Forum: Author Hangout

First, what's the quality of the files you stream?

The TV shows are the same quality as you'd see on Netflix. The old ones like All in the Family weren't recorded in HD and don't use the whole screen like they do today. But the quality is fine.

Movies come in three qualities. 1) HD, which is BluRay quality. 2) Camera, which is awful -- someone filmed a movie in a theater off their video camera. 3) something between those two -- somewhat grainy. I believe it's the same with Torrent.

Second, what's the risk of malware infection? Or do the sites make all their money from wholesome ads?

I believe the software in the boxes protect you against malware and pop-ups.

Yes, it's stealing. I don't want to discuss the moral issue. And some day they may not work. I was wondering if anyone heard of them. I hadn't. And I can't find anything googling it. All that comes up are things like Apple TV, Roku, Netflix, etc., the subscription services.

It is impossible to watch a film (pirated or otherwise) on the internet without downloading it.

With some of the modern media boxes you don't go through what the laws see as a download process if you only stream it and immediately play it on a TV. Because you don't have an electronic copy saved to the system somewhere the law doesn't regard it as having been downloaded, just watched.

It is impossible to watch a film (pirated or otherwise) on the internet without downloading it.

Someone has to download it, but you can watch it from there without downloading it. Just like you watch videos on youtube.

There are sites you can stream movies from, but they're notorious for pop-ups and viruses. Someone once told me about one called yestmovies.to, but I never went there. These boxes don't have the pop-ups or viruses.

It couldn't be rendered on your monitor and speakers otherwise.

That's because you need to have the system convert it to render it to suitable code for the computer. However, when you stream TV video you don't need to download it because there's no need to convert and render it properly for the monitor, as it's coming in with the code to display directly onto the TV.

edit to add: part of what a lot of the set-top boxes include is the software to render the incoming code on the fly when streaming a video that's not in the right coding for the TV - but it still doesn't do a download to the system to save it in a cache like a normal browser does with the html etc.

That's bullshit. every pixel of every frame and every bit of the sound track still has to be transmitted to your computer, whether the codec conversion is done locally or remotely.

The same is true of normal TV transmission, which is why, in an earlier post, I mentioned the legal position on what a download is.

From both a technical and legal viewpoint if nothing is saved to the system as a direct file or cache but is dealt with on the fly in a live stream it is technically, and legally, a transmission reception and not

Being the consumer and end-user may be perfectly legal and acceptable.

The following should be blatantly clear to you by now, but evidently you do not want to accept the reality of your position. What you said – "... Distribution is clearly illegal." is true.

So, you (or your device/application) go out on the Internet and find a copyrighted video that you want to watch/record. You select that video and the Server sends it to you over the Internet. You have knowingly downloaded the video to your device (e.g. set top box, desktop computer, TV, iPad, Notebook, or other). Since you knowingly downloaded the video's file to your device, you were a party to the commission of an illegal act (i.e., you are complicit in the Distribution of Copyrighted Intellectual Property). This is no different than the Plagiarist Hooriya Ahmed downloading Ernest's book "The Day of Blood" and selling Ernest's story as hers at on-line bookstores with the exception of: she profited by receiving money from her selling Ernest's book and you profited by not having to pay for the video you downloaded.

You can call your recording of the stolen video by recording the output of your TV's signal to your VCR an innocent act. The reality of that is you are making a permanent copy of stolen property.

I acknowledge that you may not have considered your action in the above terms and may not have considered your actions to be those of a thief. You can continue to lie to yourself, but that is what your actions mean.

If all you do is download(which won't be true if you're using a torrent client operating on default settings),

You are still lying to yourself.

With regard to the Internet, downloading and uploading refer to the transfer of data packets from and to a computer system. In the case of a video, the data packets contain the digitized video and audio data.

You can call it a Torrent Client or anything else, but it is still the transfer of data packets over the Internet. When Copyrighted Intellectual Property is on the host computer's system without the permission of the copyright holder, then that is Distribution of Stolen Property. If your device receives those data packets, then you as the owner of that device are receiving Stolen Property.

MPAA and the RIAA

I will post my reply as a series of posts due to the length of what I have to say.

The following has been extracted from the Summary of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886) and it includes the subsequent revisions. You can read the full summary at: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/summary_berne.html

The Berne Convention deals with the protection of works and the rights of their authors. It is based on three basic principles . . .

(1) The three basic principles are the following:

(a) Works originating in one of the Contracting States (that is, works the author of which is a national of such a State or works first published in such a State) must be given the same protection in each of the other Contracting States as the latter grants to the works of its own nationals (principle of "national treatment") [1].

(b) Protection must not be conditional upon compliance with any formality (principle of "automatic" protection) [2].

(c) Protection is independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work (principle of "independence" of protection). If, however, a Contracting State provides for a longer term of protection than the minimum prescribed by the Convention and the work ceases to be protected in the country of origin, protection may be denied once protection in the country of origin ceases [3].

(2) The minimum standards of protection relate to the works and rights to be protected, and to the duration of protection . . .

the right to make reproductions in any manner or form (with the possibility that a Contracting State may permit, in certain special cases, reproduction without authorization, provided that the reproduction does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author; and the possibility that a Contracting State may provide, in the case of sound recordings of musical works, for a right to equitable remuneration), . .

(c) As to the duration of protection, the general rule is that protection must be granted until the expiration of the 50th year after the author's death. . . .

[1] Under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), the principles of national treatment, automatic protection and independence of protection also bind those World Trade Organization (WTO) Members not party to the Berne Convention. . . .

[4] Under the TRIPS Agreement, an exclusive right of rental must be recognized in respect of computer programs and, under certain conditions, audiovisual works.

[5] Under the TRIPS Agreement, any term of protection that is calculated on a basis other than the life of a natural person must be at least 50 years from the first authorized publication of the work, or – failing such an event – 50 years from the making of the work. . . .

I suspect that you know that the United States is a Contracting State and complies with the Bern Agreement. What the above means is that the movies you download are copyrighted Intellectual Merchandise.

Extracted from the NO ELECTRONIC THEFT (NET) ACT. You can read the Act at https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ147/PLAW-105publ147.pdf.

PUBLIC LAW 105–147—DEC. 16, 1997
NO ELECTRONIC THEFT (NET) ACT . . .

An Act
To amend the provisions of titles 17 and 18, United States Code, to provide greater
copyright protection by amending criminal copyright infringement provisions, and
for other purposes.

. . . SEC. 2. CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS.

(a) DEFINITION OF FINANCIAL GAIN.—Section 101 of title 17,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after the undesignated
paragraph relating to the term ''display'', the following new paragraph:

''The term 'financial gain' includes receipt, or expectation
of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other
copyrighted works.''.

