ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    DragonBox, Streaming Services, and Copyright

    News
    digital media streaming legal legal copyright surprise rights
    9
    152
    15.3k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller
      last edited by

      The thing that makes DragonBox potentially a problem is the INTENT that they seem to advertise.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
      • scottalanmillerS
        scottalanmiller @DustinB3403
        last edited by

        @dustinb3403 said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

        Here is an important part of the ruling.

        The court then turned to the three uses Napster identified as fair use in the
        conduct of its users:

        1. sampling, where users make temporary copies of a work to sample it
          before purchase, which the District Court found to be a commercial use
          even if a user purchases the work at a later time. Sampling was deemed to
          A&M Records, Inc. v Napster Inc. (2001)
          not be a fair use, because the "samples" were in fact permanent and
          complete copies of the desired media.
        2. space-shifting, where users access a sound recording through the Napster
          system that they already own in audio CD format; here the District Court
          found that neither of the shifting analyses used in the Sony or RIAA v.
          Diamond Multimedia cases applied in this case because the "shifting" in
          neither case included or enabled distribution. The space-shifting argument
          did not succeed because, while the shift to a digital format may have been
          a personal storage use, it was accompanied by making the file available to
          the rest of the system's users.
        3. permissive distribution of recordings by both new and established artists
          who have authorized their music to be disseminated in the Napster
          system, which the District Court ruled was not an infringing use and could
          continue, along with chat rooms and other non-distributory features of
          Napster.
          By contrast, the court found that the owners of Napster could control the
          infringing behavior of users, and therefore had a duty to do so. The Ninth Circuit
          affirmed this analysis, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving
          that Napster did not have a valid fair use defense.

        Yeah, read that and it is pretty much BS. Clearly the courts were paid off for something so bad to have been said.

        DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • DashrenderD
          Dashrender @DustinB3403
          last edited by

          @dustinb3403 said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

          @dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

          @dustinb3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

          @dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

          @dustinb3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

          @dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

          @dustinb3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

          @scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

          @dustinb3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

          @dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

          @dustinb3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

          I don't have one of these boxes, but this is priracy, hands down. Just because "you're" not downloading the content, providing an easy to use/find/stream content is theft.

          The fact of owning a device that can participate in piracy does not make it piracy on it's own.

          Granted - most people, probably like 99.9%+ are buying it intending to pirate, the device itself does nothing wrong.

          This is like saying guns kill people. No, a gun sitting on a table without outside influence has never killed anyone.

          The box is an accomplice to the pirating of the material, because it makes the theft easier. Just like the get-away driver is an accomplice to the bank robbery, even if they never went inside the bank.

          Then the gun, the car, all humans, the air we breath, water... everything is an accomplice. That logic doesn't work. Once "something can be used for a crime", all things are accomplices. Literally, everything.

          The box in this case can be equated (and likely will) to Napster. Sure they weren't providing the content, they were just making the content easily searchable and retrievable.

          You're making a SAM argument here when there is already precedence in cases like this.

          Precedence doesn't make it right. I mentioned Napster already, and know the bought and paid for courts are just bowing to big business.

          I get what you're trying to say, but precedence is the only item on which to balance these things. Damage is being done to the corporations (lost subscriptions) to this device.

          They are entitled to restitution for this, which will likely put Dragon box out of business.

          DragonBox is the wrong place to go after - go after the real criminals - the people who are stealing the service.

          Restitution is paid by the money (in this case the business involved). There is no money in chasing the users, or even the people who are uploading the content to be viewed, be it live or an online recording.

          You use the law to put those people in jail.

          What you're basically saying is that whitehat hackers shouldn't be allowed to hack, because it can allow blackhats to learn of problems and comprise systems. (I reserve the right to realize this doesn't work).

          This device allows something illegal to happen, but it itself isn't what causes the illicit activity to happen, the person is.

          It enables the person to take something that is copyrighted, and share it to an indefinite amount of people. And the maker of the box is profiting off of the copyrighted content in their advertisements.

