Why Johnny can't stream: How video copyright went insane • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Johnny can't stream: How video copyright went insane

#31

Post by DanBC » Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 7:31 PM UTC

TheAmazingIdiot wrote: post #14

tomjen3 wrote: post #7

Meanwhile millions just illegally download the movies and tv shows of various sites, completely ignoring copyright law. And there isn't anything these people can do about it. But hey, lets do a lot more suits against companies and at least force them to do crazy things.

Technically, the letter of the law only highlights transmission (uploading) as illegal in most copyright issues. Downloading most any material seems completely legal. That'd be neat to see: a bittorrent case which the user turned the upload to 0.0 . Are they infringing?

Most downloading is illegal. But there is a difference between crimes that the police will arrest people over, and crimes for which someone 'wronged' can sue. For downloading the 'wronged' party can sue for damages, which would be loss of earnings for that one sale. Plus, I guess, costs.

Uploading is easier to sue, because there the damages (the number of files made available) is much larger and it makes things more cost effective. It also (possibly?) acts as a deterrent to other uploaders.

Criminal charges tend to come in when money is being made from copyright infringement. Selling burnt DVDs, for example.

I'm being a bit vague because of the international audience. (I'm in the UK.)

Re: Why Johnny can't stream: How video copyright went insane

#32

Post by simcop2387 » Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 7:31 PM UTC

chime wrote: post #18

gergles wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should call the cable company back and ask for the "lifeline" package, by that specific name. It only includes the local channels, but it exists in basically every franchise area and is generally $10 or less.

I did. I called three different times and not one of the sales people for Bright House Networks here in Florida knew about it. I said it is the lowest package with just the bare minimum channels like ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS and they said "No, the lowest plan we offer is $25+tax. There is nothing called lifeline."

If the house has been previously hooked up for cable (or still is for internet) you can try hooking up anyway. A lot of them will usually have those channels come through anyway because it costs them less in filters and things to do so. However some of them still encrypt them so it's a bit of a crap-shoot as to what you'll find.

Re: Why Johnny can't stream: How video copyright went insane

#33

Post by DanBC » Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 7:36 PM UTC

The Ars article misses out the third opportunity - a subscription based service with easy to use existing networks and protocols and software; where some of the sub fee goes to content creators.

That's never happened. Even though the content creator would be getting paid for their content there would have been many court cases shutting anyone providing that service down.

Re: Why Johnny can't stream: How video copyright went insane

#34

Post by nameuserc » Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 8:21 PM UTC

So if I do this:

wget http://example.com/file.flv; sleep 5; mplayer -cache 8092 file.flv

am I "streaming"?

In answering that question, does it matter what I do, or only what the guys at example.com are doing?

What if my system is diskless and file.flv is downloaded to a RAM disk? What if I turn off the system after watching? What if I don't? What if I save file.flv to a USB stick and watch it later? What if I loan the stick to a friend?

What if I do this:

ffmpeg -i file.flv file.mp3; mplayer -vo null file.mp3

Can the guys at example.com prohibit me from doing that? Based on intellectual property law? What if some user owns the IP rights to file.flv and uploaded it to example.com and the guys at example.com do not have any IP rights in file.mp3? What if the user did not give them any of her IP rights?

What if I never put file.mp3 into "iTunes"? What if I never put it into "Dropbox"? What if I never send it to "the cloud"? What if I just leave it on a USB stick? What if I play it back from the stick? What if I move it from the stick to my RAM disk and then play it back?

OK, enough.

Enjoy your media.

To get the most from the experience, it may be necessary to stear clear of people who willingly conceal the truth or, in the worst case, lie to you in order to suit their business model.

Re: Why Johnny can't stream: How video copyright went insane

#35

Post by weel » Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 8:23 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #31

TheAmazingIdiot wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically, the letter of the law only highlights transmission (uploading) as illegal in most copyright issues. Downloading most any material seems completely legal. That'd be neat to see: a bittorrent case which the user turned the upload to 0.0 . Are they infringing?