(b) CRIMINAL OFFENSES.—Section 506(a) of title 17, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:

''(a) CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT.—Any person who infringes a
copyright willfully either—

''(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private
financial gain, or

''(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by
electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more
copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which
have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United
States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction
or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be
sufficient to establish willful infringement.''. . . .

* * * * *

Not_a_ID,

You are focusing on Copyright Infringement as distribution of copyrighted material.

What you are overlooking is that the NO ELECTRONIC THEFT (NET) ACT modified Title 17 to define Financial Gain as: ''receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.'', and Section 2, subparagraph (1) indicates that "Any person who infringes a copyright willfully for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain" has committed the criminal act of Copyright Infringement.

Not_a_Id,

I know how I would feel if a Plagiarist infringed on the copyright of my stories by downloading any of my stories and selling it on-line.

The individual(s) using the pennames of Hooriya Ahmed and Martin Ycaza stole the copyrighted stories of the following SOL Authors: 8Seconds, Al Steiner , Any Pseudonym, Argon, Aroslav, Barneyr, Dak, Ernest Bywater, Gary Johns, Greg Younger, Lazlo Zalezac, mysteria27, niteowluk99, Quinn, raplucknett, Renpet, and Stultus. If they are still around and see this post, I will let them tell you how they feel about having their copyrights violated.

I imagine the copyright holders of the movies you downloaded and recorded feel much the same way as the SOL authors.

Yes, you are correct in that MPAA and the RIAA go after the distributors of copyrighted works rather than the recipients of those works. The reason for that is very likely that going after people like you is a pointless waste of their time and money. It would cost more to prosecute you than they would ever get in compensation, and it would have no noticeable effect on the theft of their property.

The distributors are a different story. By prosecuting them, the copyright holders may be able to obtain suitable compensation and also stop the distributor's criminal activities.

The following should be blatantly clear to you by now, but evidently you do not want to accept the reality of your position. What you said – "... Distribution is clearly illegal." is true.

As I said earlier, for this discussion I'm not talking about the moral question. If someone watches a sporting event through a hole in a fence they're not paying the ticket price. They're basically stealing, but they won't be prosecuted. Now if they film it and charge people to see it, that's a whole different legal case.

I was just wondering if watching copyrighted movies and TV shows from the servers that illegally downloaded them is against the law. The Canadian article I read said it's not, but I don't live in Canada. The U.S. article I quoted from said it is.

I was just curious because before reading the Canadian article I would have said it was illegal.

But maybe there are two answers.

1. You are not breaking a law when you stream a movie.

2. But you can be sued by the copyright owner if you do.

I was just wondering if watching copyrighted movies and TV shows from the servers that illegally downloaded them is against the law.

I think my above post to Not_a_Id answers that question.

The moment those downloaded packets reach his home, he is guilty of copyright infringement. However, I doubt his actions will ever result in him being charged and tried in a criminal court.

Actually, I think he is guilty of that crime the moment he requests the movie be downloaded to his home from a website that illegally maintains copyrighted material on its servers. Title 17 describes the download as illegal if the downloader knows or has reason to believe that the website has uploaded copyrighted material to its server without permission of the copyright owner.

Regardless of how Not_a_Id tries to evade or justify his actions, they are still illegal.

However, I doubt his actions will ever result in him being charged and tried in a criminal court.

My recollection of people downloading music didn't end up in criminal court. The Music industry sued and collected for every song downloaded. And they went after everyone, including kids. They even went after a grandmother and made her life miserable until she proved she didn't own a computer so she couldn't download anything. They got her IP (or something) mixed up with the real downloader.

But what if those people who were sued didn't download the songs? What if they simply listened to them from some server (and not a server they hacked, but one that freely gave them access)?

I think it's a fascinating question.

My recollection of people downloading music didn't end up in criminal court.

Some of them have ended up in court, and in some countries where MPAA and RIAA got the laws changed to how they like, a few have ended up in prison for short terms. They still spend much more effort and time attacking the recipients than they do chasing after the ones posting the files, but they do chase both.

But what if those people who were sued didn't download the songs? What if they simply listened to them from some server (and not a server they hacked, but one that freely gave them access)?

You can't listen to a song that is on a server.

To listen to the song, you have to download and play it on your computer or one of its peripherals.

You are forgetting

I don't think so. SB post that I responded to indicated that he could listen to the song without downloading it. When someone listens to those radio stations songs, they have to download the songs to listen to them.

but it's a tort, not criminal,

Check out my post to Not_a_Id again regarding Title 17. It is a crime if you are downloading the files that on the server for download without the copyright holder's permission. The crime is called Copyright Infringement and it is punishable by up to 5 years in prison, a fine, or both.

It is a crime if you are downloading the files that on the server for download without the copyright holder's permission.

I'm no lawyer, but I do not believe streaming would fall into that category. Even if the technology requires the data to be downloaded (moved from a server to a buffer) for the TV to display the video/audio, the "downloaded" data is never saved so I believe the courts wouldn't say it was downloaded.

I believe the bigger risk is to be sued and have to pay for everything they know you viewed as someone said happens in Germany.

ETA: This is the part of this discussion I'm finding fascinating (which is why I wanted to keep the moral side out of it). When many laws were written they had no clue of what changes the Internet would bring.

I do not believe streaming would fall into that categor

You missed the point of the Title 17 change. The change in (1) has to do with the receipt or expectation of receiving the copyrighted video, not how it gets to you home. Besides, streaming is a specific approach to downloading.

''The term 'financial gain' includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.''.

You should re-read it yourself, particularly the last paragraph.

Title 17 establishes 2 sets of conditions in with a criminal charge can be filed. You are addressing the second condition in Title 17. I am looking at the 1st first condition, namely item (1) in the following quote:

''The term 'financial gain' includes receipt, or expectation
of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other
copyrighted works.''.

(b) CRIMINAL OFFENSES.—Section 506(a) of title 17, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:

''(a) CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT.—Any person who infringes a
copyright willfully either—

''(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private
financial gain, or

When you replace the term financial gain in item (1) with its definition you get:

for purposes of commercial advantage or private
receipt, or expectation
of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other
copyrighted works.

That would cover some one trading one pirated work for another

Not true DS. Nowhere in item (1) is there any mention of trading.

What the statement means is if Person A goes to Website B and requests that a copyrighted movie be sent to them, then they can be charged with copyright infringement under Title 17 if the copyrighted movie is on the website and being distributed without the permission of the copyright holder.

So long as all Person A does is go to Website B and ask for it, and has no expectation, and provides no such expectation, that they're going to be sharing anything as well. Then Person A is in the clear.

Maybe clear from a criminal aspect, but can we agree he could be sued by the movie industry for all the movies he streamed?

Around a decade ago, the RIAA tried going after music downloaders and got censured by the courts because they repeatedly failed to do proper due diligence in answering these questions across dozens of cases.

From what I understand, people load servers around the world with copyrighted material, from movies that are currently in the theaters to every episode of Modern Family. An article I read said there were like 40,000 of these servers.

The boxes I asked about run Kodi with apps on them. Some access legal stuff. Some of the apps access these copyrighted stuff. The ISTV people say users of their box have to use it responsibly even though it comes with those "illegal" apps installed on it.

So it all comes down to how the courts see streaming. That was why I started this thread. The Canadian article said downloading and making a copy is illegal, but streaming isn't. The U.S. article, I think, said it is illegal or at least in violation of copyright.

I guess the answer is, we don't know. And maybe no one will know until there is a court decision.

It's much more cost effective for them to go after the streaming / file sharing sources.

I agree. If I were in their shoes, I would go after the owners of all the websites that are involved in copyright infringement.

Before anyone goes there, yes there are many websites, radio stations, and others that distribute videos and music legally. I am only focus my statement on those who do it illegally.

If I were in their shoes, I would go after the owners of all the websites that are involved in copyright infringement.

What if the servers were in countries that aren't cooperative with the USA?

What if the servers were in countries that aren't cooperative with the USA?

Didn't stop them destroying Mega Upload

What if the servers were in countries that aren't cooperative with the USA?

If they signed and ratified one or more of the 5 multilateral international copyright treaties, they are obligated to support the US's efforts to take legal action. There are also bilateral treaties (treaties between only two countries) that may apply.

A list of the countries that have signed one or more of the International Copyright Treaties can be found at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_copyright_agreements

If they signed and ratified one or more of the 5 multilateral international copyright treaties, they are obligated to support the US's efforts to take legal action.

The general rule under International agreements like the Berne convention is when a citizen of Country A violates the copyright of someone in Country B the authorities in Country A treat it the same as if it was a violation of the copyright in their country, not as per the laws of Country B. That's how the pre-digital cases were handled, and the early digital cases too. Then when RIA and MPAA were able to purchase the change of the laws in the USA they found they had to convince the USA Dept of State to pressure other governments to make similar changes top their copyright laws or other concessions to allow the US to deal with people in other countries in the same way their new copyright laws did. That's why so much copyright crap ended up in the trade agreements. Some countries didn't stand up to the USA some did. That's why the ongoing situation with the Mega Upload case.

Only in Criminal cases can one juror accomplish that, as that is the only place where "beyond a reasonable doubt" applies as a standard. For a civil case, they just have to demonstrate that it is "most likely" that the plaintiff's case is correct, and only requires a majority vote from the jury, or more likely, judge to decide in their favor.

O.J. Simpson will agree with that statement.

Murder - criminal case - innocent
Wrongful death - civil case - guilty

Murder - criminal case - innocent

They did not find him innocent. They found him Not Guilty. Not Guilty means the jury did not believe there was enough valid evidence to return a verdict of Guilty.

Rule 101 of Business Law: Never sue an empty pocket.

IS often ignored by the RIAA and MPAA lawyers because they feel if they don't beat every horse to death one may sneak away on them.

Unless they can prove the downloader intended to steal or has a history of stealing copyrighted materials.

Title 17 does not require proof of intent to steal. In a criminal case, the prosecution would have to prove the person expected to receive the video from the website. The transmission of the video to the recipient would not have happened if the recipient had not selected the video and clicked the button that initiated the transfer of the video. The prosecution would also have to prove that the recipient had reason to believe that the video was on the website illegally. That would be more difficult to prove, but it could be proven.

There has also been a comment that if one juror votes no the defendant would be found not guilty. That is not accurate. In a capital case that is true, but this would not be a capital case and the jury would not have to be unanimous in their decision.

I must have been thinking of civil cases.

Canada is in a unique place in regards to copyright law

Canada is one of the countries to still apply a uniform and intelligent application of the copyright laws, unlike the USA, and those the USA government has bullied into financing profits for the US entertainment media industries. Piracy is the term introduced by the MPAA and RIAA because they like the old emotions it introduces, but it is not the correct term. Piracy in any other usage require the theft of something by force of arms. What RIAA and MPAA call piracy doesn't require any force of arms, and the great majority of those they chase calling pirates don't actually steal anything.

In the normal course of law for something to be the crime of theft it requires certain main aspects:

1. Intent to deny the rightful owner the use, pleasure, or profit from the stolen item,

2. Intent to take the item without permission or proper recompense,

3. Knowledge they are taking the item without proper authority or approval.

In normal law to be charged with receiving stolen good it needs to be proven the person receiving the goods knew them to be stolen.

Theft of copyright should need to meet the above before a charge can be made, and for printed copyright theft they do and are proven, but thanks to the politicians in the USA being bought and sold by RIAA, MPA, and others, that is not the case for electronic copyright theft, because the US laws do not require any of the three proofs above, and the USA government has forced such laws down the throats or many as part of trade agreements.

Print example - Fred knowingly prints copies of Jim's copyrighted book and sells them or gives them away. The buyers or recipients have no way of knowing Fred stole the copyright. The authorities don't charge the buyers, at the most they may confiscate the books. In most cases the retail buyers are allowed to keep the books, but Fred is charged and forced to pay royalties and compensation to Jim.

NB: The above is also how the software industry handles the unlawful copies of software discs, despite them also being electronic goods.

Electronic example of what should happen. - Fred knowingly makes available an electronic copy of Jim's copyrighted book and sells them or gives them away. The buyers or recipients have no way of knowing Fred stole the copyright. The authorities don't charge the buyers, at the most they may confiscate the copies. In most cases the retail buyers are allowed to keep the books, but Fred is charged and forced to pay royalties and compensation to Jim.

Electronic example of what does happen. - Fred knowingly makes available an electronic copy of Jim's copyrighted book and sells them or gives them away. The buyers or recipients have no way of knowing Fred stole the copyright. The authorities charge the buyers, and also charge Fred if they can identify him. In most cases the retail buyers are forced to pay royalties and compensation to Jim.

.....................

In some cases those receiving the unlawful copy know the copy is stolen, but in most cases they do not know the copyright is stolen. The reason MPAA and RIAA go after the end user is because it's a much more lucrative for them to locate and attack 100 end users than 1 copyright infringer uploading the material. It's also easier to locate the end user than it is to locate the uploader.

To further confuse the issue you have the fact the US laws on copyright expiry are different to the bulk of the world. There are materials that are in the public domain in the US but copyrighted outside of the US and the reverse is true, too. Today there are things that are more items in the public domain in the rest of the world while still copyrighted in the US.

edit to change one word.

Not with out information on exactly what was streamed from what site by whom.

If someone wanted to press the issue, it would not be difficult to do; it would be time consuming and expensive.

For example: MPAA discovers Website A is violating the rights of its members. They can file a criminal complain against the distributor. The Federal Authorities could obtain a court order to shutdown the website and examine its server and storage mediums for evidence of wrongdoing by the website owner, employees of the website, and anyone who participated in the copyright infringement by downloading/streaming an illegally distributed video.

