4 ms·

Sorry, didn't meant to make it personal. Retro wasn't an insult, "time delayed", or "vintage" would also be ok. I like retro. I was born when retro as modern.

by ominous 10y ago

Sorry, didn't meant to make it personal. Retro wasn't an insult, "time delayed", or "vintage" would also be ok. I like retro. I was born when retro as modern. But can't help but notice that: 1) you also can't (until now) put lipstick on a man and call it a woman, but look at what new "scenarios" people have come up with recently. 2) You had something about being happy with half a brain, but deleted it. Glad to see you have more than half. Now you are equating bootleg DVD with facebook live. I understand that, while you don't make money with streaming on facebook (do you?), you still end up with notoriety, some kind of social credit. However, still a longshot from "selling pirated copies". Was there a business model in my scenarios? Did this guy, clueless as he is to what is deemed illegal in 2017, monetize it? As for your "copyrighted show[content]...shared with", do you talk with people? Tell me, be honest: have you ever shared something, in the privacy of a phone call, intimate moment, or at dinner, about a book you read? When you exit the movie theather, do you comment "out loud" what you saw? In this new scenario, I am specifically asking if someone, ever, has wanted to rebroadcast to the world what he just acquired from a book or movie, to start a conversation. Because now we get into the "how detailed can the sharing be", and I'll ask you if 240p is "low detail" enough, or if I omit the weather and words longer than 6 letters, and you'll say "but only if in black and white and without sound", and I'll ask if I can share the sound in another stream, and if is illegal for a third party in Iceland to assemble the two streams, and you'll get angry and either punch me, or call me stupid again.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mattmanser 10y ago
Yeah, sorry I was still in grouchy morning mode. I sometimes post, re-read and realise I'm an ass and quickly edit. I also deleted the bootlegger comment at the same time as well as I realised he'd not personally profiting from it so it's materially a different scenario, so I agree there. But, I think you're looking at it the wrong way. The quality doesn't matter. Even if it were at 4 px density and colossally compressed audio. Sharing exemptions tend to be limited in scope, lending the physical copy so you can't use it at the same time, less than X number of people at a shared screening, etc. Some of the scenarios you can come up with are technically illegal, just no-one's going to enforce them. You might not remember but back in the day coaches weren't supposed to screen films from video tapes and it was explicitly stated in the copyright notices, but they did any way. They probably still do. But if a free cinema had set up and just started screening bootlegged films, they would have got raided and convicted because of the difference in scale. Say I share a TV show or two with friends electronically. At worst if the law found out they'll tell me to cut it out. If I start hosting the TV show on a website and 100,000 people download it, you can be damn sure someone's going to ensure I'm going to feel the full scope of the law down my neck. It's the same with this. If it hadn't got shared outside his friend group, even if they found out, no-one would have probably bothered doing anything apart from maybe send a warning not to do it again. But he knew 100,000+ people were using his stream, he was identified, contacted and he declined to stop. That he was ignorant of the law, or he was sharing in a newish way is not a defence. From my pov, this isn't even new, my old housemate used to stream football games from illegal streams every weekend, I don't really see how this is any different just because it's using Facebook.

by ominous 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

mattmanser 10y ago

Yeah, sorry I was still in grouchy morning mode. I sometimes post, re-read and realise I'm an ass and quickly edit. I also deleted the bootlegger comment at the same time as well as I realised he'd not personally profiting from it so it's materially a different scenario, so I agree there. But, I think you're looking at it the wrong way. The quality doesn't matter. Even if it were at 4 px density and colossally compressed audio. Sharing exemptions tend to be limited in scope, lending the physical copy so you can't use it at the same time, less than X number of people at a shared screening, etc. Some of the scenarios you can come up with are technically illegal, just no-one's going to enforce them. You might not remember but back in the day coaches weren't supposed to screen films from video tapes and it was explicitly stated in the copyright notices, but they did any way. They probably still do. But if a free cinema had set up and just started screening bootlegged films, they would have got raided and convicted because of the difference in scale. Say I share a TV show or two with friends electronically. At worst if the law found out they'll tell me to cut it out. If I start hosting the TV show on a website and 100,000 people download it, you can be damn sure someone's going to ensure I'm going to feel the full scope of the law down my neck. It's the same with this. If it hadn't got shared outside his friend group, even if they found out, no-one would have probably bothered doing anything apart from maybe send a warning not to do it again. But he knew 100,000+ people were using his stream, he was identified, contacted and he declined to stop. That he was ignorant of the law, or he was sharing in a newish way is not a defence. From my pov, this isn't even new, my old housemate used to stream football games from illegal streams every weekend, I don't really see how this is any different just because it's using Facebook.