alanh

Rio Olympics How The Nbc Will Make Viewers Pay

43 posts in this topic

5 hours ago, jsmith said:

See how many streams there will be next time if they don't create proper PPV access to an online stream for a reasonable price.

This is the justification some people have used for deliberately miskeying expensive fruit as cheaper lines of fruit at Coles and Woolworths checkouts in Australia: unreasonable prices. However other reasons are more common (at least in the UK) (seehttp://www.news.com.au/finance/money/budgeting/coles-to-introduce-new-technology-to-reduce-theft-at-self-service-checkouts/news-story/eb7c48f8b172d760f0c6f872e5eb3449 ):

 

TOP REASONS PEOPLE GAVE FOR STEALING FROM SELF-SERVICE CHECKOUTS IN THE UK:

Gave up trying to scan something that wouldn’t register: 57 per cent

Less likely to get caught: 51 per cent

The machine is easy to fool: 47 per cent

Didn’t have enough money: 32 per cent

At the time I didn’t realise it hadn’t scanned: 6 per cent

[I note that the total exceeds 100 percent. Presumably some people gave more than one reason.]

I presume the chances of being "caught" for accessing an unauthorised relay of video from a facebook streamer are very remote. I'm not even sure it's illegal. In the case in point the alleged streamer when challenged reportedly indicated he was streaming to 78,000 "viewers”: “Mate, I've got 78,000 viewers here that aren't going to be happy with you.”

That's an amazing number if true!

Edited by MLXXX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh god don't get me started on the supermarkets and their penny pinching and now they are blaming the consumer.

Should not got rid of the kids(and some grans i have seen) getting some extra pocket money.now you wait in queues and serve yourself..

I have no sympathy for the big chains losing money. I see aldi who is in the tight ass of supermarkets hasn't got auto self-service machines.

Maybe it's all those who had lost their job at colesworth pirated the fight feed!

Anyway who watches boxing these days..barbarian sport..

mixo

 

P.s can't wait to see what happens in these new amazon go stores..how long before someone figures it out and gets "free" groceries..

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MLXXX said:

I presume the chances of being "caught" for accessing an unauthorised relay of video from a facebook streamer are very remote. I'm not even sure it's illegal. In the case in point the alleged streamer when challenged reportedly indicated he was streaming to 78,000 "viewers”: “Mate, I've got 78,000 viewers here that aren't going to be happy with you.”

Technically identifying all facebook accounts accessing a particular stream would be straight forward. Facebook could shut down every account immediately if they wanted to (they just wouldn't want to)

FWIW watching streamed content is not illegal (no matter what the source). So long as you are not saving the content to a drive for later playback you're 100% legally covered at the moment - its one of the reasons all the kodi streaming boxes is causing concern (simple, cheap, widespread, effective, legal).

People feeding the facebook streams are however in a potential world of hurt although it seems Foxtel is loath to go that route given the conversation their legal rep had with the 'Aussie guy'.

Regards

Peter Gillespie 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, pgdownload said:

FWIW watching streamed content is not illegal (no matter what the source).

That's reassuring. I assume you are referring to the current legal situation in Australia. You obviously don't mean to include extreme material such as kiddie porn. Rather you are focusing on any illegality that might arise for a viewer that would be attributable to the fact that the material they are watching in Australia is being disseminated in breach of copyright, even in circumstances where the viewer is aware that a breach of copyright is in progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MLXXX said:

That's reassuring. I assume you are referring to the current legal situation in Australia. You obviously don't mean to include extreme material such as kiddie porn. Rather you are focusing on any illegality that might arise for a viewer that would be attributable to the fact that the material they are watching in Australia is being disseminated in breach of copyright, even in circumstances where the viewer is aware that a breach of copyright is in progress.

For the viewer, most law currently refers to storing content. Obviously broadcasting content is also illegal but so long as you don't save a copy (like say BitTorrent involves) you're ok.  Wouldn't surprise me if the law was the same for your example for kiddie porn. If downloaders restricted themselves to purely streaming it they could quite possibly avoid prosecution. Its just in all the cases we hear about there's always harddrives full of the stuff. 

