[Tfug] OT: Dumping Comcast TV. Dish or Direct?

[Bexley Hall]

Hi Rocco,

--- On Tue, 9/29/09, Linux Media <linuxmedia2 at aim.com> wrote:

> One pointer to this probably not being true is that most of
> these places not only have the same shows, but exactly the
> same episodes of those shows. I'm thinking that these
> shows/episodes are on some kind of specific licence to be
> shown on all these sites.

<shrug>  And all of the Warez sites have the same pirated
copies of COPYRIGHTED software.  Does that imply that those
products are NOT copyrighted?  :<
 
> I was thinking that the fact that they all have commercials
> was a strong indication that things were legitimate. But
> that doesn't prove anything.
> 
> Believe me, I've made efforts to know what is legal and
> what isn't. But it's hard to get clear info about what sites
> have the right to show content. In fact I don't recall
> finding any info about any of these sites violating any
> laws.
> 
> I don't know if the courts see it this way... but I always
> thought it wasn't my responsibility to know if the guy on
> the corner is selling legitimate watches or if he stole

Sorry, that's not the case.  Ignorance is not a valid defense.
"Receiving stolen property", etc.  ("Sir, what made you think
that this GENUINE ROLEX WATCH *should* sell for $19.95 in a
dark alley located behind a jewelry store -- whose alarm bell
was ringing at the time?")

> them. That would mean that any kind of interaction with
> someone would mean conducting some research on the person.

Yes, it does!  For a really scarey experience, try going into
*business* with someone.  Same rules apply as those of marriage!
(though, presumably, you *love* the person you are marrying --
complete with their faults and liabilities)

> Could it be possible that the law sees each individual
> responsible to check out all content they run into on the
> internet? Seems it's the responsibility of the people
> showing the content to make sure it's legit.

Silly Rabbit...
 
> Well... what I "think" and what the law is are two
> different things. It's just too big of a subject to get a
> clear grasp on. And how would one find out for sure that a
> site has the right to show content?

Therein lies the Rub.  You don't.  Unless you go straight to
the horses mouth (e.g., ABC for chows copyrighted by ABC, etc.)

Of course, technically, ABC could have transfered the copyright
to CBS two days earlier -- which would mean your actions were
still, technically, illegal.  But, the Courts aren't idiots
and understand these sorts of circumstances.

Besides, in civil prosecutions, folks go after the person with
the deepest pockets (in this *particular* example).