Feds strike again

[bbgun]

U.S. shuts 16 sports piracy websites pre-Super Bowl

(Reuters) - Three days before Super Bowl XLVI, U.S. prosecutors said they seized 16 websites that illegally streamed live sports and pay-per-view events over the Internet, and charged a Michigan man with running nine of those websites.

According to the government, the 16 websites provided links to give viewers easy access to other sites that hosted pirated telecasts from the National Football League, National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, World Wrestling Entertainment Inc ("WWE") and TNA Impact Wrestling. The latter is also broadcast on Viacom Inc's Spike TV.

Prosecutors said such piracy costs leagues and broadcasters millions of dollars a year, and some of this cost is passed on to ticket buyers and sports network subscribers.

"These websites and their operators deprive sports leagues and networks of legitimate revenue" in what amounts to "virtual thievery," said U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in Manhattan, who announced the website seizures.

The websites are firstrow.tv, firstrowsports.com, firstrowsports.net, firstrowsports.tv, hq-streams.tv, robplay.tv, soccertvlive.net, sports95.com, sports95.net, sports95.org, sportswwe.net, sportswwe.tv, sportswwe.com, xonesports.tv, youwwe.com and youwwe.net.

http://news.yahoo.com/sports-piracy-websites-seized-pre-super-bowl-181636534--nfl.html

[CowboyMcCoy]

Those are some of my favorite sights.

[JustDezIt]

Those are some of my favorite sights.

hard to believe they dont have better things to do than this.

[Hoofbite]

Damn, I used firstrow quite a bit.

[bbgun]

Damn, I used firstrow quite a bit.

http://www.firstrowsports.eu/

this version is still in operation

[CowboyMcCoy]

hard to believe they dont have better things to do than this.

I know.

http://www.firstrowsports.eu/

this version is still in operation

That's because the feds can't do squat about something in Europe. It's a pity they're not doing better things. I mean, these are guys we need on the front line of more pressing things, I think. Once again--too much government.

[Kangaroo]

U.S. shuts 16 sports piracy websites pre-Super Bowl

(Reuters) - Three days before Super Bowl XLVI, U.S. prosecutors said they seized 16 websites that illegally streamed live sports and pay-per-view events over the Internet, and charged a Michigan man with running nine of those websites.

According to the government, the 16 websites provided links to give viewers easy access to other sites that hosted pirated telecasts from the National Football League, National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, World Wrestling Entertainment Inc ("WWE") and TNA Impact Wrestling. The latter is also broadcast on Viacom Inc's Spike TV.

Prosecutors said such piracy costs leagues and broadcasters millions of dollars a year, and some of this cost is passed on to ticket buyers and sports network subscribers.

"These websites and their operators deprive sports leagues and networks of legitimate revenue" in what amounts to "virtual thievery," said U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in Manhattan, who announced the website seizures.

The websites are firstrow.tv, firstrowsports.com, firstrowsports.net, firstrowsports.tv, hq-streams.tv, robplay.tv, soccertvlive.net, sports95.com, sports95.net, sports95.org, sportswwe.net, sportswwe.tv, sportswwe.com, xonesports.tv, youwwe.com and youwwe.net.

http://news.yahoo.com/sports-piracy-websites-seized-pre-super-bowl-181636534--nfl.html

How is that I end up watching all those stupid commercials I never see and I do not own Direct TV and would not get NFL Sunday package if I did way to expensive.

[Hoofbite]

I know.



That's because the feds can't do squat about something in Europe. It's a pity they're not doing better things. I mean, these are guys we need on the front line of more pressing things, I think. Once again--too much government.

I didn't think MU was a US company?

Where there servers in the US?

[JonJon]

"Oh noes! Some guy is on the internet watching something for free that someone else in another part of the country is also watching for free on TV! He must be stopped!"

[bbgun]

I didn't think MU was a US company?

Where there servers in the US?

MU was based in Hong Kong, but they did have servers in Virginia.

Makes me wonder why we need SOPA if the Feds can just unilaterally snuff websites.

[Duane]

I wonder how long until you have most people switching to Swedish servers and .se domains?

[CowboyMcCoy]

MU was based in Hong Kong, but they did have servers in Virginia.

Makes me wonder why we need SOPA if the Feds can just unilaterally snuff websites.

Apparently we don't.

[Cajuncowboy]

I wonder how long until you have most people switching to Swedish servers and .se domains?

And then the administration will unilaterally do a China move and block .se sites. It's coming.

Oh and this isn't partisan by the way. Both sides would like to wield that power.

[CowboyMcCoy]

And then the administration will unilaterally do a China move and block .se sites. It's coming.

Oh and this isn't partisan by the way. Both sides would like to wield that power.

Yes. This is both sides beginning to take control. We make a move forward, they stomp on our feet and push us back. Out of control government--both "sides".

[Hoofbite]

And then the administration will unilaterally do a China move and block .se sites. It's coming.

Oh and this isn't partisan by the way. Both sides would like to wield that power.

I don't think that will happen.

[Cajuncowboy]

I don't think that will happen.

Why? I didn't think a few years ago they would just seize websites without due process either.

[Hoofbite]

Why? I didn't think a few years ago they would just seize websites without due process either.

You think they will block millions of web pages to undermine the criminal activity of a few?

[Cajuncowboy]

You think they will block millions of web pages to undermine the criminal activity of a few?

I put nothing past them. There was no due process in the other seizures so why not?

[CowboyMcCoy]

Why? I didn't think a few years ago they would just seize websites without due process either.

Due process is an illusion.

[chip_gilkey]

Prosecutors said such piracy costs leagues and broadcasters millions of dollars a year, and some of this cost is passed on to ticket buyers and sports network subscribers.


That is BS. The reason they say things like this is to try to gain support for what they're doing. These companies would charge the exact same amount even if they had all the freeloaders' money who watch online for free. Why? Because they can. No company like that is interested in doing anything other than screwing people out of as much money as they possibly can. If they magically got all those people to subscribe I bet their rates wouldn't go down a bit.

[Hoofbite]

I put nothing past them. There was no due process in the other seizures so why not?

What should their course of action have been?

[Hoofbite]

That is BS. The reason they say things like this is to try to gain support for what they're doing. These companies would charge the exact same amount even if they had all the freeloaders' money who watch online for free. Why? Because they can. No company like that is interested in doing anything other than screwing people out of as much money as they possibly can. If they magically got all those people to subscribe I bet their rates wouldn't go down a bit.

That is an interesting quote.

I'd like to know how people who are viewing out-of-market games costs the league or broadcasters anything.

Unless they assume that all those people streaming online would have purchased Sunday Ticket to legally watch out-of-market games, how the hell do they even say they are losing money?

[VietCowboy]

That is an interesting quote.

I'd like to know how people who are viewing out-of-market games costs the league or broadcasters anything.

Unless they assume that all those people streaming online would have purchased Sunday Ticket to legally watch out-of-market games, how the hell do they even say they are losing money?

If anyone should be making the argument, it's bars that have lost customers to online streaming.

