It was probably a streaming site that was illegally streaming world cup matches.
Comment on Protect consumers my ass! đ€Šđ»đĄ
susi7802@sopuli.xyz âš4â© âšdaysâ© ago
Which site was that? IP should in general be protected: Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states: âEveryone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary, or artistic production of which he is the author.â I own quite a bit of IP myself, and some try to steal it, very cumbersome.
chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world âš4â© âšdaysâ© ago
susi7802@sopuli.xyz âš4â© âšdaysâ© ago
I hate fifa like the next gal, but itâs their IP.
lime@feddit.nu âš4â© âšdaysâ© ago
itâs weird when it comes to broadcasting though. they send the match footage to everyone over the air, but only those who pay get the decryption key. so is the footage the ip, or the key? furthermore, if i pay for the key, then let a friend watch at my place, is that ip theft? if i go to their place and re-stream the footage from my house so we can watch from there, is that ip theft? if i leave but they keep watching, is that ip theft? if they get a friend to come over and watch, is that ip theft?
the definition seems to be that hosting a restreaming service (âpirate iptvâ) is ip theft, but narrowing it down isnât really possible.
there was a study here a few years ago by a digital rights company that estimated how much iptv piracy cost the rightsholders. using their numbers everyone in the country would have had to pay 200⏠a month for tv for the result to make sense.
so yeah ip theft isnât fun, but when the big corporations constantly lie about it and go after people who isnât even aware theyâre doing it i tend to side with the consumer.
Carighan@piefed.world âš4â© âšdaysâ© ago
There will be laws for this in your country, but theyâre country specific.
For your cases:
- The key is a technical protective measure. Itâs not the IP, but circumventing it except to legally access my legally accessibly content is not allowed.
- Private showings are fine, even with a certain amount of non-personal-aquaintances in the mix.
- Re-streaming is tricky and depends on how you handle it on a technical level. Re-streaming without circumventing protective measures for your personal use is usually fine.
- You can temporarily leave during a private showing, itâs still legally a private showing.
The big difference with a streaming site is that it is automatically a public showing because they do not know who accesses the site (and in fact would not want to know, lest they open those viewers up to legality issues again).
Again, those are for my country. It differs everywhere.
crandlecan@mander.xyz âš4â© âšdaysâ© ago
Yeah⊠Letâs reward criminal enterprises by having them keep their loot. Trump will be proud đ„Č
fushuan@piefed.blahaj.zone âš3â© âšdaysâ© ago
That shouldnât allow them to block unrelated webpages. Just because a corrupt judge said so.
OwOarchist@pawb.social âš4â© âšdaysâ© ago
Property is theft, including intellectual property.
A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com âš2â© âšdaysâ© ago
Not that intellectual property means anything. If some large corporation wants your IP, they will take it by force trough lawfare
Semester3383@lemmy.world âš3â© âšdaysâ© ago
And yet, doesnât everyone have the rights to the fruit of their own labor?
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com âš3â© âšdaysâ© ago
The sport streams the site in question pirated were ABSOLUTELY not the fruit of the rights-holders labor, nor do any of the profits go to the ones laboring.
You COULD argue that the clubs get paid for the rights and they pay those who labor, but thatâs bullshit since both the clubs and the other rights-holders are mostly owned and funded by American and Middle Eastern billionaires who havenât performed honest labor in their lives and other shareholders that havenât performed any of the labor being exploited either.
explodicle@sh.itjust.works âš2â© âšdaysâ© ago
Some of it, sure. I make âIPâ for a living but thats just the rules built up around what I wanted to do with my life anyways. I want to do this because itâs useful for everyone; I donât expect the full surplus back.
If we raised the money by taxes or crowdfunding or whatever other economic model, then Iâd have fewer middlemen too.
Azzu@leminal.space âš3â© âšdaysâ© ago
Stealing intellectual property is only a problem because your survival is not guaranteed without it. If you could live a comfortable life no matter what, it would be much better for the whole of humanity if your current IP was simply available to everyone.
Just imagine if all the duplicate work from competition immediately disappeared and instead everyone in whatever field just shared their insights and built on each otherâs work.
Of course, that only works once everyoneâs survival is not dependent on this IP concept anymore. But it should be clear that in an utopian society, IP is just stupid.
grue@lemmy.world âš3â© âšdaysâ© ago
⊠a nonsense loaded phrase made up by the copyright cartel in order to dishonestly frame the debate.
In reality, copyright is not âpropertyâ and cannot be âstolenâ to begin with.
Azzu@leminal.space âš3â© âšdaysâ© ago
Meh, the article mostly argues semantics. Sure âintellectual propertyâ is a loaded phrase, but what is meant by the layperson is just âI made it, I should profit from itâ, i.e. copyright. Weâre not talking about massive corporations here and hindering right-to-repair, Iâm talking to a guy who made something useful (likely software or music or whatever creative) and wants to sell it.
SirSamuel@lemmy.world âš3â© âšdaysâ© ago
So a company taking anything youâve created (posts, memes, videos, art, etc.), and using it to train their AI is perfectly okay, yes?
black0ut@pawb.social âš3â© âšdaysâ© ago
This is disingenious.
First of all, IP canât be stolen. In order for something to be stolen, it needs to be taken from you, and you need to be left with nothing. Your TV can be stolen. A copy of something you made is a copy, and you still have the original. Youâre not left with nothing.
Second, AI companies are using your IP to train their AIs, which they then sell and make huge profits, both by selling it back to you and by trying to replace you with it. That is, imo, the worst part about them. Pirating something without any intention to profit from it is not comparable to what AI companies are doing, by far.
Third, this is about football. Itâs already stupid that a company can hold IP rights over a sport event. Theyâre not even the players who actually âcreateâ the content.
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org âš3â© âšdaysâ© ago
It would make it pretty hard to do some kinds of research for a living, though. Youâd basically get a small number of open source nerds fully in charge of, like, curing cancer.