The website's storage medium and any backup copy of the medium's content would probably have information on some or all of the people who received videos from the site. The information that could be retrieved would include the IP address and the MAC address of the computer initiating the request along with the routing information that would be in the request message's header information. That information plus court orders would permit identification of the person that owns the computer used to send the request and the court order would allow the authorities to examine the computer for evidence of that and other illegal use of the computer.

The main question is how far would the RIAA, MPAA, and authorities go in their investigation and prosecution of people who violated the criminal and civil laws.

So long as all Person A does is go to Website B and ask for it, and has no expectation, and provides no such expectation, that they're going to be sharing anything as well. Then Person A is in the clear.

Obviously you overlooked one key point. When Person A clicks on the "Request" button, he expects to receive a copyrighted video. Receiving a video that has financial value for FREE, results in a net financial gain for the person receiving the video.

I haven't looked into the courts response to the cases previously filed by RIAA and MPAA. They can file a criminal complaint against anyone who violates the 1999 revision to Title 17. That complaint will be investigated and processed by Federal Authorities, not the RIAA/MPAA. A civil suit can also be filed by RIAA/MPAA. The courts admonishment of them does not stop them from filing a Tort action; expecially when they do the homework, which would be supported by the findings of the criminal case.

If MPAA goes after the recipients of illegally distributed videos as vehemently as Dominions Son and others have indicated, then there is a chance that they and the Federal Authorities will be in contact with you. That will be your problem. I doubt that they will accept your interpretation of Title 17 and your actions.

can also choose to ignore the complaint

That is true. What they would probably do is assign it someone and tell that someone to expend all of their time on the more important cases. They could end up in a lot of trouble if they refused to act on the complaint.

Not true at all.

There is legal trouble, and then there are other forms of trouble. Social pressure can lead to legal action.

when you stream TV video you don't need to download it

Downloading is the transmission of a file from one computer system to another, usually smaller computer system. From the Internet user's point-of-view, to download a file is to request it from another computer (or from a Web page on another computer) and to receive it.
http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/definition/downloading

You will note that downloading does not require the data to be saved as a file; it can be stored in memory.

Streaming is downloading.

You will note that downloading does not require the data to be saved as a file; it can be stored in memory.

Streaming is not downloading because to stream using a media box does not save anything to memory anywhere, it simply receives and displays the exact same way as a television does. If you stop a media box stream in mid-transmission you will not

the video card can't display it.

Without going into detail about what graphics cards can and can't display via a direct stream to the card and not through the computer memory, such as DMA, you need to check what the thread is about.

The subject under discussion is two set-top box units that connect to the Internet and the TV to pull video off the Internet and stream it direct to the television without the use of any graphics display card being involved anywhere along the way.

BTW ISTV is blocked access from Australia.

As DS and I said - media boxes have computers in them. The computer downloads the digital data off of the internet and routes it to a conversion circuit.

Streaming is an application specific term for downloading video data. So when you stream a video from a server, you are downloading digital data.

BTW ISTV is blocked access from Australia.

Interesting. I wonder if that's going to happen to all of them.

Also, I find it hard to imagine these boxes could contain enough hardware to justify a price of more than about $39, not $399.

Because they're pretending the box is a kind of TiVo?

bb

find it hard to imagine these boxes could contain enough hardware to justify a price of more than about $39, not $399

You're not paying for the hardware. You're paying for the service.

BTW ISTV is blocked access from Australia.

The device or the website?

And is that true for the ATVB 4K Media Streamer at www.ATVBStreaming.com?

The device or the website?

The website for ISTV is blocked, while the other's home page is visible I never went any deeper.

using a media box

A media box contains a dedicated computer that downloads digital data and converts the digital data to a video signal. The downloaded date is saved in its internal memory until the conversion is complete and then it is overwritten.

Streaming is downloading.

Streaming is downloading.

The article I read about Canadian copyright laws said otherwise. It said streaming from the Internet is not protected by copyright because you are not downloading it (which would be against the law).

So I guess it's the legal definition of "download" when it applies to the Internet that determines whether it's legal or not.

I have read a lot of articles written by "Experts" in a field. You can find conflicting articles written about specific topics. At least one of the Experts is wrong. Who wrote your article, and what did the conflicting articles say?

From a different perspective, I live in the US, not Canada. What Canadians do is their business. Here are two quotes from LegalZoom about the transfer (i.e. download) of copyrighted intellectual property that has been digitized and stored on a computer system:

Whether or not you can legally download music from the Internet depends on whether you have permission from the copyright holder to do so. In most cases, free music downloads are illegal.

http://info.legalzoom.com/copyright-laws-downloading-music-20333.html

Copyright protects creative intellectual property like fiction and non-fiction writing, stage and screenplay scripts, musical compositions and arrangements, and works of visual art including paintings, sculptures and photographs. The copyright holder has the exclusive right to copy or distribute the creative work, or to make derivative works, such as a sequel to a novel or movie, or posters made from a painting. . . .

http://info.legalzoom.com/knockoffs-copyright-protection-20844.html

In the first quote, the article clearly states that downloading copyrighted music without the copyright owners permission is illegal.

The second article clearly states that "The copyright holder has the exclusive right to copy or distribute ..." copyrighted intellectual property.

Transferring copyrighted intellectual property from a computer system to a second computer system (commonly referred to as downloading) is illegal according to US law. In the definitions of download, some definitions indicate that the second computer system is usually smaller than the first. That second computer system can be located in a wristwatch, an iPad, a phone, or other similar device. Just because you are not aware that a device has a computer in it, doesn't mean it doesn't. The wafer on which some small computer systems are built can be smaller than the nail on your little finger.

edited to clarify a statement

Just like you watch videos on youtube.

Your comment is a bit confusing SB.

It sounds as if you are saying youtube videos can be watched without downloading them. That is not true.
The video is on the youtube server. For you to see it, it has to be downloaded. The video's progress bar shows 2 things: how much of the video is downloaded and how much you have watched.

is it downloaded to? And how can we watch digital TV without downloading it?

TVs designed to interface with the Internet have the computer inside the TV.

So is watching it downloading?

No, but the transfer of the digital data to your device so you can watch it using your device is downloading.

So if I record it to a (gasp!) VCR (Yes, I still use one and I can record from my TV's output), it's downloading?

That is definitely downloading. Copying is worse than downloading.

I have an analog DVD Recorder. I used to watch a movie on HBO and, while watching it, record it to the DVD Recorder's hard drive. Then I'd burn a DVD from the hard drive.

One day recently that second step stopped working. I can record it on the hard drive, but when I try to burn a DVD it says I'm licensed for only one copy (the copy on the hard drive).

