Fan Pass - I'll Pass On That

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Fan Pass - I'll Pass On That

1 | ... | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | ... | 25

1615 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 551

Trusted

#1783524 17-May-2017 09:47

littleheaven:

kobiak:

that sounds not right.

all these online streams are re-satellite streams. So someone (copyright violator) paid for access, got the feed, transcode it and streams to the web from his servers, paying for the bandwidth himself or charges others (stream watchers).

so stream watcher is not stealing (?) from original broadcaster as original broadcaster supplies satellite feed only :)

Not necessarily stealing - but think of it more as receiving stolen goods. Going back to the cigarette analogy, it's akin to if someone knicked the cigarettes from the dairy and then gave them to him/her for free.

26Revesting of property in stolen goods on conviction of offender

(1) Where goods have been stolen and the offender is prosecuted to conviction, the property in the goods so stolen revests in the person who was the owner of the goods, or his personal representative, notwithstanding any intermediate dealing with them, whether by sale in market overt or otherwise.

(2) Notwithstanding any enactment to the contrary, where goods have been obtained by fraud or other wrongful means not amounting to theft, the property in such goods shall not revest in the person who was the owner of the goods, or his personal representative, by reason only of the conviction of the offender.

Compare: 1895 No 23 s 26

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1908/0168/latest/whole.html

Copyright is not "goods". so even if original feed is stolen, steam watcher has not done anything wrong by law? (I highly doubt that I'm right, but that's how I see in terms of law). And when stream is not stolen, but user steams content he violates copyright, but not the stream watcher again.

So this is grey area at the moment...

helping others at evgenyk.nz

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19086 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16356

Lifetime subscriber

#1783585 17-May-2017 10:44

Jas777:

Ok in the future there is a set price to watch a EPL football game no matter where you are in the world. In certain countries sponsorship or government deals are down to subsidise the cost. Is it ok for someone to access that content at a cheaper price than the set price even though they don't live in that country? They are still paying for it but just a different rate.

Gee, all those neat electronic gadgets are sooo expensive here in New Zealand. I know what I'll do. I will just buy them during my visit to New York, where they cost half as much. Then I will buy them on Aliexpress, where they also cost half as much.

Sound familiar?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19086 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16356

Lifetime subscriber

#1783597 17-May-2017 11:16

Jas777:

It is still taking someone else property without their permission.

This whole discussion exists because the copyright enforcement industry, which is an industry, and which I refer to as the copyright mafia, has succeeded in confusing the world with false arguments in order to further its own greedy interests. This has led to ridiculous abuses of power, such as suing small shop owners for playing a radio, or pretending the world can be cut up into copyright regions.

For the record, not that anyone will bother listening, I do not think everything should be free. Creative content costs money and the creators deserve to be paid. I believe in a form of copyright protection, just not the criminal blackmail-inspired one we have at present.

The copyright mafia has obscured the issue by obscuring the concept of 'property'. They have invented an abstraction called 'intellectual property'. Then they have tried to persuade people that this is just like actual physical property, meaning it can be 'stolen' even though that does not deprive anyone of possession.

Those here who keep hammering on about the sanctity of property ownership have a very distorted view of just what property ownership is. For one thing, it is not absolute. No country in the world, with the possible exception of America, places property above all else. If someone here takes your property, and you shoot them for it, you will be the one in jail, not them. Your right to defend your property is very limited, as any dairy owner will attest.

If you have property for sale, regardless of what kind of property that is, you are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, sexual preference, or a whole raft of other things. Your ownership rights are limited by law. You are entitled to sell what you possess, and to ask whatever price you wish, but you are not entitled to say I will sell this to you, but not to someone else because I don't like dark people.

The copyright mafia insists that it does have a right to discriminate, based on the antiquated and ridiculous notion of geography. I will sell to you if you live here, but not if you live there. It is this idiocy that I object to. No, property ownership does not give you unlimited rights to choose whom you sell it to. This is discrimination. Is it not odd that we cannot discriminate on race, because that disadvantages a group of people, but we can discriminate on geography, which disadvantages a different group? I am strongly opposed to discrimination of all kinds, especially when the only reason for it is to line the pockets of intermediaries who have nothing to do with the creative process.

Once more, I will pay for any content I access if there is a mechanism to do so. But I will not refrain from accessing content that is made available to one part of the world just because I live in a different part. I support geo-unblocking and any other technology that bypasses geographical discrimination and I look forward to the day when this stupid, archaic idea is finally put to rest.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Talkiet

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3935

Trusted

#1783601 17-May-2017 11:30

Rikkitic:

Jas777:

It is still taking someone else property without their permission.

[snipped rant]

Your overly emotive diatribe undermines your argument hugely. Calling the organisations a Mafia makes me instantly believe you're incapable of holding a balanced and fair discussion/argument about the topic.

