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.


Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25
1044 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 116


  Reply # 1783328 16-May-2017 18:22
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

ockel:

 

I continue to find it staggering that you dont see that the owner is being financially deprived.

 

Here is a perfect case in point: @wiggum used to use Fanpass on the odd occasion. There is a way to pay for it and he/she did previously pay for it.  Instead they now choose to source an illicit stream from another subscription service - with no intention to pay for it. And with theft there has to be no intent to pay, doesnt there?  I seem to recall that from somewhere in the statute.  So clearly there must be a loss of income?  And there is an intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit - its the financial benefit that the owner is being deprived of.  

 

 

 

 

You may be right in this case. I can't say. But I would continue to argue for the principle. I think current copyright legislation around the world is skewed to serve narrow vested interests and consumers suffer as a result of this. I personally deeply resent the fact that content I value and can access is not legally available to me here solely because I happen to live in a small country with a really crappy media offering. I am happy to pay for the content I want but I am not given that option because of a system that has been set up to serve the greedy. So they have no business complaining if people find other ways to access that content. 

 

 

 

 

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.  


4891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2209

Subscriber

  Reply # 1783331 16-May-2017 18:33
Send private message quote this post

Other points: I am not in favour of free anything, just a more equitable distribution system. Hopefully people watching it for free anyway will help bring about change. I believe only a small hard core go out of their way to seek out free alternatives. If the content is made available for a reasonable price, most people will prefer to pay and watch it legally. The bandwidth point is interesting but again, for me it is not about getting it free, but getting it at all. Content providers need to up their game.

 

I still maintain that bypassing restrictions is not theft. It may be copyright violation but it is not theft. That is something else entirely. It is not helpful when the industry insists on obscuring things in this way. 

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


 
 
 
 


4891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2209

Subscriber

  Reply # 1783334 16-May-2017 18:43
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

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!

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


3206 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1682

Trusted
Spark NZ

  Reply # 1783338 16-May-2017 18:52
Send private message quote this post

I don't get why you think you have a right to access that stuff. The creators and rights holders can make it available on whatever terms they like.

 

You're knowingly breaching copyright and breaking laws (in some jurisdictions).... Putting your 'noble' spin on it doesn't change that.

 

Your argument boils down to "I don't like their terms and conditions so I'm breaking the law/copyright to access the material for free"

 

You can dress up your argument whatever way you like, but that's all subjective. Laws and Copyrights aren't like that.

 

Cheers - N

 

 

 

 


1044 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 116


  Reply # 1783339 16-May-2017 18:54
Send private message quote this post

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!

 

 

 

 

Really?  You've checked the price of Office in NZ vs AU vs UK vs US?  Chopping up the world into geographical regions and pocket pricing in those regions?  Oh my word - do they do that?  Greedy sods!  

 

And we're not debating content availability - as in the context of this topic (sport) the content is largely available over the regions discussed and is clearly available in the backwater you'd like to call NZ.

 

Shall we add our local hero Xero to this discussion?  NZ Standard pricing with 5 people on payroll = $70/mth.  US pricing = USD30/mth.  Greedy, greedy gouging the local backwater?    


4891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2209

Subscriber

  Reply # 1783368 16-May-2017 19:52
Send private message quote this post

Talkiet:

 

Your argument boils down to "I don't like their terms and conditions so I'm breaking the law/copyright to access the material for free"

 

 

There you go again. I have repeatedly made clear that my campaign has nothing to do with 'accessing the material for free'. It is about accessing the material, full stop.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


4891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2209

Subscriber

  Reply # 1783374 16-May-2017 20:11
Send private message quote this post

ockel:

 

Really?  You've checked the price of Office in NZ vs AU vs UK vs US?  Chopping up the world into geographical regions and pocket pricing in those regions?  Oh my word - do they do that?  Greedy sods!  

 

And we're not debating content availability - as in the context of this topic (sport) the content is largely available over the regions discussed and is clearly available in the backwater you'd like to call NZ.

 

Shall we add our local hero Xero to this discussion?  NZ Standard pricing with 5 people on payroll = $70/mth.  US pricing = USD30/mth.  Greedy, greedy gouging the local backwater?    

 

 

Price differentials are another matter. I can buy a Microsoft product anywhere, which is definitely not the case with the programming that interests me. Some of it dribbles here, but most is never made available in this country by any legal means. I object to that and I campaign against it. My hope is that one day content producers will finally see the light and make it possible for anyone to buy any content anywhere. One way of pressuring them to move in that direction is to do it anyway. Eventually maybe they will just give up and resign themselves to the inevitable. I see this as a legitimate tactic.

 

This has now gone way OT. You are right that it was about Sky Sport. I responded to something else. I have said my piece.

 

 

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


343 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 169


  Reply # 1783380 16-May-2017 20:20
Send private message quote this post

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?

 

 

 

 





If you don't read the news, you're uninformed. If you do read it, you're misinformed.

 

  - Denzel Washington


2345 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1783481 17-May-2017 07:55
Send private message quote this post

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?