No such animal exists

It uses RCA cables (remember the red, yellow, and white ones) not HDMI. So it records in analog, not high def (HD).

Sorry, but the physical structure of a DVD does not permit analog recording. It is physically only capable of storing digital data.

Okay, it uses analog cables so it's analog quality. The point was it's not the quality you'd get with a store-bought DVD.

It's a "grey market" but potentially falls under "fair use" under the "analog hole" provisions of the FCC.

So are the boxes I asked about in the OP legal if you simply stream the movies from the servers where they were downloaded illegally?

There was a similar thing back in the 80's.

We were overseas for much of the 80s and had a "friend" in Florida who was happy to record OTA, cable and satellite broadcasts for the cost of the tape and postage (and a small fee, I think).

bb

Due to the nature of how the Torrent system works, while it is theoretically possible to "only download" in such a system, most torrent (coordination) systems actively work against people who do so(they're called "torrent leaches").

Which still doesn't matter one way or the other, if the torrent you're downloading has a tracking hash in it such that it automatically tells your internet provider. And said internet provider can then turn your service off with no notice or warning.

Apparently my son was doing that last night ... took me a while to diagnose that it wasn't any hardware problem, and had to call my provider this morning to get things turned back on.

EDIT: And they could tell it was just streaming, not actually being torrented.

In other words, it the user is using it to access commercial content without paying for it, that's on the user, we didn't tell them they could/should do that.

I agree.

ISTV's contacts page and their domain registration give an address in Scottsdale Arizona.

Yes, their office is actually around if not next door to where my wife used to work. The person who showed me their box bought it there. They bought the other one at some sort of fair, like a home and garden fair.

I did? Where did I say that.

Not_a_ID ‎3‎/‎26‎/‎2017‎ ‎11‎:‎20‎:‎33‎ ‎AM

@REP

If your device receives those data packets, then you as the owner of that device are receiving Stolen Property.

...And my previous post ignore this specific part. So getting to this one specifically. Yes I am, but the legality and the ability to enforce it in many cases tends to be rather grey.


Going back to the MPAA and the RIAA. Their efforts are almost exclusively focused on the distribution side(and the underlying tech) for a reason. Going after the end user of the "stolen IP" is typically a dodgy proposition at best in court, and generally not worth their time.

Unless we're talking about a decently sized organization using pirated copies of Windows on their systems for example. So it goes into that grey area, because you're also dealing with people who have legal copies of the material in question(and can show a legal right to use said material), even if the specifics of how they're using it may be dodgy. For the most part, this is stuff the powers that be don't exactly want to test it either. For fear they might end up with yet another "fair use" ruling against them.

So it goes back to: While it might be illegal for an End-user to use a particular thing in the manner they're using it. They still have a better chance of having a 6 digit or larger lottery win than they do of ever being prosecuted for doing so.


At least so long as they don't get involved in distribution of content to others. Which is why I brought up bittorrent as an example. It was their (unwitting) "distribution" through their uploading of said content via bittorrent that resulted in their prosecution, not their possession of the illegal copy, although the one obviously led to their becoming aware of the other.

Edited to add Bolding to specific phrases.

Everyone THINK about what has been said here then check this out

https://storiesonline.net/d/s2/t2134/stolen-books

stealing is stealing

As one of those affected, I agree. However, I disagree with RIAA and MPAA and everyone who downloads is knowingly stealing. In the Hooriya case anyone buying the stories would have had reasonable grounds to think ti was legal until after the reviews on it being theft were put up. But, according to RIAA and MPAA anyone who got a copy before then was also stealing, even if they paid. That is where I disagree with the Music and Film Industry Association (MaFIA). I see the thief as being Hooriya, while the MaFIA regard the buyers as the thief.

Sorry Ernest

@ EVERYONE
OKAY!!!!

So it is alright for the authors and readers here to jump up and down and yell and scream and try to find a lawyer to try and stop people who knowingly take their works and possible earnings. BUT it is NOT alright when other groups try and do the same thing!!!!

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE????

Stop trying to twist what's said. In an earlier post I set out what the way the law used to be until the 2000 and how it still is for print copyright infringement.

In every case the person who knows they have no right to the material who takes it is breaking the law. But the main culprit is the one who makes the copy available. There are many ways a person can be getting hold of an infringing copy without knowing it is an infringing copy, so they aren't knowingly breaking the law and shouldn't be treated as a thief.

If someone goes to a website that says "We steal copyrighted material and make it available for you' then they

In general, I agree with you Ernest, and the situation is complex.

There are websites that legally upload songs, videos, and books and then offer them for sale or free. Perfectly okay as long as the copyright holder gets paid.

Then there are the websites that knowingly upload a copyrighted song, video, or book and sell it or give it away for free without the copyright holder's permission.

Then there are the people who download copyrighted items. If they know that the website is a Pirate Website, then they have reason to believe that downloading anything from the website will probably violate the rights of the copyright holder. They may not be 100% certain that they are stealing, but they suspect that they are so these people are thieves.

The people who are not aware they are on a Pirate Website are still taking something that the website owner has no right to give them. I wouldn't label these people as thieves.

Then there are the companies that post advertisements to Pirate Websites. I personally feel they are complicit in some fashion, but I am not aware of any laws being broken by their placing an advertisement on that type of website.

There is no clear cut answer to how to solve this mess.

Internet advertising is a three party process.

Advertiser

Add Service

Website.

Some people do lodge ads direct. but very few.

However, the ad services should be held accountable if they provide payments to recognise pirate sites - yet they aren't.

Perhaps, but I read the comment I was replying to as referring to the actual advertiser, not the add service.

And I addressed both situations with the first paragraph about the direct advertising - some companies do direct advertising to websites, while some don't.

Very likely the number of companies choosing to place ads for their products and services on the pirate websites is zero.

Actually, there are websites from where you can stream movies illegally that have a ton of pop-ups (ads) (and viruses, btw). I can't give you a name of any, but I know they exist.

Maybe people don't pay for their ads to be on those sites, but rather the webmaster gets paid with clicks on the ads so he just throws them on the site. Or maybe the pop-up ads are from questionable companies.

stealing is stealing

I wanted to discuss the impact technology has on laws, not whether it's okay to steal a copyrighted movie.

Someone mentioned the boxes to me so I did some research. I found conflicting articles from someone in Canada and someone in the U.S. I found the subject of streaming (not pirating) fascinating.

I found the subject of streaming (not pirating) fascinating.

I'm curious what you find interesting about streaming. I know a little about it but not everything. As the saying goes: A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

I'm curious what you find interesting about streaming.

Not streaming itself, but how it impacts things like copyright laws. For example, is it downloading or not?

Getting back to the "consumer rights" vs "IP Holder Rights" is where things get screwy, particularly in a digital setting. Where does one end and the other begin?

