31–40 of 59 posts
Note, Telstra isn't "just" a cable provider. They currently own nearly all of the landline market, large portions of the Internet provider market, and the mobile carrier market. This randomly Googled page looks about accurate: https://www.statista.com/statistics/326147/number-of-broadba...
So is there a limit on the number of people that can watch, per box? Can I watch it with my dog? With my friend? With my friend and her kids? Can I watch it during a birthday party? There will be 20 kids and their parents around, is that ok? Can each of said parents have a conference call with their buddies to watch and discuss the game? Is there a limit on the size of the tv? Can I mount a 10x5 monitor setup so peop…
Why are you coming up with "scenarios"? It's illegal to rebroadcast a copyrighted show, which is what he was doing. Ignorance of the laws of copyright doesn't make it any less illegal. Also he'll be in civil breach of his cable contract too, which will have a rebroadcast clause in it. Streaming on Facebook is rebroadcasting. I can't understand, with even the most basic knowledge of copyright, how you can think it's n…
What you are saying is we should adapt, mold, conform, comply the law, all the time, without thinking. Laws come from the past and these scenarios come from the future. Who would you rather please?
Your future you, who might end up away from home but still wants to watch the fight? So he sets up a stream he can access while on the train, for example. And he shares it with a friend on the next seat. And his brother, from outside the country, so they can discuss it together. Yes, this is broadcasting. Just because you can't set it up, you don't know how to do it without googling, or simply don't conceive it to be possible, don't limit the guy that finds out how.
Or would you rather please that guy that calls you and informs you that you should stop, because something as vague and as distant as "copyright law"? Sir, please stop. Your intent cannot be monetized further. Please wait a few years until we develop an app/device/system that allows you to view the stream remotely so we can charge you.
Fuck that guy.
If none of the scenarios resonate, then that's fine. But understand that people will want to do new things. Some will be deemed illegal, some will be acepted. Some can't be stopped.
Refusal to think about new scenarios dooms us to whatever was decided before we were born.
Enjoy your retro life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you coming up with "scenarios"? It's illegal to rebroadcast a copyrighted show, which is what he was doing. Ignorance of the laws of copyright doesn't make it any less illegal. Also he'll be in civil breach of his cable contract too, which will have a rebroadcast clause in it. Streaming on Facebook is rebroadcasting. I can't understand, with even the most basic knowledge of copyright, how you can think it's n…
Because the world happens in scenarios. And failure to adapt to real world scenarios that regular humans might end up desiring is a problem. What you are saying is we should adapt, mold, conform, comply the law, all the time, without thinking. Laws come from the past and these scenarios come from the future. Who would you rather please? Your future you, who might end up away from home but still wants to watch the fig…
There's an existing law and just because you're rebroadcasting using Facebook Live instead of a video camera doesn't suddenly make it any less illegal.
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
Rebroadcasting copyrighted event = illegal.
Rebroadcasting copyrighted event + Facebook live = ?
Figure it out.
We can come up with another scenario about waving your hands while hopping on one leg and pressing the stream button on Facebook Live of a copyrighted show while facing west and singing omm-pah loom-pah and sharing that stream with every 3rd member of the New York Symphony Orchestra.
Is that illegal?
Yes. The only relevant bit of that ridiculous thought experiment is "copyrighted show...sharing with".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the world happens in scenarios. And failure to adapt to real world scenarios that regular humans might end up desiring is a problem. What you are saying is we should adapt, mold, conform, comply the law, all the time, without thinking. Laws come from the past and these scenarios come from the future. Who would you rather please? Your future you, who might end up away from home but still wants to watch the fig…
Was that an attempt to burn me? Retro! What a tool. There's an existing law and just because you're rebroadcasting using Facebook Live instead of a video camera doesn't suddenly make it any less illegal. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Rebroadcasting copyrighted event = illegal. Rebroadcasting copyrighted event + Facebook live = ? Figure it out. We can come up with another scenario about waving y…
But can't help but notice that:
1) you also can't (until now) put lipstick on a man and call it a woman, but look at what new "scenarios" people have come up with recently.
