8 ms·
Pirates who illegally streamed Jake Paul v Ben Askren targeted in lawsuit
- cheeze 6y agoCan they actually go after any of these entities? Seems like at this point it's pretty trivial to set up a website which proxies manifest files and injects DRM keys directly... Good luck, but I'd assume these folks are all in non extradition countries, or have covered their tracks pretty well...
- duxup 6y agoThe article notes that several seem to have have ties in the US. How accurate that info is, I guess we'll find out. The lawsuit will allow them to search further.
- jareklupinski 6y agocan't wait to see Jake Paul v. ItsLilBrandon
- Relys 6y agoOh No! Anyway
- siruncledrew 6y agoFor a whole 30 seconds of fight action?
- fortran77 6y agoDon't people have a right to their property?
- ReptileMan 6y agoI don't consider ip property. So the answer is it's complicated.
- Guffton 6y ago> I don't consider ip property Wait, what?
- ReptileMan 6y agoWell one of the defining characteristics of property is that there is finite amounts of it. But we have inexhaustible supplies of 0s and 1s, and words.
- JohnWhigham 6y agoIt'd be nice if we could have a happy medium it's like we can only live in extremes. On one end, we have the US, the land of patent trolls and divisions of companies suing other divisions of companies for millions and wasting years of time. On the other end, we have China where people just blatantly steal everything. Released a new successful product on Amazon? Get ready to be undercut by 50% or more by some no-name brand out of nowhere!
- gamblor956 6y ago"ip" = "intellectual property". It's literally in the name. Property isn't defined by quantity or finiteness. It's anything, real or otherwise, for which ownership consists of a set of rights to control the exploitation (aka "use") of the thing.
- michaelmrose 6y agoThe name is in short shit. If I decide to call cars electric horses they still wont require breeding, pastures, or feed and will will need mechanics, gas, and pavement under the wheels.
- tracedddd 6y agoI feel like this is a rhetorical question, but I’m not very confident that they should when it comes to data. It’s definitely less clear cut than physical ownership in my opinion. Abstractly it seems wrong to limit people from certain bit arrangements without paying. The source is limitless.
- drknownuffin 6y agoBut it really isn't limitless, is it? We can abstract it into a 'bit arrangement', but that arrangement didn't emerge from entropy independently - someone invested time, effort, and other scarce resources to arrange those bits in a valuable, non-random configuration. The person copying clearly values that arrangement, or they wouldn't be copying it.
- tracedddd 6y agoPerhaps they did invest time, but I’m not convinced that should give them the right to place a restriction on others. If I have an empty hard drive and copy someone’s mp3 a thousand times on it, without permission, what is really lost? Have I really harmed this person or stolen from them in any meaningful sense? If I then delete the data, is that really justice? Both directions lead to some laws that seem wrong at face value - illegal primes on one side and “pro” revenge porn on the other. I only argue it’s not as clear cut as physical property, and that we are probably too far on the digital copyright side, rather than the data is free side.
- david422 6y ago> If I have an empty hard drive and copy someone’s mp3 a thousand times on it, without permission, what is really lost? But if it wasn't worth something, you wouldn't do it. So the person that created it wants a certain value, and the person copying it wants to copy it but doesn't want to pay that value.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago> Abstractly it seems wrong to limit people from certain bit arrangements without paying. The source is limitless. I invite you to apply this logic to your personal data.
- djbebs 6y agoGivernment granted monopolies are not property.
- jfengel 6y agoUh... they aren't? They can be bought and sold. A company is a government-granted monopoly on the resources of that company, including its contracts with employees and contracts for services. You can buy and sell that company. Originally, all corporations were government-granted charters, and a lot of that notion is retained. Government manages your monopoly over your real estate -- if somebody tries to use it you're not left to your own devices to defend it. In a sense all property is a government-granted monopoly, including intangible rights. Intellectual property is a special case and you can argue that it shouldn't be included, but to dismiss government grants in the role of property seems to miss a lot about how the law works.
