RSS
Is Streaming Infringing Content Still Considered Piracy?
from the just-wondering... dept
There's been some buzz about a recent research report claiming that streaming services are popular. There have been a few such reports, and there's not much surprising in them. They basically point out that if people can stream certain content, that's often easier than firing up a non-user-friendly file sharing service to get the same content. But, does that necessarily lead to the conclusion pushed by many in the industry and the press that "streaming kills piracy"? Not at all. As the folks at Freakbits note, this particular study didn't even bother to separate out authorized streaming services and unauthorized streaming services -- and includes YouTube in the calculations, which (as Hollywood keeps trying to let us know) often has a fair amount of unauthorized content. So, perhaps, people are suggesting that if the content is just "streamed" it doesn't count as "piracy." And, as someone who doesn't like the term "piracy" in the first place, perhaps that makes sense. But it does not appear that this is what's being argued. Instead, people are just assuming that all streaming is authorized, when that's hardly the case.
27 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- Major Label-Owned Vevo Caught Publicly Streaming NFL Game Off Of 'Rogue Site'
- PolitiFact Trashes Lamar Smith: Says His Claims About Economic Impact Of Piracy Are Flat Out False
- NY Times: RIAA & MPAA Exaggerate Piracy Impact Stats... But We're Going To Assume They're True Anyway
- Tom Brady Watched Last Year's Super Bowl Via Illegal Stream... And Probably Had A Better Experience Than Anyone Watching NBC's Official Stream
- Hollywood Wants To Kill Piracy? No Problem: Just Offer Something Better
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
I recently missed the beginning of the new House MD episode and, of course, Fox doesn't let new episodes of House run on Hulu or sell on Amazon until 8 days after the original broadcast, (which means that if you miss one week, you will never be able to catch-up) so I wasn't going to be able to watch it online either.
In the midst of finding this out (while trying to purchase it on Amazon), I found an obviously pirated stream online. The quality was good and commercials had been cut out, even. So I watched that instead of having to wait to see it with commercials.
So, in my experience, streaming video makes unauthorized viewing even EASIER because I don't have to download anything, I don't have to worry about seeding, or having software; I just have to click and watch.
Of course, the real lesson that execs should take from this is to offer what your consumers want so I don't have to look for unauthorized streams online. I would have been perfectly content to watch it on Hulu with commercials, but it wasn't offered. Sorry, Fox. You fail.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
either way, the user is granted access to that media.
plus, streamed content is extremely easy to download, just let it load, go to your /tmp folder, and copy the video to another folder, and thats it!
Streaming is downloading, it's just deleted by your browser when you leave the page.
(note: I'm not defending the media's companies position and saying that streaming media is 'wrong', I'm just saying that I don't see a difference between the two)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Two different things, but sort of the same.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Exactly else if we started defining Unauthorized host of protected content as piracy they'd have to shut down You Tube.
Worrisome though because there having talks on exactly these points at the Net Neutrality conference.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
think of my downloads as a VCR recording then
whats so different form someone giving a buddy a tape or a copy
see its the same old BS about downloading form the net as vcr tapes only now its on a world scale
this is what Hollywood and America gets for globalization
HOORAY
lets make vcr tapes illegal and see the millions of mom n pops goto prison NOW
/sarcasm
bill c61 in Canada almost did that
and it was drafted largely form Hollywood like ACTA is
get ready everyone THE END COMES FOR HOLLYWOOD and actors and musicians that work for them better get to hiding big time
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Also, I don't even feel like I'm infringing. I feel like the infringer is the guy who uploaded the video.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
First and foremost, it makes it much harder for an end user to reproduce the content for others, where as a full download would obviously be easy to move to a torrent.
Second, the quality of the stream will almost never be exactly perfect, thus any copies made in any manner will be lesser than the original.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I do not understand how you come to that, or, assuming it is right, why it matters. I mean, yes, when you recorded from VCR, the quality plummeted. However, that has not been the case in a while. Further, if we hold that to be true, then does recording TV to Media Center cause the quality to not be perfect? And does it matter when it is by far good enough for every day viewing? How would a stream be different than that? Unless you wish to indicate they could intentionally degrade legit streams to showing a degraded format to prevent piracy, in which case, wouldn't people simply go back to the TV records?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Basically, streaming puts it back to the times of video tape. A copy of a copy isn't as good as the copy, and so on until it is useless. Piracy thrives on being effectively perfect copy to copy. Removing that perfection makes capturing streaming to share a less interesting idea.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Yeah, its piracy, theft, infringement, whatever you want to call it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Different Legal Implication
If you stream the content, then you are not sharing and therefore not "making it available" because the traffic is only one way.
In the US nobody has ever been found liable for downloading or for viewing unauthorized content, but only for distributing it. So if you stream the content you want then while it may still be considered infringement by the content companies, the courts haven't agreed with them.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"You mind?"
"Whatever."
Do you even have an obligation to wonder if it's authorized?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
By streaming, do you mean the act of offering streaming content or the act of viewing it?
Offering streaming content is rebroadcasting, sure. Viewing streaming content is absolutely not. It was never a crime to listen to pirate radio.
The whole "You could save the file" argument is fallacious - an argument from silence. That you MIGHT save the file doesn't make viewing and not saving it wrong.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Different Legal Implication
I don't see where there is a difference.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Interested in your opinions...
If I own a digital copy of a movie and I stream it to myself and a couple of friends in parallel - simulating the experience of watching it with them in the same room - is that infringement? There is no file copying involved and there is no public broadcast or availability. I've looked through all of the fine print on movies I own and I can't see anything that says this is a problem, as long as I avoid 'reproducing' or 'public showing'.
What are your thoughts?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
What's the difference?
Have I infringed? Are those viewings "piracy?" As the above-mentioned organizations count them, probably. Especially when they jack up their bogus numbers of "sales lost to piracy." But technically, I haven't broken any law that I know of.
Now what's the difference with streaming my movie collection over the internet?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What's the difference?
Now consider the same example, but make the location a public place, like a bar. Does that change anything? What about if I let any 4 or any 50 people watch it with me in the bar? Does that change anything?
It's all very unclear to me, even for DVDs. Where are the lines? Is it quantity of people? Public versus private? I have no idea.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Will using a Slingbox land you in Prison
Will Slingbox land you in prison ? A comment on the legality of Slingbox Technology and Slingbox Hosting Companies http://ow.ly/Hug5
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment