Page 2 of 37 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 901
  1. #26
    The Wheel Is Turning... shelshor's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    2,284

  2. #27
    Don't believe the hype... ChuckD's Avatar
    My Team
    New York Knicks
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Post Count
    4,510
    federal felony?
    Everything is being made a felony these days because convicted felons are stripped of property ownership and voting rights.

    It's the new poll tax!!

  3. #28
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    "Everything is being made a felony these days"

    but it's only felonies against Human-Americans that are prosecuted and rigously enforced.

    Felonies by Corporate-Americans aren't prosecuted, or if prosecuted, "settled" with a handslap fine with no admission of guilt.

    The federa/state police forces are basically working for the corporations and wealth, as is all of govt.

  4. #29
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    No.

    Legally, literally, physically...pretty much any way you want to put it, it's not theft, because nothing is being taken from anyone. It's just being duplicated without their authorization.

    People who compare it to breaking in to a store and stealing jewelry are therefore ing idiots. I truly pray that you understand why.
    neh. I still see it as stealing.

    I'm apparently not the only one.

    Doubtful?

    You wouldn't think that the RIAA would sue websites for $1,600,000,000,000 or 12-year-old girls, would you? Pretty doubtful too, right?
    Neh, civil lawsuits demanding outrageous sums of money don't surprise me at all any more.

  5. #30
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    Guys like the channelsurfing.net owner?

    Now, you explain to me why the government has to foot the bill for this instead of Disney, News Corp, etc?
    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.

    Also please explain why you want Disney to enforce copyright laws instead of the government.

  6. #31
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    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.

  7. #32
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    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.

  8. #33
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    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.

  9. #34
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    I still don't see what we, taxpayers, get out of this for spending a load of money and giving up our rights...

  10. #35
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    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.

  11. #36
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    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.

  12. #37
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    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 05:30 PM. Reason: ACTA, not DMCA; fever of 103F

  13. #38
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    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.

  14. #39
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    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.

  15. #40
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    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 ing idiot. Good luck.

  16. #41
    Pimp Marcus Bryant's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Post Count
    1,021,967
    Instead of finding another way to monetize, it's time to lawyer up.

  17. #42
    Pimp Marcus Bryant's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Post Count
    1,021,967
    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.

  18. #43
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    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 06:06 PM.

  19. #44
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    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 cir stances 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.

  20. #45
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    And BTW, the FBI already has a department for dealing with cybercrime, which includes investigating online fraud, iden y 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?

  21. #46
    Pump Bacon Cane's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    3,687
    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.

  22. #47
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    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?

  23. #48
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    That's covered by fair use.

  24. #49
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    That's covered by fair use.
    But it's theft!

  25. #50
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    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.

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
  •