Page 6 of 37 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 901
  1. #126
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    Just to play Devil's Advocate... what if you were dloading things that you COULDN'T purchase anywhere? Say, for instance, I wanted to watch some games from the 1986 Celtics season. AFAIK, these games aren't available to purchase for viewing anywhere.

    Would you consider that theft? Or is theft only applicable in the case of newer releases/when a means of purchasing is available?
    ElNono would probably know more about expiration of copyrights, if there is such a thing as an expired copyright any more.

    If there is a copyright on the telecast, then availability of purchase is irrelevant.

  2. #127
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    ElNono would probably know more about expiration of copyrights, if there is such a thing as an expired copyright any more.
    CTEA (1988) extended them to life of the author plus 70 years for personal registrations and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier. Obviously, the estate keeps the rights after the author's death in the first case, the corporation in the second.

    If there is a copyright on the telecast, then availability of purchase is irrelevant.
    Yeah, not to mention that illegal distribution of certain telecasts also infringe on other rights, like trademarks.

    I think the whole thing is very draconian though. Copyright was supposed to reward and entice creation, but the other element (letting items fall in the public domain) was also a crucial part to the benefit of society as a whole.
    The system is too broken now, and it's likely to get worse than better.

  3. #128
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    ElNono would probably know more about expiration of copyrights, if there is such a thing as an expired copyright any more.

    If there is a copyright on the telecast, then availability of purchase is irrelevant.
    How is viewing of said material considered "theft" if there is no legal way to purchase the material?
    Last edited by LnGrrrR; 03-22-2011 at 11:06 PM.

  4. #129
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    How is viewing of said material considered "theft" is there is no legal way to purchase the material?
    how exactly are you viewing said material if there is no legal way to purchase the material?

  5. #130
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    how exactly are you viewing said material if there is no legal way to purchase the material?
    You are aware that people upload recorded content (Ie old VHS tapes) to the Internet at times, right?

  6. #131
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    You are aware that people upload recorded content (Ie old VHS tapes) to the Internet at times, right?
    the old VHS recording is infringement to start.

  7. #132
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    2,683
    Are we agreeing that lele91ASR is a thief?
    So now you don't think people watching the streams are thieves, it's the people providing the stream. You are becoming wiser.

    This is not the viewpoint you had earlier in the thread.

    Observe:
    If I watch a broadcast stream, you would call me a thief, and compare my actions to stealing something from a store.
    The law wouldn't call you a thief, but yes, I do.

    You are enjoying the full benefit of something that you know you should be paying for.

    You are stealing.
    I'm sure everyone is well aware they can pay for NBA videos.

    They are enjoying the full benefit of something they could be paying for by watching it on Youtube.

    Why aren't they all thieves?



    You know for a fact that all 15+m viewers are all aware that lele91ASR did not have the authorization to upload that video?
    Ahh, so the ignorance of the people viewing streams makes them innocent!!

    WAIT A MINUTE...

    How am I supposed to watch a Spurs game when I'm out of state and it's not nationally televised?
    there it is.

    how about you pay for it through something like League Pass.

    you are a ing idiot.

  8. #133
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    2,683
    BTW
    how exactly are you viewing said material if there is no legal way to purchase the material?
    Because there's this new fangled thing called "the internet" where anything digital can be archived with very little effort or cost, and then it can be transmitted anywhere on earth.

    I already broached the subject:


    Here's a hypothetical: say someone watched a broadcast stream before 2009. How could they be "stealing" a service that's otherwise unobtainable and impossible to pay for?
    Anyway the point is 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'.
    Where Blake sees anyone watching 3rd-party Youtube NBA mixes as thieves (IF they know they can buy NBA videos), I simply see a new era of people fully embracing the benefits of modern technology. What once was difficult to copy and share can now be digitized and shared with great ease and little cost. I see the mass media outlets ting their collective pants over not having a monopoly over the media, and I see them trying desperately to curb the effect of the internet on their bloated coffers by influencing the government to drastically increase the penalty for a non-violent crime.

  9. #134
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    the old VHS recording is infringement to start.
    So anyone recording a program is a thief?

    Wait, if I DVR a bball game, does that make me a thief?

  10. #135
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    If they want to waste their money than they can go right ahead.

    One thing that they are changing is making it so that applications are honored on a first to file instead of a first to invent standard.

    That will help clear up a lot of litigation. The office itself is understaffed and too many bad patents are fiated through.

    Apple has an entire policy of making vague wording in their patents because oversight is so ty.

    but yeah it pretty much sounds like an unenforceable position.

