Let's not pretend that many of you haven't heard of or do not use (well, did not use) the streaming portal site www.atdhe.net.
Previously, you could go and watch all kinds of sports events - baseball, football, loads of european soccer events, pay per view wrestling and mma, etc.
Today, ICE (in cooperation with DHS and the NY State Attorney's office) siezed the website and shut it down.
If you go there now, this image comes up (spoiler due to size):
1) I'm curious how many of you think of it as a website that committed copyright violations - as a portal, did it (from a legal standpoint)? If so, how? If not, why not?
2) I'm curious what you think of the US government seizing and shutting down a website.
I know this is contentious, and discussing it possibly against CAG terms - I mean for this to be a reasonable conversation, so I hope it can continue. But if a mod decides we can't talk about it, I'm going to grumble silently (since ignoring web-based theft isn't going to make it disappear) but respect that decision. I figure as long as we do not discuss or provide access to copyright-violating content, we should be kosher, yes?
In a very, very internet twist to this, the people behind this website have already started another URL to replace the seized domain name. Looks like this is just the start of this battle.
Perhaps we could fold the Zuffa (UFC) lawsuit against Justin.tv discussion in here as well - seems semi-related.
I figured it was a matter of time. And I have no problem with it being shut down.
The issue is they provided a lot of streams to cable channels like ESPN, pay per view sports packages etc. That's clearly not ok.
If they're just streaming things that are over the air there's less of an issue, but by streaming paid cable content they're costing cable companies money etc. so that shouldn't be allowed.
Even the over the air streaming is touchy with sports as, for example, every NFL game is on local TV (unless blacked out due to not being sold out). So sites like these can theoretically get a feed of each game without say streaming the DirecTV Sunday Ticket pay per view broadcasts. But they're still costing DTV customers as they can stream their out of town teams games online on a site like that instead of paying for the pay per view package.
So I have no issue with these sites being shut down. People that use them will bitch, but at the end of the day we have no entitlement to view these things for free. The only TV we have a right to view free of charge is whatever we can pick up over the air with an antenna. Anything else, legally you pay for it or do without seeing it.
Sounds like it was a cool website for soccer, too bad I didn't know about it before it got taken down. Ahh well, my taqueria still has the channels for the games.
[quote name='dmaul1114']I figured it was a matter of time. And I have no problem with it being shut down.
The issue is they provided a lot of streams to cable channels like ESPN, pay per view sports packages etc. That's clearly not ok.[/QUOTE]
Devil's advocate: they did not host any of the steams (which is why I mentioned it was merely a portal site). They linked to streaming sites (like justin.tv and others), which is where the actual copyright violations were going on.
That said, there was not anything on that site that wasn't copyrighted in some nation, so I don't think anyone can claim fair use or anything similar (e.g., free speech).
I do agree with that angle some what. But at the end of the day if a site exists primarily to facilitate access to material that's copyrighted and being streamed illegally, it should be shut down.
As you note, there's on free speech involved. It's not their own content that they're providing links to.
What needs to happen is a crack down on the sites like JustinTV. But why that hasn't happened is that they probably can't be be shut down.
Like YouTube it's users posting stuff. So it's just a matter of it being the responsibility of the networks to send cease and desist orders and go after repeat offenders uploading the streams etc. like they do on Youtube. Same with not being able to shut down torrrent sites or file sharing programs because users are uploading copyrighted things. The service isn't the problem it's the users.
But it's kind of a catch 22 in that piracy wouldn't be as rampant if things like torrents, Kazaa, Napster back in the day didn't make it so easy for anyone to do. Where as before it was more limited to tech nerds posting in newsgroups and other parts of the darknet.
But at the same time their are plenty of legitimate uses for torrents with legal file sharing--i.e. several bands like Dave Matthews etc. allow their shows to be taped by audience members and traded online etc.
So the torrent sites etc. stay up and have survived legal challenges and it's been ruled that it's not their responsibility to ensure their users don't upload copyrighted things, but the responsibility of the industries to monitor use and go after pirates.
I'd guess the streaming sites are largely the same currently. Like YouTube people have their own channels and videos, and it's not viewed as the sites responsibility to police what people upload.
While the other site that just linked to them did nothing but provide links to the copyrighted stuff, so they didn't have that defense as the whole purpose of the site was liking to copyrighted streams provided elsewhere.
[quote name='mykevermin']1) I'm curious how many of you think of it as a website that committed copyright violations - as a portal, did it (from a legal standpoint)? If so, how? If not, why not?[/QUOTE]
I'm going to say no. The stream wasn't originating from their servers/site and the main site only listed what was available. Same concept as torrent search engines not being responsible for committing copyright violations for pointing people to sites with .TORRENT files and Google not being guilty of committing copyright violations after you punch in "[album/movie name blogspot or torrent]"
[quote name='mykevermin']2) I'm curious what you think of the US government seizing and shutting down a website.
[/QUOTE]
Hate it.
Although this is kind of a different situation, this letter still applies.
We, the undersigned, have played various parts in building a network called the Internet. We wrote and debugged the software; we defined the standards and protocols that talk over that network. Many of us invented parts of it. We're just a little proud of the social and economic benefits that our project, the Internet, has brought with it.
We are writing to oppose the Committee's proposed new Internet censorship and copyright bill. If enacted, this legislation will risk fragmenting the Internet's global domain name system (DNS), create an environment of tremendous fear and uncertainty for technological innovation, and seriously harm the credibility of the United States in its role as a steward of key Internet infrastructure. In exchange for this, the bill will introduce censorship that will simultaneously be circumvented by deliberate infringers while hampering innocent parties' ability to communicate.
