51–59 of 59 posts
IPTV is a term for some clearly standardized and perfectly legal technology to deliver television services. Check the wikipedia page and definitions maybe [0]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Protocol_television
I wonder why all those articles about video streaming pirates use the term IPTV to describe illegal video streaming services. IPTV is a term for some clearly standardized and perfectly legal technology to deliver television services. Check the wikipedia page and definitions maybe [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Protocol_television
But it's not the articles that are driving it, it's the pirates themselves who have done it and the articles following that nomenclature. If you go online the search results for IPTV are very much about pirate services and tools now.
In the previous work I was involved in, I was responsible for technical measures against piracy and had to get comfortable with the services being called IPTV.
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.
People refer to them as “dodgy boxes”. They know it’s illegal and no one cares. Everyone in the country knows this and either has one or a family member has one
It's like buying something from the local market, those Adidas trackies are either a knock-off copy, or knocked-off stolen, but if they're 1/4 the price then they're still going to sell to someone.
The only thing I'd point out is that a security researcher found that a significant number of those grey market pirate boxes they tested had malware on them. So using them can open you up to a whole lot of risk. After all, there's no accountability for those pirates!
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. -…
1. The actual labor of an author. Writing a book requires a nontrivial amount of labor. This cannot be ignored. You cannot categorically say that you have a right to the labor of an author and the publisher.
2. The dishonest business practices of publishers (and some authors). I agree that university textbooks often follow this model, but that is largely a flaw with the American university education system which has long abandoned education as its primary aim. The money-making schemes around education are downright criminal, and it is disgusting that universities abet and enable them.
3. The distribution of books where this is a problem. Most published books do not go through successive bogus editions that only reorder the exercises in the back. W.r.t. university texts, I've had professors who use old books published decades ago (e.g., Dover, which are cheap) and these tend to better than the glossy tomes many professors seem to prefer for some reason. There is absolutely no reason for a 30th edition book on basic number theory or the foundations of Newtonian physics.
Professors are first and foremost pedagogues, hence why I think the research university is a grave injustice toward students, where pedagogy takes a back seat. Each professor should effectively be writing his own "textbook". This doesn't have to be a published tome. Orally-delivered or via lecture notes, doesn't matter.
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 sure they are. I watch stuff on youtube and some probably violates someone's copyright which is an issue for the people posting it but I'm not sure I've broken the law by watching it? Obviously laws vary by which legal system you are involved with.
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 pretty sure most users know that using the service is... "dodgy".
Paying for this via a bank is just asking for trouble!
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.
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. -…
I think all of the books for my year were about $150, not just one.
Now I'd assume everyone is using digital books so it might be different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. -…
Let's take the emotion out of this, because it is clouding your judgement. There are a number of distinctions that must be made. 1. The actual labor of an author. Writing a book requires a nontrivial amount of labor. This cannot be ignored. You cannot categorically say that you have a right to the labor of an author and the publisher. 2. The dishonest business practices of publishers (and some authors). I agree that…
Why make this point?
Address my actual content - I believe we can do better than modern copyright (personally - I think "no copyright" is likely a better and more ethical solution than the modern incarnation, but that's a real discussion, and there are FAR too many leeches (excuse me - vested interests) for this reasoning to gain traction in western countries).
I think modern copyright is at the root of an absolutely incredible amount of rent-seeking behavior, and I think we both agree on that point.
You state: "The money-making schemes around education are downright criminal, and it is disgusting that universities abet and enable them."
But copyright enables these exact money-making schemes, and it does so on a level far beyond the damage done by universities alone. We see this across huge swathes of the economy.
Again, my opinion is that current copyright laws have become a tool that facilitates stagnation, enriches middlemen rather than funds authors or creatives of any type, and are largely harmful to society.
That's NOT a condemnation of copyright as a concept, I believe there are implementations that can be much more fruitful. But what the US promotes is, well, a steaming pile of horse-*&^% that reeks so bad we'd be better off washing it away entirely.
So to your points:
> 1. The actual labor of an author. Writing a book requires a nontrivial amount of labor. This cannot be ignored. You cannot categorically say that you have a right to the labor of an author and the publisher.
I entirely agree, work should be compensated. I don't believe that work entitles you to a revenue stream for eternity, or functional eternity (ex: life of author plus 70 FUCKING YEARS). We don't pay the skilled workers who build houses for every month someone stays in them. They do work in exchange for a set payment. They don't get payment forever in exchange for one-time work.
> 2. The dishonest business practices of publishers (and some authors). I agree that university textbooks often follow this model, but that is largely a flaw with the American university education system which has long abandoned education as its primary aim. The money-making schemes around education are downright criminal, and it is disgusting that universities abet and enable them.
We both agree, no argument here.
> 3. The distribution of books where this is a problem. Most published books do not go through successive bogus editions that only reorder the exercises in the back. W.r.t. university texts, I've had professors who use old books published decades ago (e.g., Dover, which are cheap) and these tend to better than the glossy tomes many professors seem to prefer for some reason. There is absolutely no reason for a 30th edition book on basic number theory or the foundations of Newtonian physics.
Yes, people can and do act ethically at times, all on their own. Those people are great, but we're not referring to them, we're referring to the systemic problems of copyright that enable the opposite behavior. The world could be so much better if more people acted in this manner, but human nature implies we're not dealing with that world.