4 ms·

But you do know that you can watch movies for free if you have internet and a general purpose computer, right? Why is it wrong to say that? "Warning, this knif

by ominous 10y ago

But you do know that you can watch movies for free if you have internet and a general purpose computer, right? Why is it wrong to say that? "Warning, this knife can sever arteries.". Is this better? "Warning, this machine can access copyrighted content. Buy it at your own risk." Is this better?

sspiff 10y ago
Yes, but these boxes are set up to only display media, and advertised as a way to watch copyrighted content without acquiring a subscription or license to the content. Try advertising a butchers knife as "an excellent tool to slit the throats of <insert migrant minority here> pigs", or any less extreme but still illegal activity (like advertising nails for the purpose of puncturing the tires of your annoying neighbours car).
- yAnonymous 10y ago
  >Try advertising a butchers knife as "an excellent tool to slit the throats of <insert migrant minority here> pigs" You mean like "combat knife"?
  - ominous 10y ago
    Good one. I was going to elaborate on how we should close down classes about rocket science or anything particle physics related. You know, just in case someone manages to learn how to control fission and miniaturize it into bombs. Dangerous stuff.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Judging by the manual for the Kershaw I bought, at least some manufacturers like to add reminders that the knife is meant to cut only letter envelopes and basically touching anything else with it will void your warranty...
  - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
    Combat is not illegal, per se. If they called it a "murder knife" you might have a point.
rlpb 10y ago
You seem to be trying to argue against the law. As onion2k says, courts consider intent. They will decide if you intended for your customers to break the law, and were complicit in the breaking of the law, or not. They will only consider real cases, not hypothetical. > "Warning, this knife can sever arteries.". Is this better? The courts take things in context. If it was sold by a gangster with that wording used for the purpose of informing customers that it can be used to kill people, then that's one thing. If it's used as a warning label so that adults know to keep the knife away from their children for safety, that's another. Courts are not blind; they are supposed to look at context and intent. You seem to consider the law as some kind of mathematical function where the same input always results in the same output. This is indeed the aim, but context matters. The law doesn't ignore context, so you cannot expect to do so either. You might find it helpful to read "What Colour are your bits?": http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 That article talks about copyright, but the point about the law seeing context, and the same nonsense conclusions when attempting to use logic but ignore context, remains the same.
- ominous 10y ago
  See, you say one might get to "nonsense conclusions when attempting to use logic but ignore context", but you used "They will decide if you intended" without flinching. Or did you flinch? "They will decide" I thought the intent was mine. How can my intent be decided? My intent was to kill time. And I have read "What Colour are your bits" before. "The trouble is, human beings are not in general Colour-blind." They are. Truth is, they are. There is no "Colour sense". You can't tell if this pipe was from your grandfather, mine, or if it was 3D printed 10 minutes ago. I could lie to you, you would believe it, and be Wrong. We pretend we see Colour. We tell each other the Colour of everything all the time, because we can't see it. Just as we pretend family matters, and borders exist, and anger is something we must act upon and the sky is up and the floor is down, and fashion is a thing. We pretend these things all the time. I sometimes pretend to want to work where I am right now. "This idea of Colour is a problem for communication between those of us who work in the world of computers, where Colour does not exist, and those of us who work in the law, where Colour exists and is important." Colour does not exist anywhere. If everyone forgot it, no one would be able to find it again. Other Colours would be created. And we would pretend to like them with the same strength. When you buy a combat knife, are you buying a killing artifact? Are you buying a weight? A memento of culture? Army supplies? The world functions because we agree on a lot of things. You seem to agree that Colour exists and the Combat Knife is deadly, but the Americana Knife is not, and the metal assembly is just scrap. Only by force you will convince anyone that Colour exists and it is important. So you will never be right, you will just have won. And the Federation Against Copyright Theft won, and we pretend they are right. I disagree. Also, > "Set-top boxes loaded with apps and add-ons allowing access to copyright infringing material are very much illegal and anyone involved in selling these boxes should not be surprised to receive a knock on the door," Kieron Sharp, director general of Fact The box itself is illegal. An illegal computer. My computer is also illegal right now. Let's pretend this makes sense.
celticninja 10y ago
It's not a warning that is in place. These sellers were advertising their Kodi boxes as a way to watch live football without paying or the latest movies for free. This so what attracted legal attention to their operations.
slantyyz 10y ago
It's one thing to sell a Vanilla Kodi box with no add-ons (i.e., a general purpose device) and something a whole lot different when it's got add-ons pre-installed that stream unauthorized copyrighted content. The authorities in Canada have been chasing down Android Box sellers at the behest of the cable companies for pretty much the same reason. Most of them come with Showbox installed and preloaded Kodi channels that are pretty shameless about where they're getting the streams from.

