5 ms·

But it's a felony.

by danneu 15y ago

But it's a felony.

mattdeboard 15y ago
...and? If you don't want a felony, don't illegally stream? You don't get to do whatever you want just because it's easily done sitting in front of your computer without pants on. As much as the media companies have done to villify themselves in the past decade (and more), that doesn't change the fact that their claims to material are real, and are worth some amount of money. Those are facts. In many cases, such as PPV fights or sporting events, much of the value comes via exclusivity. By illegally streaming such shows, you are, in real terms, diluting the value of their rights to that material. I realize this isn't a popular opinion among many people. However, it doesn't change the reality you're not entitled to take whatever you want from companies simply because it's socially acceptable. There are consequences to your actions. In this case, the consequences turn out to be a felony charge. One final edit before this post becomes completely invisible: Read the amendment, for fuck's sake. The vast majority of respondents here are having a knee-jerk emotional reaction that doesn't actually reflect what's in the amendment. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s978is/pdf/BILLS-112s978is.pdf http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s978is/pdf/BILLS-112s9... You're not going to jail for watching Hangover 2 a couple of times. You're going to be facing potential jailtime and fines for streaming it to a sufficient number of people with the intent of making a profit off of it.
- cowkingdeluxe 15y ago
  Still not worth a felony.
  - megamark16 15y ago
    Exactly. To treat someone who streamed The Hangover 2 with more strict criminal repercussions than someone who committed attempted rape seems really really stupid. Also, an I the only one who wishes that the government would hand out some of the 5 year felony prison sentences to the bankers who have been committing fraud the last couple of years?
    - pasbesoin 15y ago
      Also, the more time and resources they spend chasing "copyright infringers", the less they're going to spend preventing and solving the crimes most of us worry about. (And since the "entertainment industry" is hardly going to rescue the U.S. economy, I really don't give much of a cr-p about its fortunes -- which it already bolsters by producing things in Canada, Ireland, now Eastern Europe or wherever else, whenever it can.)
      - danneu 15y ago
        Why is this voted down?
- Unseelie 15y ago
  On what basis do you justify laws which illegalize socially acceptable behaviors, and why do you start what people are entitled to at the law? Surely the law should follow society, rather than society following the law.
  - mattdeboard 15y ago
    Sure, but I was speaking of lowercase 's' society, not "society-at-large". Friends, acquaintances, family, etc. Despite what we all may wish would be the case, it's not socially acceptable to deprive rights holders and content producers of the financial value of their rights/content. The notion of rights to content takes primacy over the notion of streaming UFC 500 or whatever they're up to now.
    - Unseelie 15y ago
      There's a much deeper debate over abuse of copyright that I won't get into, but it seems to me that if we can say something like "despite what we all may wish" with any level of veracity, then you're in very shaky territory when making declarations about what rights people or entities should have. Not that there aren't first principles to evolve laws from, but those first principles are very bare, and most of what we decide people should do, and most of the rights we grant (key word) to persons or entities are decided by interpretations of situation based on what we want society to be shaped like.
      - mattdeboard 15y ago
        I don't believe even a bare preponderance of people want society to be in such a shape that government provides no protection to companies who wish to protect their rights. This is not to say that the government ought to serve as business's proxy in all cases.
        Unseelie 15y ago
        What I've been trying to express is not that this law in particular is nessisarily wrong, but that laws have no value beyond their place as instruments of our societal will.
- knieveltech 15y ago
  To put it in in entirely vulgar terms it's a class III misdemeanor (aggravating circumstances aside) for me to beat the shit out of someone in the middle of a movie theater. But streaming a clip from that movie could net me a felony rap? And this sounds reasonable to you? Do you have ANY idea how thoroughly a felony conviction fucks up someone's life?
- hugh3 15y ago
  Question: why is this modded down into near-invisibility? It seems to be sensible and well-argued.
- danneu 15y ago
  I'm not commenting on the subject matter of legality, so you're barking up the wrong tree with all that. I'm questioning the classification of crimes. Felonies are serious and primarily intended for removing violent criminals from the grid. Felons can't vote, can't buy guns/ammo, can't obtain most vocational licenses, can't obtain visas abroad with most US partners, and can't easily find jobs anymore. Felony status should be reserved for people who are a danger to society, not just a danger to a record labels and publisher contracts. Socially acceptable (accepted by society) crimes shouldn't be felonies -- that's a direct collision with the purpose of a felony! And a special interest group shouldn't be able to lobby for elevated crime classifications like this.

