its not illegal to watch
- Thread starter Seydaman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It is legal for the viewer because the viewer has neither hardcopy (the physical movie) or softcopy (the digital file of the movie) in his possession or on his computer at any time. The sites that offer streaming video only post known links to the copyrighted content so they also never possess hardcopy or softcopy. Legally there is no material to constitute a prosecutable crime, as long as there is not a fee attached to each separate link. That would violate copyright laws and give ground for legislation. This is neatly dodged by charging a membership fee for site maintenance instead.
Because YouTube is no longer the site it used to be. Upon being bought by Google, it turned into a business. Major record labels are parts of that business, and them seeing people use the music from their talents for videos is "bad" and is a form of copyright infringement. That's my take, anyway.Abedeus said:
Well to show anything streaming online they have to have a Public Performance Licence. Sites like Hulu in America, or BBC's iPlayer in the UK have PPLs for broadcasting on the internet. This ensures that everyone who should get paid as a result, gets paid.seydaman said:
Watching it on Megavideo or Dailymotion or whatever is illegal because they don't have such a licence. That's why stuff people upload onto YouTube that's copywrited can be pulled off at a moments notice.
You know what would solve all this BS etc?
If the copyright expired after 5 years.
I mean really, after 3-5 years of sales of dvds etc. They dont need to get paid for it anymore. The movie has paid for itself a few times over (unless it absolutely bombed in the cinema or was a straight to video epic)
I also believe that if your country refuses to show said media in your country, like anime etc. You should be allowed to download it or watch it on the origin countries official streamers. (Hulu i HATE YOU. Just because I'm not american -.-)
If the copyright expired after 5 years.
I mean really, after 3-5 years of sales of dvds etc. They dont need to get paid for it anymore. The movie has paid for itself a few times over (unless it absolutely bombed in the cinema or was a straight to video epic)
I also believe that if your country refuses to show said media in your country, like anime etc. You should be allowed to download it or watch it on the origin countries official streamers. (Hulu i HATE YOU. Just because I'm not american -.-)
what evidence is there that i lack manners,knowledge or writing skill? I can write correctly or i can write for speed.Its a choice not an incapability.insults can be opinions.Abedeus said:
P.S i noticed that you didnt even bother writing a counter argument in your last post,if you know you have been proved wrong you should have the courage to admit it.
it reminds me of the simpsons i watched the first 11 seasons on dvd. i hadn't watched simpsons in years and wanted to get up to date on the series. i could watch on tv but it take months to see all the episodes on tv. the dvds were like 9 seasons behind so i just watch the old episodes online and watch the new episodes on tv. i don't i am wrong because i will buy the dvds as they come out. they are getting my money eventually.
Okay, on a lot of levels I think arguements about intellectual properties as they apply to creative media are simply put retarded, which is why I don't include them in most debates about patents.
In general a lot of this stuff comes down to the practices of companies to begin with. As far as I'm concerned if you can't walk into a store and buy something, then your not pirating it by downloading it. By the same token if a company censors something their welcome to charge for that version (for people who want the censorship) but have no real claims to someone obtaining an uncensored version which they are not selling to that person.
When it comes to things like this as opposed to physical tech/inventions/drugs/whatever my standards are a bit differant.
The exact laws are borked when it comes to media, in part because of issues of ownership. See from the perspective of the guy who buys a DVD or video game they feel they own the game. From the perspective of the companies you are not buying a copy of the game, but rather the right to personally use the media they created within a certain context. It's a matter of perspective.
There are also issues of business practices within media companies and the like which I personally do not care for. I feel they bring a lot of piracy (for those who want to take the risks) upon themselves. Piracy on a lot of levels being an excuse to justify some truely borked policies, and unreasonably high prices.
Among other things I do not like the idea of the media industries being able to effectively set prices for things like video games, where it is illegal to do so for things like Gasoline or other products (which is why it was a big deal in the media when the gas companies were accused of conspiring to raise prices at the same time). For example a few years ago it was pretty much announced that the standard price for a video game was raising $10 and it pretty much did accross the board for each "tier" of games. I personally have problems with this kind of thing.
Also for those that remember, when CD Roms first came out they were a new, and revolutionary technology (well somewhat). The transition to CDs from good old fashioned 3.5" disks (and 5 1/4" ones too!) created a period where piracy was basically impossible. The technology to copy, modify, upload, code, etc... with these things basically wasn't in the hands of the general populance. While piracy was dead, during that time period did video games reduce in price? Simply put, no they did not. To me this killed the claims that
piracy was responsible for high game prices.
Legally speaking, there isn't much you can do with something you buy media wise except play/watch/listen to it yourself. That's basically the intention. According to some of those EULAs in theory if someone watches your movie with you, your in violation. So basically if you buy a DVD and put it on for your family of four your a criminal. Or so the industry would argue just by having written their EULA in a specific way (and they do vary in some places between companies and products).
Overall I don't think the risks of piracy are worth the gains, but I personally have difficulty seeing the video game/music/movie industries as being victims given how they themselves behave.
When it comes to streaming video, I see both sides of the arguement. In the final equasion if someone is seeing something for free they would otherwise have to pay for, then technically it's piracy. The big question becomes whether that is right or wrong.