[Idgit]

Wait. Feds are stopping people from stealing, and we're supposed to be upset about this? Cry me a river.

[Hoofbite]

Wait. Feds are stopping people from stealing, and we're supposed to be upset about this? Cry me a river.

I'll be pissed in September when I have to either miss the game or go spend money at the sports bar to watch a game that isn't in my market.

[ninja]

http://www.firstrowsports.eu/

this version is still in operation

Good. I think I watched some Cowboy games there this past season:)

[ninja]

Wait. Feds are stopping people from stealing, and we're supposed to be upset about this? Cry me a river.

It ain't stealing imho:)

It's like someone placing their tv in their window for all to see if they like. No money is charged.

[vta]

That is an interesting quote.

I'd like to know how people who are viewing out-of-market games costs the league or broadcasters anything.

Unless they assume that all those people streaming online would have purchased Sunday Ticket to legally watch out-of-market games, how the hell do they even say they are losing money?

It's amazing how the definition of cost is no longer a loss due to spending, but is now defined as money you never had nor probably would have had.

[CowboyMcCoy]

Wait. Feds are stopping people from stealing, and we're supposed to be upset about this? Cry me a river.

Not really, sometimes I'm just too lazy to hook up my television since I don't use it for much. I don't watch the idgit box. :p

[Cythim]

MU was based in Hong Kong, but they did have servers in Virginia.

Makes me wonder why we need SOPA if the Feds can just unilaterally snuff websites.

SOPA would be necessary to block sites like http://www.firstrowsports.eu/ since the feds can't shut it down.

[CowboyMcCoy]

SOPA would be necessary to block sites like http://www.firstrowsports.eu/ since the feds can't shut it down.

No one wants SOPA. You know that's what they do in North Korea, 'cept for it's a lot worse. However, with the NDAA dictator-like legislation they're getting closer and closer to the end of the spectrum North Korea is on.

By the way, some of these things that effect us on the off-topic zone can turn political. Do we have a board in the election year?

Or maybe the question is, where do peeps around here post for things like this about government, but naturally can get a tad bit political sometimes?

[Hoofbite]

It's amazing how the definition of cost is no longer a loss due to spending, but is now defined as money you never had nor probably would have had.

Yeah, I need to file a lawsuit. I'm sure someone out there has at one point in my life done SOMETHING that has prevented me from becoming a Billionaire.

[Future]

I never understood how sharing streaming stuff on the internet is different than inviting people over to watch the game at your house.

I used to have the dish, and I'm pretty sure I heard my dad say "Yea the game's on the dish come over and watch" about a million times. Should my dad be shut down?

[Cythim]

No one wants SOPA. You know that's what they do in North Korea, 'cept for it's a lot worse. However, with the NDAA dictator-like legislation they're getting closer and closer to the end of the spectrum North Korea is on.

By the way, some of these things that effect us on the off-topic zone can turn political. Do we have a board in the election year?

Or maybe the question is, where do peeps around here post for things like this about government, but naturally can get a tad bit political sometimes?

No one wants SOPA because it has become taboo to support SOPA. Scare tactics such as "OMG they are gonna use SOPA to shut down the Zone" (which is completely false) or likening it to the actions of a totalitarian regime (which is like comparing Eisenhower to Hitler for building the interstate system) frighten people away from finding out what it actually is intended to do. I don't agree with SOPA because it is using a bazooka when a flyswatter will do the trick but I do not disagree with shutting down or blocking websites that provide illegal access to protected material.

[Cythim]

I never understood how sharing streaming stuff on the internet is different than inviting people over to watch the game at your house.

I used to have the dish, and I'm pretty sure I heard my dad say "Yea the game's on the dish come over and watch" about a million times. Should my dad be shut down?

Is your dad going to invite millions of people over and allow them to pause the game whenever they want? Is he going to earn money from advertisers because of the traffic in and out of his house?

[Hoofbite]

Is your dad going to invite millions of people over and allow them to pause the game whenever they want? Is he going to earn money from advertisers because of the traffic in and out of his house?

Are you suggesting that I could burn copies of DVDs for me and buddies and be totally fine so long as I didn't profit off it?

[iceberg]

I never understood how sharing streaming stuff on the internet is different than inviting people over to watch the game at your house.

I used to have the dish, and I'm pretty sure I heard my dad say "Yea the game's on the dish come over and watch" about a million times. Should my dad be shut down?

because if you stream it, thousands of people can watch it and won't even try to find a way to purchase it.

you stick thousand of people in your living room you may have a comparison but something tells me it would cost them more to go to your living room.

a friend of mine in college got busted for stealing tapes from a retail store he worked it. he didn't need them, it was just like the the policeman said - some people do it cause they can't afford it.

others do it cause it's easy.

i'll never understand the lenghts some will go to in order to keep getting services for free just cause it's easy.

not to say i like what the government is doing but a middle ground should be found. until then, like it or not it does violate copyright laws. they know that when they do it so i don't pity them when caught.

[iceberg]

No one wants SOPA because it has become taboo to support SOPA. Scare tactics such as "OMG they are gonna use SOPA to shut down the Zone" (which is completely false) or likening it to the actions of a totalitarian regime (which is like comparing Eisenhower to Hitler for building the interstate system) frighten people away from finding out what it actually is intended to do. I don't agree with SOPA because it is using a bazooka when a flyswatter will do the trick but I do not disagree with shutting down or blocking websites that provide illegal access to protected material.

except it was NOT completely false and WAS a total power grab.

did you create those images in your tagline or did you get them online? did you get permission to use them? maybe you did maybe you didn't but now cz would need to ensure that images used, videos posted and so forth comply with the laws which themselves are vague at times in these situations.

would they shut down CZ? not likely. but they would likely shut down sites that any current admin didn't like. but i'll stop there cause this aint political.

[CowboyMcCoy]

No one wants SOPA because it has become taboo to support SOPA. Scare tactics such as "OMG they are gonna use SOPA to shut down the Zone" (which is completely false) or likening it to the actions of a totalitarian regime (which is like comparing Eisenhower to Hitler for building the interstate system) frighten people away from finding out what it actually is intended to do. I don't agree with SOPA because it is using a bazooka when a flyswatter will do the trick but I do not disagree with shutting down or blocking websites that provide illegal access to protected material.

Why is it protected simply because of the means I chose to view it with, rather than running my television and computer? I'm not getting it.

[Cythim]

Are you suggesting that I could burn copies of DVDs for me and buddies and be totally fine so long as I didn't profit off it?

Did I say anything remotely close to that?

[Hoofbite]

Did I say anything remotely close to that?

You seemed to differentiate between his dad and an online stream based on profitability and distribution volume so I was just wondering.

[Cythim]

Why is it protected simply because of the means I chose to view it with, rather than running my television and computer? I'm not getting it.

