6 ms·

So is there a limit on the number of people that can watch, per box? Can I watch it with my dog? With my friend? With my friend and her kids? Can I watch it

by ominous 10y ago

So is there a limit on the number of people that can watch, per box? Can I watch it with my dog? With my friend? With my friend and her kids? Can I watch it during a birthday party? There will be 20 kids and their parents around, is that ok? Can each of said parents have a conference call with their buddies to watch and discuss the game? Is there a limit on the size of the tv? Can I mount a 10x5 monitor setup so people across the street can see as well? Can I project it on that publicity board? Can I twitch my reaction to the game? Can I stream the screen? Oops. Be creative. Also, "It's stealing. It's no different to video piracy or music piracy," one of the fight's promoters The usual stealing/piracy synonym. I don't remember the name, but there was this project to have a server somewhere running rtorrent continuously, piping any downloaded torrent to /dev/null, stealing and burning money as fast as bandwidth allows it.

supercoder 10y ago
Once the number of people at your house reach 100,000 it would seem to put the party in a different category
flashman 10y ago
> is there a limit on the number of people that can watch, per box? While it's not fixed, it's generally thought to be fewer than 91,000.
nkkollaw 10y ago
I don't think it's hard to see that streaming the event on Facebook is not what the subscription is meant for. I think it's pretty easy to discern private viewing from public viewing. You're not allowed to distribute the content. Don't tell me that those people didn't know they weren't supposed to stream someone else's content on Facebook.
- ominous 10y ago
  "meant to" is not something that is factored into purchase. And what should, or should not be done is so subjective it's meaningless.
  - chrisseaton 10y ago
    Our legal system is based a lot on interpretations of reasonable expectations and reasonable behaviour. You may think you're being super clever by talking about it like you're interpreting it like an ISO standard and finding gaps, but everyone else including judges and juries understands what is reasonable and what is not.
    - ominous 10y ago
      Do you?
      - chrisseaton 10y ago
        Have an idea of what normal society considers to be reasonable? Yes I think so.
        ominous 10y ago
        Let's how long I last then.
      - nkkollaw 10y ago
        Yes. Definitely.
  - nkkollaw 10y ago
    It's not subjective. It's outlined in the TOS. It's up to the customer to read them, but you agreed to them.
pmiller2 10y ago
> Can each of said parents have a conference call with their buddies to watch and discuss the game? Is there a limit on the size of the tv? Can I mount a 10x5 monitor setup so people across the street can see as well? Can I project it on that publicity board? Can I twitch my reaction to the game? Can I stream the screen? Oops. In the US, it is a violation of copyright law, if "people across the street can see it..." or if you "stream the screen," as that creates a "public performance," which, presumably would be unlicensed.
- ominous 10y ago
  So not having curtains can be illegal. Note to self: don't let security cameras or baby cameras record the inside of any books I am reading, when in the US.
  - laumars 10y ago
    Unfortunately, technically "not having curtains" could be argued as a breach of copyright law. However as referenced earlier in this discussion, this is where judges come into play. They should hopefully address the balance between harmful / intentional violations and petty litigations that harm personal liberties. This may not be a perfect system but it's still better than having the law rewritten for ever conceivable edge case scenario that random folk can dream up.
tdkl 10y ago
Lets not get stupid now. It's all based on intent. His was fine, until he forgot that the medium used was putting him in the violation in the first place, but the cherry on top was not limiting the access to the people the stream was meant for.
mattmanser 10y ago
Why are you coming up with "scenarios"? It's illegal to rebroadcast a copyrighted show, which is what he was doing. Ignorance of the laws of copyright doesn't make it any less illegal. Also he'll be in civil breach of his cable contract too, which will have a rebroadcast clause in it. Streaming on Facebook is rebroadcasting. I can't understand, with even the most basic knowledge of copyright, how you can think it's not illegal? The guy was a total idiot, he will be fined, probably very heavily given he continued after being asked to stop and being informed that he was commiting an illegal act. Maybe even jail time.
- ominous 10y ago
  Because the world happens in scenarios. And failure to adapt to real world scenarios that regular humans might end up desiring is a problem. What you are saying is we should adapt, mold, conform, comply the law, all the time, without thinking. Laws come from the past and these scenarios come from the future. Who would you rather please? Your future you, who might end up away from home but still wants to watch the fight? So he sets up a stream he can access while on the train, for example. And he shares it with a friend on the next seat. And his brother, from outside the country, so they can discuss it together. Yes, this is broadcasting. Just because you can't set it up, you don't know how to do it without googling, or simply don't conceive it to be possible, don't limit the guy that finds out how. Or would you rather please that guy that calls you and informs you that you should stop, because something as vague and as distant as "copyright law"? Sir, please stop. Your intent cannot be monetized further. Please wait a few years until we develop an app/device/system that allows you to view the stream remotely so we can charge you. Fuck that guy. If none of the scenarios resonate, then that's fine. But understand that people will want to do new things. Some will be deemed illegal, some will be acepted. Some can't be stopped. Refusal to think about new scenarios dooms us to whatever was decided before we were born. Enjoy your retro life.
  - mattmanser 10y ago
    Was that an attempt to burn me? Retro! What a tool. There's an existing law and just because you're rebroadcasting using Facebook Live instead of a video camera doesn't suddenly make it any less illegal. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Rebroadcasting copyrighted event = illegal. Rebroadcasting copyrighted event + Facebook live = ? Figure it out. We can come up with another scenario about waving your hands while hopping on one leg and pressing the stream button on Facebook Live of a copyrighted show while facing west and singing omm-pah loom-pah and sharing that stream with every 3rd member of the New York Symphony Orchestra. Is that illegal? Yes. The only relevant bit of that ridiculous thought experiment is "copyrighted show...sharing with".

