DragonBox, Streaming Services, and Copyright
-
@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:
@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.
So does air and water.
-
I can't find hte article now. Anyone have it?
-
The thing that makes DragonBox potentially a problem is the INTENT that they seem to advertise.
-
@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:- 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. - 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. - 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.
- sampling, where users make temporary copies of a work to sample it
-
@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.
-
@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?
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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?
-
I don't agree with the whole punishing the innocent. That seems to be what's happening here.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
@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?
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
I honestly can't believe I'm the only person who sees this for what it is.
-
@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?
