41–50 of 59 posts
[flagged]
[1] https://youtu.be/Fb5-Lts5EPs?si=18f8_A5ky-7kw_XW&t=131
this is probably good start for amateurs (you can watch them in VLC through CTRL+N or just install on Android TV some viewer like OTT Navigator)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Screw the author's labor, eh?
Well, this is part of the problem. Sometimes "the author's labor" amounts to reordering questions at the back to mark it as new revision and charge 150+ usd for a book that should have been $20 brand new, and is only purchased because it's a required title in a required class to get a piece of paper required for employment. In that case... Fuck yes. Screw the author's "labor". Arguably, screw the whole damn system. -…
> Copyright rarely helps small authors who actually need it. > > It usually gets employed by conglomerates that own distribution and are already screwing authors as hard as they think they can get away with.
Do you think these small authors have the resources to try to enforce copyright?
I'm pretty uneasy about legal action against the subscribers themselves. If you can prove intent, maybe? But I'd argue many or even most don't realize they're doing anything illegal. These IPTV companies, in my experience, never advertise that it's illegal. It's just give us money for a lot of TV channels, just like a cable company does.
I'm not familiar with how these IPTV companies market their services, but I'm extremely skeptical of the notion that people don't realize they're buying something illegal when they're paying a small percentage of what the services themselves would cost. It's like those folks that sold bootleg DVDs out of their trenchcoats in Manhattan - the defense of "gosh, I never knew buying a just-released-in-theaters Hollywood b…
Can you PROVE they knew it's illegal service?
It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
https://youtu.be/1hUWPBvppvU?si=WtYEX12H3kxRlKUU&t=8
And honestly many of these websites look really professional and even legal services have various very cheap promotions, so good luck proving they knew they were paying for illegal service. It's exact same reason why in EU uploading copyrighted movie is illegal, but downloading it is legal, since you can't know whether the source is legal or not unless they would advertise with big letters THIS IS ILLEGAL DOWNLOAD FOR YOU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’ll find that a pretty unpopular attitude around here (hence the downvoting on your comment, and I assume mine shortly), but you are right.
It’s unpopular because it’s a bad argument. It’s not theft because you don’t take anything away. You just create a copy and don’t pay for it, but that’s not theft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> don't realize they're buying something illegal when they're paying a small percentage of what the services themselves would cost Possibly, but not always. When Red Pocket and the other cheap mvnos came around, people were skeptical for the same reason - but it was all above board. Pricing depends on sales channel and price. If you slum the dregs of shady marketplaces, you can get it for like 3 or 4 bucks a month. B…
They’re literally calling dodgy boxes here by both the consumers and sellers. Look, make the case in court if you want, you might get off with a slap, and nobody’s rooting for the big bad corporation here either, but nobody is under any illusions that these are legal
Not that I would ever do such a thing, of course.
Huh, Ireland has copied English law so precisely that it also has Norwich Pharmacal and Anton Pillar orders? (De anonymozation of third parties and non-crime search warrants respectively)
What do you mean by copied? Ireland was colonised by the English for many years, and was part of their common law system during that period. When it became independent, all laws weren't suddenly repealed, some were just ammended over time (as any common law system does). It's my understanding that Irish Courts can still refer to court cases from other common law countries in terms of precidence, even now
The Wikipedia article on Anton Piller orders¹ has this to say about their use in Ireland:
> Anton Piller orders have been granted by the High Court in William A. Grogan (copyright owner of RAMDIS) v. Monaghan Electrical Ltd & Michael Traynor (1998) related to an unlicensed copy of the RAMDIS software system, Joblin-Purser v. Jackman and Microsoft v. Brightpoint, but the issue has not come before the Supreme Court and, owing to the civil nature of the order and the strong protection given to the family home in the constitution, it currently exists in something of a grey area.
Personally I would never do piracy without both of these protections. It's not perfect but it doesn't matter. You just have to be harder to catch than the lowest hanging fruit.
Like the guy running from a bear said to the other guy: I don't have to outrun the bear, just to be faster than you :)