It isn't protected simply because of the means you choose to view it. If you want to watch on your computer instead of your television that is your right, but you don't have the right to view a pirated version that is being illegally distributed across the internet. The broadcast of a Dallas Cowboys game may be on free airwaves in Texas, but other places around the world require payment to watch. It does not matter if they won't pay to watch it, the fact is they do not get to watch if they do not pay. I would like to own a boat, but I won't buy one. Maybe I can pirate one since it is okay to steal things around here.

[iceberg]

It isn't protected simply because of the means you choose to view it. If you want to watch on your computer instead of your television that is your right, but you don't have the right to view a pirated version that is being illegally distributed across the internet. The broadcast of a Dallas Cowboys game may be on free airwaves in Texas, but other places around the world require payment to watch. It does not matter if they won't pay to watch it, the fact is they do not get to watch if they do not pay. I would like to own a boat, but I won't buy one. Maybe I can pirate one since it is okay to steal things around here.

you dig well, ponyboy. : )

[Hoofbite]

Here's a question.

I know Redbox previously had a contract with WB to wait a month before movies were to be rented. In exchange I guess Redbox got a discount on their purchases and a steady stream of stock.

But now, Redbox and WB have parted ways because Redbox wouldn't delay movies by almost 2 months.

January 31, 2012
"The Redbox contract with Warner Brothers to acquire movies directly expires today (January 31, 2012). Redbox will continue to provide our consumers with affordable access to new release movies from all major studios including Warner Brothers at our more than 28,000 locations nationwide. We will work to provide Warner Brothers' movies through alternative means. Redbox maintains direct working relationships with every other major studio," said Gary Cohen, senior vice president of marketing and customer experience at Redbox.

The article on Engadget that this came from says that Redbox will simply buy the movies outright on release day.

Coincidentally, Redbox and Walmart have reached a new agreement. Smart move, locking up a steady stream.

But how can Redbox or any rental company simply buy movies and rent them without an agreement from the production company?

Is there some sort of cut the production companies get off of rentals and if so, why would Redbox have to disclose their rental numbers to anyone if they aren't in an sort of agreement with them.

What's the hidden aspect? Does anyone know? I honestly don't know but it seems like Redbox profiting off mass distribution of a single disc over the course of months isn't all that different than someone throwing a broadcast online and collecting ad revenue from visitors.

Obviously there a legal difference in that broadcast rights belong to the broadcaster but in a practical sense, the two ideas are pretty similar.

Going a step further, could a person buy a movie on release day and stream it online at their site legally?

[67CowboysFan]

Is your dad going to invite millions of people over and allow them to pause the game whenever they want? Is he going to earn money from advertisers because of the traffic in and out of his house?
You mean like a sports bar?

[Hoofbite]

You mean like a sports bar?

To be fair, Sports bars don't allow you to pause the game whenever you want.

Apparently that's the big kicker.

Widespread distribution is okay so long as the distributor maintains sole possession of the remote.

[Cythim]

You seemed to differentiate between his dad and an online stream based on profitability and distribution volume so I was just wondering.

I was pointing out the obvious differences in catching the game at his dad's house and pirating it from the internet. Having friends over is reasonable use, but making it open to the public infringes on the rights of the copyright owner. The following is from the Sunday Ticket TOS:

LIMITATIONS ON USE. All Content is provided for your private non-commercial use, enjoyment and home viewing. You may not display, and the Content may not be viewed, in areas open to the public or in commercial establishments. You may not rebroadcast, transmit or perform the programming, charge admission for its viewing or transmit or distribute running accounts of Content.

[Cythim]

You mean like a sports bar?

Go ask them what they pay DirecTV so they can broadcast the games.

[67CowboysFan]

To be fair, Sports bars don't allow you to pause the game whenever you want.

Apparently that's the big kicker.

Widespread distribution is okay so long as the distributor maintains sole possession of the remote.
:banghead: I missed the obvious. :D

[Cythim]

To be fair, Sports bars don't allow you to pause the game whenever you want.

Apparently that's the big kicker.

Widespread distribution is okay so long as the distributor maintains sole possession of the remote.

Distribution is okay so long as the distributor has the right to distribute.

[67CowboysFan]

Go ask them what they pay DirecTV so they can broadcast the games.
Maybe you can tell us. You do know don't you?

[Cythim]

Maybe you can tell us. You do know don't you?

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/business/bars_restaurants/overview

DirecTV offers license agreements for commercial use of their products. If sports bars are using the residential service they are doing it illegally.

[Hoofbite]

I was pointing out the obvious differences in catching the game at his dad's house and pirating it from the internet. Having friends over is reasonable use, but making it open to the public infringes on the rights of the copyright owner. The following is from the Sunday Ticket TOS:

LIMITATIONS ON USE. All Content is provided for your private non-commercial use, enjoyment and home viewing. You may not display, and the Content may not be viewed, in areas open to the public or in commercial establishments. You may not rebroadcast, transmit or perform the programming, charge admission for its viewing or transmit or distribute running accounts of Content.

By this definition, nearly every tailgater in America is a repeat offender.

[Cythim]

By this definition, nearly every tailgater in America is a repeat offender.

Is every tailgater in America showing DirecTV's Sunday Ticket or are they picking up the local broadcast with an antenna? Your arguments are becoming ridiculous.

[67CowboysFan]

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/business/bars_restaurants/overview

DirecTV offers license agreements for commercial use of their products. If sports bars are using the residential service they are doing it illegally.
So if these stream sites would just drop $125 a month to direct tv then, (since they are a businesss) they could steam all their channels?

[Cythim]

So if these stream sites would just drop $125 a month to direct tv then, (since they are a businesss) they could steam all their channels?

Does that really sound reasonable to you? DirecTV offers their own streaming service and would not authorize someone else to do it for $125 a month.

[Hoofbite]

Is every tailgater in America showing DirecTV's Sunday Ticket or are they picking up the local broadcast with an antenna? Your arguments are becoming ridiculous.

Well it's not the local broadcast that owns the rights to NFL games. The NFL does and they tell you at the beginning or conclusion of each game that it is intended for "private use of their audience".

[67CowboysFan]

Does that really sound reasonable to you? DirecTV offers their own streaming service and would not authorize someone else to do it for $125 a month.
No it does not. And neither do the reasons for shutting down stream sites. Why should I be discriminated against because of where I live. I live near Houston and get stuck watching the Texans because someone else has decided that is what I will watch. I wanna watch the Cowboys. Does that mean I have to move to Dallas. I call BS. Cowboy Joe lives about 30 mins from me. Why can he watch the game for free and I can't? Does that really sound reasonable to you?

[Hoofbite]

No it does not. And neither do the reasons for shutting down stream sites. Why should I be discriminated against because of where I live. I live near Houston and get stuck watching the Texans because someone else has decided that is what I will watch. I wanna watch the Cowboys. Does that mean I have to move to Dallas. I call BS. Cowboy Joe lives about 30 mins from me. Why can he watch the game for free and I can't? Does that really sound reasonable to you?

You could always call up joe and catch the game at his house.

Just beware that he doesn't lure you into his "War Room"............

