Bottom line, if a girl is intoxicated she cannot consent to sex... [...] Again, it doesn't matter if you [a man] are drunk or high as well. Your diminished abilities do not negate your responsibilities.
Love those double standards of yours kenichi: Poor weak-minded females can't possibly be held responsible for their own actions when intoxicated, but males are ALWAYS responsible for their own behavior when intoxicated.
I would give my left arm to see you attempt to justify this position to a group of feminists. I'm pretty sure even they would want to kick your ass.
Hmm. I know for a fact that it was pretty common practice for rent-to-own places to include antennas with TV's in the 80's, especially in rural areas. But I guess not so much anymore. All I get when searching "rent" and "antenna" these days is stories about Aereo. I even tried the Wayback Machine without much luck.
TV antenna manufacturers do not supply a service like Aereo did. You buy a product from the manufacturer and set it up at home for private home viewing.
Or you can use a service like "Rent-to-own" who comes to your house, sets up the exact same system and rents it to you.
The signal gets picked up directly from the source and is used or recorded privately.
Which is exactly what Aereo did. They purposely kept your signal separate from anyone elses. It was also "private".
Aereo intercepts that signal and sells a service off that signal similar to what cable companies do. They take the tv signal and package it up to pipe out to paying customers. The only difference between cable and Aereo worked was how they got the source piped to them. Which is why it was "cable" like.
No, you are wrong, they didn't "package" anything, they purposely kept your transmission separate and completely under the user's control, so it wouldn't be any different than a legal setup in someone's house, except for being located somewhere else. Only difference is where the equipment is located.
This is the land of Chicken Little Masnick and his court of sky-is-falling sycophants. If you think the response to the Aereo decision is overly dramatic....
I'm sorry what were you saying? I was too busy watching the sky:
Let's see: - receives OTA television broadcasts - converts them to a format my computer understands - lets me view it on my computer - has DVR capabilities - and I'm sure I could find a way to stream that to another computer across the internet if I wanted to
Looks exactly like what Aereo offered to me. Or is it only illegal if I have really, really long USB cord?
Because Aereo monetizes it for themselves. Why do they get a pass?
For the exact same reason that television and antenna manufacturers get a pass. Aereo is/was simply a tool to view OTA television with.
Aren't TV antenna manufactures also monetizing OTA signals for themselves? It's the reason TV antenna manufacturers exist in the first place, isn't it?
The biggest question to me is did they use third party tools to hack the games or servers, or just use in game exploits that anybody could do with a vanilla client?
Hacking a game server crosses a pretty bright line in my opinion. Hacking a game client is completely fair game to me. It's data on my hard drive and I will do with it what I please. If hacking the client breaks the terms of service, then they can ban me, but it still doesn't rise to the level of criminal activity in any sane world. Whether I use third-party tools to hack with makes no difference.
You can design a system to be the functional equivalent of cable- you just have to pay the retrans fee. It's not that hard.
In Aereo's case the retransmission fee was already paid by the entities who own the broadcast towers. Why exactly do you think it should be paid twice for the same transmission?
The clear harm is simple in an online game: If I am a player and others are cheating, my gaming experienced can be diminished. It could make my online playing less enjoyable...
What about my game enjoyment? I just happen to like trying to outsmart the game programmers and have since ever since I started playing computer games in the early 80's. That's the enjoyment part for me. Just being a mindless in-game sheep holds no appeal for me whatsoever.
I've always used bugs and oversights in programming to my advantage in most every game I've played, online or off. To make that a criminal act is shear stupidity.
It is being monetized by TPB. I don't know why you continue to ignore the grifting. For you, the experience may be the same but the issue is the grifters making money on content that they have no right to exploit. Surely even you can understand such simple concept?
Just for the sake of argument and I know this is off-topic now:
What if someone doesn't use TPB or any other monetized torrent index and uses something like BTDigg (which isn't monetized at all) that simply indexes existing torrents that are already floating in the swarm? Does that make a difference to your argument?
You need to look at what the court examined. Aereo is in the same business as the cable companies, except it doesn't pay a retrans fee.
So than you agree that this was really an "Interference with a Existing Business Model" case, right?
Aereo didn't pay retransmission fees because they followed the Cablevision ruling to the letter and were found to be infringing anyways because their business model looked too much like a cable company.
By your own argument, it looks like SCOTUS ruled on the "Interference of a Business Model" more so than anything actually being illegal.
If Aereo is providing a service, not content- how does it differ from cable or satellite?
I wouldn't compare them to cable or satellite because it's happening after it's already been broadcast OTA (and the broadcast fees have already been paid) for anyone who as an antenna. Aereo is simply renting you equipment to receive a signal where all the broadcast fees have already been paid.