    The real issue is in actual invention not the print media in its various guises coming to grips with the internet.

  11. #136
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    So now you don't think people watching the streams are thieves, it's the people providing the stream. You are becoming wiser.

    This is not the viewpoint you had earlier in the thread.

    Observe:



    I'm sure everyone is well aware they can pay for NBA videos.

    They are enjoying the full benefit of something they could be paying for by watching it on Youtube.

    Why aren't they all thieves?





    Ahh, so the ignorance of the people viewing streams makes them innocent!!

    WAIT A MINUTE...
    Apparently you either didn't read or comprehend some of the previous posts, so to clarify:

    watching a youtube or hulu clip is not the same thing as downloading a movie from an illegal torrent site.

    Most of it is about "intent".

    You clearly were whining earlier about not being able watch the Spurs in your area, so if you go after it and download the broadcast of a game without the NBA's authorization, you are intentionally stealing, imo.

    Again, youtube takes an active approaching at removing infringed content.

    If a clip of a broadcast is on there, it's absolutely reasonable to assume that it is either it is on there legally or the owner of the content has granted them authorization to rebroadcast it.

    I think it's a 50-50 shot that you still won't get it.

  12. #137
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    So anyone recording a program is a thief?

    Wait, if I DVR a bball game, does that make me a thief?
    my mistake.

    I should have said "uploading the old VHS recording is infringement to start."

    Pretty sure that fair use allows you to record a hard copy of a show for you to watch at a later time as long as you don't rebroadcast or redistribute the copy.

  13. #138
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    I should have said "uploading the old VHS recording is infringement to start."
    Not saying it's not infringement. But if said game isn't available to purchase, how is it theft?

  14. #139
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    Not saying it's not infringement. But if said game isn't available to purchase, how is it theft?
    Again, availability of purchase is not an issue.

    If someone says:

    "it's not for sale. You also cannot take the content and redistribute it"

    ..but you do so any way, you're stealing.

  15. #140
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    Again, availability of purchase is not an issue.

    If someone says:

    "it's not for sale. You also cannot take the content and redistribute it"

    ..but you do so any way, you're stealing.
    Wha about content that doesn't explicitly say that? Say I recorded some show from the 80s that wasn't available on DVD. Are you kosher with that?

  16. #141
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    Wha about content that doesn't explicitly say that? Say I recorded some show from the 80s that wasn't available on DVD. Are you kosher with that?
    I think it's been established through fair trade laws that it's kosher to record any show at any time as long as you keep it for your own personal use only.

    The sharing of the content with others is a different issue.

    I also wouldn't make the assumption that because it isn't explicitly stated that it doesn't have a copyright.

  17. #142
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    I think it's been established through fair trade laws that it's kosher to record any show at any time as long as you keep it for your own personal use only.

    The sharing of the content with others is a different issue.

    I also wouldn't make the assumption that because it isn't explicitly stated that it doesn't have a copyright.
    But if there's no explicit warning/mention, then couldn't said uploaders claim ignorance of the law as a valid defense?

  18. #143
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    I think it's been established through fair trade laws that it's kosher to record any show at any time as long as you keep it for your own personal use only.

    The sharing of the content with others is a different issue.

    I also wouldn't make the assumption that because it isn't explicitly stated that it doesn't have a copyright.
    You cite fair use after spending pages acting as IPR have some clean overall standard. thats nice.

    Even the sampling industry does not have good test cases because the industry went completely scared after De La Soul got sued.

    Really there are not a lot of good test cases and for all of your vigor deriding piratebay, they are ever going to be beyond our jurisdiction mainly because of our refusal to play ball regarding them in the Uruguay round of GATT talks.

    Fair use itself is a constantly evolving standard. Your broad brush to paint all just sucks. it could quite easily and understandably be brought into the realm of what is now called privacy.

  19. #144
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    You cite fair use after spending pages acting as IPR have some clean overall standard. thats nice.
    I'm citing the Supreme Court in the 1984 Sony Betamax, which does it make nice for that argument.

    Even the sampling industry does not have good test cases because the industry went completely scared after De La Soul got sued.

    Really there are not a lot of good test cases and for all of your vigor deriding piratebay, they are ever going to be beyond our jurisdiction mainly because of our refusal to play ball regarding them in the Uruguay round of GATT talks.
    Uruguay?

    Wtf does this post have anything to do with anything said so far in this thread?

    Fair use itself is a constantly evolving standard. Your broad brush to paint all just sucks. it could quite easily and understandably be brought into the realm of what is now called privacy.
    I agree fair use iself is evoloving. This is the first time I've used the term "fair use" in this entire thread because it involved this very specific example.