I know for example in the UK they can often identity the household were kiddie porn is being downloaded.BUt that's not enough to prosecute the house owner. They need to actually stake out the house. Track movements of all occupants and confirm someone is actually at the PC as content is being accessed. A lot of effort.

Regards

Peter Gillespie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

I don't want to derail this thread further, other than to point out that child pornography laws in Australia are quite stringent. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions provides a detailed webpage at: https://www.cdpp.gov.au/crimes-we-prosecute/child-exploitation which includes the words "These activities include viewing, ...".

I note that the following provision in the schedule to the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cwlth) would appear broad enough to encompass the mere accessing of or viewing of (as distinct from the downloading, and storage on a hard drive, of) kiddie porn:

Subdivision D--Offences relating to use of carriage service for child pornography material or child abuse material

474.19   Using a carriage service for child pornography material

             (1)  A person commits an offence if:

                     (a)  the person:

                              (i)  accesses material; or

                             (ii)  causes material to be transmitted to himself or herself; or

                            (iii)  transmits, makes available, publishes, distributes, advertises or promotes material; or

                            (iv)  solicits material; and

                    (aa)  the person does so using a carriage service; and

                     (b)  the material is child pornography material.

Penalty:  Imprisonment for 15 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mello Yello,

If Foxtel's case is successful, the ISP of the copier must now have all the IP addresses of those who watched, so they could also be prosecuted for breaching copyright. Remember the Commonwealth Government is requiring all ISPs to retain the metadata, which includes the IP addresses of all communications.

It is well known that the AFL/NRL look for the highest bidder from the pay and FTA TV. All sport would be on Foxtel but for the Commonwealth laws on TV syphoning. The Danny Green/Mundine fight is not on the list. Obviously Foxtel bid higher than FTA TV.

So the AFL/NRL TV coverage iis paid for increase in retail prices to pay for the advertising.

Nothing is for free except when it is stolen goods. All companies must make a profit or they don't exist.

Alanh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, mixo said:

Anyway who watches boxing these days..barbarian sport..

Couldn't agree more.

Regardless of my viewpoint, there was free to air coverage of this "event" on at least one satellite with a footprint that covers Australia (if one had the means to access it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, alanh said:

If Foxtel's case is successful, the ISP of the copier must now have all the IP addresses of those who watched, so they could also be prosecuted for breaching copyright.

What provision of Australian law would apply, alanh, to a person who accesses a facebook streaming link knowing that the stream they are requesting will supply material to them in breach of copyright? I haven't attempted to research that. You have made a claim a viewer could be prosecuted. Could you please link to your source of information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MLXXX said:

Peter,

I don't want to derail this thread further, other than to point out that child pornography laws in Australia are quite stringent. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions provides a detailed webpage at: https://www.cdpp.gov.au/crimes-we-prosecute/child-exploitation which includes the words "These activities include viewing, ...".

Thanks. I didn't want to suggest I knew streaming child porn was technically not illegal, just that it wouldn't surprise me if the law turned out that way. In this case the law has apparently gone for unreasonable definitions (presumably hoping the system will work it out ok). For example if I was to post a picture of of child porn just below this sentence you would be guilty of contravening Subdivision D, section 474.19 and now potentially facing 15 years in prison. (But I won't post it :))

Regards

Peter Gillespie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, alanh said:

Mello Yello,

If Foxtel's case is successful, the ISP of the copier must now have all the IP addresses of those who watched, so they could also be prosecuted for breaching copyright. Remember the Commonwealth Government is requiring all ISPs to retain the metadata, which includes the IP addresses of all communications.

It is well known that the AFL/NRL look for the highest bidder from the pay and FTA TV. All sport would be on Foxtel but for the Commonwealth laws on TV syphoning. The Danny Green/Mundine fight is not on the list. Obviously Foxtel bid higher than FTA TV.

So the AFL/NRL TV coverage iis paid for increase in retail prices to pay for the advertising.

Nothing is for free except when it is stolen goods. All companies must make a profit or they don't exist.

Alanh

As I mentioned Alan, the issue isn't if those that watched the stream could be identified (they could). Watching streamed material is not illegal.  