"A mafia is a type of organized crime syndicate whose primary activities are protection racketeering, the arbitration of disputes between criminals, and the organizing and oversight of illegal agreements and transactions.[1] Mafias often engage in secondary activities such as gambling, loan sharking, drug-trafficking, and fraud." (Wikipedia)

Cheers -N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19086 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16356

Lifetime subscriber

#1783605 17-May-2017 11:40

Talkiet:

"A mafia is a type of organized crime syndicate whose primary activities are protection racketeering, the arbitration of disputes between criminals, and the organizing and oversight of illegal agreements and transactions.[1] Mafias often engage in secondary activities such as gambling, loan sharking, drug-trafficking, and fraud." (Wikipedia)

That sounds about right. I remember housewives getting threatening letters and being sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars a few years ago for downloading a song or two. I did a quick search for examples of this kind of abuse but there were too many to cite.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1783745 17-May-2017 16:03

Wiggum:

tripp:

And if you still don't think it's stealing. Look at this way

If you are watching the content you are "stealing" their bandwidth for the stream, there is a direct cost to the broadcaster for the bandwidth that you are using without paying for it.

Which falls into your "deprive the owner of its use or benefit" You are depriving the owner (broadcaster) in bandwidth to supply their paying customers the content.

OK, so lets look at this from a different angle then.

Who exactly am I stealing from?

Oh I just love rhetorical questions, dont you?

As with the cigarettes, in the first instance you are stealing from the retailer. In your case that would be Sky UK, wouldnt it? And you know who the retailer is - in fact you defined who the retailer was. As you have no intention to pay for the property that you are stealing it seems fairly clear that the theft is from the retailer. Or you're receiving stolen property that belongs to the retailer.

Such a loss of financial benefit from supplying the property will result in either adding security measures (CCTV cameras or lockboxes for the cigarettes are your direct analogy here) or attempting to recoup lost revenues through higher prices for all consumers or attempting to reduce the price of the wholesale product as its no longer as valuable to the retailer. In a extreme case the retailer would simply stop supplying the product or service as the only revenue earned is insufficient to warrant supply (for a diary its cigarettes are are very lucrative and profitable product so its more likely that higher security measures or imploring officials for more protection and higher penalties for theft).

Over time the impact is on the wholesaler. The burning question is - would your behaviour be any different if you were sourcing the product direct from the NZRFU? Would you still seek an illicit stream rather than paying the organization that runs and pays to produce the product that you seek?

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1783748 17-May-2017 16:10

kobiak:

Jas777:

It is still taking someone else property without their permission.

I see it as I have 1000 friends, who end-up in my place for a AB's game to watch my SkyHD+ultra4kTV.

Are they stealing? According to Sky - yes :(

I remember 2-3 years ago NZ Herald published an article, where local (AKL?) rugby club had a BBQ/beer session with live game on TV for 100+ ppl and Sky complained.

And if you recall the issue was that an individual took their STB to the rugby club for all to watch. The product purchased was for home broadcast - not a pub or club (and those organisations pay an arm and a leg to show on premises). If the entire rugby club all went around to the individuals home to watch then I'm sure that Sky would have struggled to make a case. There is nothing in the terms and conditions that would suggest that having 1000 people over to your HOME to watch is in violation of the terms and conditions - unless you charged people to attend your party. Have 1000 people over to your place to watch a game. Good luck fitting them in and good luck with cleaning up the mess afterwards!

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1783750 17-May-2017 16:18

kobiak:

littleheaven:

kobiak:

that sounds not right.

all these online streams are re-satellite streams. So someone (copyright violator) paid for access, got the feed, transcode it and streams to the web from his servers, paying for the bandwidth himself or charges others (stream watchers).

so stream watcher is not stealing (?) from original broadcaster as original broadcaster supplies satellite feed only :)

Not necessarily stealing - but think of it more as receiving stolen goods. Going back to the cigarette analogy, it's akin to if someone knicked the cigarettes from the dairy and then gave them to him/her for free.

26Revesting of property in stolen goods on conviction of offender

(1) Where goods have been stolen and the offender is prosecuted to conviction, the property in the goods so stolen revests in the person who was the owner of the goods, or his personal representative, notwithstanding any intermediate dealing with them, whether by sale in market overt or otherwise.

(2) Notwithstanding any enactment to the contrary, where goods have been obtained by fraud or other wrongful means not amounting to theft, the property in such goods shall not revest in the person who was the owner of the goods, or his personal representative, by reason only of the conviction of the offender.

Compare: 1895 No 23 s 26

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1908/0168/latest/whole.html

Copyright is not "goods". so even if original feed is stolen, steam watcher has not done anything wrong by law? (I highly doubt that I'm right, but that's how I see in terms of law). And when stream is not stolen, but user steams content he violates copyright, but not the stream watcher again.