          Look at their website.

          yep, and tons of other things do this as well. As long as the advertisements don't specifically talk about illegal activities, but instead skirt it by saying free use of streaming, etc.. then the advertisements don't cross the line. I might have worded that incorrectly - in any case, there is wording that could be used that doesn't cross the legal line, and as long as they use that, they should be fine.

          scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • DustinB3403D
            DustinB3403 @scottalanmiller
            last edited by

            @scottalanmiller said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

            It's the bully problem. Parent hurts kid. Kid goes to school and hurts other kids. It's sad that the bully got hurt in the first place, but that never justifies hurting an innocent kid just to spite them.

            And no amount of hurting the innocent fixes things for the bully (the business, here.) In fact, it just makes the rest of us no longer see them as innocent or to be helped.

            This argument makes no sense at all. Copyrighted material is safe guarded from theft for a certain period of time.

            Do you disagree that copyright laws are bad and no one, anywhere should have copyright laws? What about patient laws? Should these not exist either?

            scottalanmillerS DashrenderD 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • scottalanmillerS
              scottalanmiller @Dashrender
              last edited by

              @dashrender said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

              @dustinb3403 said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

              @dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

              @dustinb3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

              @dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

              @dustinb3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

              @dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

              @dustinb3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

              @scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

              @dustinb3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

              @dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

              @dustinb3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

              I don't have one of these boxes, but this is priracy, hands down. Just because "you're" not downloading the content, providing an easy to use/find/stream content is theft.

              The fact of owning a device that can participate in piracy does not make it piracy on it's own.

              Granted - most people, probably like 99.9%+ are buying it intending to pirate, the device itself does nothing wrong.

              This is like saying guns kill people. No, a gun sitting on a table without outside influence has never killed anyone.

              The box is an accomplice to the pirating of the material, because it makes the theft easier. Just like the get-away driver is an accomplice to the bank robbery, even if they never went inside the bank.

              Then the gun, the car, all humans, the air we breath, water... everything is an accomplice. That logic doesn't work. Once "something can be used for a crime", all things are accomplices. Literally, everything.

              The box in this case can be equated (and likely will) to Napster. Sure they weren't providing the content, they were just making the content easily searchable and retrievable.

              You're making a SAM argument here when there is already precedence in cases like this.

              Precedence doesn't make it right. I mentioned Napster already, and know the bought and paid for courts are just bowing to big business.

              I get what you're trying to say, but precedence is the only item on which to balance these things. Damage is being done to the corporations (lost subscriptions) to this device.

              They are entitled to restitution for this, which will likely put Dragon box out of business.

              DragonBox is the wrong place to go after - go after the real criminals - the people who are stealing the service.

              Restitution is paid by the money (in this case the business involved). There is no money in chasing the users, or even the people who are uploading the content to be viewed, be it live or an online recording.

              You use the law to put those people in jail.

              What you're basically saying is that whitehat hackers shouldn't be allowed to hack, because it can allow blackhats to learn of problems and comprise systems. (I reserve the right to realize this doesn't work).

              This device allows something illegal to happen, but it itself isn't what causes the illicit activity to happen, the person is.

              It enables the person to take something that is copyrighted, and share it to an indefinite amount of people. And the maker of the box is profiting off of the copyrighted content in their advertisements.

              Look at their website.

              yep, and tons of other things do this as well. As long as the advertisements don't specifically talk about illegal activities, but instead skirt it by saying free use of streaming, etc.. then the advertisements don't cross the line. I might have worded that incorrectly - in any case, there is wording that could be used that doesn't cross the legal line, and as long as they use that, they should be fine.

              Yeah, that's the tough part. Streaming doesn't imply Netflix. But Area51 might, I have no idea.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • DashrenderD
                Dashrender @scottalanmiller
                last edited by

                @scottalanmiller said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                @dustinb3403 said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                Here is an important part of the ruling.