All censorship schemes impact speech beyond the category they were intended to restrict, but this bill will be particularly egregious in that regard because it causes entire domains to vanish from the Web, not just infringing pages or files. Worse, an incredible range of useful, law-abiding sites can be blacklisted under this bill. These problems will be enough to ensure that alternative name-lookup infrastructures will come into widespread use, outside the control of US service providers but easily used by American citizens. Errors and divergences will appear between these new services and the current global DNS, and contradictory addresses will confuse browsers and frustrate the people using them. These problems will be widespread and will affect sites other than those blacklisted by the American government.
The US government has regularly claimed that it supports a free and open Internet, both domestically and abroad. We can't have a free and open Internet without a global domain name system that sits above the political concerns and objectives of any one government or industry. To date, the leading role the US has played in this infrastructure has been fairly uncontroversial because America is seen as a trustworthy arbiter and a neutral bastion of free expression. If the US suddenly begins to use its central position in the DNS for censorship that advances its political and economic agenda, the consequences will be far-reaching and destructive.
Senators, we believe the Internet is too important and too valuable to be endangered in this way, and implore you to put this bill aside.
I can't agree with that - it's nicely worded, but too absolutist.
Moreover, the government invested millions (likely billions - it is the fed, lawl, they spend money) in infrastructure so that we have access to high-speed internet technology. It was not the good will of the free market alone that brought this access to us. Just like roads in the real world are paid for and built with public dollars, so, too, are the roads that internet connections travel on.
But I don't see absolutism as productive to the conversation. While shutting down a website is harsh, and since they jumped right up with another domain name, its effectiveness questionable, that in itself is not a logical requirement that necessitates a 'no rules apply' demand for the internet. Particularly when it interferes with others' ability to innovate and participate in commerce.
Watching streams of even over-air broadcasts = ratings missing from the networks to take to their advertisers when presenting ad rates for a period. It reduces ad revenue artificially - as people are still watching the broadcast. The network does not have this info, however.
Pirates note that they aren't likely to buy what they steal anyway (which certainly isn't true - it's a matter of degrees). But suppose that it is. Of the 50,000 viewers of UFC whatever that Zuffa cited watched the $50 event via Justin.tv, let's suppose in the absence of Justin.tv, none of them would have translated to a single PPV buy. Streaming still negatively effects Zuffa's revenue, as they have to pay, themselves, to monitor Justin for illegal streams. I bet those people aren't cheap, either.
The same philosophy in the EFF statement could apply to any frontier. Suppose the "wild west" of largely mythical mid-20th century American film made the same claims. They reasonably could. The residents there were the active participants in the monitoring and control of their own communities. Which led to a remarkable degree of lawlessness and crime. The absurdity of absolutism is made evident, I feel, when you take the ideas presented by folks like the EFF and apply it to non-digital scenarios.
That's not to say I endorse all the actions here. I'm more fascinated by it than anything else, as crime control on the web is (and will remain, for now) astonishingly weak. Absolutism will not help reach an agreeable medium, nor will power grabs by authorities. Really, I only see cooperation to be the effective avenue. But it is, lamentably, an avenue that neither party is willing to consider (so long as concessions are regarded as abandoning one's ideals).
[quote name='mykevermin']I can't agree with that - it's nicely worded, but too absolutist.
Moreover, the government invested millions (likely billions - it is the fed, lawl, they spend money) in infrastructure so that we have access to high-speed internet technology. It was not the good will of the free market alone that brought this access to us. Just like roads in the real world are paid for and built with public dollars, so, too, are the roads that internet connections travel on.
But I don't see absolutism as productive to the conversation. While shutting down a website is harsh, and since they jumped right up with another domain name, its effectiveness questionable, that in itself is not a logical requirement that necessitates a 'no rules apply' demand for the internet. Particularly when it interferes with others' ability to innovate and participate in commerce.
The same philosophy in the EFF statement could apply to any frontier. Suppose the "wild west" of largely mythical mid-20th century American film made the same claims. They reasonably could. The residents there were the active participants in the monitoring and control of their own communities. Which led to a remarkable degree of lawlessness and crime. The absurdity of absolutism is made evident, I feel, when you take the ideas presented by folks like the EFF and apply it to non-digital scenarios.
That's not to say I endorse all the actions here. I'm more fascinated by it than anything else, as crime control on the web is (and will remain, for now) astonishingly weak. Absolutism will not help reach an agreeable medium, nor will power grabs by authorities. Really, I only see cooperation to be the effective avenue. But it is, lamentably, an avenue that neither party is willing to consider (so long as concessions are regarded as abandoning one's ideals).[/QUOTE]
Didn't click on the link, did you? The EFF didn't write that letter, it was constructed by 96 key people who help put together the internet while it was in it's infancy. And what they talk about is a valid concern.
All censorship schemes impact speech beyond the category they were intended to restrict, but this bill will be particularly egregious in that regard because it causes entire domains to vanish from the Web, not just infringing pages or files. Worse, an incredible range of useful, law-abiding sites can be blacklisted under this bill. These problems will be enough to ensure that alternative name-lookup infrastructures will come into widespread use, outside the control of US service providers but easily used by American citizens. Errors and divergences will appear between these new services and the current global DNS, and contradictory addresses will confuse browsers and frustrate the people using them. These problems will be widespread and will affect sites other than those blacklisted by the American government.
