How the hell does shutting down firstrow.net have anything to do with homeland security? It doesn't...It's official, say hello to the official big brother...
Yeah, that's kinda always been the case. However, this particular entity is beholden to no one but those that created it.
LoL at the homeland security recruitment site ad right above the post, talk about irony. Big brother can seize all the little sites he wants, but when he starts to go after serious torrent sites like demonoid and bittorent, watch for all hell to break loose. Everything .gov to be overloaded with web requests, the "criminals" will always be one step ahead.
We were talking about this in the PoFo. I think it has more to do with shutting down sites that are illegally streaming content. As mentioned there, while we all love to get these streams for free - it is still stealing. Networks rely on money through ads (ratings) and subscriptions (pay-per-view or your HBO) and these streams hurt their revenue. Really no different than stealing music.
It honestly amazes me that some dont understand how this works. Nothing in life is free!! Those that take advantage of loops in the system just pass the cost on to others....and while those getting away with it might think that's a good thing, its really not. This attitude of self-entitlement absolutely floors me.
Have to disagree AZ, the games are broadcast over the air anyway, they in effect are "free" to whomever turns on the TV and switches it to the channel the game happens to be on.
What would make it "non legit", is anyone profiting off of allowing file sharing to occur on their computer? And in this case, when you broadcast over the airwaves it makes it logically difficult to then claim "oh, but we never meant for you to watch our free broadcast", that would be like complaining that someone read your posts on thephins as you never meant for them to read them.
The broadcasts aren't "free" - the networks receive ratings which is how they sell advertising. Online articles are "free" but it is still against the law to copy them word for word and republish them. Not to mention most of the things people watch on streams are pay-per-view or subscription based (NFL games skirting around the Sunday Ticket). So you are screwing people out of a service they are providing.
How would you logically reconcile "broadcast" (to spread about a wide area) and "not free"? The signal is being sent out for free, and indiscriminately.
You are missing the entire point. Networks have to pay MILLIONS of dollars in order to accomodate the Superbowl, or any sporting event for that matter. By skirting that, regardless of how you do it, you are indeed screwing that network and their sponsors
Disagree, if their broadcasts are being spread about indiscriminately, meaning anyone can watch with no prerequisite payment in order to watch, that is the definition of "free". The fact that is their business model is simply not the viewers' problem, if they wish to use airwaves to spread their product that is their issue.
And, I go back to my original question. Why exactly are they watching it via stream instead of simply watching it on tv?
And, once again, those radio stations that have it on, PAY to have it on. Nothing is free. Go back and read the screen capture on the original post. Like it or not, it is a FEDERAL OFFENSE for non-licensed entities to broadcast the show. The Material is COPYRIGHTED. If you ignore that, you are marching up a VERY VERY slippery slope.
Again - it is the same as an online article. ANYONE can read it, but they can't republish it without consent. That is plagiarism. In this case, it is still the property of the television stations.
A) the how of their financial model is simply their own problem B) only a court of law can find if something is a Federal Offense, or not. C) is file sharing a "broadcast"?
Trying to have it both ways rarely works, if you claim "property of the TV station" then they literally propagate a signal for whomever will happen to tune into their frequency I'd say that is abandoned property as they have lost control of it as soon as the broadcast happened. "Oh, we will digitize this camera image, and then transmit it indiscriminately, then claim we still control who may view it"? That is like launching a kite, cutting the string, and then claiming wherever it landed the property owner was stealing your property.
No, sorry, you are WRONG. It is Copyrighted. Do you not understand what that means? That means that the powers that be, have taken the time to go to court, create a Copyright for their product and then can therefore dictate who can and who can't advertise their product. Guess what, it is Illegal to do so without expressive written consent to do so.. (.) END OF ARGUMENT
Or taking away from one. Once again, unless said source has gotten expressed written consent, its illegal. Are they paying for the right to broadcast?
They are not broadcasting in any meaningful sense of the term, as for reduction of profit, when the same signal goes over the air to begin with, their profit model involves the "free" reception of their signal to begin with, to then try to argue "what we give away for free over the air, to anyone who happens to tune into our signal, if it is on the internet, is an infringement" is dubious at best.
All of the streams I've watched have had banner ads on them? As for digital images - just because they are on a website doesn't mean they are free for all to use. You still have to get the rights to the image. How are articles and images online different than a tv signal? I don't see the difference in sending something online and doing it over a TV signal.
Another point - when talent (actors) are used in a television spot, they get royalties. If that spot then appears online it is a completely different contract and additional payment. So you are not onlyinfrigning on the television station's right, but any party that was involved in the programming.
Well not so much for me, but I take the slower file sharing route over the "stream" route. Only if you make a profit from the image, you could print up 10k t-shirts with Aaron Rodgers image on them, the problem is when you sell them you have potentially violated the law. Now donations are a different matter altogether. A TV signal is meant to be watched by "whomever", a stream is merely the online extension of that business model, images and articles can both be used sans prior positive notice "if" there is no profit involved. And that to me is what this all boils down to, does it matter if one watches the game via a TV antenna, or via a computer cable? "If" someone in the broadcasting area amplifies the already free signal via a internet cable, with no profit being derived, to me that makes copy right infringement claims spurious.
It is 1's and 0's like all other data that passes over the internet. Copyrighted or not, the powers that be will eventually have to take measures like China and step on freedom's toes. Learn to work with new technology because you are not going to control. Wonder how the fight against the printing press worked out back in the day?
