[speedwell68]

Yesterday I got a strange phonecall from out local Reverend.

Him: Do you know Kodi?
Me: I'm no expert but I suppose I know Kodi.
Him: Can I run it on my Mac?
Me: Yep, just download and install it.
Him: Brilliant, thanks.

So, about 20 minutes later the phone rings again...

Him: Hi, I installed it but it isn't working properly.
Me: How so?
Him:  There are no streams.
Me: There won't be you have to install addons to get content to stream.
Him: Oh, right.
Me: Go to the addons section and work it out from there, it is quite obvious how it works.
Him:  Ok, thanks.

10 minutes pass...

Him: I can't find an addon for what I want.
Me:  What do you want?
Him: The NFL.
Me:  That will be a subscription service,  there might not be an addon for that.
Him:  I haven't got a subscription.  Someone told me that it'll be on Kodi for free.
Me: There might be a moody addon available on the net.  But I honestly don't know where from and how it works.  It'll be against the law.
Him: I'm not worried about that.
Me:  Well I don't know how you go about it.  Ask the guy that told you what addon he uses, but I wouldn't recommend any of those addons as they often have a negative effect on your system.

I never heard back from him.  So it seems that ripping off content has become so socially acceptable that the clergy are at it.  Obviously I could have got him what he wanted after 10 seconds on Google, but there was no way I was going to.  Maybe I will go to heaven afterall.

[jjd-uk]

Yesterday I got a strange phonecall from out local Reverend.

Obviously needs a refresher course on the Ten Commandments including "Thou shalt not steal".

[speedwell68]

Yesterday I got a strange phonecall from out local Reverend.

Obviously needs a refresher course on the Ten Commandants including "Thou shalt not steal".  

Legally he isn't stealing.  People just don't see it as wrong.  Because it is on the internet getting something for nothing is what it is all about.  But, yeah it shocked me that a guy in his position wouldn't care about breaking the law.

[jjd-uk]

If you take something without permission from the owner, then in my book that's stealing

[Testkees]

Here are your 10 TWO commandments...  George Carlin - 10 Commandments 

[speedwell68]

If you take something without permission from the owner, then in my book that's stealing

 Theft is to deprive someone of property.  That hasn't happened as they still have their copy of the game.  This is defrauding someone of their earnings, seemingly a whole different kettle of marmots.

Still wrong in my view.

[scott967]

I suspect the problem may be this:

Individual knows that NFL games are available from OTA and you can watch it, record it and play back later, etc without any payment whatsoever.  So the question is means of delivery.  Individual is expected to understand that streaming <> OTA broadcast.  My personal view is that if you try to convince John Q Public that how you get the bits might impact if viewing is infringing or not, he's going to go away scratching his head.   NFL game is not what most Americans consider "premium content" that's only available with paid subscription.

scott s.
.

[tjay260476]

I teach IT to adults, and unfortunately I hear this kind of thing all the time, including the theft/loss of earnings discussion here, my manager and I both agree that the problem is that joe public, or in this case vicar joe doesn’t get piracy/copyright law, even at a basic level, and just because it’s free on the interweb and a simple use of the Google can account for that, doesn’t mean it’s not theft/loss of earnings.

Although the man of the cloth has one trick up his sleeve, either a quick prayer or a confessional will mean he is free of his sin of watching a free NFL game 😂

[natethomas]

To be fair to the reverend, it IS pretty absurd that you can get NFL for free if you use OTA, but you can't get it for free via streaming. There're no special, magical properties associated with streaming that make one different than another.

[speedwell68]

To be fair to the reverend, it IS pretty absurd that you can get NFL for free if you use OTA, but you can't get it for free via streaming. There're no special, magical properties associated with streaming that make one different than another.

 I'm not in the US.  In the UK NFL is a mucho premium service.  You can get highlights on the BBC, but even that costs £147 a year to view.

[natethomas]

To be fair to the reverend, it IS pretty absurd that you can get NFL for free if you use OTA, but you can't get it for free via streaming. There're no special, magical properties associated with streaming that make one different than another.

 I'm not in the US.  In the UK NFL is a mucho premium service.  You can get highlights on the BBC, but even that costs £147 a year to view. 

Oh yup, different situation then.

[speedwell68]

To be fair to the reverend, it IS pretty absurd that you can get NFL for free if you use OTA, but you can't get it for free via streaming. There're no special, magical properties associated with streaming that make one different than another.