 

 

From the broadcaster.  The broadcaster needs to supply bandwidth (or get a 3rd party too).  Bandwidth cost money which the broadcaster needs to pay.  You accessing the content for free does have a cost to it.  Someone always has to pay for the bandwidth/resources you are using to watch the stream, if you are not paying but using the service (that has a cost to it) and you are not paying that cost then that is stealing.

 

It would be the same if you found some way to get unlimited LTE data on your mobile phone that you should be paying for but you're not.

 

 

 

 

 

 


507 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 39


  Reply # 1783488 17-May-2017 08:14
Send private message quote this post

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.

 

 


805 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 107

Trusted

  Reply # 1783491 17-May-2017 08:28
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

tripp:

 

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?

 

 

From the broadcaster.  The broadcaster needs to supply bandwidth (or get a 3rd party too).  Bandwidth cost money which the broadcaster needs to pay.  You accessing the content for free does have a cost to it.  Someone always has to pay for the bandwidth/resources you are using to watch the stream, if you are not paying but using the service (that has a cost to it) and you are not paying that cost then that is stealing.

 

It would be the same if you found some way to get unlimited LTE data on your mobile phone that you should be paying for but you're not. 

 

 

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 :)

 

 

 

 





helping others at dev.icqz.net

507 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 39


  Reply # 1783495 17-May-2017 08:40
Send private message quote this post

kobiak:

 

tripp:

 

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?

 

 

From the broadcaster.  The broadcaster needs to supply bandwidth (or get a 3rd party too).  Bandwidth cost money which the broadcaster needs to pay.  You accessing the content for free does have a cost to it.  Someone always has to pay for the bandwidth/resources you are using to watch the stream, if you are not paying but using the service (that has a cost to it) and you are not paying that cost then that is stealing.

 

It would be the same if you found some way to get unlimited LTE data on your mobile phone that you should be paying for but you're not. 

 

 

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 :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is still taking someone else property without their permission.


805 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 107

Trusted

  Reply # 1783497 17-May-2017 08:49
Send private message quote this post

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.

 

 

 

 





helping others at dev.icqz.net

343 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 169


  Reply # 1783500 17-May-2017 09:03
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

tripp:

 

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?

 

 

From the broadcaster.  The broadcaster needs to supply bandwidth (or get a 3rd party too).  Bandwidth cost money which the broadcaster needs to pay.  You accessing the content for free does have a cost to it.  Someone always has to pay for the bandwidth/resources you are using to watch the stream, if you are not paying but using the service (that has a cost to it) and you are not paying that cost then that is stealing.

 

It would be the same if you found some way to get unlimited LTE data on your mobile phone that you should be paying for but you're not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

hmmm. I don't buy it. Some games that I watch on are "freeview channels" overseas. Broadcasted over the internet for free to people living only in the UK and USA for example. To watch these same games here in NZ I have to pay a fee to Sky. There is no stealing, because if I was in the UK or USA, or even sometimes in Australia I would get it for free.





If you don't read the news, you're uninformed. If you do read it, you're misinformed.

 

  - Denzel Washington


1704 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 259

Subscriber

  Reply # 1783509 17-May-2017 09:28
Send private message quote this post

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. 





Geek girl. Freelance copywriter and editor at Unmistakable.

 

Currently using: Modified 2008 Mac Pro, HP M6-1017TX Laptop, iPad Pro, iPhone 6S, iPhone 5, AppleTV4, Minix Neo Z-64.


1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer 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:





News »

Nothing nebulous about Microsoft’s cloud-transition
Posted 21-Jul-2017 15:34


We’re spending more on tech, but not as much as Australians
Posted 21-Jul-2017 11:43


Endace announces EndaceFabric for network-wide packet recording
Posted 20-Jul-2017 20:49


Acorn 6: MacOS image editing for the rest of us
Posted 20-Jul-2017 17:04


HTC faces backlash over keyboard pop-up ads
Posted 19-Jul-2017 15:53


BNZ adds Visa credit cards to Android Pay wallet
Posted 18-Jul-2017 19:44


Still living in a Notification hell – Om Malik
Posted 18-Jul-2017 13:00


Duet Display uses iPad to extend Mac, PC
Posted 18-Jul-2017 10:58


PC sales could be worse
Posted 17-Jul-2017 07:34


Crypto-currencies, tulips, market bubbles
Posted 17-Jul-2017 06:38


NZ Tech Podcast: Big batteries, solar cars, cold war, IoT
Posted 16-Jul-2017 16:53


Vodafone Australia mulls Wisp alliance, NZ implications
Posted 13-Jul-2017 16:49


Rural health professionals see fibre pay-off
Posted 13-Jul-2017 11:52


Vodafone announces expansion of $5 Daily Roaming
Posted 13-Jul-2017 10:20


Intel unveils powerful Intel Xeon Scalable processors
Posted 12-Jul-2017 20:41



Geekzone Live »

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



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.