GameCenter Live vs NHL Center Ice

[ReggieDunlop68]

For what it's worth, it's easy to see why laymen like Reggie would be confused about this. The law re: streaming is very convoluted.

Essentially, right now, for streaming to be illegal, you must either 1) be downloading the material (not just live streaming a sporting event or show) or 2) showing the unlicensed stream to a group of people (i.e. showing it in a bar).

Personal streaming of a live sporting event is simply not against the law.

This message board post is not meant to be construed as legal advice, not meant to be acted upon as legal advice, may not be current, and is subject to change without notice. It is my sole opinion and does not represent the views of my employer.

Laymen? LoL

Didn't you just recently finish law school you snot?

I'll have to actually read that case prior to accepting "the smackdown."

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Its one thing to be nervous about it being illegal, even though nothing would happen to him even it was, but the blind fear about your identity being stolen because of using hockey streams makes no sense at all.

Did you give them your credit card for the donation?

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Is that enough smackdown for you? Will you stop trying to scare posters away from a service that is better than both CI and GCL for many people?

You seem very worried, no?

 

[Beer League Sniper]

Did you give them your credit card for the donation?

Even laymen know that prepaid credit cards exist.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Even laymen know that prepaid credit cards exist.

Did all of you use pre-paid credit cards?

http://www.identityguard.com/identity-theft-resources/identity-theft/the-use-of-prepaid-debit-cards-to-facilitate-identity-theft-is-growing/

The use of prepaid debit cards to facilitate identity theft is growing

 

[Beer League Sniper]

You seem very worried, no?

I don't even know what this means.

Maybe I would be worried if there hadn't been posters using HS for 4 or 5 years with no problems. Maybe I would be worried if I didn't use a prepaid credit card to pay.

You were wrong. Get over it.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

I don't even know what this means.

Maybe I would be worried if there hadn't been posters using HS for 4 or 5 years with no problems. Maybe I would be worried if I didn't use a prepaid credit card to pay.

You were wrong. Get over it.

I'm not.

 

[Beer League Sniper]

Did all of you use pre-paid credit cards?

http://www.identityguard.com/identity-theft-resources/identity-theft/the-use-of-prepaid-debit-cards-to-facilitate-identity-theft-is-growing/

The use of prepaid debit cards to facilitate identity theft is growing

Did you even bother to READ that article?

That has literally nothing to do with paying for something online with a prepaid credit card. Thieves are using prepaid credit cards to transfer stolen tax returns to. That's all that article says. Completely immaterial to this discussion.

You've been intentionally misleading in almost every single thing you post. It's pathetic.

Edit: I googled "prepaid credit card identity theft," and that was literally the first link. You didn't even read the article and just posted it here. Nice try.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Did you even bother to READ that article?

That has literally nothing to do with paying for something online with a prepaid credit card. Thieves are using prepaid credit cards to transfer stolen tax returns to. That's all that article says. Completely immaterial to this discussion.

You've been intentionally misleading in almost every single thing you post. It's pathetic.

I read it. Pre-paid cards aren't fool proof. I doubt everyone used that method, so it's a valid concern.

 

[haohmaru]

Who cares? Stop polluting this thread and take it to PM's or something.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Laymen? LoL

Didn't you just recently finish law school you snot?

I'll have to actually read that case prior to accepting "the smackdown."

You mean three cases. Not just one. There are a whole slew of them. Furthermore, every interpretation of the DMCA/FCA I've seen suggests exactly what I do. Once again, nothing in the current FCA actually makes this illegal. There is no copying or interception as defined. This would be required as per the statute to make such an act illegal. Courts do not hold buffering to satisfy the requisite time required in order to satisfy the definitions.

Instead of just insulting me, why don't you provide your justification for why watching a live stream would be illegal? Please cite case law.

And yes. I did just graduate. Your point being? You should stop spreading fear and rumors in this thread without the proper knowledge. I've provided the knowledge to you, now.

Even if it WERE illegal, though.. can someone seriously believe the law will go after all the subscribers of the site? How would that be possible?

Theres just no reason at all to fear it.

Well, there would be a slim possibility. But it'd cost more to litigate the case than any real victory would be worth.

This message board post is not meant to be construed as legal advice, not meant to be acted upon as legal advice, may not be current, and is subject to change without notice. It is my sole opinion and does not represent the views of my employer.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

You mean three cases. Not just one. There are a whole slew of them. Furthermore, every interpretation of the DMCA/FCA I've seen suggests exactly what I do. Once again, nothing in the current FCA actually makes this illegal. There is no copying or interception as defined. This would be required as per the statute to make such an act illegal. Courts do not hold buffering to satisfy the requisite time required in order to satisfy the definitions.

Instead of just insulting me, why don't you provide your justification for why watching a live stream would be illegal? Please cite case law.