Now that was talking about a bill that would allow "the Attorney General can ask a court to place any website on the blacklist if infringement is "central" to the purpose of the site" but it is still a valid point. YouTube got a foothold by providing people with a place to share videos (and of course, the biggest draw in the early days was old TV shows, rare music, etc.). Filehosts like Rapidshare and MegaUpload have a massive pirating base. Should they be deleted? How about blogspot like I posted earlier?
The last round of domain deletions had a torrent search site (as in it didn't have torrents on the server) and a major rap site which also leaked out music (which is standard in that community). What's next? And where is the appeals process?
(And I don't think it is wrong in this case to speak in absolutes because there is no middle ground in this case. That's the biggest problem with this country today. Everybody wants to get to middle ground on everything but there are some cases where something is plain wrong. Not everything is an opinion)
[quote name='mykevermin']Watching streams of even over-air broadcasts = ratings missing from the networks to take to their advertisers when presenting ad rates for a period. It reduces ad revenue artificially - as people are still watching the broadcast. The network does not have this info, however.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like they need to innovate and try to come up with another way to track who is watching.
[quote name='mykevermin']Pirates note that they aren't likely to buy what they steal anyway (which certainly isn't true - it's a matter of degrees). But suppose that it is. Of the 50,000 viewers of UFC whatever that Zuffa cited watched the $50 event via Justin.tv, let's suppose in the absence of Justin.tv, none of them would have translated to a single PPV buy. Streaming still negatively effects Zuffa's revenue, as they have to pay, themselves, to monitor Justin for illegal streams. I bet those people aren't cheap, either.[/QUOTE]
Well, in that hypothetical of pirates = no lost sales, they wouldn't need to pay people to monitor Justin for illegal streams. But I understand why they do it now. There are dumbbells out there that will steal everything but also only have 0.0001% technical skill. Making the barrier slightly harder to get over, could maybe get them a tiny bit more cash. On the other hand, lawyers come with the territory of running a massive business.
Instead of complaining about how they have to spend money on shutting down these illegal streams and cry about all of the hypothetical sales they are missing out on...why aren't they innovating?
WWE and UFC both sell their own official live stream of the PPV. Only problem is they both sell it for $45...the same price as buying it on PPV. What is the point of that?
(beyond getting people who don't have cable)
Why not offer some incentive to buy it legally by lowering the streaming price down to something reasonable?
Problem is cable companies which would shit their pants if they were undercut.
CD Projekt is the best example of this. Instead of crying about what ifs, they took almost all the incentives out of pirating. When they first started distributing games in Poland, they not only provided the best translations (of text heavy games) but they priced the product where there was no point to buy the bootleg version. When they started making games, they not only dropped a ton of money creating a high quality game for a "dead" platform, after release, they continued to improve the game...for free, creating a groundswell of support which resulted in them selling over a million copies. They created a site selling what many people would consider abandonware games but they differentiated themselves by pricing it low, making it run on any system and throwing in extras. Their whole business was created out of pushing forward and doing the best work possible. Now that doesn't mean they are pirate friendly. They are hiring firms to watch for torrents of their upcoming game The Witcher 2...but they are also releasing it DRM free on GOG at a fair price ($44.99). The people who need to get punished, get punished and the people who buy the product, get respect.
While there was no middle ground in the argument higher up, there is a solution for this mess. Businesses have to stop going for the blatant cashgrab while being smug pricks about it...and people have to support them when they do that. Businesses need consumers and consumers need businesses. The overall goal should be to provide a good product for a good price...not to get every last cent they can.
I really don't understand how portals like this continue to be shut down, because they do little more than a company like google does. You can find pirated material with google, and fairly easily. Now does google deserve to be shut down because they link to pirated material? Most people would say no, and the government doesn't seem to have a problem with it, but how is it any different than this? It would be like shutting down a bridge because it can be used to get to a drug dealer's house.
Btw, you all need to lay off justin.tv, If i lose the ability to watch SC2 matches I'm hunting each of you down.
[quote name='mykevermin']Devil's advocate: they did not host any of the steams (which is why I mentioned it was merely a portal site). They linked to streaming sites (like justin.tv and others), which is where the actual copyright violations were going on.[/QUOTE]
Since our laws applied to the internet seemingly mirror real life applications, it's like the portal site is the dude from whom you purchase your smack while the producer (justin.tv in this analogy) is behind someone else and not as easy to find. Although the analogy sort of falls apart since we know where justin.tv resides... At any rate, the law feels the need to find everyone involved so it stands to reason that the portal site would go down as well.
[quote name='mykevermin']
1) I'm curious how many of you think of it as a website that committed copyright violations - as a portal, did it (from a legal standpoint)? If so, how? If not, why not?
2) I'm curious what you think of the US government seizing and shutting down a website.
[/QUOTE]
1) There are two approaches to the argument,
If the yellow pages lists a store that contains copyright violating materials, is it (the yellow pages) complicit? Certainly not.
If I were to publish an alternative yellow pages, including only copright infringing stores, am I complicit? Perhaps.
2) Not acceptable. The government should not be enforcing copyright (a civil violation) at this juncture. I AM in favor of a criminal statute governing copyright, but it would have to be well codified, including a sunset period shorter than seventy-five years (by a lot), plenty of fair use exemptions, and distinguishing between individuals sharing for profit and individuals simply sharing.
If I were to publish an alternative yellow pages, including only copright infringing stores, am I complicit? Perhaps.
