3 ms·

Seems like an open and shut case, no? The guy streamed from his personal Facebook page, and answered the call during the stream, what could his defense possibl

by jmkni 10y ago

Seems like an open and shut case, no? The guy streamed from his personal Facebook page, and answered the call during the stream, what could his defense possibly be?

jstanley 10y ago
Where do you draw the line? If he was streaming something else that was going on in his home and happened to have the fight on in the background, would that be OK? What if you only caught a glimpse of the fight? What if it was just audio? I think it's dangerous to let Foxtel sue this guy for streaming something that's going on inside his own home (albeit, a view of his TV).
- chrisbolt 10y ago
  Wherever you draw the line, it's nowhere near "I've got 78,000 viewers that aren't gonna be happy with you mate" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvoJju4B11s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvoJju4B11s
  - posterboy 10y ago
    Why wouldn't it? Arcane laws modeled after theaters presenting unlicensed material are hardly the end of the stick either.
- jsmeaton 10y ago
  This is what judges are for. In this case it's fairly easy to determine what his motive was. Broadcast a pay per view fight to thousands for free. Or do you think an audience of thousands would have been watching if he'd been talking with his family with some barely audible audio in the background?
- vacri 10y ago
  As jsmeaton says, judges aren't idiots, and a reasonable person's interpretation of intent is used in law all the time (see murder vs manslaughter, for example). Or another example: a person I know got done for embezzling a five-figure sum from a business. She got off pretty lightly (though not scot-free), because she used those funds to feed and clothe homeless people; she wasn't doing it to profit. The action and the damage to the victim was the same, but the intent made significant difference to the legal opinion.
  - neotek 10y ago
    That seems unfair. The business she embezzled from, and by extension its shareholders, were harmed regardless of what she actually did with the money.

by jmkni 10y ago

Seems like an open and shut case, no? The guy streamed from his personal Facebook page, and answered the call during the stream, what could his defense possibly be?

jstanley 10y ago

Where do you draw the line? If he was streaming something else that was going on in his home and happened to have the fight on in the background, would that be OK? What if you only caught a glimpse of the fight? What if it was just audio? I think it's dangerous to let Foxtel sue this guy for streaming something that's going on inside his own home (albeit, a view of his TV).

chrisbolt 10y ago
Wherever you draw the line, it's nowhere near "I've got 78,000 viewers that aren't gonna be happy with you mate" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvoJju4B11s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvoJju4B11s
- posterboy 10y ago
  Why wouldn't it? Arcane laws modeled after theaters presenting unlicensed material are hardly the end of the stick either.
jsmeaton 10y ago
This is what judges are for. In this case it's fairly easy to determine what his motive was. Broadcast a pay per view fight to thousands for free. Or do you think an audience of thousands would have been watching if he'd been talking with his family with some barely audible audio in the background?
vacri 10y ago
As jsmeaton says, judges aren't idiots, and a reasonable person's interpretation of intent is used in law all the time (see murder vs manslaughter, for example). Or another example: a person I know got done for embezzling a five-figure sum from a business. She got off pretty lightly (though not scot-free), because she used those funds to feed and clothe homeless people; she wasn't doing it to profit. The action and the damage to the victim was the same, but the intent made significant difference to the legal opinion.
- neotek 10y ago
  That seems unfair. The business she embezzled from, and by extension its shareholders, were harmed regardless of what she actually did with the money.