I haven't checked how much the law was changed because one of our PM's bowed to the pressure from the US State Dep't to let a piece of garbage copyright law change be part of a trade agreement. However, as the technology was introduced in previous decades the law in Australia adjusted to have a nice balance, and it was still in place a decade ago.

If you have a legal copy in one format you were permitted to media shift the copy for personal use, but had to retain the original copy too. This allowed me to make tape copies and later mpeg copies for my own use of what i bought as a 45 record, LP, or CD. Same applied with films, buy a VHS copy and I can make a digital copy for my own use. I could not give copies to anyone else and if I gave or sold my original copy I had to destroy the personal use copy. However, having a legal copy of one version of the material did not mean I had a legal right to a later version.

Example 1: Say I have a legal copy of Gone With the Wind in black and white theater film version I bought as an antique. That gave me a legal right to make a VHS copy of it, and even a digital copy of it. However, it did not give me a legal right to a copy of the remastered color version when it came out or a 4K digital version when it came out.

Example 2: I bought a VHS copy of the Star Wars Trilogy when it was first released. That gave me the legal right to a digital copy of it. However, it did not give me a legal right to the Directors Cut version when it was released or the much later remastered version with deleted scenes added. Nor would it give me a legal right to a new 4K digital version because the original wasn't 4K.

I'm fairly certain this aspect of our laws haven't changed, but I've not gone digging to check.

Not streaming itself, but how it impacts things like copyright laws. For example, is it downloading or not?

Technically the download of a file is the transfer of the file from one computer to another or to a computer controlled device.

In the context of watching a video, download is used to define watching the video after the file transfer is complete. Streaming is used to mean watching the video while the transfer (i.e. download) is in progress.

What many people are not aware of is that at the end of a streaming download, the computer automatically saves the downloaded file to its hard disk as a .tmp file. If the .tmp file is not TOTALLY removed from the hard disk then a Computer Forensic Analyst can find and recover it. Many users think that deleting a file removes the file from the hard disk. That is not true. As we all know, the are applications that can be used to undelete deleted files if they have not been overwritten.

I forgot to add that copyright laws are gradually changing. I believe that as the people who write and enact those laws gain a better understanding of technology, the laws will be updated to close the current loopholes that people use.

I should also add that prior precedents were probably set because the people prosecuting the copyright infringement cases did not fully understand the technical aspects of the technology used to commit the offense or they were unable to convey that information to the judge and/or jury in a way that allowed them to fully understand what the defendant did.

As new cases are brought, new precedents may be established concerning the illegality of improper use of technology. Then there will be precedents that support the plaintiff in cases of copyright infringement.

For example, is it downloading or not?

That varies with the laws, and the techs explaining it.

To an ISP all traffic on your service is a download.

From a technical point it varies with the type of technology involved and how it's processed by the technology at your end. A classic example of the non-download side is receiving a radio or television broadcast that's immediately converted to local audio and video by your system. Some system do the same with streaming data, some save it locally in a cache and process it before you get to hear and see it. On the other end is the full file transfer and save to play process.

In some laws it isn't a download unless your system keeps a copy you can easily retain. Thus thumbnail, cache, and streaming content aren't legally a download under those laws.

If RIA and MPAA had there way listening to a friends radio or CD player while at a scout campfire would be a copyright violation because it isn't your device and you didn't buy the music you're listening to.

A classic example of the non-download side is receiving a radio or television broadcast that's immediately converted to local audio and video by your system.

Not true EB. In order to convert the broadcast to audio and video, your computer has to first download the broadcast's digital file.

In some laws it isn't a download unless your system keeps a copy you can easily retain.

What is overlooked is that while the user may not tell the computer to save the file, the computer saves it automatically as a .tmp file. That .tmp file is easily accessible by you if you were to search for it. If you delete the file there is also the possibility of it being undeleted.

Not_a_Id,

I am trying to decide if you are a total idiot or just someone who is trying confuse the issue.

For example:

Ernest posted:

A classic example of the non-download side is receiving a radio or television broadcast that's immediately converted to local audio and video by your system.

I understood EB to say watching/listening to the entire broadcast, which requires the download of the entire file, so I posted:

Not true EB. In order to convert the broadcast to audio and video, your computer has to first download the broadcast's digital file.

If EB is streaming that broadcast file, he can watch/listen to the file as his computer downloads it. If EB watches the entire broadcast file, then that means his computer downloaded the entire file.

Then you try to confuse the issue with comments about how the broadcast file is formatted and how it is reassembled at the user's end. True statements, but they have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the broadcast file was transferred to the end user. You then say I'm wrong for an end user only needs part of the file to view it. Yes, the person can start watching /listening to the file before the transfer is completed. However, the person cannot watch the entire broadcast if the entire file is not transferred (i.e.downloaded) to the end user.

* * * * *

The second part of my post addressed EB comment:

In some laws it isn't a download unless your system keeps a copy you can easily retain.

I reminded, EB in my post that:

What is overlooked is that while the user may not tell the computer to save the file, the computer saves it automatically as a .tmp file. That .tmp file is easily accessible by you if you were to search for it. If you delete the file there is also the possibility of it being undeleted.

Then you argue that I am not correct by addressing purpose built devices that do not use long-term storage. Yes there are devices like that.

However, what you do not want to address are the computers and purpose built devices that have long-term storage and save the video files to that storage medium.

Furthermore, I am discussing illegal downloads, not the legal downloads that you want everyone to focus on.

So tell me Not_a_Id, are you an idiot or just someone who is trying to muddy the waters by using misdirection?

edited to fix quotes.

Since I'm riled up Not_a_Id, let's examine your Pawnshop Analogy.

Most Pawnshop owners are honest businessmen in that they do not knowingly buy or sell stolen property. One of the main reasons for that is they know the police come around and check their merchandise for stolen property and they don't want the reputation of being a dodgy pawnshop owner. That would result in the police being all over them causing them a lot of problems. I suspect Dodgy Pawnshop owners call it harassment.

An Honest Pawnshop Owner takes a number of actions to prevent them and their business from getting that type of reputation:

1. When a customer offers to sell them something, they ask for proof of ID - no ID, no Sale.

2. If the customer provides suitable ID, the proprietor has the customer fill-out a form to document the sale. In the meantime, the owner takes the ID and merchandise into the backroom to make a copy of the ID and check the merchandise out. Part of what he does is to check the police website to locate for a serial number or description of the property that may indicate that the merchandise is stolen. If he thinks it is stolen, he contacts police and delays the customer so the police have time to arrive at the shop.

Honest Pawnshop owners usually have surveillance systems that monitor what goes on in their store, and they have the appropriate notifications posted that allow the authorities to use the recordings as evidence in a court of law. One of those surveillance cameras is focused on the area where the owner interfaces with the customer when he is buying merchandise.