[/QUOTE]
I don't think you would be. There are escort review sites which list all the contact info of known escorts in the area along with user reviews. Having a site focused on an illegal act shouldn't make it illegal when they are completely separate from the whole process besides listing user supplied info and reviews.
[quote name='Sporadic']Didn't click on the link, did you? The EFF didn't write that letter, it was constructed by 96 key people who help put together the internet while it was in it's infancy. And what they talk about is a valid concern.[/quote]
Kinda figured the quote you provided was the important stuff. At any rate, if the argument against censorship means that the government can not claim any ownership over the internet, then the claims of these individuals is equally invalid, as they are de facto implying they have some ownership stake over the internet (i.e., we built it, so we know what to do with it). See my wild west analogy above. It's a fallacious conclusion.
More to the point, censorship is what Egypt has been doing since last week. Shutting down and seizing a website that served *no other purpose* but to distribute copyrighted materials is not censorship - particularly as, nasum notes, avenues to continue to access those copyright-violating materials still exist and are plentiful.
It's like the police busted one dealer on one block is the most drug-addled section of a community, and folks are decrying that as censorship. It's pure hyperbole.
Tell me how this seizure has stifled 'innovation.'?
Now that was talking about a bill that would allow "the Attorney General can ask a court to place any website on the blacklist if infringement is "central" to the purpose of the site" but it is still a valid point. YouTube got a foothold by providing people with a place to share videos (and of course, the biggest draw in the early days was old TV shows, rare music, etc.). Filehosts like Rapidshare and MegaUpload have a massive pirating base. Should they be deleted? How about blogspot like I posted earlier?
This specific issue is about the portal to the copyrighted material, not the hosts themselves.
I don't feel your question is valid because it is an attempt to lead to a specific conclusion:
1) if someone responds "no" to "should they be deleted?" then you tell them that piracy is a fact of life.
2) if someone responds "yes" then they're a fascist and someone who wants to censor and stifle innovation.
You've stacked the deck in your favor - which, again, I know you think that I'm vehemently on one side of the issue, and you don't believe me when I say that I'm more fascinated and centrist (and that you can't see this because you're so far to one side of the issue and deeply, deeply digging your heels in, unwilling to entertain alternative perspectives). So I think your question is invalid.
Instead, I'd rather see a question like this:
1) whose legal responsibility is it to monitor illegal activity on the internet?
followed up by:
2) whose legal responsibility is it to respond to repeated illegal activity on a particular website?
and
3) are websites criminally liable if they ignore repeated and long-term criminal violations on their website?
The case of Craigslist and their "adult services" section over the years is a fascinating parallel to this. But I'm limited for time this morning - if you're interested, see what former CT Att'y General Richard Blumenthal has done w/ CL over the years. Wouldn't be surprised if Eliot Spitzer was involved at some point as well.
The last round of domain deletions had a torrent search site (as in it didn't have torrents on the server) and a major rap site which also leaked out music (which is standard in that community). What's next? And where is the appeals process?
Let me propose fines instead of deletions. Deletions are bad, as a person's work has financial value (even just nominally) and certainly sentimental value.
So gov't officials sieze your website, you get it back when you pay a fine of several thousand dollars or win the appeals process (as I agree there should be one). You have time to control for violations and 'clean' your website.
(And I don't think it is wrong in this case to speak in absolutes because there is no middle ground in this case.
Defend this. It's most certainly not a statement of something that is inherently true by virtue of the fact that it's been said. I'm open to hearing that absolutism is sensible, but that involves more than me reading someone say "absolutism is sensible."
That's the biggest problem with this country today. Everybody wants to get to middle ground on everything but there are some cases where something is plain wrong. Not everything is an opinion)
Well, in that hypothetical of pirates = no lost sales, they wouldn't need to pay people to monitor Justin for illegal streams. But I understand why they do it now. There are dumbbells out there that will steal everything but also only have 0.0001% technical skill. Making the barrier slightly harder to get over, could maybe get them a tiny bit more cash. On the other hand, lawyers come with the territory of running a massive business.
Instead of complaining about how they have to spend money on shutting down these illegal streams and cry about all of the hypothetical sales they are missing out on...why aren't they innovating?
WWE and UFC both sell their own official live stream of the PPV. Only problem is they both sell it for $45...the same price as buying it on PPV. What is the point of that?
(beyond getting people who don't have cable)
Why not offer some incentive to buy it legally by lowering the streaming price down to something reasonable?
Problem is cable companies which would shit their pants if they were undercut.
Your argument starts off by saying "why aren't they innovating?" and ends with "okay, they innovated, but it's still really expensive." You're not, so far as I can tell, remaining consistent with your argument. price ≠ innovation, yet that's the concern you have for internet pay per view content.
CD Projekt is the best example of this. Instead of crying about what ifs, they took almost all the incentives out of pirating. When they first started distributing games in Poland, they not only provided the best translations (of text heavy games) but they priced the product where there was no point to buy the bootleg version. When they started making games, they not only dropped a ton of money creating a high quality game for a "dead" platform, after release, they continued to improve the game...for free, creating a groundswell of support which resulted in them selling over a million copies. They created a site selling what many people would consider abandonware games but they differentiated themselves by pricing it low, making it run on any system and throwing in extras. Their whole business was created out of pushing forward and doing the best work possible. Now that doesn't mean they are pirate friendly. They are hiring firms to watch for torrents of their upcoming game The Witcher 2...but they are also releasing it DRM free on GOG at a fair price ($44.99). The people who need to get punished, get punished and the people who buy the product, get respect.