 I'm not in the US.  In the UK NFL is a mucho premium service.  You can get highlights on the BBC, but even that costs £147 a year to view.  

Oh yup, different situation then. 

Yep.

The real point to this thread was to show how big the moody streaming epidemic has become.  Perfectly law abiding people see no problem with it.  It is almost like it is perceived as a victimless crime, like a car parking offence or similar.

[kennywayne07]

To be fair to the reverend, it IS pretty absurd that you can get NFL for free if you use OTA, but you can't get it for free via streaming. There're no special, magical properties associated with streaming that make one different than another.

 Not all NFL games are available OTA though. Some, I believe only Monday Night Football, are available only on ESPN. Even then, I also think it is absurd that the OTA games aren't available for free via streaming.

[Diskotechjam]

I teach IT to adults, and unfortunately I hear this kind of thing all the time, including the theft/loss of earnings discussion here, my manager and I both agree that the problem is that joe public, or in this case vicar joe doesn’t get piracy/copyright law, even at a basic level, and just because it’s free on the interweb and a simple use of the Google can account for that, doesn’t mean it’s not theft/loss of earnings.

Although the man of the cloth has one trick up his sleeve, either a quick prayer or a confessional will mean he is free of his sin of watching a free NFL game 😂

To be fair to the general public, the uncertainty of how copyright law is actually applied makes it extremely difficult to know where to draw the line. For example, we all know that the only add-on you need to "pirate" material with kodi is Youtube.  Can you stream any content any time you want? No. But make no mistake there is a lot of complete copyrighted content on youtube that simply cannot be justified as fair use. So why are we allowed to talk about a Youtube addon while other addons are banned? They both enable copyright infringement. Well, the reason why is because Google owns Youtube, and Google is powerful.  And the people with their copyright content on youtube are often not powerful, or maybe they are unaware, or maybe the sole owner of the copyright is unclear, or maybe they just don't care. Maybe we say its ok because that content is of no monetary value. Well, how do we know that? I mean, youtube is benefiting by keeping people on their site watching videos, normally an outlet would have to pay the copyright holder for that content, so basically by definition, the copyright holder is being denied money. Not too mention, what about services that are "legit" and actually pay artists. Are services like spotify and pandora really compensating copyright holders fairly? No.

The point is, before you blame the ignorance of the general public about copyright law, perhaps think about how loosely copyright law is applied in general.

[speedwell68]

I teach IT to adults, and unfortunately I hear this kind of thing all the time, including the theft/loss of earnings discussion here, my manager and I both agree that the problem is that joe public, or in this case vicar joe doesn’t get piracy/copyright law, even at a basic level, and just because it’s free on the interweb and a simple use of the Google can account for that, doesn’t mean it’s not theft/loss of earnings.

Although the man of the cloth has one trick up his sleeve, either a quick prayer or a confessional will mean he is free of his sin of watching a free NFL game 😂

To be fair to the general public, the uncertainty of how copyright law is actually applied makes it extremely difficult to know where to draw the line. For example, we all know that the only add-on you need to "pirate" material with kodi is Youtube.  Can you stream any content any time you want? No. But make no mistake there is a lot of complete copyrighted content on youtube that simply cannot be justified as fair use. So why are we allowed to talk about a Youtube addon while other addons are banned? They both enable copyright infringement. Well, the reason why is because Google owns Youtube, and Google is powerful.  And the people with their copyright content on youtube are often not powerful, or maybe they are unaware, or maybe the sole owner of the copyright is unclear, or maybe they just don't care. Maybe we say its ok because that content is of no monetary value. Well, how do we know that? I mean, youtube is benefiting by keeping people on their site watching videos, normally an outlet would have to pay the copyright holder for that content, so basically by definition, the copyright holder is being denied money. Not too mention, what about services that are "legit" and actually pay artists. Are services like spotify and pandora really compensating copyright holders fairly? No.

The point is, before you blame the ignorance of the general public about copyright law, perhaps think about how loosely copyright law is applied in general. 

Exactly.  I am guilty of watching pirated content on YouTube.  I think everybody is.  When I load a video on YouTube my first thought isn't "has the copyright holder be properly renumerated for this video?".  Also, the end user is never pursued.  If there was a negative consequence for the consumer then things might change, but there isn't and there won't be.