3. If the police find stolen merchandise in the owners store, he has the customer-completed form associated with the sale and the video of the customer selling the merchandise to him to substantiate who sold the merchandise to him. That in addition to his statement about checking the police website keeps him out of jail and helps him to maintain a reputation as an honest businessman.

It is totally ludicrous to try and compare a customer going into an Honest Pawnshop where the customer has a reasonable degree of confidence in the merchandise not being stolen to an end user going to a Pirate Website where most of the merchandise is probably stolen.

Did you know that MPAA and other firms that represent copyright holders maintain websites that provide a listing of Honest Websites where you can legally download copyrighted items. Since you are the type of person who prefers to take a little from Column A and some from Column B, then ensuring that you only download from honest websites probably doesn't appeal to you.

Using your analogy, a Pirate Website is analogous to a Dodgy Pawnshop. When a customer does business with a website/shop that has a reputation of dealing in stolen merchandise, then they do so knowing that they are very likely to end up buying stolen merchandise.

I agree 100% DS.

However, if the pawnshop owner has a copy of the seller's ID, the form they filled out, and a legally obtained video of the sale hopefully with audio, then the pawnshop owner can get a bit of revenge by giving the police copies of that information. Hopefully the seller will be arrested.

Everything you say about the encoding format, compression, CRC encoding/decoding algorithms, and the other things you discussed are part of creating a digital file and playing it. I don't dispute the validity of what you are saying about creating and playing the video file.

I am and have been discussing the transfer of that fully formatted video file from the host server on a website to a computer in the end user's home.

In case you are not familiar with that process, the following is an abbreviated description of the process. It may help you understand what I am saying:

1. The overall process starts with the end user establishing a communication link with the website's server.

In establishing that link, the two computers acquire each other MAC addresses and the routing information necessary for the two computers to talk with each other. A MAC address is a unique code that is burned into a ROM chip and the chip is mounted on a computer's motherboard. Every computer manufactured has a different MAC address.

The website owner may want to send spam to their customers, so they save the IP address of end user's ISP and the end user's MAC address as part of their customer data file. Due to ISPs normally using DHCP protocol, the ISP needs the MAC address in order to route the spam to the proper customer.

The MAC address is an important piece of information when prosecuting people who commit Internet crimes. When a court order shuts a website down, the investigator can retrieve that customer data file and use it to find all of the website's customers, if that is desired by the prosecutor.

2. The server sends its webpage information to the end user and their computer displays it on their computer monitor for viewing.

3. When the end user selects one or more videos for download, and clicks the button to initiate a transfer request, their computer formats the request and sends it to the server.

4. When the server receives the request, it divides the fully formatted video file(s) into multiple video data segments. Header and footer information is added to the data segments to create formatted data packets. Some of that header/footer information identifies the sequence location of the data segment (i.e. where the segment is to be placed when reassembling the video file.

5. The website server sends the data packets to the end user's computer.

6. The end user's computer receives the data packets and extracts the data segments. It uses the sequence location information to rebuild the video file. When the entire video file has been rebuilt by the end user's computer that is the end of the data transfer process. That video file is typically saved to the computer's hard disk in the Temporary Internet File folder.

If the video file is being streamed to the end user, their computer transfers rebuilt video file data to a buffer file while the computer continues to rebuild the video file. Once sufficient video file data has been added to the buffer file, the computer retrieves the video file information from the buffer file and converts that information into video images that are sent to the monitor and audio signals that are sent to the speakers.

If the end user's computer does not receive a data packet or if the data packet was corrupted beyond recovery, the computer requests that the data packet be sent again. The time necessary to get a replacement data packet is one of the causes for why a streamed video will stop.

Now that is an abbreviated technical description of how a formatted video file gets from a webserver's hard disk to your computer and how you can watch and listen to the video while the video file is still being downloaded to your computer.

I will remind you that you cannot watch the entire video if the entire video file has not been transferred. If you watch that video to the end, you can guarantee that the transferred video file has been saved to your computer's hard disk.

Think of it this way: my personal belief is that transferring a copyrighted video file that is on a webserver illegally to your computer is stealing, and I consider the actions of a thief to be immoral, unethical, and illegal.

We shall see who is right about this topic during the coming years.

A classic example of the non-download side is receiving a radio or television broadcast that's immediately converted to local audio and video by your system.

Not true EB. In order to convert the broadcast to audio and video, your computer has to first download the broadcast's digital file.

In some laws it isn't a download unless your system keeps a copy you can easily retain.

What is overlooked is that while the user may not tell the computer to save the file, the computer saves it automatically as a .tmp file. That .tmp file is easily accessible by you if you were to search for it. If you delete the file there is also the possibility of it being undeleted.

REP,

In the post where I said broadcast I meant broadcast - as in television or radio transmission where my television or radio plays the signals it receives - neither of which have any storage system at all. Everything is converted from the signal to a presentation format on the fly.

In the second quote you left off the key part in the second sentence about the laws not recognizing certain files such as cache files - which is what the .tmp files are. Also, I was speaking about what the law recognizes and defines as a download, not how a system handles a file.

In the post where I said broadcast I meant broadcast

Just to clarify things, there are TV and Radio broadcasts that go over the airwaves, and then their are broadcasts that go over the Internet. I believe you are talking about Internet broadcasts.

Unless you have a TV and Radio that connects directly to the Internet, you must be routing the Internet broadcast through your computer. If that is true, then the above post to Not_a_Id applies to your Computer-TV-Radio configuration with the addition of your computer is routing the digital file data from the buffer file through your TV/Radio interface. If your TV/Radio has a direct internet connection, then it includes a dedicated computer system which may have a long-term data storage capability.

* * * *

All right EB, you are right that I used the wrong file extension and as to your statement about laws, your full statement was:

In some laws it isn't a download unless your system keeps a copy you can easily retain. Thus thumbnail, cache, and streaming content aren't legally a download under those laws.

As to whether a video file or a TV/Radio broadcast that is streamed from a website's server is saved as a cache file to your computer, consider this extract from a VideoCacheview ad:

One nice thing about the browsers are they store everything in the cache. If you visit any website, watch any movie, view any picture, or watch any video, all the entire data stores inside the browser cache (except you watch it inside incognito mode). And one good thing is you can always extract videos, audios, and image from cache with the help of third party tool known as VideoCacheview.

http://www.blogtechnika.com/how-to-view-copy-extract-videos-audio-images-stored-in-browser-cache/

Since TV/Radio and video files are saved as cache files to the computer's hard disk in its Temporary Internet File folder, they satisfy the requirements of the laws you are referencing as a download in that they are stored and easily retain on your computer's local hard disk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Internet_Files

As stated in the link to Temporary Internet Files, cache files are one of the sources of evidence that the police gather for using in a computer crime trial. So, if the police seize a computer before the cache file is deleted, the cache files can be used as evidence.