"it does this whenever its told or else it gets the hose again"

[Cythim]

Well it's not the local broadcast that owns the rights to NFL games. The NFL does and they tell you at the beginning or conclusion of each game that it is intended for "private use of their audience".

It is still a ridiculous argument because the NFL obviously allows those fans to tailgate outside of the stadium with TVs on. It goes back to reasonable use and letting fans who will be attending a game soon watch other games in the parking lot.

[CowboyMcCoy]

It isn't protected simply because of the means you choose to view it. If you want to watch on your computer instead of your television that is your right, but you don't have the right to view a pirated version that is being illegally distributed across the internet. The broadcast of a Dallas Cowboys game may be on free airwaves in Texas, but other places around the world require payment to watch. It does not matter if they won't pay to watch it, the fact is they do not get to watch if they do not pay. I would like to own a boat, but I won't buy one. Maybe I can pirate one since it is okay to steal things around here.

I disagree.

[Cythim]

No it does not. And neither do the reasons for shutting down stream sites. Why should I be discriminated against because of where I live. I live near Houston and get stuck watching the Texans because someone else has decided that is what I will watch. I wanna watch the Cowboys. Does that mean I have to move to Dallas. I call BS. Cowboy Joe lives about 30 mins from me. Why can he watch the game for free and I can't? Does that really sound reasonable to you?

It is reasonable because it is their product to distribute how they see fit. If you want it your way you have to pay the premium price. I think it is unreasonable that my fresh vegetables come laden with chemicals so I pay the premium price for organic veggies instead of sneaking on to the organic farms and stealing them.

[Hoofbite]

It is still a ridiculous argument because the NFL obviously allows those fans to tailgate outside of the stadium with TVs on. It goes back to reasonable use and letting fans who will be attending a game soon watch other games in the parking lot.

Define "reasonable use".

And whether or not the NFL turns a blind eye is irrelevant.

Without written consent, tailgaters are just as guilty as the guy streaming it to people out of market on a website that doesn't generate ad revenue.

[67CowboysFan]

It is reasonable because it is their product to distribute how they see fit. If you want it your way you have to pay the premium price. I think it is unreasonable that my fresh vegetables come laden with chemicals so I pay the premium price for organic veggies instead of sneaking on to the organic farms and stealing them.
Or, I could just buy a big tv antenna and pick up the signal up in Lufkin (and not pay their premium price) and bypass their distribution efforts. Should I be on the lookout for black helicopters above?

So then what would the difference be between me watching the stream online vs watching it on my television with my own antenna?

[Cythim]

Define "reasonable use".

And whether or not the NFL turns a blind eye is irrelevant.

Without written consent, tailgaters are just as guilty as the guy streaming it to people out of market on a website that doesn't generate ad revenue.

Go look up copy right fair use, copy right infringement, and email the NFL on what they find to be reasonable if you want the definition.

How the NFL treats tailgaters is completely relevant, and because there is no rule against showing games at a tailgating event (go check team websites for more detail) they are guilty of nothing. You are reaching and falling short every time.

[Cythim]

Or, I could just buy a big tv antenna and pick up the signal up in Lufkin (and not pay their premium price) and bypass their distribution efforts. Should I be on the lookout for black helicopters above?

So then what would the difference be between me watching the stream online vs watching it on my television with my own antenna?

The fact that the stream online is being distributed illegally. All I have to do is buy a boat, but I don't want to buy one so I'll steal one instead. Logical, right?

[67CowboysFan]

The fact that the stream online is being distributed illegally. All I have to do is buy a boat, but I don't want to buy one so I'll steal one instead. Logical, right?
Apples and oranges. I want to watch a game. I 'steal' the signal from out of what they call my viewing area or watch on an illegal stream site. What is the difference?

[Hoofbite]

Go look up copy right fair use, copy right infringement, and email the NFL on what they find to be reasonable if you want the definition.

How the NFL treats tailgaters is completely relevant, and because there is no rule against showing games at a tailgating event (go check team websites for more detail) they are guilty of nothing. You are reaching and falling short every time.

Yeah, let me go read a ton of stuff I care little about and see if I can get the NFL on the horn to satisfy some sort of imaginary prerequisite.

Their disclaimer says for "private use".

[iceberg]

Here's a question.

I know Redbox previously had a contract with WB to wait a month before movies were to be rented. In exchange I guess Redbox got a discount on their purchases and a steady stream of stock.

But now, Redbox and WB have parted ways because Redbox wouldn't delay movies by almost 2 months.



The article on Engadget that this came from says that Redbox will simply buy the movies outright on release day.

Coincidentally, Redbox and Walmart have reached a new agreement. Smart move, locking up a steady stream.

But how can Redbox or any rental company simply buy movies and rent them without an agreement from the production company?

Is there some sort of cut the production companies get off of rentals and if so, why would Redbox have to disclose their rental numbers to anyone if they aren't in an sort of agreement with them.

What's the hidden aspect? Does anyone know? I honestly don't know but it seems like Redbox profiting off mass distribution of a single disc over the course of months isn't all that different than someone throwing a broadcast online and collecting ad revenue from visitors.

Obviously there a legal difference in that broadcast rights belong to the broadcaster but in a practical sense, the two ideas are pretty similar.

Going a step further, could a person buy a movie on release day and stream it online at their site legally?

hoof - i wrote a movie. produced it, acted in it, and got it done at my own expense.

you have NO RIGHT to buy the dvd and stream it to anyone else w/o working a deal with me.

i don't give a damn if people don't like the deal, it's my product.

this is the NFL's product, not yours. it's not your RIGHT to be able to watch it just cause you want to. just cause you can for free.

you're not entitled to my work for the simple reasons you'd not buy it anyway yet you still want to watch it.

respect. you either have it, or you don't.

[iceberg]

Yeah, let me go read a ton of stuff I care little about and see if I can get the NFL on the horn to satisfy some sort of imaginary prerequisite.

Their disclaimer says for "private use".

yea, no one will deny it's gotten easy to steal.

but i'm amazed at intelligent people now justifying it for their own "private" use.

[iceberg]

I disagree.

so you tell me - what is the difference between physical vs virtual property?

why does the value of virtual property diminish cause it's simple to download?

people keep confusing physical property with virtual and pretending it's the same.

i'm sorry - that's just ignorant. 100%.

[iceberg]

Or, I could just buy a big tv antenna and pick up the signal up in Lufkin (and not pay their premium price) and bypass their distribution efforts. Should I be on the lookout for black helicopters above?

So then what would the difference be between me watching the stream online vs watching it on my television with my own antenna?

they get revenue when you watch it on tv.

you're stealing it when you go outside their intended means of distribution.

[Hoofbite]

hoof - i wrote a movie. produced it, acted in it, and got it done at my own expense.

you have NO RIGHT to buy the dvd and stream it to anyone else w/o working a deal with me.

i don't give a damn if people don't like the deal, it's my product.

this is the NFL's product, not yours. it's not your RIGHT to be able to watch it just cause you want to. just cause you can for free.

you're not entitled to my work for the simple reasons you'd not buy it anyway yet you still want to watch it.

respect. you either have it, or you don't.