While there was no middle ground in the argument higher up, there is a solution for this mess. Businesses have to stop going for the blatant cashgrab while being smug pricks about it...and people have to support them when they do that. Businesses need consumers and consumers need businesses. The overall goal should be to provide a good product for a good price...not to get every last cent they can.
Again, you're conflating 'innovation' with 'price.' CD Projeckt is a fine example, but you say they succeeded because they priced the game competitively. PSP-Go shit the bed because of the price of content on PSN. The iTunes App Store has made Apple a not-just-for-the-weird-kid-in-art-class computer company anymore (I remember the 1980's and 1990's, dang it!), but they have succeeded because of price, largely. Their App Store might fail for the same reason (COD4 for $49.99 to download? Riiiiight.). Selling PS3 games digitally on the PSN store is terrible - $30 for AC2 when I bought the disc, three months ago, for $10. Everything else is MSRP.
But that's price. Not innovation. Let's not forget Steam, too. I'm sure you wouldn't let me forget anyway. But the difference between success and falling short here is the price of goods, not how well they "innovate" - necessarily, because each of those companies is doing roughly the same thing. Their innovation is the same, but their success varies, largely based on the price of goods.
[quote name='Clak']I really don't understand how portals like this continue to be shut down, because they do little more than a company like google does. You can find pirated material with google, and fairly easily. Now does google deserve to be shut down because they link to pirated material? Most people would say no, and the government doesn't seem to have a problem with it, but how is it any different than this? It would be like shutting down a bridge because it can be used to get to a drug dealer's house.
[/QUOTE]
Well I think the difference is google is a general search engine and this portal site pretty much only linked to illegal material.
Same with something like Youtube. It's mostly random videos people upload, and thus they don't get shut down because users upload copyrighted stuff at time.
If a portal site wants to stay up, they probably need to mostly provide links to non-copyrighted stuff, and have any illegall stuff be things linked to by members rather than themselves. Then it's off their responsibility and onto the industry to go after the uploaders and make requests of the site to take down feeds etc.
Well, here's the most ed up thing about this story that I completely missed.
The owner of Rojadirecta, whose site had been declared legal in Spain by two courts, is currently seeking legal counsel and the Channelsurfing owner has similar plans. Operators of competing sites are grouping together to determine what actions to take next to counter the seizures both legally and technically.
[quote name='mykevermin']
Your argument starts off by saying "why aren't they innovating?" and ends with "okay, they innovated, but it's still really expensive." You're not, so far as I can tell, remaining consistent with your argument. price ≠ innovation, yet that's the concern you have for internet pay per view content.[/QUOTE]
That's just a standard BS argument from pirates. They're by nature a cheap ass bunch (and naturally on this site especially). They're used to getting things for free, and their moral system has no problems with that.
The only innovation they want to see really is ways to get things for free or dirt cheap legally. And that's just absurd as there's no reason to expect companies to lower their prices and make less money than before just to hopefully get some pirates to buy instead of stealing their content.
As you noted in an earlier post, the problem is that law enforcement in cyberspace is woefully inept. There's very little chance of getting caught. That's what has to change to reduce piracy. Also get rid of the absurd RIAA settlements and make the punishment fit the crime rather than being absurdly harsh.
But the key is getting the likelihood of getting up much higher so fewer people are willing to take the chance vs. doing the right thing and paying for copyrighted material, consuming it through legitimate fair use means (libraries, going to a sports bar to watch the game etc.) or doing without it.
How you get that certainty up, I have no idea. It's not going to be an easy thing to do, and there will be lots of issues with privacy rights etc. along the way.
[quote name='Clak']They aren't distributing anything though, that's the point. The streaming video sites are distributing it, they just link to it.[/QUOTE]
Sure, but if they're only purpose is linking to illegal content, then the site has no reason to exist other than for people to access illegal content.
So I have no problems with them going after sites like this. Though I agree that going after the hosting sites and uploaders should be a much higher priority.
[quote name='Clak']They aren't distributing anything though, that's the point. The streaming video sites are distributing it, they just link to it.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='dmaul1114']Sure, but if they're only purpose is linking to illegal content, then the site has no reason to exist other than for people to access illegal content.
So I have no problems with them going after sites like this. Though I agree that going after the hosting sites and uploaders should be a much higher priority.[/QUOTE]
They help people find it, that is it. I don't see how diluting the illegal stuff with legal stuff makes any difference.
just thinking out loud.[/QUOTE]
Conspiracy to do what though? They aren't personally infringing on copyright.
All of this just seems to me like they're going after the feet of the problem and leaving the head alone. Sure you might cripple it (for a while at least) but you aren't killing it by any means. I mean sites like this wouldn't have any content to link to if it wasn't out there to begin with.
[quote name='Clak']They help people find it, that is it. I don't see how diluting the illegal stuff with legal stuff makes any difference.[/QUOTE]
That's not the difference per se. The difference, I think anyway, is that the site owners are providing the links to these illegal streams.
Where as a site like Youtube it's all user generated. And courts seem to have ruled that it's not sites responsibility to police users beyond taking down things when they get cease and desist orders etc.
But if a site owner themselves is providing access to copyrighted material, then that's a different story.
