Page 3 of 37 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 901
  1. #51
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    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.

  2. #52
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    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.

  3. #53
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    Does Google receive permission from each site it links to?

  4. #54
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,231
    Under some cir stances 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?

  5. #55
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,231
    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.

  6. #56
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,231
    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?

  7. #57
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    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 01:04 AM.

  8. #58
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,231
    Dude I tried this a couple times and inferred that he was a ing 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.

  9. #59
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    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.

  10. #60
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,231
    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 are you to tell me what I should not refer to it as?

    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.

  11. #61
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    2,683
    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.
    How am I supposed to watch a Spurs game when I'm out of state and it's not nationally televised?

    If I watch a broadcast stream, you would call me a thief, and compare my actions to stealing something from a store.

    I am inferring that you are a ing idiot for thinking that, and arguing that potentially marking a person a FELON for such an action is a horribly slippery slope.


  12. #62
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,231
    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 would agree.

    I think the law should refer to a lot of infringement as 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.
    There is no way copyright infringement enforcement could come anywhere close to being the money pit the war on drugs is.

    In fact, I don't see much of a financial strain in this type of enforcement at all.

  13. #63
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,231
    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.

  14. #64
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    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?
    The fact we only have allegations up to this point? I though everybody was innocent until proven otherwise... Was this guy found guilty of anything yet?

    Who the are you to tell me what I should not refer to it as?

    you.
    I'm the one that exposes your ignorance and immaturity. I'm glad at least I got you to look up the difference between theft and copyright infringement. You can thank me later.

    No, but they realize it really is though.
    What they realize is that they need to file their cases under the proper crime. When they don't file under theft, they're telling you everything you need to know.

    What other special interest group would you be referring to?
    Any. Pharmaceuticals, Technology, Agriculture... why should Monsanto spend one buck investigating if anybody is infringing on their patents and suing them? The government should do that for them, right?

    Criminal infringement has been enforced for almost 30 years. I really don't see this as some slippery slope today.
    That is exactly my point. This is an expansion to provide a solution for something that was not a problem. As I said, justice was never denied to them prior to this.

  15. #65
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    There is no way copyright infringement enforcement could come anywhere close to being the money pit the war on drugs is.

    In fact, I don't see much of a financial strain in this type of enforcement at all.
    You must think lawsuits are cheap. Do you even know how we got to this point?
    Media companies have been spending multi million dollars filing lawsuits against alleged infringers for the past few years with variable levels of success. It's been a major money pit for them, thus it's not surprising they lobbied Uncle Sam to pick up the tab now that they couldn't make a dent.

    It's not gonna work though, and we're going to be stuck with the bill.

  16. #66
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    I would agree.

    I think the law should refer to a lot of infringement as theft.
    There's very likely a reason why it doesn't though...

  17. #67
    I've got room. Beau's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Post Count
    335
    ElSísí

  18. #68
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    2,683
    there it is.

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

    you are a ing idiot.
    This didn't exist until 2009.

    You conveniently didn't acknowledge the rest of my quote.

  19. #69
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    ElNono is making all my points for me.

    Just because people call it theft, doesn't make it "theft" in a legal sense. For obvious reasons, you can't just start redefining legal definitions.

    And again, if copyright law has worked before, why the change?

  20. #70
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,231
    The fact we only have allegations up to this point? I though everybody was innocent until proven otherwise... Was this guy found guilty of anything yet?
    He is most definitely innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

    That's a far cry from you saying "He did no such thing."

    Who are you to come to the conclusion that "he did no such thing" when the feds say he did?

    I'm the one that exposes your ignorance and immaturity. I'm glad at least I got you to look up the difference between theft and copyright infringement. You can thank me later.
    I claimed ignorance early on in this thread. Never claimed maturity anywhere on this board at any time.

    you and your continued condescending tone. I'll thank you now for giving me a reason to read up on the subject.

    Funny thing is, the more I read up on it, the more of a conclusion I come to that it is theft in the colloquial sense, no matter how it is legally described.

