MAFIAA at it again - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

MAFIAA at it again

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby Tavish » Thu Mar 26, 2009 2:32 am

Madison wrote:
The biggest problem with viewing things on Youtube is that some companies don't care what's on Youtube, they are cashing in on the publicity (and now commercials are being run during many clips).

The same goes for music. There is plenty of music that is freely published by the artist (or whomever holds the copyright) that is out there on the P2P networks or through MySpace or artist sites or where ever. There are also many labels that are not part of the RIAA and see free downloading as the best way to promote their work.


Is it not known that the best way to get official and licensed material is to do it directly from the publisher/group/etc?

Obviously not or we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. :-D

Madison wrote:
And when stealing music, there's really no question that someone is stealing music. They are making a copy of it, so there is something physical, be it a file, CD, DVD, whatever. Really two different kinds of things here.

When you watch a video clip on Youtube that file is being downloaded onto your computer. When the video is over, the file is typically discarded. What most of the streaming capture programs do is simply write that file to a more permanent location. From the copyright owner's perspective they have absolutely no idea how to tell if the person watching a YouTube clips is simply watching the buffer copy or saving a download of the clip. The same goes for music downloads, the RIAA has very little idea if the music was ever burned to a physical medium, or shared with other users, or even ever listened to.

I don't think it will ever get to the point where companies will go after YouTube viewers (mainly because it is just easier to go after the hosts), but it is absolutely arguable that it would be within their rights to protect their copyrights in that way. The question still remains. If those companies felt that YouTube viewing was a serious threat to their income and the best possible way to put a stop to it was to make an example out of a few thousand people through lawsuits would you think that a $150K fine is excessive or an means to an end to deter the illegal behavior?


But that's the exact difference. Without turning on, installing, or whatever, the streaming capture program, no one is making a copy of anything. I see clips from sites all over the net (Youtube, MSN, Yahoo, TNA, WWE, etc) and not one is on my machine anywhere. Now if they can prove someone did install a motion capture or whatever in order to have their own copy of a clip without permission of the copyright holder, then I agree it's the exact same thing as stealing music.

With the RIAA current lawsuits they don't have to prove that you ever listened to the song, burned the song to a CD or iPod, if anyone ever downloaded the song from you, or immediately deleted the song once it downloaded (which is exactly what happens with a YouTube video), or anything of that nature. Only that you went through that link. You are giving the discerning nature of the lawsuit targets far more credit than they deserve. So far targets of RIAA lawsuits have included a homeless man, a paralyzed stroke victim who lived in a different state than where the crime occurred, a 7 year old, and a dead person. Sure they target the big host sites, but they also throw thousands of darts out blindfolded.

Madison wrote:Even if they did go after the Youtube viewers, you're talking $750. The higher figures would be for the uploaders and Youtube themselves. And to be frank, I'm not sure $750 would deter people from watching videos on Youtube (I don't have that kind of money to throw away, so I'd never visit there again :-b , but I'm not hooked on their site or involved with it like some people are), so if anything, that would need to be higher.

Well as far as I know the only case to draw a judgment so far was for a lady found guilty of downloading 24 songs. The RIAA was awarded $220,000 in damages (about $9200 per song). So the $750 isn't even really in the picture so far.
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11071
(Past Year: 25)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby Madison » Thu Mar 26, 2009 2:43 am

Tavish wrote:Obviously not or we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. :-D


Touche' :-D ;-D

Tavish wrote:With the RIAA current lawsuits they don't have to prove that you ever listened to the song, burned the song to a CD or iPod, if anyone ever downloaded the song from you, or immediately deleted the song once it downloaded (which is exactly what happens with a YouTube video), or anything of that nature. Only that you went through that link. You are giving the discerning nature of the lawsuit targets far more credit than they deserve. So far targets of RIAA lawsuits have included a homeless man, a paralyzed stroke victim who lived in a different state than where the crime occurred, a 7 year old, and a dead person. Sure they target the big host sites, but they also throw thousands of darts out blindfolded.


Seems a bit wacky to me if all they care about is a link your browser hit. There are some insane redirects running around the net right now (the Cafe is clean, but my wife's been redirected on her work machine while surfing lots of places and even I've caught a few while on other sites). So that really seems like some faulty grounds for lawsuits to me. :-?

Sure, I can believe a few crazy things have happened when tossing that big of a net out there. Happens with lots of stuff. How about the cameras that give speeding tickets and running red light tickets? Those tickets get sent to the registered owner of the car, based on the plates, so if the title was never transferred out of your name, then you get the ticket for something you haven't owned in awhile. I know people that's happened to. Personally I had a junkyard call me once letting me know they had my car. Problem? I had traded in at a dealership about 6 years prior to that call. So yeah, I'm not surprised to hear about goofy things like that happening in any aspect of anything. Some are even kinda funny. :-D

Tavish wrote:Well as far as I know the only case to draw a judgment so far was for a lady found guilty of downloading 24 songs. The RIAA was awarded $220,000 in damages (about $9200 per song). So the $750 isn't even really in the picture so far.