by ominous 10y ago

supercoder 10y ago

Once the number of people at your house reach 100,000 it would seem to put the party in a different category

flashman 10y ago

> is there a limit on the number of people that can watch, per box? While it's not fixed, it's generally thought to be fewer than 91,000.

nkkollaw 10y ago

I don't think it's hard to see that streaming the event on Facebook is not what the subscription is meant for. I think it's pretty easy to discern private viewing from public viewing. You're not allowed to distribute the content. Don't tell me that those people didn't know they weren't supposed to stream someone else's content on Facebook.

ominous 10y ago
"meant to" is not something that is factored into purchase. And what should, or should not be done is so subjective it's meaningless.
- chrisseaton 10y ago
  Our legal system is based a lot on interpretations of reasonable expectations and reasonable behaviour. You may think you're being super clever by talking about it like you're interpreting it like an ISO standard and finding gaps, but everyone else including judges and juries understands what is reasonable and what is not.
  - ominous 10y ago
    Do you?
    - chrisseaton 10y ago
      Have an idea of what normal society considers to be reasonable? Yes I think so.
      - ominous 10y ago
        Let's how long I last then.
    - nkkollaw 10y ago
      Yes. Definitely.
- nkkollaw 10y ago
  It's not subjective. It's outlined in the TOS. It's up to the customer to read them, but you agreed to them.

pmiller2 10y ago

> Can each of said parents have a conference call with their buddies to watch and discuss the game? Is there a limit on the size of the tv? Can I mount a 10x5 monitor setup so people across the street can see as well? Can I project it on that publicity board? Can I twitch my reaction to the game? Can I stream the screen? Oops. In the US, it is a violation of copyright law, if "people across the street can see it..." or if you "stream the screen," as that creates a "public performance," which, presumably would be unlicensed.

ominous 10y ago
So not having curtains can be illegal. Note to self: don't let security cameras or baby cameras record the inside of any books I am reading, when in the US.
- laumars 10y ago
  Unfortunately, technically "not having curtains" could be argued as a breach of copyright law. However as referenced earlier in this discussion, this is where judges come into play. They should hopefully address the balance between harmful / intentional violations and petty litigations that harm personal liberties. This may not be a perfect system but it's still better than having the law rewritten for ever conceivable edge case scenario that random folk can dream up.

tdkl 10y ago

Lets not get stupid now. It's all based on intent. His was fine, until he forgot that the medium used was putting him in the violation in the first place, but the cherry on top was not limiting the access to the people the stream was meant for.

mattmanser 10y ago

Why are you coming up with "scenarios"? It's illegal to rebroadcast a copyrighted show, which is what he was doing. Ignorance of the laws of copyright doesn't make it any less illegal. Also he'll be in civil breach of his cable contract too, which will have a rebroadcast clause in it. Streaming on Facebook is rebroadcasting. I can't understand, with even the most basic knowledge of copyright, how you can think it's not illegal? The guy was a total idiot, he will be fined, probably very heavily given he continued after being asked to stop and being informed that he was commiting an illegal act. Maybe even jail time.

ominous 10y ago
Because the world happens in scenarios. And failure to adapt to real world scenarios that regular humans might end up desiring is a problem. What you are saying is we should adapt, mold, conform, comply the law, all the time, without thinking. Laws come from the past and these scenarios come from the future. Who would you rather please? Your future you, who might end up away from home but still wants to watch the fight? So he sets up a stream he can access while on the train, for example. And he shares it with a friend on the next seat. And his brother, from outside the country, so they can discuss it together. Yes, this is broadcasting. Just because you can't set it up, you don't know how to do it without googling, or simply don't conceive it to be possible, don't limit the guy that finds out how. Or would you rather please that guy that calls you and informs you that you should stop, because something as vague and as distant as "copyright law"? Sir, please stop. Your intent cannot be monetized further. Please wait a few years until we develop an app/device/system that allows you to view the stream remotely so we can charge you. Fuck that guy. If none of the scenarios resonate, then that's fine. But understand that people will want to do new things. Some will be deemed illegal, some will be acepted. Some can't be stopped. Refusal to think about new scenarios dooms us to whatever was decided before we were born. Enjoy your retro life.
- mattmanser 10y ago
  Was that an attempt to burn me? Retro! What a tool. There's an existing law and just because you're rebroadcasting using Facebook Live instead of a video camera doesn't suddenly make it any less illegal. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Rebroadcasting copyrighted event = illegal. Rebroadcasting copyrighted event + Facebook live = ? Figure it out. We can come up with another scenario about waving your hands while hopping on one leg and pressing the stream button on Facebook Live of a copyrighted show while facing west and singing omm-pah loom-pah and sharing that stream with every 3rd member of the New York Symphony Orchestra. Is that illegal? Yes. The only relevant bit of that ridiculous thought experiment is "copyrighted show...sharing with".