Fan Pass - I'll Pass On That

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

1 | ... | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | ... | 25

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1783328 16-May-2017 18:22

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.

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

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18565 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1783331 16-May-2017 18:33

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.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18565 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1783334 16-May-2017 18:43

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!

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Talkiet

4787 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1783338 16-May-2017 18:52

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

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.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1783339 16-May-2017 18:54

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?

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

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18565 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1783368 16-May-2017 19:52

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.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18565 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1783374 16-May-2017 20:11

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.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1783380 16-May-2017 20:20

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?

tripp

3848 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1783481 17-May-2017 07:55

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.

Jas777

838 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1783488 17-May-2017 08:14

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.

kobiak

1615 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1783491 17-May-2017 08:28

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 evgenyk.nz

Jas777

838 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1783495 17-May-2017 08:40

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.

kobiak

1615 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1783497 17-May-2017 08:49

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 evgenyk.nz

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1783500 17-May-2017 09:03

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.

littleheaven

2120 posts

Uber Geek

#1783509 17-May-2017 09:28

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.co.nz.

1 | ... | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | ... | 25