    What they realize is that they need to file their cases under the proper crime. When they don't file under theft, they're telling you everything you need to know.
    So you have come to the conclusion that because it is legally called something different than theft that it is not at all theft in any other sense.

    Goody for you.

    And you for trying to shove that opinion down my throat.

    Any. Pharmaceuticals, Technology, Agriculture... why should Monsanto spend one buck investigating if anybody is infringing on their patents and suing them? The government should do that for them, right?
    I admit to it not being an easy call, but again, I look at it as theft.

    If someone robbed a bank, I would not expect the bank to spend one buck investigating who did it.

    I have no problem in theory with a government agency investigating a complaint for copyright infringement on that large of a scale.

    That is exactly my point. This is an expansion to provide a solution for something that was not a problem. As I said, justice was never denied to them prior to this.
    Just curious and I can't find it myself, how many people do you think are guilty of illegally streaming something like NBA League Pass?

  21. #71
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,231
    This didn't exist until 2009.
    Irrelevant to you stealing it in 2011.

    You conveniently didn't acknowledge the rest of my quote.
    You didn't ask me to acknowledge your entire quote, but I'll be glad to.

    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 am inferring that you are a ing idiot for thinking that, and arguing that potentially marking a person a FELON for such an action is a horribly slippery slope.
    I don't see any potential for you to get marked as a FELON for illegally watching a Spurs broadcast.

  22. #72
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    He is most definitely innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

    That's a far cry from you saying "He did no such thing."

    Who are you to come to the conclusion that "he did no such thing" when the feds say he did?
    I was familiar with the site, and the report of the investigator (which, BTW, does not claim to have proof this alleged infringer was producing the actual streams).

    Now, that he linked to third party infringing streams, knowingly, is probably enough to try him for contributory copyright infringement. A lesser crime, but still punishable. Then again, Google does much of the same thing (to the point of starting to get interested in some of these cases, see IsoHunt vs MPAA), so the question is, are we going to measure everybody with the same stick?

    So you have come to the conclusion that because it is legally called something different than theft that it is not at all theft in any other sense.
    No, it's the fact that it's a much more complex type of 'crime', which actually carries much more stiffer penalties than theft (or even rape).

    Just curious and I can't find it myself, how many people do you think are guilty of illegally streaming something like NBA League Pass?
    You mean people streaming or people watching said streams?

    As far as people streaming, it's hard to gauge. You only need one or two reliable persons, and that basically covers it. It's hard to know how many would pop up if those go down, but so far it looks like there's no shortage of them. Which is expected as the hardware is cheap, and the vast majority of countries see it as a petty crime, if they see it as a crime at all. NBA League Pass International is available to a lot of countries, so any of them can source a low quality stream.

    As far as watching, your guess is as good as mine, but I would suspect in the millions, easily.

  23. #73
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    2,683
    Irrelevant to you stealing it in 2011.
    BRILLIANT logic that you have.

    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?
    Last edited by greyforest; 03-21-2011 at 01:09 AM.

  24. #74
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,231
    I was familiar with the site, and the report of the investigator (which, BTW, does not claim to have proof this alleged infringer was producing the actual streams)

    Now, that he linked to third party infringing streams, knowingly, is probably enough to try him for contributory copyright infringement. A lesser crime, but still punishable. Then again, Google does much of the same thing (to the point of starting to get interested in some of these cases, see IsoHunt vs MPAA), so the question is, are we going to measure everybody with the same stick?
    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?

    No, it's the fact that it's a much more complex type of 'crime', which actually carries much more stiffer penalties than theft (or even rape).
    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.

    You mean people streaming or people watching said streams?

    As far as people streaming, it's hard to gauge. You only need one or two reliable persons, and that basically covers it. It's hard to know how many would pop up if those go down, but so far it looks like there's no shortage of them. Which is expected as the hardware is cheap, and the vast majority of countries see it as a petty crime, if they see it as a crime at all. NBA League Pass International is available to a lot of countries, so any of them can source a low quality stream.

    As far as watching, your guess is as good as mine, but I would suspect in the millions, easily.
    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.

  25. #75
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,231
    BRILLIANT logic that you have.

    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?
    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?

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
  •