[quote name='Clak']
All of this just seems to me like they're going after the feet of the problem and leaving the head alone. Sure you might cripple it (for a while at least) but you aren't killing it by any means. I mean sites like this wouldn't have any content to link to if it wasn't out there to begin with.[/QUOTE]
Like I said, they should be going after the stream sites with a much higher priority.
And the main priority should be changing copyright law enforcement and finding ways to catch more people are the real keys. So yeah, going after a portal site is kind of a waste of time. I'm not opposed to it, but I think their resources could be better focused elsewhere.
[quote name='Clak']Well I guess they could allow users to link to things instead, though that seems like just using a loophole to get around a technicality.[/QUOTE]
Indeed. It's silly, but that's the law currently. I think sites like Youtube should bear the onus of having to police uploads and disallow copyrighted things proactively rather than waiting for cease and desist orders personally.
[quote name='Clak']But that wouldn't be easy. I'm not even sure that it could be done automatically, you'd have to have people actually looking over everything uploaded.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, but that's the problem with the whole digital age.
It's super easy to upload stuff, and super hard to have anyway of monitoring what's uploaded and enforcing copyright laws.
It would be a scary time to be any kind of entertainment content creator. Bands probably have it best as they can at least use the net to gain a following and sell concert tickets and merchandise. So they can innovate like Sporadic suggest. So can TV by having their own streaming websites etc. as they are selling subscriptions (if it's a cable channel) and ads rather than products for the most part. Though TV season DVD sets do make them a lot of money and piracy hurts those.
But movies are dependent on ticket sales, DVD/BR sales and rentals, and books are dependent on sales, so how easy piracy is these days is a huge threat. Not much room for innovation there--other than the silly notion to lower prices and thus make less money to try to entice some pirates to buy.
And there's no easy solution as it would take an impossible amount of manpower to police all the upload sites, torrents etc.
Myke, don't think I'm ignoring you. I will comment on your post, no worries
[quote name='dmaul1114']But movies are dependent on ticket sales, DVD/BR sales and rentals, and books are dependent on sales, so how easy piracy is these days is a huge threat. Not much room for innovation there--other than the silly notion to lower prices and thus make less money to try to entice some pirates to buy.[/QUOTE]
They are innovating. 3D, which is hard for the normal person to replicate at home (due to price and lack of content) and they get to charge more for it. Moving away from big tent blockbusters and moving back to dramas/other movies that can be made for way less (10-30 million). Trying to undercut the theaters by allowing VOD on the same day (even if it is very expensive, that is something you can split with friends or still save money if you have a family)
Books would be selling even more if those jackass publishers would go with Amazon's $9.99 idea but they don't understand and would rather price ebooks the same price as the hardback.
[quote name='Sporadic']
They are innovating. 3D, which is hard for the normal person to replicate at home (due to price and lack of content) and they get to charge more for it. Moving away from big tent blockbusters and moving back to dramas/other movies that can be made for way less (10-30 million). Trying to undercut the theaters by allowing VOD on the same day (even if it is very expensive, that is something you can split with friends or still save money if you have a family) [/quote]
Fair points. There are things like that they can do to make up for it someone one for sure. I hate 3D personally, but your right that most who like it half to go to the theater. Cheapass pirates probably aren't shelling out for 3D TVs.
I was more just saying some industries are dependent on sales and can't make them up through things like concerts and merchandise like bands can.
There's definitely things they can do to try to cut costs, make their products more attractive etc. Probably not going to get the cheapskate pirates to pay for their content, but may offset it some by getting more regular Joes to spend money, as well as just upping profits by making cheaper movies. Though that's not necessarily a good thing for us if it means fewer movies with kick ass special effects etc.
Books would be selling even more if those jackass publishers would go with Amazon's $9.99 idea but they don't understand and would rather price ebooks the same price as the hardback.
As a Kindle owner I don't have a problem that as long as the prices drop to the same as the paperback when the paperback version comes out in print.
I always waited for paperbacks in the past, so I don't mind waiting for them to come out for the e-book price to drop now.
The only problem I have is when the e-book costs more than the paperback. That's BS and I won't buy those books. I won't pirate them either, as it's not justification for that. I just boycott and buy something else that I think is priced fairly.
I liked the site, but it's not surprising it got shut down. Especially with the big PPV events they would always show.
I remember last season the NHL issued them a C&D, and the didn't have any hockey games for a time. But they eventually were put back up.
[quote name='dmaul1114']
The only problem I have is when the e-book costs more than the paperback. That's BS and I won't buy those books. I won't pirate them either, as it's not justification for that. I just boycott and buy something else that I think is priced fairly.[/QUOTE]
Would you pirate books you already own?
I was thinking about getting a kindle recently (as I may change to a job that requires significant more travelling, but I may not...) and thought about the fact that I own hundreds of books that I couldn't just bring with me. It was a frustrating prospect.
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']
Would you pirate books you already own?
[/quote]
Huh? I was saying for e-books that cost more than the paperback I simply do with out them. Other's on e-book sites pirate them and try to justify it because of the price being too high. I was just saying I don't do that as I don't think piracy is ever justifiable.
I was thinking about getting a kindle recently (as I may change to a job that requires significant more travelling, but I may not...) and thought about the fact that I own hundreds of books that I couldn't just bring with me. It was a frustrating prospect.
Why's that matter. Use the Kindle for new books. Better to read more things than re-read old things IMO.
I love the Kindle as I hated have a bunch of books around I was never going to read again--just ended up having to hassle with donating a bunch of books every time I move (which is pretty often). Much better for me to just have e-books and not have to deal with paper books for my leisure reading.
