Feds strike again

[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.