You missed the question. Let me ask again in a more general form but before I do I want to know your take on:

If Redbox bought your movie and rented it out without any sort of agreement with you, thereby enabling hundreds of people to see it while profitting along the way, how would that sit with you?

The question I was asking in the post you quoted was how is it what Redbox does any different than when a guy buys the movie and streams it online.

And it was an honest question because I honestly don't know the intricacies that gives Redbox a free pass in what appear to be similar circumstances.

yea, no one will deny it's gotten easy to steal.

but i'm amazed at intelligent people now justifying it for their own "private" use.

You should read a couple of posts up. I'm not justifying any sort of actions I take.

[iceberg]

You missed the question. Let me ask again in a more general form but before I do I want to know your take on:

If Redbox bought your movie and rented it out without any sort of agreement with you, thereby enabling hundreds of people to see it while profitting along the way, how would that sit with you.

The question I was asking in the post you quoted was how is it what Redbox does any different than when a guy buys the movie and streams it online.

And it was an honest question because I honestly don't know the intricacies that gives Redbox a free pass in what appear to be similar circumstances.

You should read a couple of posts up. I'm not justifying any sort of actions I take.

yes you are.

you are not entitled to someone elses work or effort just because you want it and it's difficult to get so you found a shortcut.

i don't care about redbox that's penny crap. i care about the concept of respect.

again, you have it for what others do or you don't. anything else is self-serving justifications and i won't go there.

if i want a new car, i work to buy one.
if i want to watch a movie, i pay my dues.

i respect the effort behind my desire.

not tell them they're crazy so i take it.

you really wanna talk distribution first quit thinking cause you can download it, the rules are now cumbersome. "imaginary prerequestites" you called it?

whatever deal redwhatever had with whoever doesn't matter. if they went outside the deal i made, i take it to court, not get the lynch mob out. you can buy my dvd for $10, rip it and put it up on a server too - do you have that right? no. they don't either. end of story. saying "well people steal" is wearing thing and only making SOPA more ... attractive.

you already said if you can download a game and watch it outside those deals you will.

so why bring up understanding when your apathy is showing?

[Hoofbite]

they get revenue when you watch it on tv.

you're stealing it when you go outside their intended means of distribution.

Sure but where does that factor into a person who is out of market watches the game?

You either have:

A) Out-of-market person doesn't watch the game and they get no revenue.

Or

B) Out-of-market person watches a stream and they get no revenue.

I guess we're supposed to assume that all streamers would automatically convert to DTV subscribers if their streams were absolutely no longer available?

We both know that's completely unrealistic.

The revenue is a fabricated argument based on assumptions that would NEVER be met and money that in their wildest dreams of 100% piracy eradication would never exist.

The real fact of the matter is, it's theirs and if they don't want someone to broadcast it, it's their say.

Trying to lump any sort of lost money into the equation is dishonest and basically an "and one" to entire argument.

[67CowboysFan]

they get revenue when you watch it on tv.

you're stealing it when you go outside their intended means of distribution.
How do they get "additional" revenue when I view it on tv? Remember I am out of their intended viewing area. Yet with the right antenna I can view it with ease on my television.

[iceberg]

Sure but where does that factor into a person who is out of market watches the game?

You either have:

A) Out-of-market person doesn't watch the game and they get no revenue.

Or

B) Out-of-market person watches a stream and they get no revenue.

I guess we're supposed to assume that all streamers would automatically convert to DTV subscribers if their streams were absolutely no longer available?

We both know that's completely unrealistic.

The revenue is a fabricated argument based on assumptions that would NEVER be met and money that in their wildest dreams of 100% piracy eradication would never exist.

The real fact of the matter is, it's theirs and if they don't want someone to broadcast it, it's their say.

Trying to lump any sort of lost money into the equation is dishonest and basically an "and one" to entire argument.

i don't care about those who can't get it cause the rules don't apply to them.

you're justifying stealing cause they can't get it.

trying to say it's ok to steal it cause you can't get it otherwise is dishonest.

gonna stop now. you're working to make theft ok and i will never see that side of the argument.

i understand the frustrations. i do. i understand the difficulty in where we are.

i do.

but running to theft is bull****. excusing it is crap on a wickerstick.

[Hoofbite]

yes you are.

you are not entitled to someone elses work or effort just because you want it and it's difficult to get so you found a shortcut.

i don't care about redbox that's penny crap. i care about the concept of respect.

again, you have it for what others do or you don't. anything else is self-serving justifications and i won't go there.

if i want a new car, i work to buy one.
if i want to watch a movie, i pay my dues.

i respect the effort behind my desire.

not tell them they're crazy so i take it.

you really wanna talk distribution first quit thinking cause you can download it, the rules are now cumbersome. "imaginary prerequestites" you called it?

whatever deal redwhatever had with whoever doesn't matter. if they went outside the deal i made, i take it to court, not get the lynch mob out. you can buy my dvd for $10, rip it and put it up on a server too - do you have that right? no. they don't either. end of story. saying "well people steal" is wearing thing and only making SOPA more ... attractive.

you already said if you can download a game and watch it outside those deals you will.

so why bring up understanding when your apathy is showing?

For craps sake, just read the post.

The "private use" post wasn't even about me, it was about tailgaters.

[iceberg]

btw - before cbz had to only post "parts" of an article i said it would go that way and was laughed at hard and by close friends. i said people own the content you repost with glee and that will stop.

you can't repost or reuse someone elses content cause it's easy.

i was right.

you either get the core concept or you continue to be part of the problem.

[iceberg]

For craps sake, just read the post.

The "private use" post wasn't even about me, it was about tailgaters.

redbox, tailgaters - side noise.

again, core concept. not ease of use.

[iceberg]

How do they get "additional" revenue when I view it on tv? Remember I am out of their intended viewing area. Yet with the right antenna I can view it with ease on my television.

so you found a way around the system so all holes are fair fair game now.

do that on your computer and tell me when it works. not say you can do it on your tv so it doesn't matter on the computer.

not the same thing regardless of how simple minds take it.

[Hoofbite]

redbox, tailgaters - side noise.

again, core concept. not ease of use.

You still haven't read it. :laugh2:

[67CowboysFan]

so you found a way around the system so all holes are fair fair game now.

do that on your computer and tell me when it works. not say you can do it on your tv so it doesn't matter on the computer.

not the same thing regardless of how simple minds take it.
It all comes through the airwaves. It's my space.......

[Hoofbite]

It all comes through the airwaves. It's my space.......

I don't think you picking up an OTA signal out of market is illegal.

You should try it out. Maybe wrap aluminum foil around the antenna for added signal reception.

[iceberg]

It all comes through the airwaves. It's my space.......

and if they quit doing it cause people steal it, what will you steal when you devalued it to the point of it going away?

[iceberg]

I don't think you picking up an OTA signal out of market is illegal.