And yes. I did just graduate. Your point being? You should stop spreading fear and rumors in this thread without the proper knowledge. I've provided the knowledge to you, now.



Well, there would be a slim possibility. But it'd cost more to litigate the case than any real victory would be worth.

This message board post is not meant to be construed as legal advice, not meant to be acted upon as legal advice, may not be current, and is subject to change without notice. It is my sole opinion and does not represent the views of my employer.

In regard to the insult, what else would you expect from "a laymen like Reggie."

I'm glad you cited an actual case. I don't have access to that case, so I can't refute it, but it was from 2012.

The most that I will concede to is Hockey Streams is walking a very, very fine line. I searched for several cases of U.S. based sports streaming services that were indeed illegal and were raided. Hockey streams operates in the Netherlands, and their government has been very lax for piracy, but they are skating on very thin ice.

Online streams have been booming in popularity mainly due to cord cutters and how easy it is to obtain the streams. That being said, Hockey streams is at best walking a very thin line, or at worst a major target for the NHL and the pressure groups that focus on these forms of property, yet they don't have a strong enough case. The bigger they become, the bigger the target they will be.

And in regard to identity theft, I would be very leery of using a credit card or anything similar "to donate" to a foreign company that walks within the last letter of the law.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

In regard to the insult, what else would you expect from "a laymen like Reggie."

I'm glad you cited an actual case. I don't have access to that case, so I can't refute it, but it was from 2012.

The most that I will concede to is Hockey Streams is walking a very, very fine line. I searched for several cases of U.S. based sports streaming services that were indeed illegal and were raided. Hockey streams operates in the Netherlands, and their government has been very lax for piracy, but they are skating on very thin ice.

Online streams have been booming in popularity mainly due to cord cutters and how easy it is to obtain the streams. That being said, Hockey streams is at best walking a very thin line, or at worst a major target for the NHL and the pressure groups that focus on these forms of property, yet they don't have a strong enough case. The bigger they become, the bigger the target they will be.

And in regard to identity theft, I would be very leery of using a credit card or anything similar "to donate" to a foreign company that walks within the last letter of the law.

You do understand that layman is not an insulting term, correct? I meant no insult by it. No idea why you'd think I would have (I don't believe you're an attorney, but I may be wrong).

You're partially right. The services themselves are illegal sometimes. It depends on how they are getting and transmitting the signal. But there's a reason something like Justin.TV was found not to have violated the DMCA/FCA with regards to its streaming. The way that it transmitted the streams did not fall into the statute.

Watching a stream itself simply does not fall onto the side of illegal. This may change in a few years. It may stay the same. There was a big push to make them illegal a couple of years ago but it never went anywhere with the current Congress.

Not sure "but it was from 2012" means. There have not been many decisions on this issue at all. But the two biggest are Justin and ARK.

tldr: It's not illegal because it's not illegal.

This message board post is not meant to be construed as legal advice, not meant to be acted upon as legal advice, may not be current, and is subject to change without notice. It is my sole opinion and does not represent the views of my employer.

 

[patnyrnyg]

You do understand that layman is not an insulting term, correct? I meant no insult by it. No idea why you'd think I would have (I don't believe you're an attorney, but I may be wrong).

You're partially right. The services themselves are illegal sometimes. It depends on how they are getting and transmitting the signal. But there's a reason something like Justin.TV was found not to have violated the DMCA/FCA with regards to its streaming. The way that it transmitted the streams did not fall into the statute.

Watching a stream itself simply does not fall onto the side of illegal. This may change in a few years. It may stay the same. There was a big push to make them illegal a couple of years ago but it never went anywhere with the current Congress.

Not sure "but it was from 2012" means. There have not been many decisions on this issue at all. But the two biggest are Justin and ARK.

tldr: It's not illegal because it's not illegal.

This message board post is not meant to be construed as legal advice, not meant to be acted upon as legal advice, may not be current, and is subject to change without notice. It is my sole opinion and does not represent the views of my employer.

Not disputing what you are saying, but why was Aereo found to be illegal and how is hockey streams different?

 

[patnyrnyg]

Even if it WERE illegal, though.. can someone seriously believe the law will go after all the subscribers of the site? How would that be possible?

Theres just no reason at all to fear it.

Well, the cost would have to justify the reward. For them to go after hockey streams or subscribers, they would have to believe that those using hockey streams would begin using GCL or CI, if hockey streams were to go away or if enough fear was put into potential subcribers from using hockey streams.

On one hand, I can't see them ever believing that to be the case. On the other hand, these leagues have become so damn arrogant, that they might actually believe that everyone would pay for their product.

