The Real deal on Peer - to - Peer TV (TVU)

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

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.

Oh....no prob. It's not my site...I am just a guest so if you have rules.....so be it...I might not like them but tuff **** for me. No one is forcing me to be on here.

Having said that I don't think there is anything wrong with discussing it.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by fredr123

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.

True...true

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by anyonebutedmonton

You obviously failed your law classes. Suing multiple parties has nothing to do with finding liabilities... It has to do with the fact that some people may be judgement proof (ie not have enough wealth to cover the damages) you can then sue the company (AKA Deep Pockets) even if they are only contributarily negligent for < 1% of the damages.

So how do you get remedies from the company if they're not liable?
and I'm not sure what our example has to do with contributary negligence?

Please explain to me Mr. Law

[fanforever1986]

here's what I've been thinking about...

There is clearly an issue with posting links that deal with TVU. I disagree with the position on this board, but it's not my place to argue with it, case closed.

That said, when it comes to copyright law...how is TVU ANY different from youtube, google video, etc.? Clips of flames highlights are all over the internet. This is copyrighted material just the same, and links to youtube are posted all over this site.

I hate to be so picky about this matter, but its my nature.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by fanforever1986

here's what I've been thinking about...

There is clearly an issue with posting links that deal with TVU. I disagree with the position on this board, but it's not my place to argue with it, case closed.

That said, when it comes to copyright law...how is TVU ANY different from youtube, google video, etc.? Clips of flames highlights are all over the internet. This is copyrighted material just the same, and links to youtube are posted all over this site.

I hate to be so picky about this matter, but its my nature.

If you read the Forum Guidelines, they clearly make an exception for short clips.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by fanforever1986

here's what I've been thinking about...

There is clearly an issue with posting links that deal with TVU. I disagree with the position on this board, but it's not my place to argue with it, case closed.

That said, when it comes to copyright law...how is TVU ANY different from youtube, google video, etc.? Clips of flames highlights are all over the internet. This is copyrighted material just the same, and links to youtube are posted all over this site.

I hate to be so picky about this matter, but its my nature.

I know they(youtube) claim that they don't support copyright material and their members are not supposed to upload copyright material without permision of the original copyright holder.
Not sure how much it's enforced though.

[fanforever1986]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

If you read the Forum Guidelines, they clearly make an exception for short clips.

I understand what it says, im looking for clarification as to why it's like that.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by fanforever1986

I understand what it says, im looking for clarification as to why it's like that.

Because it would constitute "fair use" as opposed to making available games in their entirety (live or otherwise).

[photon]

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...

Facilitating an illegal act is illegal though I think. In cases I've read some would argue that the forum admins could be viewed as "publishers" (since there is an effort to moderate what goes on). In that context, we can be responsible for what's published (and have been in the past).

As you say, it's all a matter of degrees of culpability and how someone might try to prosecute. In reality what's the real risk? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. But given a choice between defending a lawsuit and not attracting one to begin with, I know what I'd choose.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by anyonebutedmonton

Just because we haven't invested money in this site doesn't mean we haven't invested time... Is your time worthless

It is, and should be, to the proprietors of this site.

You are a GUEST here...no more. They allow you to be here, so live by the rules or leave...whats the problem?

[photon]

Originally Posted by fanforever1986

That said, when it comes to copyright law...how is TVU ANY different from youtube, google video, etc.? Clips of flames highlights are all over the internet. This is copyrighted material just the same, and links to youtube are posted all over this site.

I hate to be so picky about this matter, but its my nature.

I think these are good points and I really like this kind of discussion; technology is changing and each time it does copyright holders and publishers and stuff throw up their hands and say it's the end of the world. They did it with tapes, they did it with CDs, and they're doing it with the Internet. It's just now they have the technology to get into every single person's pocket and home.

For youtube, I think for them it's just a matter of time; now that they've got Google's money behind them you'll see a lot more lawsuit action (it's already starting), and like Reg said, short clips can be considered fair use in some cases, different from a total rebroadcast (so while a short clip of the funny moments of Simpsons might be ok, putting a whole episode of Simpsons wouldn't).

[Vulcan]

I think we've all been brainwashed into believing something that was originally free is now only available if we pay for it. The rebroadcast of the Flames-Ottawa game was broadcast free Over the Air by the Ottawa station. These broadcasts are paid for by advertising and the station and it's advertisers should be happy to reach a broader audience. If the TVU show had of been the PPV show, I could see a possible conflict but this wasn't the case.

I'd like to add that I dont see much difference between these services and slingbox.

[photon]

True but OTA stuff has a limited audience, as far as a signal will travel. Advertising for an Ottawa newspaper doesn't benifit the advertisers if some guy in Nevada sees it.

I do agree with the brainwashing thing though, the companies keep taking a little more and a little more until we wake up and realize we now have to pay every time we listen to a song, have to buy it for every device we want to play it on, and it's timebombed to last only 1 year, at which point we have to renew our license.

[Vulcan]

These cable companies got their start by putting up huge antennas to pick up free OTA signals and feed them to local communities. Now they feel they own these rights, but now they have competition. If these cable companies really want to stop TVU they could probably block it as they also control the internet.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by fanforever1986

here's what I've been thinking about...

There is clearly an issue with posting links that deal with TVU. I disagree with the position on this board, but it's not my place to argue with it, case closed.

That said, when it comes to copyright law...how is TVU ANY different from youtube, google video, etc.? Clips of flames highlights are all over the internet. This is copyrighted material just the same, and links to youtube are posted all over this site.

I hate to be so picky about this matter, but its my nature.

If you want to get truely technical, MLB's disclaimer actually prohibits you from even talking about the games. As Reggie mentions, there are fair use clauses in copyright laws, and short clips are permitted, to "demonstrate the topic" at hand.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by photon

A private site with minimal entry requirements, not public. You do have to register.

Should I wait for the freedom of speech stuff to start?

LOL. I used to love that when I was a mod at Fanhome. How many times have you been called a Nazi?

[fanforever1986]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I think we've all been brainwashed into believing something that was originally free is now only available if we pay for it. The rebroadcast of the Flames-Ottawa game was broadcast free Over the Air by the Ottawa station. These broadcasts are paid for by advertising and the station and it's advertisers should be happy to reach a broader audience. If the TVU show had of been the PPV show, I could see a possible conflict but this wasn't the case.

I'd like to add that I dont see much difference between these services and slingbox.

yea i was thinking the same thing...slingbox's are amazing btw...i use mine everyday.


This whole idea of 'stealing' signals is a way larger problem on the satellite front...they run ads on tv discouraging from it. Its truly one of those cases where i htink the networks, teams, etc. will join the movement and embrace it instead of stopping it. They've done a fairly good job with making people pay for downloaded music (kinda)...and i think you'll see them start up a pay service style of TVU with some perks. It will reek havoc on 'regional' broadcasting rights' though...then agian bell centre ice makes regional games available everywhere...thinking out loud here.

[SpitFire40]

Bah... you know all the mods are using it to watch out of market games.