"Nothing is free" is definitely old time thinking, but with technology involved this is no longer true. Ubuntu runs millions of PCs across the planet (its free). I agree though that for the time being profits are needed. For me the question is just how much profit? If a company wants to generate products and entertainment and just make a motza out of doing so the fine. But patent and copyright law is a social contract. It is intended to try balance protecting the companies profit while also benefiting society. That balance seems pretty out of wack these days.

Regards

Peter Gillespie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

Don't you remember the political fight over metadata. The ISPs now have to keep it for a long time, they also have the accounts of those IP addresses connected to their servers so what is so hard?

Watching it may not be illegal but having it delivered is. Just like if you copy a book and don't read it. You still have a copy.

If the developers of a product such as Ubuntu wants to give their labour away for free that is up to them. I donate some of my time to charity, Patents and copyright not only protects companies but also individual writers musicians and inventers. It is not a social contract at all. It is to prevent the inventor or creator from being ripped off.

"Nothing is for free" has nothing to do with technology other than it makes stealing seem anonomonous because you are not physically at the source of the invention taking it from the inventor. It is still stealing if the producer doesn't want to donate it to you.

 

Alanh

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, alanh said:

Mello Yello,

If Foxtel's case is successful, the ISP of the copier must now have all the IP addresses of those who watched, so they could also be prosecuted for breaching copyright. Remember the Commonwealth Government is requiring all ISPs to retain the metadata, which includes the IP addresses of all communications.

It is well known that the AFL/NRL look for the highest bidder from the pay and FTA TV. All sport would be on Foxtel but for the Commonwealth laws on TV syphoning. The Danny Green/Mundine fight is not on the list. Obviously Foxtel bid higher than FTA TV.

So the AFL/NRL TV coverage iis paid for increase in retail prices to pay for the advertising.

Nothing is for free except when it is stolen goods. All companies must make a profit or they don't exist.

Alanh

Alan

the point that i am making that you are responding to is that Foxtel are overcharging, (or that the promoters are overcharging them for their rights to broadcast) and that is being passed on to the consumer at a ridiculous $60 per PPV, where $10 is the accepted fee. I cited the examples of similar events being free to watch, Foxtel bid higher than FTA because FTA most likely saw that it was not economically viable to go past a certain point where Foxtel did anyway and decided they would charge to recoup a bad business decision.

Im not arguing the morality or the legality of the case and nor do i support breaking any laws or terms and conditions. however i can empathise with those who did in this case

dont know why you wish to use a response to my post as a vehicle to enforce or promote unrelated issues like metadata retention or to hop on a horsie and think you can lecture me about morality because you havent even addressed the issue (and the point) of the pricing structure, other than assume they are meeting overheads based on faith and trust that a corporation wouldnt be ripping you off,

 

 

18 hours ago, alanh said:

Nothing is for free except when it is stolen goods. All companies must make a profit or they don't exist.

Alanh

and they will go out of business even faster if nobody is prepared to pay for their profits. The market determines what is a reasonable price and the market determined that this fight was not worth the price of admission demonstrated by the sheer number of people who were interested in the fight but watched it via alternate means

this is also determined by the sheer number who refuse to, or have cancelled, their subscriptions because of those prices, and the prices will get even higher as less people sign up

sooner or later they will reach a tipping point, as this particular broadcast demonstrated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, alanh said:

Peter,

Don't you remember the political fight over metadata. The ISPs now have to keep it for a long time, they also have the accounts of those IP addresses connected to their servers so what is so hard?

Watching it may not be illegal but having it delivered is. Just like if you copy a book and don't read it. You still have a copy.

If the developers of a product such as Ubuntu wants to give their labour away for free that is up to them. I donate some of my time to charity, Patents and copyright not only protects companies but also individual writers musicians and inventers. It is not a social contract at all. It is to prevent the inventor or creator from being ripped off.

"Nothing is for free" has nothing to do with technology other than it makes stealing seem anonomonous because you are not physically at the source of the invention taking it from the inventor. It is still stealing if the producer doesn't want to donate it to you.