You should try it out. Maybe wrap aluminum foil around the antenna for added signal reception.

i don't think so either.

hoof - i know i'm coming across strong here but the base right has to be understood here.

now how easy it can be to take it.

[chip_gilkey]

This is kind of a tangent but what do you guys think will eventually be the outcome of this piracy, illegal use war? It seems like in the past 10 years this has been a battle and it feels like it is coming to a head recently with SOPA going public then failing.

Will the government go tyrannical and block tons of stuff online? Will they keep trying but with little avail? Will the companies be able to adapt and find a way to mitigate the ability to have their stuff pirated? It has to end eventually, one way or the other.

[iceberg]

You still haven't read it. :laugh2:
i did.

side noise. not core concept.

[Cythim]

This is kind of a tangent but what do you guys think will eventually be the outcome of this piracy, illegal use war? It seems like in the past 10 years this has been a battle and it feels like it is coming to a head recently with SOPA going public then failing.

Will the government go tyrannical and block tons of stuff online? Will they keep trying but with little avail? Will the companies be able to adapt and find a way to mitigate the ability to have their stuff pirated? It has to end eventually, one way or the other.

They can't block stuff but I imagine they will continue to go after the big fish in the piracy game. So long as media can be converted to a digital format and internet connections exist pirating will continue, but they can stop average users from pirating by continuing to shut down sites like this and mega uploads.

[Cythim]

You missed the question. Let me ask again in a more general form but before I do I want to know your take on:

If Redbox bought your movie and rented it out without any sort of agreement with you, thereby enabling hundreds of people to see it while profitting along the way, how would that sit with you?

The question I was asking in the post you quoted was how is it what Redbox does any different than when a guy buys the movie and streams it online.

And it was an honest question because I honestly don't know the intricacies that gives Redbox a free pass in what appear to be similar circumstances.



You should read a couple of posts up. I'm not justifying any sort of actions I take.

When you buy a movie you have the right to rent that movie to anyone else, but you cannot make copies to rent, lend, sale, or provide for public viewing. Streaming the movie online is providing the movie for public viewing and offering it for download is making additional copies to "lend."

[67CowboysFan]

This is kind of a tangent but what do you guys think will eventually be the outcome of this piracy, illegal use war? It seems like in the past 10 years this has been a battle and it feels like it is coming to a head recently with SOPA going public then failing.

Will the government go tyrannical and block tons of stuff online? Will they keep trying but with little avail? Will the companies be able to adapt and find a way to mitigate the ability to have their stuff pirated? It has to end eventually, one way or the other.

If the actual law aspect is challenged in court I think it will come down to a free speech issue. Individuals generally don't have the money to fight it on that level. If a group on people with large incomes were to challenge it, things would get interesting.

[casmith07]

If the actual law aspect is challenged in court I think it will come down to a free speech issue. Individuals generally don't have the money to fight it on that level. If a group on people with large incomes were to challenge it, things would get interesting.

It would take a big time stretch to fit it into a 1st Amendment Constitutional question, in my opinion.

[cowboys#1]

Yes. This is both sides beginning to take control. We make a move forward, they stomp on our feet and push us back. Out of control government--both "sides".
its actually stealing.

but id gladly pay 20-25 bucks to watch a ppv than 60 bucks

thats crazy

[CowboyMcCoy]

they get revenue when you watch it on tv.

you're stealing it when you go outside their intended means of distribution.

By this logic of revenue, they still get revenue from it being streamed. It's not like people are out of tune or out of touch with the teams they want to watch. Now don't even get me started on why our government has reason to take out other sources of media for the media. Most sheeple just buy what the media sells them. We must keep it that way, I guess. Me? I try to stay as far away from the idiot box as possible. I'm just not a t.v. kind of guy. If I watch something, it's usually a documentary or movie. I admit to watching some t.v., but lately I've really gotten away from watching television at all. I can do without the Miller Lite and Budweiser commercials. Whatever you do, don't stream the Super Bowl. The brewing companies need their money.

[CowboyMcCoy]

its actually stealing.

but id gladly pay 20-25 bucks to watch a ppv than 60 bucks

thats crazy

I see it as more of me taking a risk for being on a questionable site, when I could just as easily watch most games on t.v.

But if not for streams, (I've been in between moves with my stuff in a storage unit) I may have missed some games.

[CowboyMcCoy]

Define "reasonable use".

And whether or not the NFL turns a blind eye is irrelevant.

Without written consent, tailgaters are just as guilty as the guy streaming it to people out of market on a website that doesn't generate ad revenue.

Not really, because they have product placement at tailgate parties. Most people are eating Tostitos and drinking Miller Lite and Coors.

[CowboyMcCoy]

and if they quit doing it cause people steal it, what will you steal when you devalued it to the point of it going away?

Dude, we're talking about mainstream media outlets. Who gives a rats butt about them? Seriously. If it were any other entity, I'd see your point. But I'm not down with Fox or CBS or NBC. They can take a hike. Principles, principles. The quicker they're "devalued", the better this country is anyway. But that won't happen. The media must control the masses.

[Cythim]

If the actual law aspect is challenged in court I think it will come down to a free speech issue. Individuals generally don't have the money to fight it on that level. If a group on people with large incomes were to challenge it, things would get interesting.

It isn't freedom of speech to steal someone's IP. The rights of the IP owner are being violated, not the rights of the person who is not allowed to stream another's IP.

[TheCount]

MU was based in Hong Kong, but they did have servers in Virginia.

Makes me wonder why we need SOPA if the Feds can just unilaterally snuff websites.

It's possible this is a push by the current administration to show just that.

[Hoofbite]

Not really, because they have product placement at tailgate parties. Most people are eating Tostitos and drinking Miller Lite and Coors.

Which means?

[RS12]

Plenty of sites still offering games etc. As long as there is demand somebody will fill it.

[TheCount]

so you tell me - what is the difference between physical vs virtual property?

I don't know about the rest of it but this is easy. If you steal someone's car, they no longer have a car. If you pirate a movie, the movie still exists and can still be profited from.

This is not to say piracy is acceptable, but there is a difference between piracy and theft. When you stream something, you don't even end up with a copy of it.

[bbwlover]

[quote=bbgun;4403578]http://www.firstrowsports.eu/

You are GENIUS!!!!!!:laugh2:

[iceberg]

I don't know about the rest of it but this is easy. If you steal someone's car, they no longer have a car. If you pirate a movie, the movie still exists and can still be profited from.

This is not to say piracy is acceptable, but there is a difference between piracy and theft. When you stream something, you don't even end up with a copy of it.

but you can't steal a virtual car.

just because it got easy doesn't make respect die.

[Romo 2 Austin]

Glad to see TNA mentioned.

[CowboyMcCoy]

Which means?

I was saying people buy what their televisions tell them to buy.

[TheCount]

but you can't steal a virtual car.

just because it got easy doesn't make respect die.

I'll be honest, I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. :laugh2:

Clarification, please?