Sounds excessive to me, but all I've heard about it is in that quote right there, so hard for me to have a firm opinion on it. Odds are that the number was simply that high in order to send a message to the rest of the country, but that's strictly a guess.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby JTWood » Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:11 am

Tavish wrote:Well as far as I know the only case to draw a judgment so far was for a lady found guilty of downloading 24 songs. The RIAA was awarded $220,000 in damages (about $9200 per song). So the $750 isn't even really in the picture so far.

Seems that judgment was thrown out... and she was retried... and was found guilty again... at a MUCH higher cost.

CNN.com wrote:(CNN) -- A federal jury Thursday found a 32-year-old Minnesota woman guilty of illegally downloading music from the Internet and fined her $80,000 each -- a total of $1.9 million -- for 24 songs.
...
This was the second trial for Thomas-Rasset. The judge ordered a retrial in 2007 after there was an error in the wording of jury instructions.

The fines jumped considerably from the first trial, which granted just $220,000 to the recording companies.
Image
JTWood
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle EyeWeb Supporter
Posts: 11508
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Unincorporated Heaven

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby Tavish » Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:30 am

JTWood wrote:
Tavish wrote:Well as far as I know the only case to draw a judgment so far was for a lady found guilty of downloading 24 songs. The RIAA was awarded $220,000 in damages (about $9200 per song). So the $750 isn't even really in the picture so far.

Seems that judgment was thrown out... and she was retried... and was found guilty again... at a MUCH higher cost.

CNN.com wrote:(CNN) -- A federal jury Thursday found a 32-year-old Minnesota woman guilty of illegally downloading music from the Internet and fined her $80,000 each -- a total of $1.9 million -- for 24 songs.
...
This was the second trial for Thomas-Rasset. The judge ordered a retrial in 2007 after there was an error in the wording of jury instructions.

The fines jumped considerably from the first trial, which granted just $220,000 to the recording companies.

I think this is a really good thing. It will basically mean there will be a third trial and the RIAA is going to have almost zero ground to stand on when trying to justify their statutory damage requests. Again, I have no problem with this lady being found guilty. She is without a doubt guilty and is a moron for trying to use the worthless excuses and lies to try and feign innocence. But the $1.9m judgment is even more despicable IMO than the "I was h@x0R3d" / Chewbacca defense.
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11071
(Past Year: 25)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby StlSluggers » Thu Apr 15, 2010 12:31 pm

The Entertainment Industry's Dystopia of the Future

We're not easily shocked by entertainment industry overreaching; unfortunately, it's par for the course. But we were taken aback by the wish list the industry submitted in response to the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator's request for comments on the forthcoming "Joint Strategic Plan" for intellectual property enforcement.
...
The joint comment filed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and others stands as a sharp contrast, mapping out a vision of the future where Big Media priorities are woven deep into the Internet, law enforcement, and educational institutions.

Consider the following, all taken from the entertainment industry's submission to the IPEC.

  • "Anti-infringement" software for home computers
  • Pervasive copyright filtering
  • Intimidate and propagandize travelers at the border
  • Bully countries that have tech-friendly policies
  • Federal agents working on Hollywood's clock
StlSluggers
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterWeb Supporter
Posts: 14716
Joined: 24 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Parking in the gov't bldg @ 7th and Pine. It's only $3.00 on game day!

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby The Artful Dodger » Thu Apr 15, 2010 1:04 pm

We're sort of seeing that now, with Hulu having been forced to take the Daily Show and Colbert Report off their site. The networks would rather have all their shows hosted on their own sites and in so doing, increase ad revenue while having much stricter control over the distribution of their content. Problem is, sites like Hulu and Youtube do a better job of pulling an audience together and in presenting their content better.
Image

It's kinda like the Old Cafe - http://fbc2.freeforums.net
The Artful Dodger
Chief Wikitect
Chief Wikitect

User avatar
CafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 21947
(Past Year: 670)
Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Downloading rice

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby StlSluggers » Thu Apr 15, 2010 1:25 pm

The Artful Dodger wrote:We're sort of seeing that now, with Hulu having been forced to take the Daily Show and Colbert Report off their site. The networks would rather have all their shows hosted on their own sites and in so doing, increase ad revenue while having much stricter control over the distribution of their content. Problem is, sites like Hulu and Youtube do a better job of pulling an audience together and in presenting their content better.