For my work reading I stick with paper books and printouts as e-books are too slow to flip through and the screen is too small for things with a lot of tables and figures etc. many times. And I also need to highlight and mark things up easily. But for reading novels I'll never go back to paperbooks.
In the interest of full disclosure, I used the site to watch the NFL playoffs last weekend while I was at work (games that were freely available on broadcast television had I been home). The games were broadcast from what I believe was a German television feed including commercials, game summaries, and halftime shows (albeit in German - though the commentators were Fox).
I'm sure that someone more educated than me can explain how their site can be shut down for doing little more than what Googling "_________ + live stream" does. They're not streaming or hosting content, and had previously linked to external sites or feeds to get their material.
That said, www.strikegently.com has been taken down as well (previously did similar things for movies hosted on Vimeo, albums hosted on Mediafire, and live performances on YouTube).
[quote name='Sporadic']They are innovating. 3D, which is hard for the normal person to replicate at home (due to price and lack of content) and they get to charge more for it. Moving away from big tent blockbusters and moving back to dramas/other movies that can be made for way less (10-30 million). Trying to undercut the theaters by allowing VOD on the same day (even if it is very expensive, that is something you can split with friends or still save money if you have a family) [/QUOTE]
This. I find it funny that James Cameron and his ilk view 3d as more of an anti piracy measure rather than the next step in the medium.
Do any of you actually like 3d?
Edit: all the power to him if its protecting his monies.
[quote name='Clak']Conspiracy to do what though? They aren't personally infringing on copyright.[/QUOTE]
Early on in the 'war on drugs,' officials would charge people w/ conspiracy if they knew of friends/family members/etc. dealing drugs, but would not cooperate with police (i.e., disclose what their friends were up to). You're conspiring if you are aware of criminal activity but do not assist, when called upon, to share that awareness w/ authorities.
Portal sites conspire by being an unobserved link on a streaming site. If you host the super bowl on justin.tv, and name your link "NFL SUPER BOWL LIVE HERE!," you're gonna get flagged by justin.tv and summarily shut down. Justin.tv does do some due diligence. On the other hand, if you name it "MY AWESOME CHANNEL" then Justin.tv is unaware - share the link w/ people who host portal pages, and it's easily accessible.
The actual application of conspiracy charges is pretty easy in the case of portals and streaming sites. They're actively circumventing what streaming sites do to control content, leaving the streaming sites unequipped to handle the copyright violations on their page.
[quote name='camoor']Justin.TV is a guilty pleasure - I enjoy watching others play games.
Is there any chance those streams could be shut down?[/QUOTE]
I suppose Activision could bust some balls - but streaming a game isn't the same as commerical content.
[quote name='dmaul1114']As you noted in an earlier post, the problem is that law enforcement in cyberspace is woefully inept. There's very little chance of getting caught. That's what has to change to reduce piracy. Also get rid of the absurd RIAA settlements and make the punishment fit the crime rather than being absurdly harsh.[/QUOTE]
Whoever figures out how to better police the internet will be a ing criminological superstar.
[quote name='mykevermin']
Whoever figures out how to better police the internet will be a ing criminological superstar.[/QUOTE]
Indeed.
It seems damn near hopeless. To be remotely effective you probably need some federal or international agency behind it--as well as moving it to a criminal rather than civil matter (but again with reasonable penalties that fit the crimes).
The latter is tough enough to do, the former seems impossible to organize and figure out who should pay for it etc. And even then it's hard to see how they could catch enough people to get the certainty of being caught high enough to have any deterrent effect.
Certainly not anything I have any willingness to try to tackle!
Right. Like trying to figure out if that one dude who leaked X-Men: Wolverine a month or so before its theatrical release is responsible for damages for every one of the 100,000+ copies downloaded.
[quote name='mykevermin']Right. Like trying to figure out if that one dude who leaked X-Men: Wolverine a month or so before its theatrical release is responsible for damages for every one of the 100,000+ copies downloaded.
zoinks.[/QUOTE]
Indeed, setting the penalties for uploaders is a very tricky thing.
Downloaders is easy, just have some fine like MSRP for each file +25%. Uploaders is much harder--go by money and you get back to absurd penalties if you make them pay for every copy downloaded. So those may just have to be dealt with through probation etc. rather than fines. Or at least fines that aren't tied to the value of the content per unit.
Lots of complications in dealing with this stuff. At the end of the day I think we'll see the industry's try to go more toward subscription based streaming only services once broadband access is ubiquitous everywhere. People would still capture streams, but you'd have less of the light pirates who are just getting stuff from friends etc. But that's ages away from being remotely possible.
[quote name='mykevermin']Let's not pretend that many of you haven't heard of or do not use (well, did not use) the streaming portal site www.atdhe.net.
Previously, you could go and watch all kinds of sports events - baseball, football, loads of european soccer events, pay per view wrestling and mma, etc.
Today, ICE (in cooperation with DHS and the NY State Attorney's office) siezed the website and shut it down.
If you go there now, this image comes up (spoiler due to size):
1) I'm curious how many of you think of it as a website that committed copyright violations - as a portal, did it (from a legal standpoint)? If so, how? If not, why not?
2) I'm curious what you think of the US government seizing and shutting down a website.
I know this is contentious, and discussing it possibly against CAG terms - I mean for this to be a reasonable conversation, so I hope it can continue. But if a mod decides we can't talk about it, I'm going to grumble silently (since ignoring web-based theft isn't going to make it disappear) but respect that decision. I figure as long as we do not discuss or provide access to copyright-violating content, we should be kosher, yes?
