edited by ElNono; 03-19-2011 at 05:06 PM.

  14. #44
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    89,611
    If you take a book and copy the contents without paying for it, you are stealing the intellectual property.
    No, you're copying purportedly without authorization. Stealing means 'property' exchanging hands.

    Under some circumstances copying without authorization is actually legal.
    You need to read up more on the differences of theft and copyright infringement, then come back once you can tell the difference.

  15. #45
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    89,611
    And BTW, the FBI already has a department for dealing with cybercrime, which includes investigating online fraud, identity theft and any other crime such as copyright infringement.

    Again, what warrants the expense of a separate overlapping department that conducts investigations on behalf of these media behemoths, and specifically what's in it for the taxpayers to be supporting this expense?

  16. #46
    Pump Bacon Cane's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    3,581
    Wouldn't hosting and viewing illegal streams be kinda like "stealing" cable TV service? Seems like they should be punishable in a similar way although its hard to be a fan of giving more power to the man.

  17. #47
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    89,611
    Wouldn't hosting and viewing illegal streams be kinda like "stealing" cable TV service? Seems like they should be punishable in a similar way although its hard to be a fan of giving more power to the man.
    Not sure about the viewing part, but the person streaming is certainly at fault. I have no problem with the authorities going after the person streaming, as I have no problem with the copyright owners having their day in court.

    I just don't think it justifies it's own office, task force, and the requested penalty necessarily matches the crime. A student found photocopying a text book for school is automatically a felon?

  18. #48
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    31,292
    That's covered by fair use.

  19. #49
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    89,611
    That's covered by fair use.
    But it's theft!

  20. #50
    let's pink Avante Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    33,718
    Except he didn't redistribute anything. He didn't host nor copy any videos.
    Linking is exactly what Google does, and monetizes it through online ads, which is no different than what this guy did.
    The charge claims that he intercepted and then streamed live sporting events without authorization.

    Does Google do this?

    It's not debatable. You still have to show why it's called copyright infringement instead of simply fitting into theft.
    Legally? Ok, I looked it up.

    Turns out it hasnt always been civil cases in regards to copyright infringement. There is such a thing as criminal copyright infringement, which is what he was arrested on a charge of.

    It also turns out there has been was an amendment that was put in back in 1982 which had provisions for felony charges for first time offenders.

    Enforcement agencies and prosecutors also apparently regularly refer to it as theft.

    You're obviously wrong. The question you dodged and still won't answer is what's in it for the taxpayer?
    Looking back, I barely recognize it was a direct question you were asking.

    Disney et al are tax payers.

    They get justice.

  21. #51
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Post Count
    22,105
    If you take a book and copy the contents without paying for it, you are stealing the intellectual property.

    ...

    If I understand what you are referring to, then yes I would think so.
    It's not the same though. If I sit in a store, and reproduced a book with a pen and notebook, should that be a felony?

    Just because it is EASIER to reproduce things doesn't mean the principle is different.

  22. #52
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Post Count
    22,105
    The obvious difference in pirating opposed to stealing is that, in the former, the owner of the property STILL has that property.

    The usefulness of said property may be greatly reduced by pirating, but that doesn't mean the two are the same.

  23. #53
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Post Count
    22,105
    Does Google receive permission from each site it links to?

  24. #54
    let's pink Avante Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    33,718
    Under some circumstances copying without authorization is actually legal.
    Great, then there's probably a good reason for it being legal.

    You need to read up more on the differences of theft and copyright infringement, then come back once you can tell the difference.
    I can now tell the difference in a legal sense.

    but I think they are mostly the same thing in a colloquial sense.

    Why are you so upset about this?

  25. #55
    let's pink Avante Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    33,718
    It's not the same though. If I sit in a store, and reproduced a book with a pen and notebook, should that be a felony?
    no, and I havent said or implied it should.

    Just because it is EASIER to reproduce things doesn't mean the principle is different.
    I agree but I was changing the media for effect, not the difficulty level.

