Comment on Protect consumers my ass! 🤦🏻😡

• susi7802@sopuli.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  I hate fifa like the next gal, but it’s their IP.

  source

  • lime@feddit.nu ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    it’s 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 (“pirate iptv”) is ip theft, but narrowing it down isn’t 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 isn’t fun, but when the big corporations constantly lie about it and go after people who isn’t even aware they’re doing it i tend to side with the consumer.

    source

    • Carighan@piefed.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      There will be laws for this in your country, but they’re country specific.

      For your cases:

      • The key is a technical protective measure. It’s 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, it’s 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.

      source

      • lime@feddit.nu ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        i’m thinking back to the blu-ray decryption key thing, where a key was spread in the form of a flag and therefore didn’t count as copyrighted material. of course live broadcasts use rotating keys anyway so it’s not possible to do that.

        a streaming site can be a private thing if it is gated by some kind of login, so that’s also a way of getting around the issue.

        what complicates it even more is that we here are even allowed to save media from any source for personal use, and we pay a “private copying tax” on all storage media purchases because of that. RAM included. what constitutes “personal use” is also a bit diffuse but seems to hinge on whether it’s for profit.

        so technically, as long as it touches a storage device, and as long as it’s not publically available (e.g. passworded or something), and i am not charging for it, it should be entirely legal here.

        source
  • crandlecan@mander.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Yeah… Let’s reward criminal enterprises by having them keep their loot. Trump will be proud 🥲

    source
  • fushuan@piefed.blahaj.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    That shouldn’t allow them to block unrelated webpages. Just because a corrupt judge said so.

    source