So this is grey area at the moment...

So it sounds like you agree that there are moral and ethical issues associated with the receiving of the stolen property. And that the law is "grey" on application until someone is prosecuted. Does this mean that you think the courts should test it to eliminate the grey area? Should someone apply a private prosecution, or would you suggest Sky tests the legal precedent in a case such as we're discussing? Or doesnt it seem obvious that someone who would previously have paid for the property and now sources said property from another source (that also requires payment for its value) without paying is contravening a law?

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1783751 17-May-2017 16:19

Rikkitic:

Talkiet:

"A mafia is a type of organized crime syndicate whose primary activities are protection racketeering, the arbitration of disputes between criminals, and the organizing and oversight of illegal agreements and transactions.[1] Mafias often engage in secondary activities such as gambling, loan sharking, drug-trafficking, and fraud." (Wikipedia)

That sounds about right. I remember housewives getting threatening letters and being sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars a few years ago for downloading a song or two. I did a quick search for examples of this kind of abuse but there were too many to cite.

Sniff test fails on criminality, illegal agreements and transactions. Failure to qualify as a mafia.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1783756 17-May-2017 16:27

Jas777:

Rikkitic:

ockel:

And your personal position on access to content that is not legally available to you is OT WRT @wiggum's choice to source content that can be accessed legally but chooses to steal. Whether the law is an a** is not the question here - nor your view on the principle.

Whether you choose to install someone elses software (because you think Microsoft is greedy and has been ripping off businesses and consumers for years or that the price increases imposed by Adobe over the last 18 months is greedy) or choose to photocopy someone elses book or source an illicit stream - it is still a violation of the property right of the owner. Morally, ethically and legally reprehensible.

You are conflating things that have nothing to do with each other. This is a tactic that has been used by the copyright industry from the beginning. The software examples you cite are legally available to anyone anywhere willing to pay for them. Media content is not.The greed I refer to is chopping up the world into geographical regions to sell the same content over and over, with as a consequence the unavailability of that content in backwaters like New Zealand where no media distributor chooses to make it available. Even Microsoft has never tried to pull something like that!

Ok in the future there is a set price to watch a EPL football game no matter where you are in the world. In certain countries sponsorship or government deals are down to subsidise the cost. Is it ok for someone to access that content at a cheaper price than the set price even though they don't live in that country? They are still paying for it but just a different rate.

Setting aside the fact that to watch an EPL match in Australia you have to be an Optus customer (ComCom shake in your boots - its your worst nightmare scenario despite the fact that the ACCC doesnt see it as an anticompetitive issue) the FA Final is a great case in point for Australians.

Under the current anti-siphoning the FA Final has to be broadcast FTA in Australia (BTW its one of the events that is being dropped off the anti-siphoning list) and the UK (cant ever see that changing). In NZ we have to pay to watch so the differential rate is high. Is it OK for someone in NZ to access it at the maximum differential rate vs AU or UK? I'd argue that if you want to take advantage of the laws applying to UK and AU residents then you should be living in those countries - enjoying NZ laws and picking and choosing laws from other countries that suit you? Hell in a handbasket. Why should you be allowed to enjoy benefits from other countries but not their costs?

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

kobiak

1615 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 551

Trusted

#1783758 17-May-2017 16:34

ockel:

And if you recall the issue was that an individual took their STB to the rugby club for all to watch. The product purchased was for home broadcast - not a pub or club (and those organisations pay an arm and a leg to show on premises). If the entire rugby club all went around to the individuals home to watch then I'm sure that Sky would have struggled to make a case. There is nothing in the terms and conditions that would suggest that having 1000 people over to your HOME to watch is in violation of the terms and conditions - unless you charged people to attend your party. Have 1000 people over to your place to watch a game. Good luck fitting them in and good luck with cleaning up the mess afterwards!

yeah I remember that. Not sure what was the end result. As you said Sky pointed out that it was not used for the purpose of home use. Does 1000 people watching it at my farm field on 20m long screen, fit for purpose? surely free. sky won't be happy I guess.

helping others at evgenyk.nz

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1783761 17-May-2017 16:39

Jas777:

Rikkitic:

ockel:

And your personal position on access to content that is not legally available to you is OT WRT @wiggum's choice to source content that can be accessed legally but chooses to steal. Whether the law is an a** is not the question here - nor your view on the principle.

Whether you choose to install someone elses software (because you think Microsoft is greedy and has been ripping off businesses and consumers for years or that the price increases imposed by Adobe over the last 18 months is greedy) or choose to photocopy someone elses book or source an illicit stream - it is still a violation of the property right of the owner. Morally, ethically and legally reprehensible.