  26. #56
    let's pink Avante Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    33,718
    Does Google receive permission from each site it links to?
    do they stream sports video without the consent of the site owner the way this other guy did?

  27. #57
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    89,611
    The charge claims that he intercepted and then streamed live sporting events without authorization.

    Does Google do this?
    He did no such thing. Obviously, you're not familiar with what the site was/is. Did you even bother to go to the site and look?
    He merely provided links. Exactly like Google.

    Legally? Ok, I looked it up.

    Turns out it hasnt always been civil cases in regards to copyright infringement. There is such a thing as criminal copyright infringement, which is what he was arrested on a charge of.
    Good. Stop referring to it as theft then. Do you understand it's a different crime? There's many different penalized copyright infringement offenses, including criminal copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, etc. None of which are prosecuted under 'theft'.


    It also turns out there has been was an amendment that was put in back in 1982 which had provisions for felony charges for first time offenders.

    Enforcement agencies and prosecutors also apparently regularly refer to it as theft.
    What they refer to it is immaterial. Do they file their claims under theft?


    Looking back, I barely recognize it was a direct question you were asking.

    Disney et al are tax payers.

    They get justice.
    Justice was never denied to them prior to the installation of this IP czar position and the added policing of the government for their interests...

    I'm sure every special interest group would like the government to take over their policing for infractions. Heck, why restrict it to special interest groups? The government should be obliged to investigate, pursue and incur on the expense of filing lawsuits and defend them for every person out there.
    You really don't see what's wrong with this?
    Last edited by ElNono; 03-20-2011 at 12:04 AM.

  28. #58
    let's pink Avante Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    33,718
    Dude I tried this a couple times and inferred that he was a fucking idiot. Good luck.
    Dude do you often make such short sighted inferrances after a couple of replies?

    I infer by your defensiveness that you are probably a frequent copyright infringer.

  29. #59
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    89,611
    Great, then there's probably a good reason for it being legal.

    I can now tell the difference in a legal sense.

    but I think they are mostly the same thing in a colloquial sense.

    Why are you so upset about this?
    I think it's important to call things by what they are. Otherwise, they get lost in the oversimplification. Copyright law is a much more complex topic that just 'theft'.

    I have no problem with punishing those that infringe copyrights. I also think that the government shouldn't socialize what inherently a claim by a private party. Lastly, I think it's a major waste of money considering the rest of the world is not even close to the same page on this issue. IE: In countries like Spain, sites akin to channelsurfing are legal, backed up with court rulings on the matter.
    Thus my classification as the 'war on drugs'... a money pit where there are really few interested parties in really addressing the problem.

  30. #60
    let's pink Avante Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    33,718
    He did no such thing. Obviously, you're not familiar with what the site was/is. Did you even bother to go to the site and look?
    He merely provided links. Exactly like Google.
    No, I'm not familiar with the site at all but federal authorities clearly are.

    If a federal prosecutor is agreeing to prosecute the complaint in federal court then there is most definitely something there.

    Who are you to say he is innocent of this charge?

    Good. Stop referring to it as theft then. Do you understand it's a different crime? There's many different penalized copyright infringement offenses, including criminal copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, etc. None of which are prosecuted under 'theft'.
    Who the hell are you to tell me what I should not refer to it as?

    Fuck you.

    What they refer to it is immaterial. Do they file their claims under theft?
    No, but they realize it really is though.

    Justice was never denied to them prior to the installation of this IP czar position and the added policing of the government for their interests...

    I'm sure every special interest group would like the government to take overr their policing for infractions. Heck, why restrict it to special interest groups? The government should be obliged to investigate, pursue and incur on the expense of filing lawsuits and defend them for every person out there.
    You really don't see what's wrong with this?
    What other special interest group would you be referring to?

    Criminal infringement has been enforced for almost 30 years. I really don't see this as some slippery slope today.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •