Oh wow, really?
This post is so full of holes it's like a child wrote it
Anyway, let's get to work
Brace yourself, it's gonna be a long one.
I know better then to feed the trolls (your avatar gives it away)
Oh Damn, you saw through my clever ruse.
And I went through such trouble to conceal it too.
Yes, stealing is the applicable word for layman (common) language. You take something that you do not have the right to take, that is stealing. I do not now, nor will I ever see that differently
Colloquial language is not an excuse for being deceptive.
Theft implies the loss of a resource. If I steal your car then you don't have that car anymore, if I copy a MP3 file the original file is still right there, the only loss is a potential sale, and the possibility is there that I might not have had the money to pay for the MP3 anyway, in which case absolutely nothing is lost.
There is a reason that there is and should be a clear line between theft and copyright infringement, ignore reality if you like, but don't waste your time trying to change the definition of words through sheer force of will
Do not tell me they "make enough" because they don't, studios have to pay bills, pay employees, pay distributors, ect. Then they money they do make is not all going to the CEOs and stockholder (usually, you only hear about the corrupt ones. BUT they still deserve their cut.). The money is going to make the next project.
I'm not even gonna get into this crap, suffice it to say that profits in all entertainment industries are higher than they've ever been before. Entertainment is NOT getting shallower and cheaper today because of lack of money, it's getting shallower and cheaper because they know they can get away with it and still rake in mountains of dosh. In very few instances is modern TV even slightly expensive to produce, the amount of money being pocketed is vastly out of proportion.
As for the law, I am actively trying to change it to make it harder on digital theft. That is MY right as an American. You disagree with me, YOUR right as an American is to actively try and change the law to your liking. Whoever gets the most votes, gets their way (in a normal world, there are compromises).
"Harder on digital theft"?*
Are you fucking kidding me?
Do you have any idea about the state of affair right now?
Right now the possible punishments for piracy are so fucking ludicrous that it's laughable. The way the law is right now a company that discovers that someone pirated their music is legally able to sue that person, for 150,000 bucks per song, PER COPY (that means $300,000 if you have a copy on you PC and your iPod)
The problem is not, AND HAS NEVER BEEN, that the laws aren't tough enough**. It's that the law is entirely unenforceable because of the rapidity of the crimes, the benign nature of the crimes and the fact that proving who actually committed any given act of copyright infringement is damn near impossible.
Also, I love this whole "B-But I'll write my congressman" thing your class of American always pulls out.
Who exactly do you think your congressman is gonna listen to: The lobbyist that lines his pockets with millions of dollars every year, or one of the THOUSANDS of people who write him letter that get "cataloged"*** and never read.
Of course in this case you're lucky because the you and the big business lobbyist pretty much want your congressman to do the exact same thing.
*It's still not theft by the way.
**The laws are in fact so tough that it makes them even more unenforceable, seeing how if they WERE enforced, almost every American alive would have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and more than likely go to prison.
***Probably in the bin.
As for the last point. I will be BUYING (crazy concept on the Internet) the rights to broadcast the shows. I will have the creators PERMISSION (egad, getting permission? Whats next? obeying the traffic laws? /sarcasm) Do not watch my network, please. I do not want your money. My target audience is people who want family friendly programing. I plan to advertise during the "700 Club" (Pat Robertson) and on the American Family Association networks. Again, watch TV on another internet TV website.
Oh aren't you so cute with your dysfunctional little attempts at sarcasm.
Anyway, point 1.: You are not buying permission from the content creators, you are buying permission from the people who own the rights, which is almost never ever the actual creators.
Point 2.: I'm sorry that I misspoke in my original response, seeing how you are obviously not for the rights of content creators, you are for the rights of the monolithic companies that use those content creators.
Point 3.: Once (If) TV does go all online, advertising will be a dead way of making profits, at least on the scale that big cable networks need to make money. People won't be sitting around between programs, and people can (and will) just pull up another window if there are pre-roll or mid-show ads that you can't just skip or block. And don't tell me they're gonna make money from banner ads, even you can't be THAT dense.
Point 4.: Even IF advertising was a reliable way of making money once things go all online, what in the holy mother of fuck makes you think that they'll be interested in allowing OTHER TV sites to have ads on THEIR TV site? So you can drive traffic away from them? Fuck no, and even if that wasn't the case, a small independent site wouldn't have the money to advertise during a show as big as The 700 club.
EDIT: I just noticed that you are not an American citizen. My apology for assuming. But that brings up the point that the internet is a strange thing that the traditional "Laws" have never seen. You could break a law in America, on American servers (in this case), and the victims are American citizens, but yet because no laws were broken "in" England (because all the crime happened in the US)?
First of all, you have no idea how these laws work.
So long as the ACT is illegal in England he will still face prosecution (IN ENGLAND), it doesn't matter one bit where the servers were. Also, in the case this thread was actually about, the servers were NOT in America, they were in Britain.
The reason this guy shouldn't be extradited to the US is the same reason that a US citizen shouldn't be extradited to Iran for saying something mean about Islam, or that a Swede shouldn't be extradited to North Korea for making fun of Kim Jong Ill on his Facebook.
Lets say that there is a nation, small, poor, little government (maybe a weak dictatorship), with no extradition treaties because no one noticed them till now. That nation passes a law saying that it is legal to commit any crimes on the Internet as long as you pay taxes on that money. How pissed would the world be? That country is now raking in millions of stolen money, and some is stolen from you (I assume you pay or will pay taxes). Now they can just buy off Black Market traders to get around the trade restriction (UN sanctions, after the thieves stole from them too) and 'magic jumping beans' the worlds economy gets broken again.
Now this is the meat of it all, I've honestly been looking forward to this all through my reply.
This analogy is so childishly moronic it's just marvelous.
Okay, to start off "No one noticed them"? On what planet do you live? Because in this world where I exist, people don't generally not notice nations springing up and existing without anyone taking notice.
"Raking in millions of stolen money": okay ignoring the bad grammar, HOW? What the flying fuck are they making money on?
Are they pirating software? How are they making money on that? Are they stealing credit card information or doing illegitimate transfers? All those transactions could simply be voided.
There is no POSSIBLE way that a country could simply make all it's money by "committing crimes" on the internet, it's the most laughably stupid thing I've ever heard used as an "argument" (if you can call it that) about piracy.
"worlds economy gets broken again": This is really what convinces me that you simply MUST be a child. Do you have even the SLIGHTEST concept of the scale that the global economy works on? Just as an example, the relief packages that were used to try to get Greece's economy back on track were in the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF EUROS, and guess what? IT STILL DIDN'T WORK!
A tiny country "committing crimes" would not effect the world economy is even most the minute way.
There's so much wrong with this post that I feel like going on, but frankly this reply is already waaaaaaaaaaaay too long.
Stay safe Kiddo.
Oh wait, you made another post?
Most people do not yet know that most of these kind of streaming TV site are illegally run.
Yes, yes they do.
There have been giant campaigns to inform people, there is NO excuse (Beyond being a fucking 4 year old) for not knowing how to recognize whether a site is legit.