3 ms·

Speaking of the general public, how does Joe Smith know that Hulu's stream of "The Office" is legal but some other site's is not? That's been my biggest questi

Speaking of the general public, how does Joe Smith know that Hulu's stream of "The Office" is legal but some other site's is not? That's been my biggest question about streaming. On one hand I can google "watch the office online for free" and end up on Hulu, it has ads, but it's free. If I look around I can see that I don't have access to all their content, but they have a subscription model that gives full access. On the other, I can google "watch dexter online for free" and end up on MegaVideo (well, imagine you're four months ago). It has ads, but it's free. If I want to watch a lot of videos, I see that I can't because there's a daily limit, but they have a subscription model that gives full access. As a user, I have no way to know that the first one is legal while the second isn't. That being said, it's my understanding that at this point, this is what makes streaming a bit of an edge-case why mostly the website is charged, rather than the users. But that might of course change…

freehunter 15y ago
>As a user, I have no way to know that the first one is legal while the second isn't. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it". Bullshit, isn't it? --edit: I'm not arguing this point. I'm just pointing out that not knowing the law isn't a valid legal defense, so not knowing which site was legal would not prevent a user from prosecution.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- Timothee 15y ago
  In this case, it's not about knowing the law or not, but about knowing which sites have contracts with the right owners. I can access the laws that say it's illegal, but I don't have access to the contracts (or the absence of contracts…) that can confirm this or that site is legal. That's what makes this question so interesting. When you can download a bunch of songs and movies for free, by now you should know that something is up, the same way people get busted when returning from Mexico with a fake Chanel purse, because "common sense" should tell you that you can't buy one for $15, the same way you can't get full albums for free. (though, common sense is of course very subjective) But the more the illegal sources look and behave like the legit ones, the more difficult it is to know what's going on. I would probably know because I would hear of the companies from TechCrunch or somewhere, but a random user wouldn't. So I do wonder if that would be a valid legal defense. Similarly I don't know if someone that had paid a few hundred dollars in a legit-looking store in Asia for a fake but good looking Chanel purse could just explain it was in good faith… Another example would be Spotify vs. Grooveshark.
  - westicle 15y ago
    There is a common law defence (known as the "proudman and dayman defence") which can be summarised as having an honest an reasonable belief in a state of FACTS which, if true, would make the act legal. Note that ignorance of the law is no defence, and dishonest or unreasonable ignorance of the facts is also no defence.

freehunter 15y ago

>As a user, I have no way to know that the first one is legal while the second isn't. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it". Bullshit, isn't it? --edit: I'm not arguing this point. I'm just pointing out that not knowing the law isn't a valid legal defense, so not knowing which site was legal would not prevent a user from prosecution.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
Timothee 15y ago
In this case, it's not about knowing the law or not, but about knowing which sites have contracts with the right owners. I can access the laws that say it's illegal, but I don't have access to the contracts (or the absence of contracts…) that can confirm this or that site is legal. That's what makes this question so interesting. When you can download a bunch of songs and movies for free, by now you should know that something is up, the same way people get busted when returning from Mexico with a fake Chanel purse, because "common sense" should tell you that you can't buy one for $15, the same way you can't get full albums for free. (though, common sense is of course very subjective) But the more the illegal sources look and behave like the legit ones, the more difficult it is to know what's going on. I would probably know because I would hear of the companies from TechCrunch or somewhere, but a random user wouldn't. So I do wonder if that would be a valid legal defense. Similarly I don't know if someone that had paid a few hundred dollars in a legit-looking store in Asia for a fake but good looking Chanel purse could just explain it was in good faith… Another example would be Spotify vs. Grooveshark.
- westicle 15y ago
  There is a common law defence (known as the "proudman and dayman defence") which can be summarised as having an honest an reasonable belief in a state of FACTS which, if true, would make the act legal. Note that ignorance of the law is no defence, and dishonest or unreasonable ignorance of the facts is also no defence.