Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games • Hacker News Board

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#291

Post by carlmr » Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 3:38 PM UTC

cruano wrote: post #289

carlmr wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not watching game of thrones, but I can't quite see the connection here. The argument doesn't really depend on people finding they have to view something. They want to view it, so they look at the offering, which is illegal with bad customer experience or legal with better customer experience. They weigh their options according to their preferences, illegal VS legal, ad riddled pages vs smooth experience, having…

I mean but say for example I want a promotion but my boss is deciding between two people. I could work harder and expect that he chooses me or I could go and murder the other person. I weight my options and turns out murdering him is the easy way out so I choose that. You can't say it's not a moral argument when one option is breaking the law

A company is there to make a profit. People have preferences. From the perspective of the company your interest should lie in maximizing the profit, given your target groups preferences. This is what is essentially the argument here.

It's not about discussing what is or isn't moral, your example probably isn't regarded as moral in most moral frameworks. But that is built into your subjective preferences. The company has to operate in a world with various preferences given as fact.

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#292

Post by abrugsch » Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 3:41 PM UTC

giobox wrote: post #178

thatoneuser wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like something that works in theory but not at all in the real world.

The full description sounds like a normal digital camera to be honest, almost as if someone has gone to great verbal lengths to disguise the fact it is simply a camera: "The optical detector in the detector van uses a large lens to collect that light and focus it on to an especially sensitive device, which converts fluctuating light signals into electrical signals, which can be electronically analysed." For many year…

This exact thing happened to me when I was a student. In '94 when myself and 6 other first-year students moved into a house, one of the first things we did was get a TV sorted out between us. Renting TV's was still a thing then and doing so was quite viable for a bunch of students who didn't have the disposable cash to just go and buy a TV. "Paul" put his name on the rental agreement. of course we needed the license too so that day we got that sorted too. "George" (there was a John too, and I was sorely disappointed to find there wasn't a Ringo!) arranged it and her name went on the license. a few weeks went by and sure enough we got a visit from the "Detector Van" because Radio Rentals told the licensing authority that we had taken delivery of a TV and of course that didn't match their records of a license holder... never mind that the address was covered and it was a shared house. (not individual apartments) A similar thing happened a couple of years later when I moved in with a bunch of guys who just didn't bother with a license and I was in when a guy with a clipboard of address that didn't have licenses just went door to door checking if there was a TV in use. he had a "detector van" but it was just the output of a database select. For a while the licensing agency even had ads to the effect that "detection" is just the output of a database. Alos youtube is full of people their their harrassment by licencing officials because they don't have a license

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#293

Post by SomeOldThrow » Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 3:58 PM UTC

petepete wrote: post #226

SomeOldThrow wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly the best way to watch baseball at least is to mute the TV and turn on the radio—vastly higher quality commentary, and you can look up in time to see the play you just heard. The ads also tend to be more local and less obnoxious.

If you like your commentary to be totally out of sync with the picture, yes.

Honestly this is far preferable to listening to the TV commentators.

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#294

Post by theoh » Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 4:07 PM UTC

There was a proposed system back in the 90s which involved multiple decryption keys. https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~mernst/pubs/heraclitean-tr9...

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#295

Post by ourcat » Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 4:57 PM UTC

Q: If, as a developer, you were asked to implement something like this, would you?

Piracy issues aside, this would be a no-no for me on moral grounds.

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#296

Post by lostmymind66 » Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 5:29 PM UTC

Phillipharryt wrote: post #235

lostmymind66 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you provide people with easy, convenient, legal methods to consume the content in a way that works for them, for a price they find reasonable, then they overwhelmingly won't resort to illegal means." I disagree. Music is cheaper and easier to buy than ever with things like iTunes and the various streaming services and music piracy is still rampant. Bars have very slim margins and owners will most likely never pay…

You realise you're arguing against fundamental economics right? The convenience of paid services is a product, literally all products have a value so if you price it right then people will pay for it. If you somehow were able to price discriminate perfectly then you could completely remove piracy.

"literally all products have a value so if you price it right then people will pay for it"

All products do have a value. However, you need to compete against easy and free with piracy...which is virtually impossible to win and unfair..especially if you aren't the person that created the product in the first place.

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#297

Post by ikeyany » Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 5:39 PM UTC

bhelkey wrote: post #87

ikeyany wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it illegal to amplify music in your store if you paid for the music?

Should it be legal to create a drive-in that plays movies off of Netflix?

Yes. It shouldn't be illegal to have music playing in your store if the music isn't the attraction.

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#298

Post by ikeyany » Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 5:40 PM UTC

jefftk wrote: post #91

ikeyany wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it illegal to amplify music in your store if you paid for the music?

Public performance rights are handled separately from private listening.

There is a line between a public performance and background noise.

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#299

Post by oh_sigh » Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 5:53 PM UTC

awaythrow113 wrote: post #241

oh_sigh wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, so I commit a crime and steal all sorts of personal data from a phone, but then hand that data off to someone else - who knows that I did something naughty to obtain it - who then posts it for all the world to see. That second person did nothing wrong? Also, did I really break into the phone? I just hypothetically asked if it wanted to copy some bytes, and it said yes.

A phone can't say anything, it doesn't have agency. What you did was exploit around security measures, which is breaking into the phone.

Yes - so just reducing anything a computer does to 'copying bytes' is a ridiculous thing. Which was my entire point.

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#300

Post by stale2002 » Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 6:04 PM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #238

stale2002 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not publishing man. It is quite obvious what I meant when I said publishing. Not really sure why you are acting in bad faith by purposefully misinterpreting what I said. But to give a clear definition of what publishing means, that any non idiot, non bad faith actor would have already known, what I meant by publishing is when I take some media and put it in a place where any large amount of people could access…

How large of a private audience does one's performance need to have before your performance goes from a private to a public thing?

For me personally, I'd say maybe more than a couple hundred people.

Anything that I show to more than a couple hundred people, I would have no problem releasing it to a billion people.

Over a couple hundred people may as well be public, and Id have no problem if it became public.