Just to clarify things, there are TV and Radio broadcasts that go over the airwaves, and then their are broadcasts that go over the Internet. I believe you are talking about Internet broadcasts.

I was talking about the broadcast by television and radio - I've heard of Internet Streaming but not an Internet broadcast, because, put simply, to get anything on the Internet it has to be a select cast and not a general broadcast.

Police use of of cache or temp files of any sort varies with the laws, some allow them while some don't. It also varies with the jurisdiction. Some laws don't recognise any sort of system created temporary file as a valid file for legal purposes, while some do. It comes back to what it's about and intent - the whole issue has been made harder due to browsers reading ahead and downloading pages in advance, thus some laws don't recognise browser temp files as showing valid activity.

Then, on the TV transmission issue, if I have cable TV service that's a digital file sent to the cable service box. It may or may not have any storage, the only one I've seen open had no memory capability beyond its ROM program chip. The system converted the signals on the fly.

Since our conversations up to now was about Internet service, I overlooked the possibility of you meaning cable service; that is totally different than Internet service. Your correct in that cable TV set top boxes do not have long-term memory devices like a hard drive. I interpreted your use of broadcast to be in reference to something like a TV broadcast that can be downloaded and viewed when requested. Same term - slightly different meanings.

You are also correct about the laws varying in different countries. My response was focused on the short paragraph you provided. As you said, certain cache files do not prove improper action on the part of the computer user. However, a cache file that was created to store a video file that was illegally downloaded from a website serve would be proof of illegal action for it would not have been downloaded if the computer user had not requested the file be downloaded.

I think where your confusion came in is Switch started the thread, and ti soon digresses into a sub-thread on the Internet activities. Then Switch went back to the basic point he wanted to discuss, so I came back in on the discussion of generic copyright laws and how they're applied to non-print media, and it's one of my responses on that which you started to respond to, and dragged it back to the Internet download issue.

In the United States, Canada, India and the European Union it's currently completely legal to watch both licensed and pirated media streams.

If you don't download anything or host the content yourself, you aren't doing anything illegal.

The problem with those statements is that when you watch a media stream, the media files are saved to your computer, and according to Title 17 it is illegal.

The problem with those statements is that when you watch a media stream, the media files are saved to your computer, and according to Title 17 it is illegal.

That's the difference between what the technologies of downloading and streaming are (even if to stream it must download).

Remember the following from the article? "In the United States, a bill called S. 978 attempted to make the act of streaming copyrighted content a felony offense. S. 978 died back in 2011 after getting reported to committee, though." If streaming was considered downloading there wouldn't be a need for a new law.

If streaming was considered downloading there wouldn't be a need for a new law.

And that's where you get into the legal definitions. One of the major parts of what constitutes most crimes is intent and the lack of intent negates the charge. Where intent is listed as a factor the prosecutor must show and prove the intent to do the criminal activity. Thus a lot of the laws do not regard system processing and temporary files in the various cache areas as evidence in many cases because the system creates them, not the user, thus there is no clear intent shown by them. Deliberately saving a file to your system so you can use it again later shows an intent to keep it, but watching it while it streams doesn't show and intent to keep for later use.

Intent is often an aspect required for criminal prosecution of copyright, thus the usual laws will likely include an intent component as a required proof or the case fails. I doubt they could get the intent aspect removed from the general copyright laws without totally destroying the copyright laws. Thus ti include digital streaming where there is no clear intent of mis-use would require a new law that set out very specific parameters to justify a charge.

Which brings us back to what I said back at the start - there are differences between what the laws call a download and what the ISP calls a download, and what the techs call a download.

If streaming was considered downloading there wouldn't be a need for a new law.

I know SB, and that is the problem.

The reality is that when someone streams a video the video is being downloaded.

The public's perception of streaming is that streaming does not require download of a file. People see downloading a stolen video as a crime, but steaming a video is not a crime. This perception is reinforce by the claims of people who know they have stolen someone else's intellectual property, but do not want to admit it. It is in their best interests to confuse the issue, so they can continue to steal.

I know I am "jousting at windmills", but I abhor thieves.

The public's perception of streaming is that streaming does not require download of a file. People see downloading a stolen video as a crime, but steaming a video is not a crime.

I think people who download copyrighted material or stream that same material from a piracy site know they are stealing. And according to the article I last posted, the majority of the people doing it are educated.

ETA: Here's the actual quote from the article:

Young, Educated Men Are More Likely to Pirate Content

Studies indicate that future generations will be more comfortable with sharing and viewing copyrighted content. In both Europe and the US, young people and people with a high level of education were more comfortable with downloading and viewing copyrighted content compared to the general population.

In the United States, Canada, India and the European Union it's currently completely legal to watch both licensed and pirated media streams.

If you don't download anything or host the content yourself, you aren't doing anything illegal.

The problem with those statements is that when you watch a media stream, the media files are saved to your computer, and according to Title 17 it is illegal.

if they continue using illegal streaming options.

Personally, I think we would be better off without Trump and support his impeachment.

However, which part of seeing that a thief is punished do you have a problem with?

but you have to remember that he neither wrote nor passed it

Then maybe it will be a good bill. :)

Someone else quoted Gates' healthy view on that situation.

I don't know who Gates is, perhaps the founder of Microsoft. We all have opinions, and we don't all agree.

What Gates said is probably good advice from a fiscal point of view. However, I find it difficult to consider his view as healthy; especially for our society. Personally I prefer the attitude of "I don't care about the cost, I want to see all of the thieves' hides nailed to my barn door. If I run out of nails, I'll buy some more."

The article SB quoted "Young, Educated Men Are More /Likely to Pirate Content" is a perfect example of the changes our society's social conscious has undergone. It used to be that a thief who stole anything was looked down upon with disgust and punished in what society felt was an appropriate manner. Today our society just says "Oh well, it doesn't matter. That is just a gray area in our legal code."

Once Donny signs the bill to negate any protections that the FCC and Obama put in place (and that was just passed) all your ISPs will be allowed to sell your search history, browsing habits, etc. to the highest bidder.

I just saw the WH Press Secretary mention that. According to him, companies like Google could do it today, putting the ISP companies at a competitive disadvantage. He said the repealing what Obama did equals the playing field.

I don't know the details of this bill and am not disputing what you said.

One facet that you may be overlooking is:

If your ISP maintains a database on its customer's activities, all of their customers are in it. If you were to click a link to view such a website, your ISP's server will automatically extract your current DHCP IP address, and your MAC address, and the website's information from the data packets it receives from you, because it needs that information to transfer data packets between you and the website. All of this information is in the header of the message your computer sends to the website. You don't have to log into the website for your ISP to gather this data.

If your ISP is one of those that maintains a database on its customer's Internet activities, your contacting the site is in the database, although the details of what information was exchanged is probably not included.