Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.




42 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 1


Topic # 204722 14-Oct-2016 13:29
Send private message

So, is this guy a modern day "Robin Hood" or something else?

 

 

 

From the NZ Herald story.

 

" The battle between Duco Events and a defiant advocate of illegal live streaming rages on with Duco offering $1000 for an alleged live streamer's home address.

 

Duco, promoters for boxer Joseph Parker, posted a 'Wanted' image on their Facebook page yesterday seeking details for James Bryant, who has previously admitted to the Herald live streaming a Parker fight on Facebook.

 

"James likes attention so we'd like to give him a little more of what he crave," the Duco Facebook post reads.

 

"If you can be the first to personal message us his correct address, and, as result, we are able to serve him court papers, then we will give you $1000. Discretion is 100 percent assured, so if you're his 'friend', you can dob him in, with no fear of reprisal."


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
 1 | 2
21620 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4432

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1651054 14-Oct-2016 13:32
One person supports this post
Send private message

Isnt that bordering on illegal? I know that when a mate posted some CCTV of a tagger asking for their home address promising a reward the police were not that impressed and told him to take it down or they would take it furthur.





Richard rich.ms

5294 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2147


  Reply # 1651076 14-Oct-2016 13:54
One person supports this post
Send private message

Getting an address to serve papers doesn't sound like a breach of privacy by Duco.

 

It might be a breach of privacy by someone who supplies the info, depending on how they came to have it.

 

For example if an employee at Bryant's bank unilaterally looked up his records and divulged the info that would breach the privacy act. 

 

If someone rings up and says "I've seen him, he lives down the road from me at number x" that's hardly a breach.





Mike

 
 
 
 


5294 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2147


  Reply # 1651077 14-Oct-2016 13:56
Send private message

richms:

 

I know that when a mate posted some CCTV of a tagger asking for their home address promising a reward the police were not that impressed and told him to take it down or they would take it furthur.

 

 

The police may have just wanted to shut this down to prevent a confrontation from occurring or maybe they interpreted it as threatening behaviour.





Mike

3503 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1969

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1651333 14-Oct-2016 22:12
2 people support this post
Send private message

Just when I thought my opinion of DUCO couldn't get any worse.

 

 





Information wants to be free. The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.


199 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 105


  Reply # 1651353 14-Oct-2016 23:04
2 people support this post
Send private message

Looking forward to crying when some smart ass gets a harsh sentence as a example. 


18750 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5377

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1651361 15-Oct-2016 00:10
One person supports this post
Send private message

Lias:

 

Just when I thought my opinion of DUCO couldn't get any worse.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think what the streamer did was wrong, but yeah Lonergan makes my skin crawl.


3503 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1969

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1651539 15-Oct-2016 11:55
Send private message

cruxis:

 

Looking forward to crying when some smart ass gets a harsh sentence as a example. 

 

 

The maximum penalty is a $2670 fine according to the herald article, but I genuinely have no idea where they pulled that number from, so I'm taking it with a grain of salt.

 

Now I am not a lawyer (paging @dejadeadnz ), but a quick google found case of a guy in South Auckland a decade ago who was running a full blown commercial CD pirating operation making 50k a year, and he only got 9 months in jail and $8500 fine, so I can't see a guy who's not making any money get a particularly harsh sentence. 

 

 





Information wants to be free. The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.


14450 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1899


  Reply # 1651585 15-Oct-2016 13:50
Send private message

I think the 'celebrity' events should be banned. I am amazed with our health and safety laws, that they are allowed. Fine for professionals, but it is the celebrity events that get much of the medias coverage.

3154 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 965

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1651659 15-Oct-2016 18:12
Send private message

Lias:

 

cruxis:

 

Looking forward to crying when some smart ass gets a harsh sentence as a example. 

 

 

The maximum penalty is a $2670 fine according to the herald article, but I genuinely have no idea where they pulled that number from, so I'm taking it with a grain of salt.

 

Now I am not a lawyer (paging @dejadeadnz ), but a quick google found case of a guy in South Auckland a decade ago who was running a full blown commercial CD pirating operation making 50k a year, and he only got 9 months in jail and $8500 fine, so I can't see a guy who's not making any money get a particularly harsh sentence. 

 

I guess it all depends on how far Duco can, or try, to go with this - dejadeadnz definitely needed here.

 

Criminal liability under s131(1)(f) of the Copyright Act 1994 may fit, depends on how the word "otherwise" affects the rest of that subparagraph. Subsection (5)(a) spells out the penalty.

 

Potentially Duco could also have a go at s249(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961.