[tupperware]

I'll be honest, I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. :laugh2:

Clarification, please?
He's saying that stealing remains stealing no matter the methods or avenues in which you take in doing it. In other words, downloading files over the internet gives you less of the "guilt" factor because you're downloading bits. However, it still doesn't make you any less culpable and you're still guilty of theft.

[Dallas]

He's saying that stealing remains stealing no matter the methods or avenues in which you take in doing it. In other words, downloading files over the internet gives you less of the "guilt" factor because you're downloading bits. However, it still doesn't make you any less culpable and you're still guilty of theft.

That shouldn't be to hard for people to understand. Maybe it is just those in NYC?

:laugh2:

[TheCount]

He's saying that stealing remains stealing no matter the methods or avenues in which you take in doing it. In other words, downloading files over the internet gives you less of the "guilt" factor because you're downloading bits. However, it still doesn't make you any less culpable and you're still guilty of theft.

Guilt has nothing to do with my statement. Theft and piracy are legally, and philosophically, different.

I also clearly stated I wasn't justifying either. At least I thought I did.

[tupperware]

Guilt has nothing to do with my statement. Theft and piracy are legally, and philosophically, different.

I also clearly stated I wasn't justifying either. At least I thought I did.
When I say "you" I mean in general, not specifically you.

At its core, piracy is theft, plain and simple.

[Sam I Am]

Guilt has nothing to do with my statement. Theft and piracy are legally, and philosophically, different.


You are painting everything gray with that statement. Software / Music piracy is in fact theft. I've heard the statement that it can't be theft because the owner never loses the item that was stolen. That is a load of crap. While he does not lose a "copy" of it, he does in fact lose the revenue.

You can claim that you wouldn't have bought it otherwise, but the fact that you are using it makes the IP owners revenue loss valid. His software / music is being used without receiving earned revenue. You stole his value. Whether it's a $.99 song, or a $799 Adobe Photoshop. It's still unequivocally theft.

[TheCount]

You are painting everything gray with that statement. Software / Music piracy is in fact theft. I've heard the statement that it can't be theft because the owner never loses the item that was stolen. That is a load of crap. While he does not lose a "copy" of it, he does in fact lose the revenue.

You can claim that you wouldn't have bought it otherwise, but the fact that you are using it makes the IP owners revenue loss valid. His software / music is being used without receiving earned revenue. You stole his value. Whether it's a $.99 song, or a $799 Adobe Photoshop. It's still unequivocally theft.

I don't know how else to state this. By the courts that govern the country most of us live in and the laws we have all agreed to live by, piracy and theft are not the same thing. I'm not stating my opinion, although my opinion is the same, I'm stating a fact.

In the way killing a human being and killing a dog are different under the law. You can say someone "murdered a dog" if you wish, but it's still not actually murder. You're not going to get 25 to life for killing a dog, nor should you, and that's coming from a dog lover.

Whether or not someone loses revenue over piracy is also debatable, you are making the assumption that same person would have purchased said IP if they hadn't pirated it, which often isn't the case.

Then there's the issue of streaming, which is still piracy but philosophically raises another debate entirely.

My problem isn't with the morality of piracy vs theft, I don't believe anyone should do either. But you simply can not classify them as the same, the world is different now than it was and the idea that you can just neatly file new age crimes under old laws could have more repercussions than most people bother to consider.

[iceberg]

I'll be honest, I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. :laugh2:

Clarification, please?

when you say you download something it can still be sold - why?

i mean you can download it, why would ANYONE now buy it? to say i can still sell something you "steal" is just insane to me.

[iceberg]

I don't know how else to state this. By the courts that govern the country most of us live in and the laws we have all agreed to live by, piracy and theft are not the same thing. I'm not stating my opinion, although my opinion is the same, I'm stating a fact.

In the way killing a human being and killing a dog are different under the law. You can say someone "murdered a dog" if you wish, but it's still not actually murder. You're not going to get 25 to life for killing a dog, nor should you, and that's coming from a dog lover.

Whether or not someone loses revenue over piracy is also debatable, you are making the assumption that same person would have purchased said IP if they hadn't pirated it, which often isn't the case.

Then there's the issue of streaming, which is still piracy but philosophically raises another debate entirely.

My problem isn't with the morality of piracy vs theft, I don't believe anyone should do either. But you simply can not classify them as the same, the world is different now than it was and the idea that you can just neatly file new age crimes under old laws could have more repercussions than most people bother to consider.

so? just because you'd not buy it otherwise means it's ok to steal it? if you don't want to pay for what you use, simply don't use it.

[Dallas]

so? just because you'd not buy it otherwise means it's ok to steal it? if you don't want to pay for what you use, simply don't use it.

What a strange way to justify it by the poster. I don't get Counts little spin at all.


Not surprised though. Much of our society now is all about get what you can get however you can get it and so what about anyone in between.

I got mine.. :)


IB, you get yours yet? :D

This is just getting stranger and stranger seeing how folks dance this tight rope of piracy/thievery or whatever definition smiley you put on it to make yourself feel better.

:(

So basically hes saying we need to throw away our laws and write new ones. A little more self interpretation from the bench by our judges so to speak.

HUGE PROBLEM right there...but not suprised to read it.

[ninja]

so? just because you'd not buy it otherwise means it's ok to steal it? if you don't want to pay for what you use, simply don't use it.

Ever hear of a library? I just rented (used) two DVDs. And get this (are you sitting down?) it was free. And I didn't steal it. I used it and didn't pay for it.:D Why doesn't the library charge me? They have books, DVDs, video games, music, etc.

To me, the internet is one big massive free library. The checkout process is all that differs. If it is out there on the internet, I can download it and use it as I wish in my opinion. I just can't sell it without permission.

[TheCount]

when you say you download something it can still be sold - why?

i mean you can download it, why would ANYONE now buy it? to say i can still sell something you "steal" is just insane to me.

Okay. I'm going to go over this one last time.

I design and sell chairs.

Example A: I purchase the materials, create one and list it for sale. Three people show interest. One of them decides they don't want to pay for it and steals the chair. I now have nothing to sell the other two who aren't thieves.

Example B: On the other hand, I have three people that are interested in my chair design. One of them decides they'd rather pirate the design and make a knockoff. They hack my computer and steal the design. The other two do things the right way and license the design.

In Example A, I've made no money and will not do so unless I make more chairs. In Example B, I've made money without spending another dime.

That's the difference between physical theft and IP theft, and that's the reason they can't be classified as the same thing.

I'm sure you know all this and are just being difficult, but my point is a pretty simple one if you'd just allow me to make it. If you want to continue to pretend what I'm saying is incomprehensible, feel free.


so? just because you'd not buy it otherwise means it's ok to steal it? if you don't want to pay for what you use, simply don't use it.

You're just being belligerent now. At what point have I said it's okay to steal anything? You two will never get anywhere in your argument because you're not even willing to take a step back and discuss it, you just want to take a sledgehammer to a very complex conversation.

[tupperware]

Okay. I'm going to go over this one last time.

I design and sell chairs.

