It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Remember, once you see something, you can't unsee it.
originally posted by: network dude
originally posted by: opethPA
Basically if a person wants to use KODI or Torrents or whatever approach their is to get things for free they normally have to pay for then they give up the right to complain when they have to pay the price for their choice.
Yea, no. I raised 3 kids, 2 of whom liked to push the envelope whenever possible. When you get a call from the Cable company saying they will shut your signal down due to illegal accessing of Copyrighted material and you didn't do it, but your kids did, I'm not sure where the line is on that. I won't be sending my 12 year old to jail for 10 years, and I'd rather not go in their place, due to the fact that I didn't break the law. Kids are all grown and gone now, but that was a real scenario.
I feel like the penalty is a tiny bit excessive here.
originally posted by: opethPA
originally posted by: network dude
originally posted by: opethPA
Basically if a person wants to use KODI or Torrents or whatever approach their is to get things for free they normally have to pay for then they give up the right to complain when they have to pay the price for their choice.
Yea, no. I raised 3 kids, 2 of whom liked to push the envelope whenever possible. When you get a call from the Cable company saying they will shut your signal down due to illegal accessing of Copyrighted material and you didn't do it, but your kids did, I'm not sure where the line is on that. I won't be sending my 12 year old to jail for 10 years, and I'd rather not go in their place, due to the fact that I didn't break the law. Kids are all grown and gone now, but that was a real scenario.
I feel like the penalty is a tiny bit excessive here.
Im not a parent so probably not qualified to speak on this but maybe your kids shouldn't be in a position to break the law then at age 10 and 12?
originally posted by: slapjacks
a reply to: network dude
Remember, once you see something, you can't unsee it.
*shakes head* why did I click that?
originally posted by: network dude
Link to source
The Digital Economy Act has passed into law, meaning people could now face ten-year prison sentences for illegally streaming copyrighted content. It covers a wide number of areas, including broadband speeds, access to online pornography and government data-sharing. However, amid the rising popularity of Kodi, an increase to the maximum prison term – from two years to ten – for people guilty of copyright infringement is particularly interesting.
For those who don't know what KODI is, it's a program you can load on devices like the Amazon Fire Stick. By itself, it's not something that's illegal or can get to illegal content, but you can load what's called "builds" on it, which can allow you to view things that aren't legal. Like movies that just came out, or neked people doing stuff.
The comments in the article seem to suggest that the end user won't really be the target, but the way this is laid out, it very well could be. Can you imagine getting 10 years in jail for watching Smurfs, the lost village? I think Bank Robbery and Manslaughter have lighter sentences.
Remember, once you see something, you can't unsee it.
originally posted by: network dude
I really don't know why more artists weren't in favor of that venue.
originally posted by: DClark
a reply to: network dude
Not enough prison space.
originally posted by: schuyler
originally posted by: KnightFire
If this is truly the case.....I will expect to see every YouTube user in prison as well. Streaming data is legal. Hosting is not without permission or some form of way to pay royalties. It has never been about if you or can't do it, it's always about who is going to get PAID!!!
When you work you expect to get PAID, right? You wouldn;t like it if your paycheck were withheld, would you? It's about the right (not write) of the owner of a work to the fruit of his efforts. Nowhere in commerce is it okay for the consumer to decide whether or not he will pay for an item. Had I been actually paid the modest royalty on the software products I produced, I would have been able to make a living from my efforts. As it stands, copyright (not write) infringement made it impossible for me to quit my day job. People seem to think this is all about corporate profits and greed. Is it "greed" to want to buy food for my family? Who is being greedy here? the person who steals from others with impunity and tries to justify it by saying other people do it, too? Or is it the guy who seeks a modest income to allow him to put bread on the table? It's not all about stealing from big, bad corporate Disney, so that somehow makes it morally justifiable because you don't like the owner. And don't tell me you "couldn't afford it." That's an outright lie and you know it. (Can I steal from you if I don't like you?) It's about people like me not being in a position to write more cool stuff because copyright (not write) infringement deprived me from the ability to do so.