In a very, very internet twist to this, the people behind this website have already started another URL to replace the seized domain name. Looks like this is just the start of this battle.
Perhaps we could fold the Zuffa (UFC) lawsuit against Justin.tv discussion in here as well - seems semi-related.[/QUOTE]
As to the question of whether I care or not, I really don't, you do something illegal, whether viewed as petty or not and it was dealt with. I actually worked with ICE for several months as part of a county/federal joint venture to remove illegal immigrants from the area so, more power to ICE.
[quote name='mykevermin']Early on in the 'war on drugs,' officials would charge people w/ conspiracy if they knew of friends/family members/etc. dealing drugs, but would not cooperate with police (i.e., disclose what their friends were up to). You're conspiring if you are aware of criminal activity but do not assist, when called upon, to share that awareness w/ authorities.
Portal sites conspire by being an unobserved link on a streaming site. If you host the super bowl on justin.tv, and name your link "NFL SUPER BOWL LIVE HERE!," you're gonna get flagged by justin.tv and summarily shut down. Justin.tv does do some due diligence. On the other hand, if you name it "MY AWESOME CHANNEL" then Justin.tv is unaware - share the link w/ people who host portal pages, and it's easily accessible.
The actual application of conspiracy charges is pretty easy in the case of portals and streaming sites. They're actively circumventing what streaming sites do to control content, leaving the streaming sites unequipped to handle the copyright violations on their page.
I suppose Activision could bust some balls - but streaming a game isn't the same as commerical content.
Whoever figures out how to better police the internet will be a ing criminological superstar.[/QUOTE]I've always thought that conspiracy charges in that context were rather bogus. It's only done to put pressure on people so they'll talk, I doubt most people would really consider someone a criminal because they won't drop the dime on an actual criminal. Now I know the law doesn't always follow with how people feel about things (shouldn't it though, they're our laws), but conspiracy charges seems to me to be stretching. Technically it may apply, but those types of charges don't seem to be applied consistently. Almost seems like a catch-all to be used when nothing else works.
I can agree with that, Clak. In the case of someone possessing mere knowledge (i.e., if I know my neighbor is dealing heroin), that's a stretch.
portal sites are active accomplices, however. The way these streaming circumventions are done, the streaming pages (i.e., the actual copyright violating content) wouldn't succeed alone. The portals are an important part of the criminal steps here.
[quote name='IRHari']Even if a website is doing something like peddling in kiddie porn?[/QUOTE]
Yes, because kiddie porn isn't usually distributed through websites even though people who would love to get a foothold regarding web censorship always tote that out first.
Also, what is wrong with getting a warrant, working with other countries and storming the hosting center/getting the uploader along with honeypots for dummies on P2P like they currently use? Deleting the domain doesn't protect those children from being abused if you don't also go after the bastards creating it.
Only thing I can think of is Australia's blacklist, that they assured people would only be used to block child porn sites.
[quote name='wikileaks']about half of the sites on the list are not related to child porn and include a slew of online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist.[/QUOTE]
Oh and if you are Australian and post the blacklist that wikileaks leaked, you face ten years in prison.
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']Do any of you actually like 3d?[/QUOTE]
Coraline was pretty good (used mainly to give the movie a sense of depth) but I haven't seen that many movies in it (since I rarely go to the theaters)
-------
Ugh, Myke I really tried to go through that post...but I can't. There's too many subjects, I would have to break it down line by line to address it properly. So I'll try to freestyle and touch on some of the things you brought up.
[quote name='mykevermin']Whoever figures out how to better police the internet will be a ing criminological superstar.[/QUOTE]
Policing it is a futile thing for the most part. It's like the drug war but unlike that, there is a solution (for most, I'm not saying this will cure piracy, there will always be some people out there doing it regardless) besides stomping them out. That solution is offering a good product for a good price that will make people go "I could try to track down a stream and jump through a bunch of hoops to watch a pixelated stream for free but it, this is only $___".
Netflix is a good example of that. You could go track down those movies and tv shows for free but for $8 a month, why bother? It's not worth the effort.
And regarding price ≠ innovation, I think they need to walk hand in hand to actually work. That was the point I was trying to make with CD Projekt. If they would have tried any of their ideas by themselves, they would have failed. If they would have tried to act like any other business and squeeze every cent they could out of their customers, they would have failed.
An online stream that is the same price as the PPV on TV or an ebook that is the same as (or more than) the hardback/paperback is pointless. It would almost be better if they just didn't try in the first place and just took it on the chin (at least that way, they wouldn't be insulting their fanbase)
Regarding stifling innovation, it didn't happen in this case but try to imagine if this line of action was around even six years ago. YouTube could have easily been a victim. Any video streaming site could have been. I know that is a "could have/slippery slope" line of thinking but it is extremely valid considering how little the people in charge actually know about things of this nature. They don't get the benefit of the doubt in this type of situation.
I also don't understand why this crackdown happened because of the Superbowl. It is on a main network. I could easily pick it up via my antenna in better quality HD than on my AT&T U-Verse. What's the difference between that and streaming it? It isn't like the pirates strip out the commericals. It is a live feed.
It's sad how corporations get a pass along with creating their own laws to protect whatever out of dated business model they have and the word business itself has become synonymous with "take complete advantage of you and maybe provide you with a service or product"
ed up thing about this story that I completely missed.