                The court then turned to the three uses Napster identified as fair use in the
                conduct of its users:
                1. sampling, where users make temporary copies of a work to sample it
                before purchase, which the District Court found to be a commercial use
                even if a user purchases the work at a later time. Sampling was deemed to
                A&M Records, Inc. v Napster Inc. (2001)
                not be a fair use, because the "samples" were in fact permanent and
                complete copies of the desired media.
                2. space-shifting, where users access a sound recording through the Napster
                system that they already own in audio CD format; here the District Court
                found that neither of the shifting analyses used in the Sony or RIAA v.
                Diamond Multimedia cases applied in this case because the "shifting" in
                neither case included or enabled distribution. The space-shifting argument
                did not succeed because, while the shift to a digital format may have been
                a personal storage use, it was accompanied by making the file available to
                the rest of the system's users.
                3. permissive distribution of recordings by both new and established artists
                who have authorized their music to be disseminated in the Napster
                system, which the District Court ruled was not an infringing use and could
                continue, along with chat rooms and other non-distributory features of
                Napster.
                By contrast, the court found that the owners of Napster could control the
                infringing behavior of users, and therefore had a duty to do so. The Ninth Circuit
                affirmed this analysis, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving
                that Napster did not have a valid fair use defense.
                

                Yeah, read that and it is pretty much BS. Clearly the courts were paid off for something so bad to have been said.

                Agreed - yes, the courts found this way... which is totally sad, because there is now precedent to find all kinds of legal things like MS Windows as violating this because Windows enables this ability.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • scottalanmillerS
                  scottalanmiller @DustinB3403
                  last edited by

                  @dustinb3403 said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                  @scottalanmiller said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                  It's the bully problem. Parent hurts kid. Kid goes to school and hurts other kids. It's sad that the bully got hurt in the first place, but that never justifies hurting an innocent kid just to spite them.

                  And no amount of hurting the innocent fixes things for the bully (the business, here.) In fact, it just makes the rest of us no longer see them as innocent or to be helped.

                  This argument makes no sense at all. Copyrighted material is safe guarded from theft for a certain period of time.

                  Do you disagree that copyright laws are bad and no one, anywhere should have copyright laws? What about patient laws? Should these not exist either?

                  That's irrelevant to what I said. Totally different discussion. You believe that the innocent, anyone really, should be hurt if someone holding a copyright should be hurt?

                  Take for example, you. You aren't stealing anything. A movie gets pirated. Should YOU be hurt by that?

                  DustinB3403D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • ObsolesceO
                    Obsolesce
                    last edited by

                    I don't agree with the whole punishing the innocent. That seems to be what's happening here.

                    scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                    • scottalanmillerS
                      scottalanmiller
                      last edited by

                      Also, not relevant to the conversation, but I'm on the fence if copyright is even an okay thing and discussions like this make me believe it is not. Patents I have never believed are okay and believe that they are fundamentally evil and unethical and have no place in a moral world. They serve only to allow the rich to steal from the poor, they have no valid purpose.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                      • scottalanmillerS
                        scottalanmiller @Obsolesce
                        last edited by

                        @tim_g said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                        I don't agree with the whole punishing the innocent. That seems to be what's happening here.

                        Exactly. I'm okay with copyright law, if the LAW was followed. It is not.

                        ObsolesceO 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • DashrenderD
                          Dashrender @DustinB3403
                          last edited by

                          @dustinb3403 said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                          @scottalanmiller said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                          It's the bully problem. Parent hurts kid. Kid goes to school and hurts other kids. It's sad that the bully got hurt in the first place, but that never justifies hurting an innocent kid just to spite them.

                          And no amount of hurting the innocent fixes things for the bully (the business, here.) In fact, it just makes the rest of us no longer see them as innocent or to be helped.

                          This argument makes no sense at all. Copyrighted material is safe guarded from theft for a certain period of time.

                          Do you disagree that copyright laws are bad and no one, anywhere should have copyright laws? What about patient laws? Should these not exist either?