Most downloading is illegal. But there is a difference between crimes that the police will arrest people over, and crimes for which someone 'wronged' can sue. For downloading the 'wronged' party can sue for damages, which would be loss of earnings for that one sale. Plus, I guess, costs. Uploading is easier to sue, because there the damages (the number of files made available) is much larger and it makes things more…

"Crimes for which someone wronged can sue" are actually not crimes but torts.

Copyright infringement is always a tort, but the conditions under which it becomes a criminal offense vary by jurisdiction.

Re: Why Johnny can't stream: How video copyright went insane

#36

Post by amalcon » Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 8:26 PM UTC

chime wrote: post #2

I hope Aereo continues to win. Another company doing the same thing is: http://www.skittertv.com/ - unfortunately neither of them support my local area. Due to my house's construction/location, I can't pick up DTV signals easily and would gladly pay $10-$15/mo to get those channels instead of the minimum $30/mo that my cable company charges for basic package.

If your house is wired for cable, have you tried just connecting your TV to that? A lot of cable companies push local channels unencrypted. That's how I get my local channels.

Re: Why Johnny can't stream: How video copyright went insane

#37

Post by pbhjpbhj » Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 8:30 PM UTC

TheAmazingIdiot wrote: post #14

tomjen3 wrote: post #7

Meanwhile millions just illegally download the movies and tv shows of various sites, completely ignoring copyright law. And there isn't anything these people can do about it. But hey, lets do a lot more suits against companies and at least force them to do crazy things.

Technically, the letter of the law only highlights transmission (uploading) as illegal in most copyright issues. Downloading most any material seems completely legal. That'd be neat to see: a bittorrent case which the user turned the upload to 0.0 . Are they infringing?

>Downloading most any material seems completely legal. //

You're making a single copy without a license. Fair use doctrine may apply depending what you're doing with that copy. There is a general exclusion against the right to copy works that are protected under the Berne Convention for example see Article 9 (http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#...):

"Authors of literary and artistic works [...] have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form."

Distributors however can be more easily stung for punitive damages so until they run out of people who're 'distributing' some bits then they're unlikely to bother [as much] with mere* downloaders.

Re: Why Johnny can't stream: How video copyright went insane

#38

Post by pbhjpbhj » Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 8:33 PM UTC

danielweber wrote: post #23

nollidge wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I'll just do X' instead of X and then everything is legal!" Except... this is exactly what has happened.

It did? When did a court rule that a slight change in Zevida's practice would make it legal? Lots of people are trying/hoping to change the First Sale Doctrine into something that can destroy copyright. That simply isn't going to happen. If some court someone rules that I can own a virtual copy of "The Avengers" and trade it around with my "friends" on the Internet, Congress will recognize that as a bug and modify th…

>Congress will recognize that as a bug and modify the law //

It's not a bug.

Re: Why Johnny can't stream: How video copyright went insane

#39

Post by 001sky » Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 8:48 PM UTC

narrator wrote: post #17

JoshTriplett wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a nice hack, assuming nobody made an argument that it constituted "public performance" or something similarly crazy. Plus, you get automatic coverage of damaged disks: the company will buy back undamaged disks for what you paid minus the rental fee, or for full price in the case of an all-you-can-watch service.

Except anything with a low/bid ask spread becomes money and that comes with its own set of problems. What would happen if the DVD was sold back for more than it was bought for? It's the intersection of Banking + Copyright + Tax Law. The trifecta of screwball legal areas.

Except anything with a low/bid ask spread becomes money

- can you explain that? threshold % of asset value?

Re: Why Johnny can't stream: How video copyright went insane

#40

Post by nollidge » Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 8:51 PM UTC

danielweber wrote: post #23

nollidge wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I'll just do X' instead of X and then everything is legal!" Except... this is exactly what has happened.

It did? When did a court rule that a slight change in Zevida's practice would make it legal? Lots of people are trying/hoping to change the First Sale Doctrine into something that can destroy copyright. That simply isn't going to happen. If some court someone rules that I can own a virtual copy of "The Avengers" and trade it around with my "friends" on the Internet, Congress will recognize that as a bug and modify th…

I was talking about the companies mentioned in the original article which have stood up to judicial scrutiny despite having ridiculous setups that exist solely to circumvent prosecution. Judges clearly don't mind that.

> Congress will recognize that as a bug and modify the law.

Why are you so sure of that?