My local Rent-to-Own provides me a (for profit) service that rents me a TV, DVR and an antenna. Why do they not have to pay rebroadcast fees to send the signal down from my roof to my living room?
These grifters were retransmitting signals in order to profit without paying the retrains fee established by Congress.
Bullshit. They were streaming an OTA FREE signal where the fee was already paid for by the entity who owns the broadcast tower. If Aereo has to now also pay a retransmission fee do do this, the broadcast companies are double dipping. Plain and simple.
The fact that they rely upon a technological exploitation not in existence when the law was crafted doesn't see to be much of an argument.
Really? What "technological exploitation" is so different now, as opposed to when Cablevison was ruled on? Only difference is the length of the cord, as far as I can tell.
I don't see how that's unfair, but do understand that it offends the sensibilities of the self-entitled "get something of value for nothing" attitude that permeates this shithole.
Ummm, What is difference between me receiving my local channels via Aereo or over my own antenna on my roof. How is the consumer "getting something of value for nothing" - it's still as commercial riddled as ever. Aereo charged for providing a service, not for providing the content, which anyone can get for free anyways.
So basically SCOTUS is saying that if your business conforms to the letter of the law, but undermines existing business models it can still be considered illegal.
I guess "Interference with an Existing Business Model" is now officially a tortuous act.
It's a sad, sad day for free market capitalism and the spirit of competition that made our nation great.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The majors point
They enable copyright infringement, they are protected for some reason by safe harbor, if your saying there isn't copyright infringement on YouTube, you are mistaken, it's a profit circuit that feeds on itself die to safe harbor.
You realize that a video service like YouTube couldn't exist without the Safe Harbor protection the Copyright Act provides, right? (heck, even this site you are currently commenting on wouldn't exist without protection against liability by it's users).
Copyright Safe Harbors exist because Congress realized that placing liability on the actual infringers instead of the platform is the correct way to do things.
Therefore YouTube is obligated to negotiate with all popular indie artists in the same way they negotiate with major label artists. You're refuting this?
Wait. What? Are you saying because YouTube abides by the current laws and relies on copyright Safe Harbors against liability caused by it's users it is somehow obligated to negotiate with the Indie Labels? What kind of convoluted logic is that? Makes no sense to me, so YES I'm refuting that for lacking any actual intelligence or reason.
A platform that has freely infringed copyright for its entire existence, sells advertising while doing so in order to pay for the ability to continue to infringe and profit from copyright at 1.6hrs/sec
I do refute that. Like John said, YouTube has gone way beyond what is required of them by law since Google obtained them.
You act like copyright is the only reason YouTube makes any money. That's silly. They make money because they built the most popular video sharing service ever. You also act like every cent they make in advertising is pure profit and that is also silly. How about you pay one days worth of YouTube's bandwidth, electricity costs, hardware costs, personnel costs and other overhead for a day. I'll bet my bottom dollar you couldn't afford an hour's worth with your entire life's savings.
This is what YouTube started out and continues to do, entitlement, if you want to call it that is built into the internet.
I wouldn't call that entitlement. I would call it what it is - staying within the boundaries of laws designed by Congress.
Therefore they should negotiate with the owners of popular videos, for example Tugboat by Galaxie 500 or day the group Cracker or any number of artists who aren't on majors.
Umm, isn't that what they did? From what I have gleamed, they have successfully negotiated with 90% of the rightsholders. And now they are negotiating with the remaining 10%. Unfortunately, since that 10% is in a very weak bargaining position, the negotiating is basically "this is what everyone else agreed to, take it or leave it". This is standard practice in every other business sector. Not sure why anyone deserves special treatment here.
On the post: College Reacts To Negative Press By Attempting To Seal Court Documents Exposing Its Ridiculous Actions
Re:
[...]
Again, it doesn't matter if you [a man] are drunk or high as well. Your diminished abilities do not negate your responsibilities.
Love those double standards of yours kenichi: Poor weak-minded females can't possibly be held responsible for their own actions when intoxicated, but males are ALWAYS responsible for their own behavior when intoxicated.
I would give my left arm to see you attempt to justify this position to a group of feminists. I'm pretty sure even they would want to kick your ass.
On the post: The Aereo Ruling Is A Disaster For Tech, Because The 'Looks Like Cable' Test Provides No Guidance
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hmm. I know for a fact that it was pretty common practice for rent-to-own places to include antennas with TV's in the 80's, especially in rural areas. But I guess not so much anymore. All I get when searching "rent" and "antenna" these days is stories about Aereo. I even tried the Wayback Machine without much luck.