                          The makers of the device didn't violate copyright or patient laws (that we know of).

                          Makers of Slim Jim's aren't being sued into non existence, yet their tool is solely for the purpose of breaking in cars. What about lock pick makers?

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • DustinB3403D
                            DustinB3403 @scottalanmiller
                            last edited by

                            @scottalanmiller said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                            @dustinb3403 said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                            @scottalanmiller said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                            It's the bully problem. Parent hurts kid. Kid goes to school and hurts other kids. It's sad that the bully got hurt in the first place, but that never justifies hurting an innocent kid just to spite them.

                            And no amount of hurting the innocent fixes things for the bully (the business, here.) In fact, it just makes the rest of us no longer see them as innocent or to be helped.

                            This argument makes no sense at all. Copyrighted material is safe guarded from theft for a certain period of time.

                            Do you disagree that copyright laws are bad and no one, anywhere should have copyright laws? What about patient laws? Should these not exist either?

                            That's irrelevant to what I said. Totally different discussion. You believe that the innocent, anyone really, should be hurt if someone holding a copyright should be hurt?

                            Take for example, you. You aren't stealing anything. A movie gets pirated. Should YOU be hurt by that?

                            You're going down a drain here Scott. The argument here is that this device, is pulling in streams of copyrighted material and providing it to the users of the device at no cost. The manufacturer of the device is charging the consumer to have the device to pool these streams together.

                            That is a "go F the content developers who are spending this money to make the shows" and pay us to watch this stolen content.

                            ObsolesceO DashrenderD 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • ObsolesceO
                              Obsolesce @scottalanmiller
                              last edited by

                              @scottalanmiller said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                              @tim_g said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                              I don't agree with the whole punishing the innocent. That seems to be what's happening here.

                              Exactly. I'm okay with copyright law, if the LAW was followed. It is not.

                              I've always thought this too. The concept is fine, but it's always abused in pretty much every single case and every single way possible.

                              scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • ObsolesceO
                                Obsolesce @DustinB3403
                                last edited by Obsolesce

                                @dustinb3403 said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                                @scottalanmiller said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                                @dustinb3403 said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                                @scottalanmiller said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                                It's the bully problem. Parent hurts kid. Kid goes to school and hurts other kids. It's sad that the bully got hurt in the first place, but that never justifies hurting an innocent kid just to spite them.

                                And no amount of hurting the innocent fixes things for the bully (the business, here.) In fact, it just makes the rest of us no longer see them as innocent or to be helped.

                                This argument makes no sense at all. Copyrighted material is safe guarded from theft for a certain period of time.

                                Do you disagree that copyright laws are bad and no one, anywhere should have copyright laws? What about patient laws? Should these not exist either?

                                That's irrelevant to what I said. Totally different discussion. You believe that the innocent, anyone really, should be hurt if someone holding a copyright should be hurt?

                                Take for example, you. You aren't stealing anything. A movie gets pirated. Should YOU be hurt by that?

                                You're going down a drain here Scott. The argument here is that this device, is pulling in streams of copyrighted material and providing it to the users of the device at no cost. The manufacturer of the device is charging the consumer to have the device to pool these streams together.

                                Google does the exact same thing.

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • scottalanmillerS
                                  scottalanmiller @Obsolesce
                                  last edited by

                                  @tim_g said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                                  @scottalanmiller said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                                  @tim_g said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                                  I don't agree with the whole punishing the innocent. That seems to be what's happening here.

                                  Exactly. I'm okay with copyright law, if the LAW was followed. It is not.

                                  I've always thought this too. The concept is fine, but it's always abused in pretty much every single case and every single way possible.

                                  Even the concept has issues, but I'm kinda okay with it. But copyright is REALLY complicated when you actually get down to it and it doesn't work very well and never has. Technically, copyright makes things like libraries illegal.