    Your post is nothing more than a jab surrounded by a bunch of empty fluff.

    My opinion is that your opinion of my opinion sucks.

  20. #145
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    But if there's no explicit warning/mention, then couldn't said uploaders claim ignorance of the law as a valid defense?
    Nope.

    As we can all agree, ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

    That's different than being ignorant that you are enjoying the benefits of property that was stolen by someone else.

  21. #146
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    I'm citing the Supreme Court in the 1984 Sony Betamax, which does it make nice for that argument.

    Uruguay?

    Wtf does this post have anything to do with anything said so far in this thread?



    I agree fair use iself is evoloving. This is the first time I've used the term "fair use" in this entire thread because it involved this very specific example.

    Your post is nothing more than a jab surrounded by a bunch of empty fluff.

    My opinion is that your opinion of my opinion sucks.
    Go read about the GATT (General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade) specifically IPR and the Uruguay rounds. its pivotal in how IPRs are used and treated around the world.

    Then think about places like Malaysia, Myanmar or an other slew of countries that do not honor our IPRs.

    This entire debate is because the print industry is getting thrashed by the freedom of the internet.

    My point is that your clear cut black and white this is stealing stance is is at best subject to change; your soapbox stinks of .

    Ignorance of the law is no excuse? What if there is no rhyme or reason to the law?

    You cannot see potential logical inconsistency to allowing copying something for free on your DVR but not when its from an internet site especially when the storage format is exactly the same?

    I contend that it is the right of the citizen to have clear and interpretable laws. That it is the burden of the state to educate the populace.

  22. #147
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    Nope.

    As we can all agree, ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
    Er...

    That's different than being ignorant that you are enjoying the benefits of property that was stolen by someone else.
    Wait wait wait.

    Let's clear some things up.

    You're saying it's not ok to use "ignorance of the law" as an excuse for the originator of the stream, but it is ok for the people watching said dload/stream.

    Do you have any basis for this distinction legally? Why is ignorance of the law ok for people illegally viewing a stream, but ignorance of the law isn't ok for people illegally uploading a video?

  23. #148
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    Go read about the GATT (General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade) specifically IPR and the Uruguay rounds. its pivotal in how IPRs are used and treated around the world.
    I will when the mood strikes me.

    As of now, international copyright laws have not had their place in this discussion.

    My point is that your clear cut black and white this is stealing stance is is at best subject to change; your soapbox stinks of .
    Great. Your soapbox regarding my soapbox is stinkier than .

    Ignorance of the law is no excuse? What if there is no rhyme or reason to the law?
    What law do you believe has no rhyme or reason?

    I would think every law has a reason. That's why they were proposed in the first place.

    You cannot see potential logical inconsistency to allowing copying something for free on your DVR but not when its from an internet site especially when the storage format is exactly the same?
    What internet site are you referring to?

    How did they get access themselves to the content that you want to copy?

    I contend that it is the right of the citizen to have clear and interpretable laws. That it is the burden of the state to educate the populace.
    What is considered to be clear and interpretable can be interpreted in any different way. Semantics of the law can always be argued any which way a citizen chooses to take it.

    I am comfortable enough with our justices interpreting the laws in our country's courts.

  24. #149
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    I'm citing the Supreme Court in the 1984 Sony Betamax, which does it make nice for that argument.
    Sony Betamax is no longer the gold standard though, after the Grokster case. While the Sony Betamax test hasn't changed, there has been added tests to it after Grokster.

    Furthermore, with the advent of the DMCA and the new encrypted media, cir venting the encryption even for making personal copies is a felony.

    So the Sony Betamax test should be used with a lot of asterisks these days.

  25. #150
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    Er...

    Wait wait wait.

    Let's clear some things up.

    You're saying it's not ok to use "ignorance of the law" as an excuse for the originator of the stream, but it is ok for the people watching said dload/stream.

    Do you have any basis for this distinction legally? Why is ignorance of the law ok for people illegally viewing a stream, but ignorance of the law isn't ok for people illegally uploading a video?
    Here's an opinion on the uploading:

    http://www.askdavetaylor.com/get_int...gal_files.html

    In regards to watching a youtube clip, since they are actively making sure that it is known that infringed uploads are not allowed while removing the ones that are, it's completely reasonable to assume I can watch any clip on youtube in good faith that what I am watching is not an illegal clip.

    If you need it, I'll look up some case examples later.

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
  •