On the post: Even Hollywood Publications Are Concerned That Aereo Decision Kills Innovation And Harms Consumers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Opinions, world cup and pocket lint
On the post: The Aereo Ruling Is A Disaster For Tech, Because The 'Looks Like Cable' Test Provides No Guidance
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or you can use a service like "Rent-to-own" who comes to your house, sets up the exact same system and rents it to you.
The signal gets picked up directly from the source and is used or recorded privately.
Which is exactly what Aereo did. They purposely kept your signal separate from anyone elses. It was also "private".
Aereo intercepts that signal and sells a service off that signal similar to what cable companies do. They take the tv signal and package it up to pipe out to paying customers. The only difference between cable and Aereo worked was how they got the source piped to them. Which is why it was "cable" like.
No, you are wrong, they didn't "package" anything, they purposely kept your transmission separate and completely under the user's control, so it wouldn't be any different than a legal setup in someone's house, except for being located somewhere else. Only difference is where the equipment is located.
On the post: The Aereo Ruling Is A Disaster For Tech, Because The 'Looks Like Cable' Test Provides No Guidance
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, yes I do. Good thing I'm not doing that.
Don't you think it's a bit too early to be tossing around Chicken Little insults, since nether of us really knows what exactly this will impact?
On the post: The Aereo Ruling Is A Disaster For Tech, Because The 'Looks Like Cable' Test Provides No Guidance
Re:
I'm sorry what were you saying? I was too busy watching the sky:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140626/18375827694/aereo-fallout-begins-fox-uses-ruling-to-a ttack-dishs-mobile-streaming-service.shtml
On the post: The Aereo Ruling Is A Disaster For Tech, Because The 'Looks Like Cable' Test Provides No Guidance
http://www.amazon.com/Ckeyin-Receiver-Adapter-Worldwide-Analog/dp/B00J5C0BPS/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8 &qid=1403884240&sr=8-11&keywords=tv+receiver+usb
Let's see:
- receives OTA television broadcasts
- converts them to a format my computer understands
- lets me view it on my computer
- has DVR capabilities
- and I'm sure I could find a way to stream that to another computer across the internet if I wanted to
Looks exactly like what Aereo offered to me. Or is it only illegal if I have really, really long USB cord?
On the post: The Aereo Ruling Is A Disaster For Tech, Because The 'Looks Like Cable' Test Provides No Guidance
Re: Re: Re:
For the exact same reason that television and antenna manufacturers get a pass. Aereo is/was simply a tool to view OTA television with.
Aren't TV antenna manufactures also monetizing OTA signals for themselves? It's the reason TV antenna manufacturers exist in the first place, isn't it?
On the post: The Future Is Now: Cheating In Online Games Leads To Arrests In Japan
Re: On a deeper look
Hacking a game server crosses a pretty bright line in my opinion. Hacking a game client is completely fair game to me. It's data on my hard drive and I will do with it what I please. If hacking the client breaks the terms of service, then they can ban me, but it still doesn't rise to the level of criminal activity in any sane world. Whether I use third-party tools to hack with makes no difference.
On the post: The Aereo Ruling Is A Disaster For Tech, Because The 'Looks Like Cable' Test Provides No Guidance
Re:
In Aereo's case the retransmission fee was already paid by the entities who own the broadcast towers. Why exactly do you think it should be paid twice for the same transmission?
On the post: The Future Is Now: Cheating In Online Games Leads To Arrests In Japan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What about my game enjoyment? I just happen to like trying to outsmart the game programmers and have since ever since I started playing computer games in the early 80's. That's the enjoyment part for me. Just being a mindless in-game sheep holds no appeal for me whatsoever.
I've always used bugs and oversights in programming to my advantage in most every game I've played, online or off. To make that a criminal act is shear stupidity.
On the post: Supreme Court Uses The Bizarre 'Looks Like A Cable Duck' Test To Outlaw Aereo
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just for the sake of argument and I know this is off-topic now:
What if someone doesn't use TPB or any other monetized torrent index and uses something like BTDigg (which isn't monetized at all) that simply indexes existing torrents that are already floating in the swarm? Does that make a difference to your argument?
On the post: Supreme Court Uses The Bizarre 'Looks Like A Cable Duck' Test To Outlaw Aereo
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So than you agree that this was really an "Interference with a Existing Business Model" case, right?
Aereo didn't pay retransmission fees because they followed the Cablevision ruling to the letter and were found to be infringing anyways because their business model looked too much like a cable company.
By your own argument, it looks like SCOTUS ruled on the "Interference of a Business Model" more so than anything actually being illegal.