CBS has begun offering direct streaming (No NFL games, though). HBO will begin offering direct streaming in 2015. It is only a matter of time before all the networks are offering direct streaming. They know that a user can get anything they want online, there is nothing they can realistically do to prevent it. Yes, US sports streaming sites have been shut down, and they re-open a minute later with a new i.p. address. The benefit is no longer worth the fight. So, CBS and HBO have woken up and although not everyone will pay for their services, enough will. If MSG starts offering direct streaming, including live games, and the price was reasonable, I would pay for it. Traditional pay tv service is dying, and the networks will have to adapt or people will continue to steal their content.

 

[Hire Sather]

Did you give them your credit card for the donation?

Yes, I did. How is it any different from buying something on any website on the internet?

 

[Kane One]

Not disputing what you are saying, but why was Aereo found to be illegal and how is hockey streams different?

Aereo was hosted in the US.

 

[Ail]

Aereo was hosted in the US.

That and we are talking all major media networks versus the NHL, and at best maybe NBC/Rogers.

The magnitude is really not comparable.

 

[Beer League Sniper]

Aereo was hosted in the US.

And Aereo also gave you cloud storage for a DVR-type service, which is retransmission and subject to fees by the major networks. If not for the whole DVR element of their service, Aereo may have actually won. Their whole argument was that it was just like using the bunny ears antenna on your house, only remotely. They had server banks full of tiny antennas, one for each subscriber, to try and skirt the issue. The whole DVR playback issue is what eventually sunk them.

 

[Ail]

Yes, I did. How is it any different from buying something on any website on the internet?

Donation versus a purchase, but other than that nothing really. Donations are used by services like this to circumvent laws stating if people pay for the service, it is illegal, whereas if they donate to the cause willingly they are supporting the site, but not paying for content.

Also a donation is a gift and technically does not require a refund. However generally in this business model the site will reimburse donations as if they were a purchase if the donor is unhappy.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Not disputing what you are saying, but why was Aereo found to be illegal and how is hockey streams different?

Aereo was hosted in the US.

That and we are talking all major media networks versus the NHL, and at best maybe NBC/Rogers.

The magnitude is really not comparable.

I think all of the above can be answered/responded to with this post.

The main reason Aereo violates the law is that you are actually keeping copies of the programming. Plus, it's an actual company re-broadcasting the content for profit. There's a big difference between Aereo and watching an unlicensed stream that isn't saved on any device anywhere.

That's mainly why streaming is legal. You aren't downloading a copy and keeping/storing it. It may seem like a stupid and trivial difference (and, in all reality, it IS a stupid and trivial difference), but that's where we are at with current law regarding this. Right now, as long as you aren't saving the content or re-broadcasting it to people for profit (like in a bar or with Aereo), then you are not violating the DCMA/FCA right now. I would not expect this to stay like this forever, though. That's the big thing to remember.

Now, the actual COMPANY running Hockeystreams may be violating the law. Much like Aereo. Keep in mind that merely being outside of the US doesn't matter all that much since they are targeting US audience. The reach of US law (especially w/r/t internet crimes) extends when there is that type of targeting going on.

For me, as soon as the law is changed, I'll be ditching hockeystreams. Right now? Why would I? It's perfectly legal under the current state of the law. Right now, the end user is simply not in violation of anything.

This message board post is not meant to be construed as legal advice, not meant to be acted upon as legal advice, may not be current, and is subject to change without notice. It is my sole opinion and does not represent the views of my employer.

 

[patnyrnyg]

And Aereo also gave you cloud storage for a DVR-type service, which is retransmission and subject to fees by the major networks. If not for the whole DVR element of their service, Aereo may have actually won. Their whole argument was that it was just like using the bunny ears antenna on your house, only remotely. They had server banks full of tiny antennas, one for each subscriber, to try and skirt the issue. The whole DVR playback issue is what eventually sunk them.

Well, tivo now has a DVR exclusively for OTA, could they re-open without the dvr feature and tell people to get the tivo?

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Well, tivo now has a DVR exclusively for OTA, could they re-open without the dvr feature and tell people to get the tivo?

I doubt it. Simply because they are doing it for profit and unlicensed. It's touchy with over the air compared to cable, but I still think the answer is no.

This message board post is not meant to be construed as legal advice, not meant to be acted upon as legal advice, may not be current, and is subject to change without notice. It is my sole opinion and does not represent the views of my employer.

 

[patnyrnyg]

I doubt it. Simply because they are doing it for profit and unlicensed. It's touchy with over the air compared to cable, but I still think the answer is no.

This message board post is not meant to be construed as legal advice, not meant to be acted upon as legal advice, may not be current, and is subject to change without notice. It is my sole opinion and does not represent the views of my employer.

True, and I guess with CBS now offering streaming, they could argue that aereo is stealing the content (or whatever the technical term would be).

 

[the fife flyer]

Who cares? Stop polluting this thread and take it to PM's or something.

The best thing I`ve read in two pages of BS.