-----signature-----

The lack of subtlety in the operation is a bit unnerving, like when they used DHS to shut down foreign-operated streaming services. This is one area where having a Ron Paul administration would really help. Too bad he'd do really stupid things like vetoing debt ceiling votes and budgets, too.

 

-----signature-----

Last one I got was for SugarSync. It's the first time I even heard of it.

FYI, Dropbox changed their policy a while ago, stating that if the government were to subpoena them for your documents, they would give it up. Pretty much a given not to use them as a service if you are doing legal documents.

Sort of.


I used my filesonic subscription to download soccer matches because there isn't a good broadcast source for them here in the U.S.. If Sky Sports had a U.S. subscription service I'd buy it but they don't. Since they don't I download the matches after the fact.


So although it is technically copyright violation I think it's even more of a stretch than usual to call that "stealing." If they made the product available in my jurisdiction I'd happily buy it, but they don't.


I'm sure you'll mock that as an irrelevant distinction but I really don't think it is. They are not losing any revenue from what I do which seems extremely relevant to the current discussion.

Reason #37 why I would never hire Yuki as my defense attorney.

 

-----signature-----

You couldn't afford my hourly rate anyhow.


There's a reason it's called copyright infringement, not stealing. Equating the two is especially stupid in a situation where there isn't actually an option to buy the product so the infringement isn't even hurting their bottom line.


Now I don't doubt that sky sports itself might not want people pirating the matches within britain because that does cost them revenue. But that's their problem and britain's problem. Not the DOJ's problem.


Edit: My activities are actually a net fiscal plus for Sky. It doesn't cost them anything because they don't have to provide the service to my location, but they are getting more viewers and thus their advertising revenue goes up. So if anything my "stealing" is helping their bottom line, not hurting it.

Quoted for hilarity.

Not losing revenue doesn't give you a free pass from stealing copyrighted material. I guess you failed that course in law school. It is illegal regardless of the use of the material.

Did you miss the "sort of"?


He said stealing. I don't think you can call something stealing when to the extent it has any impact on their bottom line at all it's a positive one.


It's obviously still copyright infringement. That's a captain obvious statement. It is equally obvious Sky Sports couldn't care less if I'm watching their matches from a jurisdiction they don't broadcast in because it costs them nothing at all. To the extent they care it's because of the impact on subscriptions within Britain and thus on their bottom line.


Some of you people are really dense.


P.S. I got the highest grade in Intellectual Property in my class of 90.

I strongly reject the concept of Intellectual Property.

 

-----signature-----

These conversations always crack me uP because they are always the same no matter what dork I am talking to. The first ten seconds is an admission of guilt. And the next ten hours is justification. These always fall short to me for a pretty straightforward rEason. If your justification is legit then I'm sure the copyright holder already allows for it. If they don't then it isn't legit. The Idea that the infringor gets to decide impact and legitimacy of the infringement is nuts. And every one of you. Every single one would scoff if the roles were reversed.