On the post: Supreme Court Uses The Bizarre 'Looks Like A Cable Duck' Test To Outlaw Aereo
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wouldn't compare them to cable or satellite because it's happening after it's already been broadcast OTA (and the broadcast fees have already been paid) for anyone who as an antenna. Aereo is simply renting you equipment to receive a signal where all the broadcast fees have already been paid.
My local Rent-to-Own provides me a (for profit) service that rents me a TV, DVR and an antenna. Why do they not have to pay rebroadcast fees to send the signal down from my roof to my living room?
On the post: Supreme Court Uses The Bizarre 'Looks Like A Cable Duck' Test To Outlaw Aereo
Re: Re:
Bullshit. They were streaming an OTA FREE signal where the fee was already paid for by the entity who owns the broadcast tower. If Aereo has to now also pay a retransmission fee do do this, the broadcast companies are double dipping. Plain and simple.
The fact that they rely upon a technological exploitation not in existence when the law was crafted doesn't see to be much of an argument.
Really? What "technological exploitation" is so different now, as opposed to when Cablevison was ruled on? Only difference is the length of the cord, as far as I can tell.
I don't see how that's unfair, but do understand that it offends the sensibilities of the self-entitled "get something of value for nothing" attitude that permeates this shithole.
Ummm, What is difference between me receiving my local channels via Aereo or over my own antenna on my roof. How is the consumer "getting something of value for nothing" - it's still as commercial riddled as ever. Aereo charged for providing a service, not for providing the content, which anyone can get for free anyways.
On the post: Supreme Court Uses The Bizarre 'Looks Like A Cable Duck' Test To Outlaw Aereo
Re: Re: Re: This could have been a lot worse
Seriously? Do these investors really think that Aereo subscribers are going to splice their cords back together and come a'running back to cable?
I would think most would probably invest in a $20 set of rabbit ears or do without, rather than subscribe to cable again.
On the post: Supreme Court Uses The Bizarre 'Looks Like A Cable Duck' Test To Outlaw Aereo
I guess "Interference with an Existing Business Model" is now officially a tortuous act.
It's a sad, sad day for free market capitalism and the spirit of competition that made our nation great.
On the post: More On Indie Labels And YouTube: Some Legitimate Concerns, But Still A Lot Of Misplaced Anger
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The majors point
You realize that a video service like YouTube couldn't exist without the Safe Harbor protection the Copyright Act provides, right? (heck, even this site you are currently commenting on wouldn't exist without protection against liability by it's users).
Copyright Safe Harbors exist because Congress realized that placing liability on the actual infringers instead of the platform is the correct way to do things.
Therefore YouTube is obligated to negotiate with all popular indie artists in the same way they negotiate with major label artists. You're refuting this?
Wait. What? Are you saying because YouTube abides by the current laws and relies on copyright Safe Harbors against liability caused by it's users it is somehow obligated to negotiate with the Indie Labels? What kind of convoluted logic is that? Makes no sense to me, so YES I'm refuting that for lacking any actual intelligence or reason.
On the post: More On Indie Labels And YouTube: Some Legitimate Concerns, But Still A Lot Of Misplaced Anger
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The majors point
I do refute that. Like John said, YouTube has gone way beyond what is required of them by law since Google obtained them.
You act like copyright is the only reason YouTube makes any money. That's silly. They make money because they built the most popular video sharing service ever. You also act like every cent they make in advertising is pure profit and that is also silly. How about you pay one days worth of YouTube's bandwidth, electricity costs, hardware costs, personnel costs and other overhead for a day. I'll bet my bottom dollar you couldn't afford an hour's worth with your entire life's savings.
This is what YouTube started out and continues to do, entitlement, if you want to call it that is built into the internet.
I wouldn't call that entitlement. I would call it what it is - staying within the boundaries of laws designed by Congress.
Therefore they should negotiate with the owners of popular videos, for example Tugboat by Galaxie 500 or day the group Cracker or any number of artists who aren't on majors.
Umm, isn't that what they did? From what I have gleamed, they have successfully negotiated with 90% of the rightsholders. And now they are negotiating with the remaining 10%. Unfortunately, since that 10% is in a very weak bargaining position, the negotiating is basically "this is what everyone else agreed to, take it or leave it". This is standard practice in every other business sector. Not sure why anyone deserves special treatment here.
On the post: More On Indie Labels And YouTube: Some Legitimate Concerns, But Still A Lot Of Misplaced Anger
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The majors point
Should be:
Or to it put correctly: "will no longer be able to monetize their work on a platform provided to them for free."
Next >>