The Real deal on Peer - to - Peer TV (TVU) - Page 3 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

anyonebutedmonton · 10-24-2006, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

And just an afterthought to those saying "why would anyone sue CP?"

The first rule of suing is that you sue absolutely everyone who could possibly be involved.

There's no limit to how many parties you can sue so you just include everyone which in certain cases could include message boards even thought they're not likely at fault.

Congrats! you have completed Law and society 101... your diploma is in the mail!!!

photon · 10-24-2006, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anyonebutedmonton

This is garbage... Freedom of the press shall prevail in the face of blatant censorship. I have a God given right to write whatever I want... lol

Sure you do.. go get a piece of paper and write it!

Doesn't mean you have a right to write it here...

transplant99 · 10-24-2006, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anyonebutedmonton

Its none of the business of the members of the forum? This is starting to sound like a communist regime... or possibly a cult

You should ask for your money back.

anyonebutedmonton · 10-24-2006, 07:11 PM

nm

Winsor_Pilates · 10-24-2006, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fanforever1986

so when familes of plane crash victims sue airlines, they sue the airline industry? There are cases where this is not true.

not saying i know everything about this matter, but it didn't take long to find an example that disagreed with your statement.

Not sure how you can sue an industry, but I would think they might sue all parties that they feel played any role in their problems.
It would really increase their chances of winning.

Anyways, I'm not an expert. I'm going by what I've learned in a couple entry level law classes, but perhaps you should consult someone with more law experience for further details.

The idea of suing mulitple parties to increase the chance of finding liablity sure makes sense to me.

anyonebutedmonton · 10-24-2006, 07:16 PM

nm

Reggie Dunlop · 10-24-2006, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anyonebutedmonton

I don't see CP falling under this scenario of deep pockets...

Deep enough to hold the hammer in their own balliwick.

anyonebutedmonton · 10-24-2006, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Deep enough to hold the hammer in their own balliwick.

I think you mean Bailiwick... and I doubt it could hold a hammer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailiwick

Reggie Dunlop · 10-24-2006, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anyonebutedmonton

I think you mean Bailiwick... and I doubt it could hold a hammer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailiwick

LOL.

It could hammer YOU pretty good.

Look, the rules have been laid out in pretty plain terms. It's up to you to abide by them

anyonebutedmonton · 10-24-2006, 07:25 PM

nm

photon · 10-24-2006, 07:28 PM

At any rate, I think the point has been made. Regardless of how large or small the percieved legal risk is, the site wants to err on the side of caution and limit the discussion of this software in a context where it could be taken as this site condoning or promoting the rebroadcast of Flames games without permission.

Reggie Dunlop · 10-24-2006, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anyonebutedmonton

wow what wit.. you sir are stupid

And you're a sophist twit.

anyonebutedmonton · 10-24-2006, 07:30 PM

I would like to point out that I have never posted anything having to do with pirating games... I am just standing up for the fact that it isn't breaking any laws...

photon · 10-24-2006, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anyonebutedmonton

I would like to point out that I have never posted anything having to do with pirating games... I am just standing up for the fact that it isn't breaking any laws...

Rebroadcasting a TV signal without permission isn't breaking any laws? I think the current copyright crazy pro-company legal environment is as horrible as the next guy, but I wouldn't go that far.

EDIT: It would be nice to turn this discussion back to the original topic, rather than hurling insults...

anyonebutedmonton · 10-24-2006, 07:44 PM

Im not even arguing that P@P isnt illegal... all im saying is posting a link to another site even if they are doing something illegal, isnt illegal in itself...

Reggie Dunlop · 10-24-2006, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anyonebutedmonton

Im not even arguing that P@P isnt illegal... all im saying is posting a link to another site even if they are doing something illegal, isnt illegal in itself...

This site's proprietors don't want you to. There's the rub.

fredr123 · 10-24-2006, 07:52 PM

A bit dated, but here's a CRTC decision from 2003 dealing with, among other things, internet retransmission of television broadcasts.

jolinar of malkshor · 10-24-2006, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anyonebutedmonton

Im not even arguing that P@P isnt illegal... all im saying is posting a link to another site even if they are doing something illegal, isnt illegal in itself...

I would have to agree with that.

Reggie Dunlop · 10-24-2006, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I would have to agree with that.

I think the larger issue is that it's already possible to code this service to appear on a third-party website for viewing as opposed to a mere link to an URL.

By discouraging it now, you nip it in the bud. CalgaryPuck does not wish to condone the activity or its methods.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

fredr123 · 10-24-2006, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I would have to agree with that.

I would agree too. However, it might not be enough to prevent someone from suing anyway. If they think their rights have been infringed, they might launch a suit to force action. Maybe CP wins in court, maybe not. Either way it's a big pain in the ass to deal with and costs money.