But it's a felony.

by danneu 15y ago

But it's a felony.

...and? If you don't want a felony, don't illegally stream? You don't get to do whatever you want just because it's easily done sitting in front of your computer without pants on. As much as the media companies have done to villify themselves in the past decade (and more), that doesn't change the fact that their claims to material are real, and are worth some amount of money. Those are facts. In many cases, such as PPV fights or sporting events, much of the value comes via exclusivity. By illegally streaming such shows, you are, in real terms, diluting the value of their rights to that material. I realize this isn't a popular opinion among many people. However, it doesn't change the reality you're not entitled to take whatever you want from companies simply because it's socially acceptable. There are consequences to your actions. In this case, the consequences turn out to be a felony charge. One final edit before this post becomes completely invisible: Read the amendment, for fuck's sake. The vast majority of respondents here are having a knee-jerk emotional reaction that doesn't actually reflect what's in the amendment. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s978is/pdf/BILLS-112s978is.pdf http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s978is/pdf/BILLS-112s9... You're not going to jail for watching Hangover 2 a couple of times. You're going to be facing potential jailtime and fines for streaming it to a sufficient number of people with the intent of making a profit off of it.

cowkingdeluxe 15y ago
Still not worth a felony.
- megamark16 15y ago
  Exactly. To treat someone who streamed The Hangover 2 with more strict criminal repercussions than someone who committed attempted rape seems really really stupid. Also, an I the only one who wishes that the government would hand out some of the 5 year felony prison sentences to the bankers who have been committing fraud the last couple of years?
  - pasbesoin 15y ago
    Also, the more time and resources they spend chasing "copyright infringers", the less they're going to spend preventing and solving the crimes most of us worry about. (And since the "entertainment industry" is hardly going to rescue the U.S. economy, I really don't give much of a cr-p about its fortunes -- which it already bolsters by producing things in Canada, Ireland, now Eastern Europe or wherever else, whenever it can.)
    - danneu 15y ago
      Why is this voted down?
Unseelie 15y ago
On what basis do you justify laws which illegalize socially acceptable behaviors, and why do you start what people are entitled to at the law? Surely the law should follow society, rather than society following the law.
- mattdeboard 15y ago
  Sure, but I was speaking of lowercase 's' society, not "society-at-large". Friends, acquaintances, family, etc. Despite what we all may wish would be the case, it's not socially acceptable to deprive rights holders and content producers of the financial value of their rights/content. The notion of rights to content takes primacy over the notion of streaming UFC 500 or whatever they're up to now.
  - Unseelie 15y ago
    There's a much deeper debate over abuse of copyright that I won't get into, but it seems to me that if we can say something like "despite what we all may wish" with any level of veracity, then you're in very shaky territory when making declarations about what rights people or entities should have. Not that there aren't first principles to evolve laws from, but those first principles are very bare, and most of what we decide people should do, and most of the rights we grant (key word) to persons or entities are decided by interpretations of situation based on what we want society to be shaped like.
    - mattdeboard 15y ago
      I don't believe even a bare preponderance of people want society to be in such a shape that government provides no protection to companies who wish to protect their rights. This is not to say that the government ought to serve as business's proxy in all cases.
      - Unseelie 15y ago
        What I've been trying to express is not that this law in particular is nessisarily wrong, but that laws have no value beyond their place as instruments of our societal will.
knieveltech 15y ago
To put it in in entirely vulgar terms it's a class III misdemeanor (aggravating circumstances aside) for me to beat the shit out of someone in the middle of a movie theater. But streaming a clip from that movie could net me a felony rap? And this sounds reasonable to you? Do you have ANY idea how thoroughly a felony conviction fucks up someone's life?
hugh3 15y ago
Question: why is this modded down into near-invisibility? It seems to be sensible and well-argued.
danneu 15y ago
I'm not commenting on the subject matter of legality, so you're barking up the wrong tree with all that. I'm questioning the classification of crimes. Felonies are serious and primarily intended for removing violent criminals from the grid. Felons can't vote, can't buy guns/ammo, can't obtain most vocational licenses, can't obtain visas abroad with most US partners, and can't easily find jobs anymore. Felony status should be reserved for people who are a danger to society, not just a danger to a record labels and publisher contracts. Socially acceptable (accepted by society) crimes shouldn't be felonies -- that's a direct collision with the purpose of a felony! And a special interest group shouldn't be able to lobby for elevated crime classifications like this.