 

Alanh

 

 

nobody is stealing, other than the "nothing is free" brigade who think they always need to make a profit regardless of the cost, sooner or later there will not be any more milk in the udder, the cupboard and the directors board will be bare

they need ads and subscriptions to survive, people complain about ads and are turned off in droves, they dont listen to their customers leaving them to have to sell even more ads to compensate for the loss of subscriptions, the remainder complain about the cost and are turned off in droves, they dont listen and they have to raise the cost of subscriptions to meet the shortfall,

pretty soon they have reached saturation point and even sooner than that they are out of business, and of course they will blame piracy and technology and accuse their customer base of dishonesty, ... because they didnt listen

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Don't you remember the political fight over metadata. The ISPs now have to keep it for a long time, they also have the accounts of those IP addresses connected to their servers so what is so hard?

yeah, and good luck to Foxtel getting government or judicial resources to hand over confidential metadata that is supposedly being retained for national security purposes over a simple shoplifting case to an organisation like News Limited ... HA!

Foxtel have settled out of kangaroo court with an apology, they knew they were headed for quite a legal brick wall and possibly a ruling that could have burst the dam over this, so they cut their losses and ran

Murdoch has stepped on quite a few toes with his constant political interference trying to always promote and elect parties that would be friendly to his financial interests in symbiotic relationships, and alienated others who hold more integrity, he cant guarantee himself any favours from the judiciary as he learnt the hard way in the phone hacking scandal in the UK

Edited by mello yello

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, alanh said:

Peter,

Don't you remember the political fight over metadata. The ISPs now have to keep it for a long time, they also have the accounts of those IP addresses connected to their servers so what is so hard?

I agree with you - that's why I said "(they could)"

Watching it may not be illegal but having it delivered is. Just like if you copy a book and don't read it. You still have a copy.

That's the point. You don't have a copy. Hard to find anything concrete in Oz, here's the Court of Justice of the European's ruling on the matter:

If you were to download an illegally copied file, that would constitute copyright infringement. However, when you stream something online, the file is stored only temporarily on your computer - and temporary copies are exempt from copyright laws.In a landmark ruling i 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that internet users who look at copyrighted material online aren't breaking the law by doing so, citing Article 5.1 of the EU Copyright Directive.It stated that copies of copyrighted material that appear "on the users computer screen" and "in the internet 'cache' of that computer's hard disk" are "temporary" and "may therefore be made without the authorisation of the copyright holders".

Regardless I don't believe anyone in the world has been even charged with streaming (viewing) yet. That may change. This Aussie Guy with Facebook may end up being served a copyright infringement notice for $2000 by the cops (I don't think Foxtel will be looking to go after the theoretical $8 million he owes them in "lost revenue"). 

If the developers of a product such as Ubuntu wants to give their labour away for free that is up to them. I donate some of my time to charity, Patents and copyright not only protects companies but also individual writers musicians and inventers. It is not a social contract at all. It is to prevent the inventor or creator from being ripped off.

It is a social contract. In return for protection the inventor must place the complete details of their invention into the public domain and agree it will be free for all to use after a specified number of years.

But leaving that aside, the concept of theft was created at a time where such lines needed to be drawn to encourage certain behavior. These days more and more people find more of their daily needs met and subsequently give increasing time to others for free. This website is an example - lots of expertise provided free. Ubuntu is another very successful example. The fear is that if people were simply free to exchange ideas, expertise and knowledge that somehow every one would stop doing it and no one would invent anything ever again or tell a story ever again. Do you think Beyonce would not want to write songs if she only got $1 million a year for it instead of $100 million?

But I'm getting into perhaps wishful thinking of the future. :) I'm just not sure we need to ever strengthen the existing laws to encourage innovation (a primary purpose of copyright law). 

Regards

Peter Gillespie

 

Edited by pgdownload
Added European Ruling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mello yello said:

Foxtel have settled out of kangaroo court with an apology, they knew they were headed for quite a legal brick wall and possibly a ruling that could have burst the dam over this, so they cut their losses and ran

Its one of the main things I detest about the copyright laws. The continue to create more with horrendous potential outcomes (Jail, millions of dollars in fines, etc.) and then hold them up like some boogie man but almost never actually apply them.

Regards

Peter Gillespie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the first few days of the 4K UHD coverage uploaded on the net. None of the athletics though :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now