2) You had something about being happy with half a brain, but deleted it. Glad to see you have more than half.
Now you are equating bootleg DVD with facebook live. I understand that, while you don't make money with streaming on facebook (do you?), you still end up with notoriety, some kind of social credit. However, still a longshot from "selling pirated copies".
Was there a business model in my scenarios? Did this guy, clueless as he is to what is deemed illegal in 2017, monetize it?
As for your "copyrighted show[content]...shared with", do you talk with people? Tell me, be honest: have you ever shared something, in the privacy of a phone call, intimate moment, or at dinner, about a book you read? When you exit the movie theather, do you comment "out loud" what you saw?
In this new scenario, I am specifically asking if someone, ever, has wanted to rebroadcast to the world what he just acquired from a book or movie, to start a conversation.
Because now we get into the "how detailed can the sharing be", and I'll ask you if 240p is "low detail" enough, or if I omit the weather and words longer than 6 letters, and you'll say "but only if in black and white and without sound", and I'll ask if I can share the sound in another stream, and if is illegal for a third party in Iceland to assemble the two streams, and you'll get angry and either punch me, or call me stupid again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our legal system is based a lot on interpretations of reasonable expectations and reasonable behaviour. You may think you're being super clever by talking about it like you're interpreting it like an ISO standard and finding gaps, but everyone else including judges and juries understands what is reasonable and what is not.
Do you?
So is there a limit on the number of people that can watch, per box? Can I watch it with my dog? With my friend? With my friend and her kids? Can I watch it during a birthday party? There will be 20 kids and their parents around, is that ok? Can each of said parents have a conference call with their buddies to watch and discuss the game? Is there a limit on the size of the tv? Can I mount a 10x5 monitor setup so peop…
> Can each of said parents have a conference call with their buddies to watch and discuss the game? Is there a limit on the size of the tv? Can I mount a 10x5 monitor setup so people across the street can see as well? Can I project it on that publicity board? Can I twitch my reaction to the game? Can I stream the screen? Oops. In the US, it is a violation of copyright law, if "people across the street can see it..."…
Note to self: don't let security cameras or baby cameras record the inside of any books I am reading, when in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was that an attempt to burn me? Retro! What a tool. There's an existing law and just because you're rebroadcasting using Facebook Live instead of a video camera doesn't suddenly make it any less illegal. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Rebroadcasting copyrighted event = illegal. Rebroadcasting copyrighted event + Facebook live = ? Figure it out. We can come up with another scenario about waving y…
Sorry, didn't meant to make it personal. Retro wasn't an insult, "time delayed", or "vintage" would also be ok. I like retro. I was born when retro as modern. But can't help but notice that: 1) you also can't (until now) put lipstick on a man and call it a woman, but look at what new "scenarios" people have come up with recently. 2) You had something about being happy with half a brain, but deleted it. Glad to see yo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the world happens in scenarios. And failure to adapt to real world scenarios that regular humans might end up desiring is a problem. What you are saying is we should adapt, mold, conform, comply the law, all the time, without thinking. Laws come from the past and these scenarios come from the future. Who would you rather please? Your future you, who might end up away from home but still wants to watch the fig…
Was that an attempt to burn me? Retro! What a tool. There's an existing law and just because you're rebroadcasting using Facebook Live instead of a video camera doesn't suddenly make it any less illegal. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Rebroadcasting copyrighted event = illegal. Rebroadcasting copyrighted event + Facebook live = ? Figure it out. We can come up with another scenario about waving y…
I'll add that this is breaking the law twice, once with the origin and second with Facebook as violation of their service.
Otherwise, the parent doesn't make any sense in his ramblings.
I would say that a lot of people who watched it on the streaming were not going to pay anyway, so the loss was probably minimal in reality.
If you really wanted to watch and did not have the Foxtel or the money you could have gone to the pub, or a mates, anyway.