Technology

59574 readers

3480 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

836

Five Men Convicted of Operating Massive, Illegal Streaming Service That Allegedly Had More Content Than Netflix, Hulu, Vudu and Prime Video Combined (variety.com)

submitted 5 months ago by TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.world

398 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This doesn’t seem that different from paying for usenet.

i would think it would be a little different from usenet, considering that usenet would be a service that you pay for, and people who use that service would host content on it, so that other users can download that content. Which effectively removes the immediate liability that you would have in this case, where you are explicitly hosting a pirated streaming service, and then charging for it, for the explicit purpose of streaming said pirated content.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, I suppose I should clarify - that was in response to the objection to paying for pirated content; it's different from the service provider's point of view, but from the end user's point of view, they're paying for pirated content either way.

[–] Grippler@feddit.dk 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I don't have an issue paying ISPs to access pirated content either, that's the same as paying for Usenet access IMO. You're paying for network access for a lot of different things, pirated content just happens to be part of it. Paying a streaming service specifically for pirated content is vastly different from paying for general network access, even from an end user perspective.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 months ago

yeah, from an end user perspective, it's the same.

But i was referring mostly to the legal technicalities there, where one would be significantly more spicy than the other.

Nice root instance btw, getting jumpscared by pawb.social is a rather funny timeline to live in.