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.
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.
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.
Does Google receive permission from each site it links to?
Great, then there's probably a good reason for it being legal.
I can now tell the difference in a legal sense.You need to read up more on the differences of theft and copyright infringement, then come back once you can tell the difference.
but I think they are mostly the same thing in a colloquial sense.
Why are you so upset about this?
no, and I havent said or implied it should.
I agree but I was changing the media for effect, not the difficulty level.Just because it is EASIER to reproduce things doesn't mean the principle is different.
do they stream sports video without the consent of the site owner the way this other guy did?
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.
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'.
What they refer to it is immaterial. Do they file their claims under theft?
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.
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.
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.
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?
Who the are you to tell me what I should not refer to it as?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'.
you.
No, but they realize it really is though.What they refer to it is immaterial. Do they file their claims under theft?
What other special interest group would you be referring to?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?
Criminal infringement has been enforced for almost 30 years. I really don't see this as some slippery slope today.
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.
I would agree.
I think the law should refer to a lot of infringement as theft.
There is no way copyright infringement enforcement could come anywhere close to being the money pit the war on drugs is.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.
In fact, I don't see much of a financial strain in this type of enforcement at all.
there it is.
how about you pay for it through something like League Pass.
you are a ing idiot.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
There's very likely a reason why it doesn't though...
This didn't exist until 2009.
You conveniently didn't acknowledge the rest of my quote.
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?
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 claimed ignorance early on in this thread. Never claimed maturity anywhere on this board at any time.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.
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.
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.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.
Goody for you.
And you for trying to shove that opinion down my throat.
I admit to it not being an easy call, but again, I look at it as theft.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?
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.
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?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.
Irrelevant to you stealing it in 2011.
You didn't ask me to acknowledge your entire quote, but I'll be glad to.You conveniently didn't acknowledge the rest of my quote.
The law wouldn't call you a thief, but yes, I do.If I watch a broadcast stream, you would call me a thief, and compare my actions to stealing something from a store.
You are enjoying the full benefit of something that you know you should be paying for.
You are stealing.
I don't see any potential for you to get marked as a FELON for illegally watching a Spurs broadcast.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 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?
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).
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.
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.
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?
I don't follow you here.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 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.
I would suspect in the millions as well.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.
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.
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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)