13905 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2527

Trusted

  Reply # 1651662 15-Oct-2016 18:21
Send private message

Dratsab:

 

Lias:

 

cruxis:

 

Looking forward to crying when some smart ass gets a harsh sentence as a example. 

 

 

The maximum penalty is a $2670 fine according to the herald article, but I genuinely have no idea where they pulled that number from, so I'm taking it with a grain of salt.

 

Now I am not a lawyer (paging @dejadeadnz ), but a quick google found case of a guy in South Auckland a decade ago who was running a full blown commercial CD pirating operation making 50k a year, and he only got 9 months in jail and $8500 fine, so I can't see a guy who's not making any money get a particularly harsh sentence. 

 

I guess it all depends on how far Duco can, or try, to go with this - dejadeadnz definitely needed here.

 

Criminal liability under s131(1)(f) of the Copyright Act 1994 may fit, depends on how the word "otherwise" affects the rest of that subparagraph. Subsection (5)(a) spells out the penalty.

 

Potentially Duco could also have a go at s249(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961.

 

 

To be fair, Duco isn't CNN wild world of sports. Those who PPV in lil ol NZ is pretty small. 

 

OTOH, boxing is so real and genuine, we should all watch it....

 

Skit. Two WWE wrestlers nailing each other. In the middle of the ring, grappling. Are you free Sunday avo for a BBQ? Sure mate. Next move is a throw, 1,2,3, out.

 

 


1316 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1023

Subscriber

  Reply # 1652069 16-Oct-2016 23:36
2 people support this post
Send private message

Dratsab:

 

Criminal liability under s131(1)(f) of the Copyright Act 1994 may fit, depends on how the word "otherwise" affects the rest of that subparagraph. Subsection (5)(a) spells out the penalty.

 

Potentially Duco could also have a go at s249(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961.

 

 

To me, s 131(1)(f) is fairly simple. "Otherwise" there is just used to denote "other than", so the streamer's conduct might well fit. The key is whether any prosecutor can prove that the copyright holder was prejudicially affected. I have never reviewed any case law on this section but the interesting point of dispute will be whether the prejudice required is actual/financial or merely some kind of unjust enrichment at the expense of the copyright holder, e.g. a bunch getting to watch the crap without paying. My own view is that this should be narrowly construed in favour of any accused, i.e. the first interpretation should win. As someone who has advised on potential civil action against these private infringer types, my advice to clients is always this: don't bother. Honestly, it's a waste of time and money and attracts adverse publicity.

 

As for Duco advertising a reward to get the streamer's home address to serve papers on him, MikeAqua's analysis is pretty much spot on. I recommend Duco build a bridge and get over this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


2515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 541
Inactive user


  Reply # 1652079 17-Oct-2016 06:13
Send private message

Not even close to a Robin Hood, he is stealing a luxury item that doesn't belong to him. He is also swanning around like a tool taunting them, absolutely throw the book at him.

 

The internet gives a lot of people really big balls until it doesn't.

 

 


3845 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2187

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1652083 17-Oct-2016 07:30
One person supports this post
Send private message

dickytim:

Not even close to a Robin Hood, he is stealing a luxury item that doesn't belong to him. He is also swanning around like a tool taunting them, absolutely throw the book at him.


The internet gives a lot of people really big balls until it doesn't.


 



Agree use this clown as an example

Linux




Ex JohnR VodafoneNZ 17 years 4 days

922 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 285

Trusted

  Reply # 1652091 17-Oct-2016 08:20
One person supports this post
Send private message

Dean is a tool, he needs to move on. No one really cares about his crappy little reward to rat someone out.

 

Now he is throwing his toys out the cot because he came on radio live in the last day of September and told everyone there would be a 80% chance of a title fight in NZ if Parker won his last fight. Well, he's more than likely not going get his way: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/85395609/dean-lonergan-reveals-that-joseph-parker-might-not-fight-andy-ruiz-for-wbo-title

 

No one wants to see crappy quality of some muppet holding his smartphone up to a tv and steaming it over facebook. I absolutely agree he needs to build a bridge and get over it.

 

 






3845 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2187

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1652094 17-Oct-2016 08:36
One person supports this post
Send private message

darylblake:

 

Dean is a tool, he needs to move on. No one really cares about his crappy little reward to rat someone out.

 

 

Sorry but don't answer for everyone thanks! If I knew who this person was I would rat them out for $1000 or even for free

 

Linux





Ex JohnR VodafoneNZ 17 years 4 days

 1 | 2
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Geekzone Live »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.