by ominous 10y ago

sspiff 10y ago

Yes, but these boxes are set up to only display media, and advertised as a way to watch copyrighted content without acquiring a subscription or license to the content. Try advertising a butchers knife as "an excellent tool to slit the throats of <insert migrant minority here> pigs", or any less extreme but still illegal activity (like advertising nails for the purpose of puncturing the tires of your annoying neighbours car).

yAnonymous 10y ago
>Try advertising a butchers knife as "an excellent tool to slit the throats of <insert migrant minority here> pigs" You mean like "combat knife"?
- ominous 10y ago
  Good one. I was going to elaborate on how we should close down classes about rocket science or anything particle physics related. You know, just in case someone manages to learn how to control fission and miniaturize it into bombs. Dangerous stuff.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Judging by the manual for the Kershaw I bought, at least some manufacturers like to add reminders that the knife is meant to cut only letter envelopes and basically touching anything else with it will void your warranty...
- TheCoelacanth 10y ago
  Combat is not illegal, per se. If they called it a "murder knife" you might have a point.

rlpb 10y ago

You seem to be trying to argue against the law. As onion2k says, courts consider intent. They will decide if you intended for your customers to break the law, and were complicit in the breaking of the law, or not. They will only consider real cases, not hypothetical. > "Warning, this knife can sever arteries.". Is this better? The courts take things in context. If it was sold by a gangster with that wording used for the purpose of informing customers that it can be used to kill people, then that's one thing. If it's used as a warning label so that adults know to keep the knife away from their children for safety, that's another. Courts are not blind; they are supposed to look at context and intent. You seem to consider the law as some kind of mathematical function where the same input always results in the same output. This is indeed the aim, but context matters. The law doesn't ignore context, so you cannot expect to do so either. You might find it helpful to read "What Colour are your bits?": http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 That article talks about copyright, but the point about the law seeing context, and the same nonsense conclusions when attempting to use logic but ignore context, remains the same.

ominous 10y ago
See, you say one might get to "nonsense conclusions when attempting to use logic but ignore context", but you used "They will decide if you intended" without flinching. Or did you flinch? "They will decide" I thought the intent was mine. How can my intent be decided? My intent was to kill time. And I have read "What Colour are your bits" before. "The trouble is, human beings are not in general Colour-blind." They are. Truth is, they are. There is no "Colour sense". You can't tell if this pipe was from your grandfather, mine, or if it was 3D printed 10 minutes ago. I could lie to you, you would believe it, and be Wrong. We pretend we see Colour. We tell each other the Colour of everything all the time, because we can't see it. Just as we pretend family matters, and borders exist, and anger is something we must act upon and the sky is up and the floor is down, and fashion is a thing. We pretend these things all the time. I sometimes pretend to want to work where I am right now. "This idea of Colour is a problem for communication between those of us who work in the world of computers, where Colour does not exist, and those of us who work in the law, where Colour exists and is important." Colour does not exist anywhere. If everyone forgot it, no one would be able to find it again. Other Colours would be created. And we would pretend to like them with the same strength. When you buy a combat knife, are you buying a killing artifact? Are you buying a weight? A memento of culture? Army supplies? The world functions because we agree on a lot of things. You seem to agree that Colour exists and the Combat Knife is deadly, but the Americana Knife is not, and the metal assembly is just scrap. Only by force you will convince anyone that Colour exists and it is important. So you will never be right, you will just have won. And the Federation Against Copyright Theft won, and we pretend they are right. I disagree. Also, > "Set-top boxes loaded with apps and add-ons allowing access to copyright infringing material are very much illegal and anyone involved in selling these boxes should not be surprised to receive a knock on the door," Kieron Sharp, director general of Fact The box itself is illegal. An illegal computer. My computer is also illegal right now. Let's pretend this makes sense.

celticninja 10y ago

It's not a warning that is in place. These sellers were advertising their Kodi boxes as a way to watch live football without paying or the latest movies for free. This so what attracted legal attention to their operations.

slantyyz 10y ago

It's one thing to sell a Vanilla Kodi box with no add-ons (i.e., a general purpose device) and something a whole lot different when it's got add-ons pre-installed that stream unauthorized copyrighted content. The authorities in Canada have been chasing down Android Box sellers at the behest of the cable companies for pretty much the same reason. Most of them come with Showbox installed and preloaded Kodi channels that are pretty shameless about where they're getting the streams from.