Feds strike again

[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.

I missed the obvious.

 

[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.