You are conflating things that have nothing to do with each other. This is a tactic that has been used by the copyright industry from the beginning. The software examples you cite are legally available to anyone anywhere willing to pay for them. Media content is not.The greed I refer to is chopping up the world into geographical regions to sell the same content over and over, with as a consequence the unavailability of that content in backwaters like New Zealand where no media distributor chooses to make it available. Even Microsoft has never tried to pull something like that!

Ok in the future there is a set price to watch a EPL football game no matter where you are in the world. In certain countries sponsorship or government deals are down to subsidise the cost. Is it ok for someone to access that content at a cheaper price than the set price even though they don't live in that country? They are still paying for it but just a different rate.

I think there are going to be interesting cases for sports rights when they choose to go direct. If you imagine that the EPL decided to put the worldwide rights up for sale for its product you start to have a very small pool of possible buyers or no buyers at all. Would the EPL want to directly supply (produce, distribute in multiple languages and bill in multiple currencies) millions of customers all over the world. In relatively short order?

Otherwise you've got one buyer of worldwide rights with the power to set any price and determine the terms of supply to everyone. Havent you? Is that attractive? Newscorp or BEin owning global rights? Amazon? Liberty (they own F1)? How well did BeIN go with supplying in one new country? Guessing that the single buyer would probably sell to local organisations for broadcast and billing like BeIN did here......oh wait, no change.

Rikkitc would like to think that as there isnt a product here as soon as its broadcast once somewhere in the world it should go straight into the creative commons. So sell once, no value thereafter. Reinvestment in content after that...... zero. Intellectual property (and its associated rights) have a value - whether they be patent, written, code, lyrical or audiovisual. Just because people believe that there is no physical state of the property doesnt mean it has no value. And different people put different values on it - but taking or using the property in violation of the owners wishes because you think its your godgiven right is still wrong.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1783763 17-May-2017 16:41

kobiak:

ockel:

And if you recall the issue was that an individual took their STB to the rugby club for all to watch. The product purchased was for home broadcast - not a pub or club (and those organisations pay an arm and a leg to show on premises). If the entire rugby club all went around to the individuals home to watch then I'm sure that Sky would have struggled to make a case. There is nothing in the terms and conditions that would suggest that having 1000 people over to your HOME to watch is in violation of the terms and conditions - unless you charged people to attend your party. Have 1000 people over to your place to watch a game. Good luck fitting them in and good luck with cleaning up the mess afterwards!

yeah I remember that. Not sure what was the end result. As you said Sky pointed out that it was not used for the purpose of home use. Does 1000 people watching it at my farm field on 20m long screen, fit for purpose? surely free. sky won't be happy I guess.

Maybe not happy but possibly violating terms and conditions. It does say within the home. A farm field may be a stretch.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

kobiak

1615 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 551

Trusted

#1783776 17-May-2017 16:43

ockel:

So it sounds like you agree that there are moral and ethical issues associated with the receiving of the stolen property. And that the law is "grey" on application until someone is prosecuted. Does this mean that you think the courts should test it to eliminate the grey area? Should someone apply a private prosecution, or would you suggest Sky tests the legal precedent in a case such as we're discussing? Or doesnt it seem obvious that someone who would previously have paid for the property and now sources said property from another source (that also requires payment for its value) without paying is contravening a law?

Sure, I agree that something needs to be done to make it either banned or allowed to do. geo-blocking/geo-pricing for something intangible should be reviewed.

I also think that it's almost impossible to prosecute someone who watches illegal streams. Because of:

- pretty much impossible to identify who is watching

- based on "stolen goods" - hard to prove that watching a chinese/arab/russian stream and knowing it's illegal :) I know it's pretty dumb but that's the reality :)

helping others at evgenyk.nz

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1783777 17-May-2017 16:47

kobiak:

ockel:

So it sounds like you agree that there are moral and ethical issues associated with the receiving of the stolen property. And that the law is "grey" on application until someone is prosecuted. Does this mean that you think the courts should test it to eliminate the grey area? Should someone apply a private prosecution, or would you suggest Sky tests the legal precedent in a case such as we're discussing? Or doesnt it seem obvious that someone who would previously have paid for the property and now sources said property from another source (that also requires payment for its value) without paying is contravening a law?

Sure, I agree that something needs to be done to make it either banned or allowed to do. geo-blocking/geo-pricing for something intangible should be reviewed.

I also think that it's almost impossible to prosecute someone who watches illegal streams. Because of:

- pretty much impossible to identify who is watching

- based on "stolen goods" - hard to prove that watching a chinese/arab/russian stream and knowing it's illegal :) I know it's pretty dumb but that's the reality :)

If Graham McCready can do a private prosecution on just about anything whats to stop someone bringing a private prosecution against @wiggum? Clearly stated that will use a Sky UK feed (without intention to pay) rather than pay locally. Dont we already have an example - identified and admitted?

Doesnt seem that impossible. Then we, as the public, would know exactly where we stand legally.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

1 | ... | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | ... | 25