Example A: I purchase the materials, create one and list it for sale. Three people show interest. One of them decides they don't want to pay for it and steals the chair. I now have nothing to sell the other two who aren't thieves.

Example B: On the other hand, I have three people that are interested in my chair design. One of them decides they'd rather pirate the design and make a knockoff. They hack my computer and steal the design. The other two do things the right way and license the design.

In Example A, I've made no money and will not do so unless I make more chairs. In Example B, I've made money without spending another dime.

That's the difference between physical theft and IP theft, and that's the reason they can't be classified as the same thing.

I'm sure you know all this and are just being difficult, but my point is a pretty simple one if you'd just allow me to make it. If you want to continue to pretend what I'm saying is incomprehensible, feel free.




You're just being belligerent now. At what point have I said it's okay to steal anything? You two will never get anywhere in your argument because you're not even willing to take a step back and discuss it, you just want to take a sledgehammer to a very complex conversation.
I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to say. Are the two situations different? Sure.. they're different. I don't know how anyone could see that they're not. Just because someone is not losing physical items does not mean that the person benefiting from that free software or whatever other digital good it is, isn't stealing.

As for the impact on the seller, that's still up in the air. You're still stealing though.

[iceberg]

Ever hear of a library? I just rented (used) two DVDs. And get this (are you sitting down?) it was free. And I didn't steal it. I used it and didn't pay for it.:D Why doesn't the library charge me? They have books, DVDs, video games, music, etc.

To me, the internet is one big massive free library. The checkout process is all that differs. If it is out there on the internet, I can download it and use it as I wish in my opinion. I just can't sell it without permission.

it's the librarys job to provide that to you under any agreements they may have made.

that mentality is just butt-nugget stupid dude. you have NO right to my content just because we both happen to be on the internet. if i make my content available then that's my call and my call only.

if you think there are NOT laws protecting IP - then tell me this, how come you can only post the beginning of an article vs. the entire article in here?

if i put something up for sale on my website you have no right to download it for free.

damn the entitlement generation sucks.

[iceberg]

Okay. I'm going to go over this one last time.

I design and sell chairs.

Example A: I purchase the materials, create one and list it for sale. Three people show interest. One of them decides they don't want to pay for it and steals the chair. I now have nothing to sell the other two who aren't thieves.

Example B: On the other hand, I have three people that are interested in my chair design. One of them decides they'd rather pirate the design and make a knockoff. They hack my computer and steal the design. The other two do things the right way and license the design.

In Example A, I've made no money and will not do so unless I make more chairs. In Example B, I've made money without spending another dime.

That's the difference between physical theft and IP theft, and that's the reason they can't be classified as the same thing.

I'm sure you know all this and are just being difficult, but my point is a pretty simple one if you'd just allow me to make it. If you want to continue to pretend what I'm saying is incomprehensible, feel free.

You're just being belligerent now. At what point have I said it's okay to steal anything? You two will never get anywhere in your argument because you're not even willing to take a step back and discuss it, you just want to take a sledgehammer to a very complex conversation.

you say it's ok to steal it all the time, you just phrase it in a more PC fashion.

if i put up something for sale on my site you have NO right to it regardless of whether or not you'd buy it. my movie 7 sunsets for example. if i make people have to pay $5 to download it, you can NOT download it for free elsewhere cause someone put it up.

i agree a virtual car is different from a physical one - but you totally miss my "physical" point. if i'm trying to sell digital IP, whether a song, whether a movie, chair plans, or access to an event - you have NO right to watch it on a pirate site for free cause you'd not pay the money anyway.

that's stealing regardless of how you word/paint it.

[tupperware]

it's the librarys job to provide that to you under any agreements they may have made.

that mentality is just butt-nugget stupid dude. you have NO right to my content just because we both happen to be on the internet. if i make my content available then that's my call and my call only.

if you think there are NOT laws protecting IP - then tell me this, how come you can only post the beginning of an article vs. the entire article in here?

if i put something up for sale on my website you have no right to download it for free.

damn the entitlement generation sucks.

:laugh2:

[TheCount]

you say it's ok to steal it all the time, you just phrase it in a more PC fashion.


Obviously, reading comprehension is not your strong suit.


I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to say. Are the two situations different? Sure.. they're different. I don't know how anyone could see that they're not. Just because someone is not losing physical items does not mean that the person benefiting from that free software or whatever other digital good it is, isn't stealing.

As for the impact on the seller, that's still up in the air. You're still stealing though.

I wasn't talking about stealing, obviously they are both stealing, I've said as much. I'm talking about the difference between theft and piracy from a legal and philosophical standpoint, I never said one one stealing and the other wasn't. You can't prosecute both with the same methods, and you can't punish them like the same crime because they aren't.

[iceberg]

Obviously, reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

I wasn't talking about stealing, obviously they are both stealing, I've said as much. I'm talking about the difference between theft and piracy from a legal and philosophical standpoint, I never said one one stealing and the other wasn't. You can't prosecute both with the same methods, and you can't punish them like the same crime because they aren't.

my comprehension fine except when people start trying to define theft vs piracy as if one is more acceptable than the other.

taking it to that level, to me, is just another way to justify doing it.

[Dallas]

my comprehension fine except when people start trying to define theft vs piracy as if one is more acceptable than the other.

taking it to that level, to me, is just another way to justify doing it.

It is ONLY a way to justify the means and THAT IS ALL the user is doing.

Hell at the end of the day, it still stealing and there are STILL laws against it.

I am shocked that that comprehension is being so BLATANTLY ignored just to serve ones purpose of debate.



OMG people are being punished for CR infringement? Say wuuut????


I DIDNT KNOWZ :starspin

[iceberg]

It is ONLY a way to justify the means and THAT IS ALL the user is doing.

Hell at the end of the day, it still stealing and there are STILL laws against it.

I am shocked that that comprehension is being so BLATANTLY ignored just to serve ones purpose of debate.

OMG people are being punished for CR infringement? Say wuuut????

I DIDNT KNOWZ :starspin
well i'm not sure if that's what the count is doing - but until people actually get that the internet isn't a "library" making anything and everything free for them, nitpicking fine details is just lost in the void of stupidity (not you count)

[Cythim]

Ever hear of a library? I just rented (used) two DVDs. And get this (are you sitting down?) it was free. And I didn't steal it. I used it and didn't pay for it.:D Why doesn't the library charge me? They have books, DVDs, video games, music, etc.

To me, the internet is one big massive free library. The checkout process is all that differs. If it is out there on the internet, I can download it and use it as I wish in my opinion. I just can't sell it without permission.

The checkout process is not the only difference. You aren't required to return your pirated material and multiple illegal copies are made and "lent."

[iceberg]

The checkout process is not the only difference. You aren't required to return your pirated material and multiple illegal copies are made and "lent."

you also have to have a library card to do it and let people know what you're checking out.

wonder if he does that at the internet library....

[JustDezIt]

same **** diff day, eh guys?

[Dallas]

same **** diff day, eh guys?

Oh so you rinsed and repeated yours as well?


I suppose it is. ;)