Is Streaming Infringing Content Still Considered Piracy?
from the just-wondering... dept
There's been some buzz about a recent research report claiming that streaming services are popular. There have been a few such reports, and there's not much surprising in them. They basically point out that if people can stream certain content, that's often easier than firing up a non-user-friendly file sharing service to get the same content. But, does that necessarily lead to the conclusion pushed by many in the industry and the press that "streaming kills piracy"? Not at all. As the folks at Freakbits note, this particular study didn't even bother to separate out authorized streaming services and unauthorized streaming services -- and includes YouTube in the calculations, which (as Hollywood keeps trying to let us know) often has a fair amount of unauthorized content. So, perhaps, people are suggesting that if the content is just "streamed" it doesn't count as "piracy." And, as someone who doesn't like the term "piracy" in the first place, perhaps that makes sense. But it does not appear that this is what's being argued. Instead, people are just assuming that all streaming is authorized, when that's hardly the case.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I recently missed the beginning of the new House MD episode and, of course, Fox doesn't let new episodes of House run on Hulu or sell on Amazon until 8 days after the original broadcast, (which means that if you miss one week, you will never be able to catch-up) so I wasn't going to be able to watch it online either.
In the midst of finding this out (while trying to purchase it on Amazon), I found an obviously pirated stream online. The quality was good and commercials had been cut out, even. So I watched that instead of having to wait to see it with commercials.
So, in my experience, streaming video makes unauthorized viewing even EASIER because I don't have to download anything, I don't have to worry about seeding, or having software; I just have to click and watch.
Of course, the real lesson that execs should take from this is to offer what your consumers want so I don't have to look for unauthorized streams online. I would have been perfectly content to watch it on Hulu with commercials, but it wasn't offered. Sorry, Fox. You fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
either way, the user is granted access to that media.
plus, streamed content is extremely easy to download, just let it load, go to your /tmp folder, and copy the video to another folder, and thats it!
Streaming is downloading, it's just deleted by your browser when you leave the page.
(note: I'm not defending the media's companies position and saying that streaming media is 'wrong', I'm just saying that I don't see a difference between the two)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Two different things, but sort of the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exactly else if we started defining Unauthorized host of protected content as piracy they'd have to shut down You Tube.
Worrisome though because there having talks on exactly these points at the Net Neutrality conference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
think of my downloads as a VCR recording then
whats so different form someone giving a buddy a tape or a copy
see its the same old BS about downloading form the net as vcr tapes only now its on a world scale
this is what Hollywood and America gets for globalization
HOORAY
lets make vcr tapes illegal and see the millions of mom n pops goto prison NOW
/sarcasm
bill c61 in Canada almost did that
and it was drafted largely form Hollywood like ACTA is
get ready everyone THE END COMES FOR HOLLYWOOD and actors and musicians that work for them better get to hiding big time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, I don't even feel like I'm infringing. I feel like the infringer is the guy who uploaded the video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"You mind?"
"Whatever."
Do you even have an obligation to wonder if it's authorized?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First and foremost, it makes it much harder for an end user to reproduce the content for others, where as a full download would obviously be easy to move to a torrent.
Second, the quality of the stream will almost never be exactly perfect, thus any copies made in any manner will be lesser than the original.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I do not understand how you come to that, or, assuming it is right, why it matters. I mean, yes, when you recorded from VCR, the quality plummeted. However, that has not been the case in a while. Further, if we hold that to be true, then does recording TV to Media Center cause the quality to not be perfect? And does it matter when it is by far good enough for every day viewing? How would a stream be different than that? Unless you wish to indicate they could intentionally degrade legit streams to showing a degraded format to prevent piracy, in which case, wouldn't people simply go back to the TV records?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Basically, streaming puts it back to the times of video tape. A copy of a copy isn't as good as the copy, and so on until it is useless. Piracy thrives on being effectively perfect copy to copy. Removing that perfection makes capturing streaming to share a less interesting idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, its piracy, theft, infringement, whatever you want to call it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By streaming, do you mean the act of offering streaming content or the act of viewing it?
Offering streaming content is rebroadcasting, sure. Viewing streaming content is absolutely not. It was never a crime to listen to pirate radio.
The whole "You could save the file" argument is fallacious - an argument from silence. That you MIGHT save the file doesn't make viewing and not saving it wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Different Legal Implication
If you stream the content, then you are not sharing and therefore not "making it available" because the traffic is only one way.
In the US nobody has ever been found liable for downloading or for viewing unauthorized content, but only for distributing it. So if you stream the content you want then while it may still be considered infringement by the content companies, the courts haven't agreed with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Different Legal Implication
I don't see where there is a difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interested in your opinions...
If I own a digital copy of a movie and I stream it to myself and a couple of friends in parallel - simulating the experience of watching it with them in the same room - is that infringement? There is no file copying involved and there is no public broadcast or availability. I've looked through all of the fine print on movies I own and I can't see anything that says this is a problem, as long as I avoid 'reproducing' or 'public showing'.
What are your thoughts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the difference?
Have I infringed? Are those viewings "piracy?" As the above-mentioned organizations count them, probably. Especially when they jack up their bogus numbers of "sales lost to piracy." But technically, I haven't broken any law that I know of.
Now what's the difference with streaming my movie collection over the internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the difference?
Now consider the same example, but make the location a public place, like a bar. Does that change anything? What about if I let any 4 or any 50 people watch it with me in the bar? Does that change anything?
It's all very unclear to me, even for DVDs. Where are the lines? Is it quantity of people? Public versus private? I have no idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will using a Slingbox land you in Prison
Will Slingbox land you in prison ? A comment on the legality of Slingbox Technology and Slingbox Hosting Companies http://ow.ly/Hug5
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Online viewinh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]