Technobarons of the 21st century
Telephone and cable companies are trying to create a vertical monopoly. If they succeed, they'll destroy the free market, along with everything else we love about the Internet.

[T]the COPE Act and its Senate equivalent (a monster-sized bill introduced by Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska) would deregulate the Internet in exactly the way telephone and cable companies want it to. Both pieces of legislation would allow the telcos to control the ongoing shift to broadband Internet television by allowing telephone companies to enter the TV business, and would allow both telephone and cable companies to offer service only where they want to--i.e., where they can make the most money--with no obligation to build out into lower-income neighborhoods, which won't do anything to help the digital divide.
...
Verizon, BellSouth, Time Warner, SBC, Comcast and AT&T--the main supporters of the new telecom legislation and opponents of net neutrality--are using Congress to help them gain a competitive advantage. Collectively they claim 98 percent of the nation's Internet customers, but they fear that they're losing ground in their other businesses.
...
So in order to get their cut from all this newfangled content, the telcos and cable companies have come up with a "tiered" system for the Internet similar to that of cable TV (the one that makes you pay through the nose to watch The Sopranos). They would charge not only their subscribers but also the content providers themselves--Google, Yahoo!, iTunes, and every other site that could afford it--for "super-fast" service. A news content site like The New York Times would sign a high-dollar agreement with an ISP for that fast service, making its competitors less appealing to the 80 percent of Americans who get their news online. How slow will rank-and-file Web sites be in that system? How easy will it be to read the liberal blogs or download the indie podcasts? That would be up to the ISPs.

The industry says it needs a tiered system because all those little video clips people send to each to other are hogging bandwidth.
...
At the very least, it's no stretch to think they would give preferential access to their own content. When AOL bought Time Warner in 2001, it was a delivery system merging with a content company. Time Warner owns CNN, HBO and a huge movie library.

Aussie Disclaimer: ZOMG THAT ARTICLE IS 4 YEARS OLD
StlSluggers
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterWeb Supporter
Posts: 14716
Joined: 24 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Parking in the gov't bldg @ 7th and Pine. It's only $3.00 on game day!

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby jfg » Thu Apr 15, 2010 1:55 pm

The Artful Dodger wrote:We're sort of seeing that now, with Hulu having been forced to take the Daily Show and Colbert Report off their site. The networks would rather have all their shows hosted on their own sites and in so doing, increase ad revenue while having much stricter control over the distribution of their content. Problem is, sites like Hulu and Youtube do a better job of pulling an audience together and in presenting their content better.


How much of that do you think has to do with the fact that Hulu is now basically owned by Comcast though? Providers are going to be less interested in making internet TV work when the cable providers are running it.
Image
jfg
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicGolden Eagle EyeMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly WinnerTrivia Time Trial Monthly Winner
Posts: 6078
(Past Year: 82)
Joined: 4 Nov 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby AussieDodger » Thu Apr 15, 2010 2:07 pm

I hate that they have started to disclude countries on Youtube and other sites.
Sometimes I get "you are not allowed to view this in your country" and that really ___s me off.
Hulu doesn't work here at all either. :-t :-t
ATTENTION LONG-TIMERS! NEW FBC: http://fbc2.freeforums.net/
AussieDodger
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle Eye
Posts: 11363
(Past Year: 25)
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: What do you mean, Flash Gordon approaching?

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby The Artful Dodger » Thu Apr 15, 2010 2:22 pm

jfg wrote:
The Artful Dodger wrote:We're sort of seeing that now, with Hulu having been forced to take the Daily Show and Colbert Report off their site. The networks would rather have all their shows hosted on their own sites and in so doing, increase ad revenue while having much stricter control over the distribution of their content. Problem is, sites like Hulu and Youtube do a better job of pulling an audience together and in presenting their content better.


How much of that do you think has to do with the fact that Hulu is now basically owned by Comcast though? Providers are going to be less interested in making internet TV work when the cable providers are running it.


Well, I don't think it played a big part in Daily Show/Colbert being pulled. Comedy Central is owned by Viacom, which I don't believe has a stake in Hulu like NBC (Comcast) does, given that CBS runs its library solely on its site (I think, could be wrong though). At any rate, it seems to me Viacom got a bit greedy about the ad revenue margin (they and Hulu have about a 50-50 rev share) and want to have all that ad revenue to themselves by funneling all of their traffic to their site. Plus, whenever their videos are embedded on another site (let's say, a fan blog), only their player is used, not Hulu and thus, there's no rev split between them and Hulu on any other site as well.
Image

It's kinda like the Old Cafe - http://fbc2.freeforums.net
The Artful Dodger
Chief Wikitect
Chief Wikitect

User avatar
CafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 21947
(Past Year: 670)
Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Downloading rice

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact