Page 4 of 37 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 901
  1. #76
    Veteran velik_m's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    7,039
    If i invite a neighbour to watch game on my cable, am i stealing?

  2. #77
    Veteran jack sommerset's Avatar
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    9,221
    What's the hang up here, being called a felon, being arrested, the government, time spent in the slammer and/or fines. Why is this so complicated? Is it because everyone of us downloaded something for free when we should have paid for it but are worried that if the police show up at our door we will face fines/arrest/court/record?? Do you think it's ok for someone not to sell you something illegal but send you to someone who does and/or prosper because of it? What will prevent people from downloading stuff they should have to pay for?

    A old saying "A lock door only keeps a honest person honest" Seems to me the internet does not have enough locks and a bunch of "honest" people are doing something they know damn well they shouldn't.

  3. #78
    Veteran jack sommerset's Avatar
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    9,221
    If i invite a neighbour to watch game on my cable, am i stealing?
    No.

  4. #79
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    If i invite a neighbour to watch game on my cable, am i stealing?
    Your neighbor is stealing

  5. #80
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    Seems to me that Google is winning most of the infringement lawsuits that are being brought against them.

    It also seems like they are making a very active effort to make sure they try to avoid infringement.

    Do you have a specific example of what Google is doing compared to what McCarthy was/is doing?
    Unfortunately, I can't give you direct examples without risking being sued for secondary copyright infringement. This is the sad state of things.

    What I can do though, is give you some reading material if interested:
    http://torrentfreak.com/googles-the-...-court-110315/

    I don't follow you here.

    I am under the impression that copyright infringement carries a max penalty of 5 years, $250k fine.

    Grand theft easily has a max stiffer penalty in most/all states.
    The 1997 NET Act introduced those penalties. But you also have to add the penalties from cir vention from the DMCA (17 USC 1204), since you're providing an encrypted signal in the clear. For first time offenders, it's $500K, 5 years and for repeat offenders $1M and up to 10 years.

    I don't know exactly which state you're talking about, but I don't know of any that fines you over $20K for 1st degree grand theft felony, and in order to be 1st degree you need to steal over $10K in property... an example would be welcome.

    I would suspect in the millions as well.

    Due to the sheer volume of people/dollars that we are talking about, I don't have an issue with law enforcement stepping in, investigating such complaints, and enforcing criminal copyright infringement.
    Historically under copyright law, the enforcement of copyright is the responsibility of the copyright holder. The TRIPs agreement required signatory countries to establish courts for the purpose of providing injunctions, destruction of infringing material and award damages, along with the necessary due process so alleged infringers could defend themselves in court.

    Unfortunately, this advent of enforcement from the state has virtually nullified and destroyed said due process. In this specific case, injunctions were issued and executed without the ability of the defendant to challenge them in court, subpoenas issued and executed by providers without notifying the defendant so he could challenge them in court. And as posted in the OP, alleged infringers (that could easily be you or me, since you don't have to be proven guilty of anything), could be subject to wiretaps without the ability to challenge them.

    And let me tell you I'm a copyright holder, I've had to deal with piracy of our products, and there's no way in ing you can justify this to me.

  6. #81
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    2,683
    They are watching a broadcast, even though it's unobtainable? wut?

    Where is the broadcast stream originating from and does the viewer have authorization to watch it for free?
    Otherwise unobtainable, meaning there was no official way to purchase a legitimate broadband stream. I concede that the service has been made available now, as you pointed out.

    "Does the viewer have authorization to watch it for free" is up to you - there was no price. I'm just offering examples in the grey-area, where calling something thievery isn't applicable.

  7. #82
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    Unfortunately, I can't give you direct examples without risking being sued for secondary copyright infringement. This is the sad state of things.

    What I can do though, is give you some reading material if interested:
    http://torrentfreak.com/googles-the-...-court-110315/
    interesting discussion below the article.

    I find this one response particularly interesting from "Anonymous 4 days ago in response to Mainframe Xaiver:

    "....OK. Now go and search for "Avatar".

    Google gives me 'About 1,520,000,000 results". The first five pages (at least) contain no links to any infringing content.

    How about Isohunt? '4000 items'. All of which are, as far as I can be bothered to look, links to infringing content.

    .......

    And that's the difference. Google indexes all sorts of stuff, Isohunt and other torrent-indexers only index torrents, and their main problem is that although they can be used to search for legal content it's a sad fact that most of their results lead to "infringing content"."
    The 1997 NET Act introduced those penalties. But you also have to add the penalties from cir vention from the DMCA (17 USC 1204), since you're providing an encrypted signal in the clear. For first time offenders, it's $500K, 5 years and for repeat offenders $1M and up to 10 years.

    I don't know exactly which state you're talking about, but I don't know of any that fines you over $20K for 1st degree grand theft felony, and in order to be 1st degree you need to steal over $10K in property... an example would be welcome.
    the max penalty for first degree grand theft felony is Texas is also 99 years in prison.

    Maybe you'd take the 99 years, but me personally, I would take the bill for $1m.

    Historically under copyright law, the enforcement of copyright is the responsibility of the copyright holder. The TRIPs agreement required signatory countries to establish courts for the purpose of providing injunctions, destruction of infringing material and award damages, along with the necessary due process so alleged infringers could defend themselves in court.

    Unfortunately, this advent of enforcement from the state has virtually nullified and destroyed said due process. In this specific case, injunctions were issued and executed without the ability of the defendant to challenge them in court, subpoenas issued and executed by providers without notifying the defendant so he could challenge them in court. And as posted in the OP, alleged infringers (that could easily be you or me, since you don't have to be proven guilty of anything), could be subject to wiretaps without the ability to challenge them.
    I don't like the idea of wiretaps in particular, but if an enforcement officer has enough probable cause and the judge agrees to sign off for the warrant, I would think the court would agree that due process requirements were met.

    And let me tell you I'm a copyright holder, I've had to deal with piracy of our products, and there's no way in ing you can justify this to me.
    It's pretty obvious by now there's no way to justify it to you, but you haven't really convinced me why I shouldn't refer to copyright infringement as 'theft'.

    From Collins Thesaurus, I find this interesting:

    piracy

    NOUN

    1. robbery, Seven of the fishermen have been formally charged with piracy.
    stealing, theft, hijacking, infringement, buccaneering, rapine, freebooting,

    2. illegal copying, Video piracy is a criminal offence.
    bootlegging, plagiarism, copyright infringement, illegal reproduction

    http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx
    They were very careful to separate the two, yet infringement is listed in both instances.

    I wonder if original sea pirates were ever arrested for copyright infringement.

  8. #83
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    Otherwise unobtainable, meaning there was no official way to purchase a legitimate broadband stream. I concede that the service has been made available now, as you pointed out.

    "Does the viewer have authorization to watch it for free" is up to you - there was no price. I'm just offering examples in the grey-area, where calling something thievery isn't applicable.
    No, it's not up to you or me. It's up to the originator of the stream.

    Who exactly was the originator of the stream and did they originally put it out there for any/everyone to watch it for free?

  9. #84
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    2,683
    No, it's not up to you or me. It's up to the originator of the stream.

    Who exactly was the originator of the stream and did they originally put it out there for any/everyone to watch it for free?
    On a local public broadcast, and not sure how to answer the second question. They didn't know broadband existed, I'd imagine.

  10. #85
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    So Blake, what difference does it make if Isohunt only points to sites which infringe upon rights?

    Is Isohunt itself doing anything illegal?

  11. #86
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    On a local public broadcast, and not sure how to answer the second question. They didn't know broadband existed, I'd imagine.
    You know that disclaimer that goes something like "this event may not be rebroadcast, retransmitted, redistrbiuted etc without the express written consent of the NBA"?

    Was that around in 2009?

    I'm betting it was.

  12. #87
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    So Blake, what difference does it make if Isohunt only points to sites which infringe upon rights?

    Is Isohunt itself doing anything illegal?
    I don't know, have the courts made a decision yet?

    It'll be a tough call, imo.

    I don't think it's exactly the same thing as what google does though.

  13. #88
    Veteran velik_m's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    7,039
    "....OK. Now go and search for "Avatar".

    Google gives me 'About 1,520,000,000 results". The first five pages (at least) contain no links to any infringing content.

    How about Isohunt? '4000 items'. All of which are, as far as I can be bothered to look, links to infringing content.

    .......

    And that's the difference. Google indexes all sorts of stuff, Isohunt and other torrent-indexers only index torrents, and their main problem is that although they can be used to search for legal content it's a sad fact that most of their results lead to "infringing content"."
    What does google return for "Avatar torrent"?

  14. #89
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    I don't know, have the courts made a decision yet?
    I'm asking what you think though. What is the difference?

    I don't think it's exactly the same thing as what google does though.
    What's the difference? One is more specific?

    If I look up "how to kill someone without getting caught" on Google, should they be held responsible if they link to websites that profess knowledge in that area?

  15. #90
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    What does google return for "Avatar torrent"?
    Did you not want to try it yourself?

    There are legal torrents, correct?

    When I googled "Avatar torrent" there were 3 of these quotes on the first page:

    In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

  16. #91
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    interesting discussion below the article.

    I find this one response particularly interesting from "Anonymous 4 days ago in response to Mainframe Xaiver:
    The problem is that Google allows for filtering by file type/extension. So you can make Google return only links to bittorrent files. Obviously, whoever wrote the comment was unaware of that.

    Also:
    http://www.ndtv.com/article/technolo...-queries-82317

    the max penalty for first degree grand theft felony is Texas is also 99 years in prison.

    Maybe you'd take the 99 years, but me personally, I would take the bill for $1m.
    You need to steal upwards of $200,000 to even be considered for first degree grand theft in Texas... the bar is way lower in copyright infringement cases. How you like a $1.5 million award for pirating 28 songs? (granted, civil award)

    I don't like the idea of wiretaps in particular, but if an enforcement officer has enough probable cause and the judge agrees to sign off for the warrant, I would think the court would agree that due process requirements were met.
    I don't have a problem with that as long as the copyright holder was the one doing the hunt for the alleged infringers, and contacted the FBI once they determined the iden y of the alleged infringer(s) (which is how it used to work).

    The problem here is that this special office is specifically funded to go look for violations even without the copyright holder complaining. We don't live in a country with unlimited money to fund every special interest group desire. It's also a slippery slope... what's stopping Comcast now from requesting the government to assign funds and a department that actively goes out there and makes sure people are not stealing cable? Or Apple requesting that piracy of their apps are actively hunted? Where does it end?

    It's pretty obvious by now there's no way to justify it to you, but you haven't really convinced me why I shouldn't refer to copyright infringement as 'theft'.

    From Collins Thesaurus, I find this interesting:

    They were very careful to separate the two, yet infringement is listed in both instances.

    I wonder if original sea pirates were ever arrested for copyright infringement.
    Considering you seem to be more interested in the thesaurus discussion than the legal and social implications, I've tried to choose my words carefully (not sure if always successfully). The distinction between piracy and theft with regards to copyright infringement are easier to find in history books, rather than the dictionary:

    "Piracy"

    The practice of labelling the infringement of exclusive rights in creative works as "piracy" predates statutory copyright law. Prior to the Statute of Anne 1709, the Stationers' Company of London in 1557 received a Royal Charter giving the company a monopoly on publication and tasking it with enforcing the charter. Those who violated the charter were labelled pirates as early as 1603. After the establishment of copyright law with the 1709 Statute of Anne in Britain, the term "piracy" has been used to refer to the unauthorized manufacturing and selling of works in copyright. Article 12 of the 1886 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works uses the term "piracy" in relation to copyright infringement, stating "Pirated works may be seized on importation into those countries of the Union where the original work enjoys legal protection." Article 61 of the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) requires criminal procedures and penalties in cases of "wilful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale". Piracy traditionally refers to acts intentionally committed for financial gain, though more recently, copyright holders have described online copyright infringement, particularly in relation to peer-to-peer file sharing networks, as "piracy."

    "Theft"

    Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as "theft". In law copyright infringement does not refer to actual theft, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization. Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not cons ute stolen property and that "...interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright... 'an infringer of the copyright.'" In the case of copyright infringement the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law is invaded, i.e. exclusive rights, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.

    from Wiki

  17. #92
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    What's the difference? One is more specific?
    From what I can tell, apparently Isohunt is more specific.

    If I look up "how to kill someone without getting caught" on Google, should they be held responsible if they link to websites that profess knowledge in that area?
    No, but I don't think that's a valid analogy.

    I would liken what Isohunt is doing to directly aiding and abetting the illegal torrent sites.

    I would liken what Google does to being more of a library, to which I bet is a place you can find info on "how to kill someone without getting caught".

  18. #93
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    From what I can tell, apparently Isohunt is more specific.
    So that makes it illegal? "Your honor, this website is clearly much better at finding illegal torrents, therefore... it's illegal too. Conspiracy or somesuch."

    I would liken what Isohunt is doing to directly aiding and abetting the illegal torrent sites.
    You don't think THAT'S a slippery slope?

    I would liken what Google does to being more of a library, to which I bet is a place you can find info on "how to kill someone without getting caught".
    So, because one site has more info than another, it's legal. Don't quite think that will hold up in court.

    Tell me, if I create a search engine called "killsomeone.com" and it only brings up links to murder, death, etc etc, would that mean I'm aiding and abetting a murder, merely because I provided knowledge to someone?

    What you're doing, essentially, is criminalizing knowledge.

  19. #94
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    IsoHunt is actually a torrent search engine... as you duly noted before, there's legal torrents also and IsoHunt actually links to them...

  20. #95
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    The problem is that Google allows for filtering by file type/extension. So you can make Google return only links to bittorrent files. Obviously, whoever wrote the comment was unaware of that.

    Also:
    http://www.ndtv.com/article/technolo...-queries-82317

    You need to steal upwards of $200,000 to even be considered for first degree grand theft in Texas... the bar is way lower in copyright infringement cases. How you like a $1.5 million award for pirating 28 songs? (granted, civil award)
    So you think that copyright infringement punishment can be much more severe than theft.