When it comes to TV shows and such which you can turn on and watch for free on your boob tube (or simply record with standard technologies like TIVO or even enhancements provided by your TV provider) I don't see streaming video as even a remote issue.
Companies who are tying to move against stuff like that are really pushing the envelope of credability, which is one of the reasons why I have my mixed feelings about other forms of piracy as well. In the end a lot of it isn't so much about the right to protect their property, but the intent to gouge people for as much money as possible.
A gaming industry that took the idea of DLC and used it to get you to pay extra to activate things already on your disc or pay extra for features that had traditionally been included, for example is NOT getting a lot of sympathy from me.
If the gaming/music/video industry was sitting there as humble victims, hat in hand, to me it would be differant.
In general a lot of this stuff comes down to the practices of companies to begin with. As far as I'm concerned if you can't walk into a store and buy something, then your not pirating it by downloading it. By the same token if a company censors something their welcome to charge for that version (for people who want the censorship) but have no real claims to someone obtaining an uncensored version which they are not selling to that person.
When it comes to things like this as opposed to physical tech/inventions/drugs/whatever my standards are a bit differant.
The exact laws are borked when it comes to media, in part because of issues of ownership. See from the perspective of the guy who buys a DVD or video game they feel they own the game. From the perspective of the companies you are not buying a copy of the game, but rather the right to personally use the media they created within a certain context. It's a matter of perspective.
There are also issues of business practices within media companies and the like which I personally do not care for. I feel they bring a lot of piracy (for those who want to take the risks) upon themselves. Piracy on a lot of levels being an excuse to justify some truely borked policies, and unreasonably high prices.
Among other things I do not like the idea of the media industries being able to effectively set prices for things like video games, where it is illegal to do so for things like Gasoline or other products (which is why it was a big deal in the media when the gas companies were accused of conspiring to raise prices at the same time). For example a few years ago it was pretty much announced that the standard price for a video game was raising $10 and it pretty much did accross the board for each "tier" of games. I personally have problems with this kind of thing.
Also for those that remember, when CD Roms first came out they were a new, and revolutionary technology (well somewhat). The transition to CDs from good old fashioned 3.5" disks (and 5 1/4" ones too!) created a period where piracy was basically impossible. The technology to copy, modify, upload, code, etc... with these things basically wasn't in the hands of the general populance. While piracy was dead, during that time period did video games reduce in price? Simply put, no they did not. To me this killed the claims that
piracy was responsible for high game prices.
Legally speaking, there isn't much you can do with something you buy media wise except play/watch/listen to it yourself. That's basically the intention. According to some of those EULAs in theory if someone watches your movie with you, your in violation. So basically if you buy a DVD and put it on for your family of four your a criminal. Or so the industry would argue just by having written their EULA in a specific way (and they do vary in some places between companies and products).
Overall I don't think the risks of piracy are worth the gains, but I personally have difficulty seeing the video game/music/movie industries as being victims given how they themselves behave.
When it comes to streaming video, I see both sides of the arguement. In the final equasion if someone is seeing something for free they would otherwise have to pay for, then technically it's piracy. The big question becomes whether that is right or wrong.
When it comes to TV shows and such which you can turn on and watch for free on your boob tube (or simply record with standard technologies like TIVO or even enhancements provided by your TV provider) I don't see streaming video as even a remote issue.
Companies who are tying to move against stuff like that are really pushing the envelope of credability, which is one of the reasons why I have my mixed feelings about other forms of piracy as well. In the end a lot of it isn't so much about the right to protect their property, but the intent to gouge people for as much money as possible.
A gaming industry that took the idea of DLC and used it to get you to pay extra to activate things already on your disc or pay extra for features that had traditionally been included, for example is NOT getting a lot of sympathy from me.
If the gaming/music/video industry was sitting there as humble victims, hat in hand, to me it would be differant.
You have not shown even one time that you can post correctly. Speed? Who gives a damn about the speed? Is there a big, muscular man with a whip behind you that makes you write faster? No? Do you have ADD? No? Than you have all the time in the world to write good.DisturbiaWolf13 said:
This also means you should respect other posters by writing correctly. I think there's a thing about that in guidelines, but I'm too tired today to find it.
Insults are opinions with very negative emotions. That's why we call them INSULTS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insult
Oh, hey, there is also something about your perception. Check it out, as I do believe you have a twisted moral view on the world.
Also you can notice that insult is related to personal attack (ad hominem) and is considered trolling. Desist doing that.
By simply streaming something on your PC, you're copying it. The fact that you might delete it later is a different matter. The main reason behind piracy is that copy-protection and rights management has gotten out of hand and the laws need to be changed.
People will pay for services if only it means supporting the creator to make more. But being prosecuted for "copying" is simply ridiculous. It wasn't the death of Music when the Cassette recorder came out, and it wasn't the death of movies when the VHS came out. People still pay for the full season of LOST, even though they could just as easily recorded it with their Tivo, and they still buy music they really like.
Being able to copy anything won't change shit.
People will pay for services if only it means supporting the creator to make more. But being prosecuted for "copying" is simply ridiculous. It wasn't the death of Music when the Cassette recorder came out, and it wasn't the death of movies when the VHS came out. People still pay for the full season of LOST, even though they could just as easily recorded it with their Tivo, and they still buy music they really like.
Being able to copy anything won't change shit.