- michaelmrose 6y agoThey aren't analogous to physical property. They can trivially be disposed of without any effect on the functioning of physical property. At best they require their own justification.
- astrange 6y agoPhysical property is a government-granted right, with the caveat that if they stop enforcing it you can do that yourself with violence. If you stop paying property tax you will eventually lose your property.
- michaelmrose 6y agoIts a government granted resolution to something that absolutely must be resolved one way or the other. We can't both eat the sandwich. IP is a different class of imposition.
- Mordisquitos 6y agoWere the owners of this 30 second video arbitrarily deprived of it?
- michaelmrose 6y agoIndeed they do. For example my hard drive belongs to me and yours to you. There is no way I can arrange the pattern of magnetic ones and zeros such that it magically becomes YOUR property in any way that any proponent of traditional property would understand. That is to say imaginary property is a set of restrictions on how I am allowed to use my actual property. This restriction is supposed to be justified by society benefiting from the useful arts and sciences. I don't see a two-bit fight fitting that bill.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- fortran77 6y agoYou don't like fighting! Good for you! (Neither do I.) I'm sure a person like you has much more important things to pay attention to. So people like you and me don't pay money to watch fighting. So far we agree. But we differ here: I think it's fine of _other_ people pay money to watch fighting. And I think if someone produces a fighting program, he has the right to try to make some money from it.
- andrewzah 6y agoPeople conveniently like to ignore the costs (time, money, social capital, etc) it requires to even put on boxing or fighting events. Or to make music or films. It is particularly vexing for me to see all of this creative, hard work flippantly thrown aside because people suddenly become philosophers about bits and rearranging them. If one doesn't like that people charge $$ to watch boxing fights... Then don't watch them! People are not entitled to having things for free because it's "theoretically possible to re-arrange my hard drive's bits in that exact manner". edit; changed you->one to clarify I was speaking generally and not about the parent commenter specifically
- fortran77 6y agoYou and I agree. But the "gatekeepers" on Hacker News believe that if something's not "hip" enough for them, it has no value and nobody should be enjoying it.
- rafale 6y agoThe fight felt like a scam. I wouldn't be surprised if Askren heavily bet against himself after hyping himself and presenting the fight as an easy win.
- xkjkls 6y agoAskren isn't that type of dude. Not to mention the massive illegality of betting against yourself in a sanctioned boxing match, it would be incredibly dishonest and against his normal personality.
- Taylor_OD 6y agoThe slap fight was more entertaining than any of the boxing matches.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tornupinside 6y agoTriller never seizes to entertain with the wild stunts they're trying to pull to pivot their business Imagine if this was planned out. "Yeah let's host an event that will be pirated, and then sue the piraters to make it profitable"
- akersten 6y agoPrenda Law tried that approach, it didn't turn out well for them
- paulpauper 6y agoyeah good luck collecting on that
- iamben 6y agoQuestion to anyone that understands the legal 'play' here: is it the thing to say that it cost them 2,000,000 paying (I assume) streams, which feels ridiculously high? And then it gets bargained down or something? Because it seems a lot like the "you pirated my album/film instead of buying it" - whereas the reality of it is probably more like a high percentage just wouldn't have bothered - a passing interest/opportunity that piracy facilitated.
- staticautomatic 6y agoYeah they have to prove the amount of money they think they lost, which is subject to expert argument and some legal constraints. They can ask for whatever, but in theory they only get what they can prove.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- notsureaboutpg 6y agoDo bars and other venues who stream PPV fights pay per head in their establishment? Tangentially related
- glonq 6y agoThe con-artists who arranged that "fight" should be the ones getting sued!
- ChrisArchitect 5y agoThe follow up to this: https://torrentfreak.com/triller-offers-amnesty-to-pirates-claims-vpns-users-arent-protected-210504/ https://torrentfreak.com/triller-offers-amnesty-to-pirates-c...