| reply to pfak
Re: haha said by pfak:said by TigerLord:So because it is no covered in the act it's illegal? It's a gray area if anything. No, it's really not a gray area. It's called copyright infringement. Just because nobody has been prosecuted doesn't make it legal. LOL.
Your not grasping the concept here are you.
If there is no law against something its not illegal and only becomes illegal if a law against it is made.
Its the reason no one has been prosecuted. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to greendragon
said by greendragon:Streaming or downloading is the same, at least as it pertains to this discussion. You are using bandwidth either way. Sure, but if you download an episode of a show say from Amazon unbox that will use nearly twice the bandwidth as watching streamed version on cbs.com or wherever so it kind of matters.
Also I can see why someone who already paid for a show at Amazon then having to pay even more because of the bandwith would be mad. If you're watching shit for free from a website, well it's free.
I don't think the OP mentioned if he had cable or not, but I for one do not. while I do not stream 7 hours a day, I can certainly see reaching the cap with multiple people using 1 connection the same as I do. I'm just saying if I'm watching that much TV online I'd save $60 a month and dump cable. That $60 could help pay for overage fees.
With multiple users it may be that you'd have to have multiple accounts. If my ISPs starting capping and in 3 years when my son is old enough to work if he just has to use so much we'd go over a cap he's just going to have to pay for his own connection. |
|
|
|
 pfakBow before me for I am rootPremium
join:2002-12-29
Vancouver, BC
 ·TELUS
 ·Shaw
| reply to davidbrown
said by davidbrown:If there is no law against something its not illegal and only becomes illegal if a law against it is made. Its the reason no one has been prosecuted. The thing is, there is a law against it. You are not permitted to redistribute copyrighted works without written permission of the copyright holder.
There is an exemption for Music, there is no exemption for TV shows or Movies. |
|
1 edit | said by pfak:said by davidbrown:If there is no law against something its not illegal and only becomes illegal if a law against it is made. Its the reason no one has been prosecuted. The thing is, there is a law against it. You are not permitted to redistribute copyrighted works without written permission of the copyright holder. There is an exemption for Music, there is no exemption for TV shows or Movies. Ohh you mean the one were the broadcasting rights belong to owners in the states?
Bell actually owns none of the programing rights and the same goes for rogers.
Its actually their own fault in how they worded it and none of our present copyright laws cover the present state of things.
Its the same basic problem that happened with small amounts of weed sometime back, thanks to the goverments foolishness we ended up with no law that covered things.
Not to say local broadcasts aren't covered but for the most part they tend to be free anyway. |
|
 jonnyzPremium
join:2003-03-20
Canfield, OH
·Armstrong Zoom ..
| reply to pfak
said by pfak:said by davidbrown:If there is no law against something its not illegal and only becomes illegal if a law against it is made. Its the reason no one has been prosecuted. The thing is, there is a law against it. You are not permitted to redistribute copyrighted works without written permission of the copyright holder. There is an exemption for Music, there is no exemption for TV shows or Movies. You missed a part - you need written consent if it involves public viewing, multiple copies/mass distribution, or any monetary gain. If it is only for personal use, you're fine. As for sharing it, you must have never lent anything to anybody in your life, because there's nothing wrong with that in my eyes.
--
Join the RC5 team. |
|
| reply to BF69
said by BF69:Yeah right. Please provide examples. I get almost all of my shows from revision3.org. |
|