    Why again are you complaining that I call it 'theft'?

    I don't have a problem with that as long as the copyright holder was the one doing the hunt for the alleged infringers, and contacted the FBI once they determined the iden y of the alleged infringer(s) (which is how it used to work).

    The problem here is that this special office is specifically funded to go look for violations even without the copyright holder complaining. We don't live in a country with unlimited money to fund every special interest group desire. It's also a slippery slope... what's stopping Comcast now from requesting the government to assign funds and a department that actively goes out there and makes sure people are not stealing cable? Or Apple requesting that piracy of their apps are actively hunted? Where does it end?
    I dont know that it's a special interest group thing when millions of people are involved.

    There are a lot of things that government spends our tax dollars on that I would rather they didn't, such as the war on drugs. In a vacuum where money would be no object, this is something I don't have a problem with.

    Considering you seem to be more interested in the thesaurus discussion than the legal and social implications, I've tried to choose my words carefully (not sure if always successfully). The distinction between piracy and theft with regards to copyright infringement are easier to find in history books, rather than the dictionary:
    I know the differences. I just stated it was interesting that they are there on the same page in the thesaurus.

    If you'd rather see a legal opinion, I'll quote one from Supreme Court Justice Breyer from MGM vs Grokster 2005:

    ....In any event, the evidence now available does not, in my view, make out a sufficiently strong case for change. To say 961*961 this is not to doubt the basic need to protect copyrighted material from infringement. The Cons ution itself stresses the vital role that copyright plays in advancing the "useful Arts." Art. I, § 8, cl. 8. No one disputes that "reward to the author or artist serves to induce release to the public of the products of his creative genius." United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U. S. 131, 158 (1948). And deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft.........

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...56476676426155

  21. #96
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    So that makes it illegal? "Your honor, this website is clearly much better at finding illegal torrents, therefore... it's illegal too. Conspiracy or somesuch."

    You don't think THAT'S a slippery slope?
    Someone thinks it's illegal other than myself or Isohunt wouldn't be in court right now.

    I think the slope is currently slippery everywhere you look regarding copright infringement.

    So, because one site has more info than another, it's legal. Don't quite think that will hold up in court.
    k, you could be right. we'll see.

    Tell me, if I create a search engine called "killsomeone.com" and it only brings up links to murder, death, etc etc, would that mean I'm aiding and abetting a murder, merely because I provided knowledge to someone?

    What you're doing, essentially, is criminalizing knowledge.
    Is providing such knowledge a crime? Honestly, off the top of my head I don't know.

    Seems to me that 1st Amendment Rights come to play there.

  22. #97
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    So you think that copyright infringement punishment can be much more severe than theft.
    I'm concerned. I don't think the punishment necessarily fits the crime here, at least in the cases where there's no profit motive.

    Why again are you complaining that I call it 'theft'?
    I'm complaining (again)? How did you construe a complain from this?

    The problem is that Google allows for filtering by file type/extension. So you can make Google return only links to bittorrent files. Obviously, whoever wrote the comment was unaware of that.

    Also:
    http://www.ndtv.com/article/technolo...-queries-82317

    You need to steal upwards of $200,000 to even be considered for first degree grand theft in Texas... the bar is way lower in copyright infringement cases. How you like a $1.5 million award for pirating 28 songs? (granted, civil award)
    ...

    I dont know that it's a special interest group thing when millions of people are involved.
    If that office would cater to the million of copyright owners out there, you would have a point. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case (so far).

    There are a lot of things that government spends our tax dollars on that I would rather they didn't, such as the war on drugs. In a vacuum where money would be no object, this is something I don't have a problem with.
    In a vacuum with unlimited funds, I wouldn't have a problem either.

    I know the differences. I just stated it was interesting that they are there on the same page in the thesaurus.

    If you'd rather see a legal opinion, I'll quote one from Supreme Court Justice Breyer from MGM vs Grokster 2005:
    Ample debate on that one.
    Interesting article about that topic here:
    http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/...he-word-theft/

  23. #98
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    k, you could be right. we'll see.
    Yup. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I'd like to think that the court wouldn't considering linking to a site that may commit a criminal act as a criminal act in itself.

  24. #99
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    2,683
    You know that disclaimer that goes something like "this event may not be rebroadcast, retransmitted, redistrbiuted etc without the express written consent of the NBA"?

    Was that around in 2009?

    I'm betting it was.
    Absolutely.

    So let me get this straight - if someone watches an NBA video on youtube not uploaded officially by the NBA, you would say they are stealing.

    Agree or disagree?

  25. #100
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    2,683
    Here's an example:



    Uploaded without authorization by lele91ASR. Are the 15,344,048 viewers all thieves to you?

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
  •