                                  DashrenderD ObsolesceO 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • DashrenderD
                                    Dashrender @DustinB3403
                                    last edited by

                                    @dustinb3403 said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                                    @scottalanmiller said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                                    @dustinb3403 said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                                    @scottalanmiller said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                                    It's the bully problem. Parent hurts kid. Kid goes to school and hurts other kids. It's sad that the bully got hurt in the first place, but that never justifies hurting an innocent kid just to spite them.

                                    And no amount of hurting the innocent fixes things for the bully (the business, here.) In fact, it just makes the rest of us no longer see them as innocent or to be helped.

                                    This argument makes no sense at all. Copyrighted material is safe guarded from theft for a certain period of time.

                                    Do you disagree that copyright laws are bad and no one, anywhere should have copyright laws? What about patient laws? Should these not exist either?

                                    That's irrelevant to what I said. Totally different discussion. You believe that the innocent, anyone really, should be hurt if someone holding a copyright should be hurt?

                                    Take for example, you. You aren't stealing anything. A movie gets pirated. Should YOU be hurt by that?

                                    You're going down a drain here Scott. The argument here is that this device, is pulling in streams of copyrighted material and providing it to the users of the device at no cost. The manufacturer of the device is charging the consumer to have the device to pool these streams together.

                                    That is a "go F the content developers who are spending this money to make the shows" and pay us to watch this stolen content.

                                    But that's not it's SOLE purpose. That's a bonus purpose if you will. The device can be used legally to view other options that are completely legal.

                                    OH, and I'm betting that it can also be used to stream those services even if they PAID for them.

                                    Again, just because it can be used for evil doesn't mean it's evil itself.

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • DustinB3403D
                                      DustinB3403
                                      last edited by

                                      I honestly can't believe I'm the only person who sees this for what it is.

                                      DashrenderD scottalanmillerS 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • DashrenderD
                                        Dashrender @scottalanmiller
                                        last edited by

                                        @scottalanmiller said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                                        @tim_g said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                                        @scottalanmiller said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                                        @tim_g said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                                        I don't agree with the whole punishing the innocent. That seems to be what's happening here.

                                        Exactly. I'm okay with copyright law, if the LAW was followed. It is not.

                                        I've always thought this too. The concept is fine, but it's always abused in pretty much every single case and every single way possible.

                                        Even the concept has issues, but I'm kinda okay with it. But copyright is REALLY complicated when you actually get down to it and it doesn't work very well and never has. Technically, copyright makes things like libraries illegal.

                                        Yeah I never understood how libraries could exist. Even more - how does libraries sharing digital books exist?

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • ObsolesceO
                                          Obsolesce @scottalanmiller
                                          last edited by

                                          @scottalanmiller said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                                          @tim_g said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                                          @scottalanmiller said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                                          @tim_g said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                                          I don't agree with the whole punishing the innocent. That seems to be what's happening here.

                                          Exactly. I'm okay with copyright law, if the LAW was followed. It is not.

                                          I've always thought this too. The concept is fine, but it's always abused in pretty much every single case and every single way possible.

                                          Even the concept has issues, but I'm kinda okay with it. But copyright is REALLY complicated when you actually get down to it and it doesn't work very well and never has. Technically, copyright makes things like libraries illegal.

                                          Yes, but if I spend lots of time and money designing Object1 (then copyright it), and start selling it... someone comes along and buys it, then produces an exact copy of it, and starts selling and profiting from it himself... that's is what I feel it should stop.

                                          DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • DashrenderD
                                            Dashrender @DustinB3403
                                            last edited by

                                            @dustinb3403 said in DragonBox, Straming Services, and Copyright:

                                            I honestly can't believe I'm the only person who sees this for what it is.

                                            Because there is a principal.

                                            I think most of us here see your point - these people are making money off crooks. They target thieves as an audience.

                                            But there is nothing illegal about that specifically.

                                            DustinB3403D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                            • 1
                                            • 2
                                            • 3
                                            • 4
                                            • 5
                                            • 6
                                            • 7
                                            • 8
                                            • 3 / 8
                                            • First post
                                              Last post