4 ms·

“Illegal streaming” assumes that upholding the rights of foreign copyright holding megacorps is anywhere in the top 10,000 priorities for the Iraqi government.

“Illegal streaming” assumes that upholding the rights of foreign copyright holding megacorps is anywhere in the top 10,000 priorities for the Iraqi government. US law is not world law. This is like China saying that US websites are engaging in “illegal criticism of China”.

pokepim 4y ago
Well congress approved 500 million for negative coverage of China. So yes, US websites are even paid for shaming and criticizing China (often based on false information) and our asian enemies (like Japan in the 80s with all the Japan bashing) https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/08/01/low-point-in-japan-bashing/33bf839c-0744-43f1-8f30-a16324f71602/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/08/01/l...
- selcuka 4y ago
  So what? It is still not illegal though, is it?
- RedCondor 4y ago
  It's a very old tradition: >The Spanish-American War, what boosters called a “splendid little war,” began in 1898. … President McKinley sent a warship to Cuba as a precaution, but in February 1898 that ship, the USS Maine, blew up in Havana, killing 250 U.S. sailors. The cause of the explosion was unknown — and it would later be revealed to have been an accident — but both Hearst and Pulitzer published a cable from the captain of the battleship to the assistant secretary of the navy, Theodore Roosevelt, informing him that the disaster was no accident. (The cable was later revealed to be a fake.) Jill Lepore, September 2018. These Truths: A History of the United States.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > Well congress approved 500 million for negative coverage of China. Can I get a pointer to this?
  - RaoulP 4y ago
    I just looked this up myself. It was proposed as part of last year's COMPETES act: https://prospect.org/politics/congress-proposes-500-million-for-negative-news-coverage-of-china/ https://prospect.org/politics/congress-proposes-500-million-... I only found articles on this from when the act was still moving through congress. But the act was passed, so I assume this part did as well. It feels nefarious to me how acts and budgets in the US can bundle things like this.
wil421 4y ago
I’ve done my fair share of torrenting and the like. Never once I have been under the illusion that I have some kind of special right to someone else’s unique combinations of bits. If the internet wasn’t around people would still be copying VHSs and DVDs. Just because the internet makes it easier to copy doesn’t mean you get a special pass. I did it for the same reason the Iraqis do it, it’s cheaper, easier, and at times unavailable otherwise.
- RHSeeger 4y ago
  > Never once I have been under the illusion that I have some kind of special right to someone else’s unique combinations of bits. Copyright law isn't about your special rights to someone else's unique combination of bits. It's about what rights they have the legal ability to deny you to those bits. There are plenty of situations where copyright law in one country differs from that of another country; and neither of them are "right". - An work that is still under copyright in one country at 50 years, but lost copyright in another when it hit 40. - A videogame that requires a server to run, but the company running it abandoned it. - A picture of a public place, like the Eiffel tower at night, which runs afoul of copyright law in one country, but not another. - Software that is abandonware, legal to copy/use in some countries but not others. Not following the copyright laws of the US (or, for instance, France when it comes to the Eiffel tower and it's lights) does not automatically mean you think you have "special rights to someone else's bits". It means you don't recognize the authority by which they claim they have special rights over your actions; at least as it pertains to the current situation.
  - rektide 4y ago
    Conflating copyright with technical inability to use a thing (game servers shutting down) highly conflates the situation, in my view. Traditionally, citizens & non-citizens have the ability to ignore & shirk copyright to a high degree. It's a new infernal shit show that now it's no longer just a legal protection that loosely defends corporate rights to media, but technological protection too. It's as if France can go make photos of the Eiffel tower self destruct, and it's incredibly fallen. Often what we can do isn't regulated under copyright at all- under DRM, every useless cad company gets to make up its own new rights regime, fast worse than any copyright system, where invariably they have all rights & own everything & can change the agreement whenever & however they like in any way that suits them. Conflating the DRM technological dominionizing with copyright- as you do again and again- ascribes & conflates a despicable monstrous abyssal major horror to a merely somewhat damned existing minor infernalism.

pokepim 4y ago

Well congress approved 500 million for negative coverage of China. So yes, US websites are even paid for shaming and criticizing China (often based on false information) and our asian enemies (like Japan in the 80s with all the Japan bashing) https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/08/01/low-point-in-japan-bashing/33bf839c-0744-43f1-8f30-a16324f71602/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/08/01/l...

selcuka 4y ago
So what? It is still not illegal though, is it?
RedCondor 4y ago
It's a very old tradition: >The Spanish-American War, what boosters called a “splendid little war,” began in 1898. … President McKinley sent a warship to Cuba as a precaution, but in February 1898 that ship, the USS Maine, blew up in Havana, killing 250 U.S. sailors. The cause of the explosion was unknown — and it would later be revealed to have been an accident — but both Hearst and Pulitzer published a cable from the captain of the battleship to the assistant secretary of the navy, Theodore Roosevelt, informing him that the disaster was no accident. (The cable was later revealed to be a fake.) Jill Lepore, September 2018. These Truths: A History of the United States.
thaumasiotes 4y ago
> Well congress approved 500 million for negative coverage of China. Can I get a pointer to this?
- RaoulP 4y ago
  I just looked this up myself. It was proposed as part of last year's COMPETES act: https://prospect.org/politics/congress-proposes-500-million-for-negative-news-coverage-of-china/ https://prospect.org/politics/congress-proposes-500-million-... I only found articles on this from when the act was still moving through congress. But the act was passed, so I assume this part did as well. It feels nefarious to me how acts and budgets in the US can bundle things like this.

wil421 4y ago

I’ve done my fair share of torrenting and the like. Never once I have been under the illusion that I have some kind of special right to someone else’s unique combinations of bits. If the internet wasn’t around people would still be copying VHSs and DVDs. Just because the internet makes it easier to copy doesn’t mean you get a special pass. I did it for the same reason the Iraqis do it, it’s cheaper, easier, and at times unavailable otherwise.

RHSeeger 4y ago
> Never once I have been under the illusion that I have some kind of special right to someone else’s unique combinations of bits. Copyright law isn't about your special rights to someone else's unique combination of bits. It's about what rights they have the legal ability to deny you to those bits. There are plenty of situations where copyright law in one country differs from that of another country; and neither of them are "right". - An work that is still under copyright in one country at 50 years, but lost copyright in another when it hit 40. - A videogame that requires a server to run, but the company running it abandoned it. - A picture of a public place, like the Eiffel tower at night, which runs afoul of copyright law in one country, but not another. - Software that is abandonware, legal to copy/use in some countries but not others. Not following the copyright laws of the US (or, for instance, France when it comes to the Eiffel tower and it's lights) does not automatically mean you think you have "special rights to someone else's bits". It means you don't recognize the authority by which they claim they have special rights over your actions; at least as it pertains to the current situation.
- rektide 4y ago
  Conflating copyright with technical inability to use a thing (game servers shutting down) highly conflates the situation, in my view. Traditionally, citizens & non-citizens have the ability to ignore & shirk copyright to a high degree. It's a new infernal shit show that now it's no longer just a legal protection that loosely defends corporate rights to media, but technological protection too. It's as if France can go make photos of the Eiffel tower self destruct, and it's incredibly fallen. Often what we can do isn't regulated under copyright at all- under DRM, every useless cad company gets to make up its own new rights regime, fast worse than any copyright system, where invariably they have all rights & own everything & can change the agreement whenever & however they like in any way that suits them. Conflating the DRM technological dominionizing with copyright- as you do again and again- ascribes & conflates a despicable monstrous abyssal major horror to a merely somewhat damned existing minor infernalism.