HBO Getting Serious About Game Of Thrones Piracy

So don't watch it? No one in America gets to Watch GoT on a basic cable package either. HBO is usually included in a package with a few other movie channels for a not cheap price.

You have access to HBO Now, which Canadians can't get.
 
No one said free or cheap... we want the same price you pay. Not a 2 or 3x premium because where 20min to 2 hrs north of you. :)
Yup, this exactly. I cut the cord along time ago as it cost me $100/month for a few channels i did want. I dont want to pay hundreds just to watch 1 show. Give me a fair option to stream it to my ps4/xbox one and ill pay $10-$15 a month for hbo
 
Seriously, get it into your head, piracy IS illegal. Arguing between stealing and copyright infringement is semantics, they both are illegal. Photographing an exhibit is a false correlation, the two are not remotely equal. Also, in a number of museums, photography is strictly forbidden, so that is a double whammy on your argument.

Really is it Illegal ? People need to understand in what way it is "Illegal"... can you be sent to prison/jail for downloading and watching a TV show. The answer is NO. It is not a criminal offense. It is a civil offense to break a copyright sure and if they are willing to bring suit and seek civil remedy they can be awarded financial compensation... and that is all.

I wish people would stop using the word illegal... when the proper term is. "Possibly civilly liable" lol

The easy test is this... if it is a CRIMINAL offense you are charged by the State / Province / Federal Gov and when you are called to court it will be the ... State of X Vs You, or the Queen vs You here in Canada....

with a Civil case (which is NOT a criminal code violation) the summons is going to say Rights holder vs You... if you loose you will not go to prison you will not have a CRIMINAL record. You will still be allowed to get a passport. ;) haha

On the other hand if you steal a choco bar from the corner store and the police catch you... you will have a criminal record you can possibly go to jail and if your convicted no other country will allow your thieving self over their boarder.
 
Last edited:
You can always... read the books.

With a little searching you can find the real paper books used for $1 or less at your local church/community sales.

Read the books, started when the first one was released in the 90s and own every single one in Hardcover, which I bought new for ~$30 a copy.
 
Yup, this exactly. I cut the cord along time ago as it cost me $100/month for a few channels i did want. I dont want to pay hundreds just to watch 1 show. Give me a fair option to stream it to my ps4/xbox one and ill pay $10-$15 a month for hbo

I have a cable/internet deal in MD, which I then use via proxy from Alaska, for about $80 a month. This includes local channels, HBO, Stars, Cinemax, and Showtime. I also get 80/80 internet...which means nothing to me here in Alaska. I have one cable box due to it being a requirement. However, I use my roku almost exclusively.

The only annoyance I face is that the Roku apps tend to require a "revalidation" every few weeks.

I pay $125 a month for 15/1 internet in Alaska. Sucks in comparison.

-----

On the topic of "stealing."

I always find it funny the mental gymnastics that people do to justify theft. A spade is a spade. Changing the terms to suit an agenda is simply a justification. Own it and move on. I'm sure your God or whatever will forgive you.
 
On the topic of "stealing."

I always find it funny the mental gymnastics that people do to justify theft. A spade is a spade. Changing the terms to suit an agenda is simply a justification. Own it and move on. I'm sure your God or whatever will forgive you.

From what I'm reading, they aren't justifying it. They are saying it's not theft. It's still wrong, no one has denied that. It's just not theft, technically.
 
You can always... read the books.

With a little searching you can find the real paper books used for $1 or less at your local church/community sales.

I have loaned out my Ice and fire books at least 5 or 6 times each... wait that means I am stealing right. Man I hope I don't get caught and go to prison.
 
The moral/legal problem with piracy is that pirates undercut publishers by copying something without owning the copy rights, and without generally having to play by the same rules and assumptions that publishers do. Even if every single person that downloaded something purchased it afterwards, it would hurt the company in the eyes of investors because the idea that the laws are not enforced and the publisher's role in distribution is diminished would still hurt the bottom line. Also, having access to the full movie could potentially hurt advertisers and people who make trailers because their services will have less of an impact on whether people buy the movie... they'll just "try before the buy," and render an entire industry irrelevant.

You could make an argument for abolishing copyright (and people who feel strongly about it should certainly lobby against it), but until it is abolished, it's unfair to publishers for pirates to get away with undercutting them due to not having to play by the same rules. It limits their ability to set prices and control supply, and hurts their overall profits as a result.
 
This is what I heard...wah wah wah, I want what I want and I want it now...for free or cheap.

Thats odd. What I heard was that he wants to pay the going rate of 15 USD that most can get it for, but not 2400 CAD to watch it.

Seems pretty resonable. Especially when providers force you to get a certain tier of service just to subscribe to HBO. I'm happily planning my switch from cable TV to netflix hulu and HBO Now.
 
Really is it Illegal ? People need to understand in what way it is "Illegal"... can you be sent to prison/jail for downloading and watching a TV show. The answer is NO. It is not a criminal offense. It is a civil offense to break a copyright sure and if they are willing to bring suit and seek civil remedy they can be awarded financial compensation... and that is all.

I wish people would stop using the word illegal... when the proper term is. "Possibly civilly liable" lol

The easy test is this... if it is a CRIMINAL offense you are charged by the State / Province / Federal Gov and when you are called to court it will be the ... State of X Vs You, or the Queen vs You here in Canada....

with a Civil case (which is NOT a criminal code violation) the summons is going to say Rights holder vs You... if you loose you will not go to prison you will not have a CRIMINAL record. You will still be allowed to get a passport. ;) haha

On the other hand if you steal a choco bar from the corner store and the police catch you... you will have a criminal record you can possibly go to jail and if your convicted no other country will allow your thieving self over their boarder.


Umm...right. I think you really should do more research on the entire topic before making such claims. Copyright Infringement is still based on federal law. Breaking that law still makes it an illegal act, so is it illegal? Yes. The penalty could be anything from nothing, to $150,000, or even potentially jail time depending on what all is involved in the process. For most users at home, are they going to see jail time? No, they are likely going to see monetary penalties. Does that make it "legal"? No, it is still illegal. It is illegal to speed, but you are not likely going to be arrested for it or go to jail for it.
 
I did read and it doesn't change much. He's paying for a service and he doesn't get what he wants, so why is he paying for the service? If HBO Now is not an option for Canadians, that's a bummer of a deal and he has my sympathy on GoT being excluded. That doesn't make him right to just go and pirate it. He can always wait and buy the DVDs if it's that important to him.

But I get it, we live in a world where everyone is entitled to anything they want, when they want it and because technology does all the work for them, they can just skirt around anything that holds them back.

He said he was paying for the service in general, with GoT being excluded, not that he bought it specifically for GoT.
I don't blame him for pirating it, it's not like he has many options. Then he's the bad guy, yet the providers charging out of the ass aren't?

Don't act like there hasn't been shit you've not wanted on day one, whether it be a product or show, because everyone has something they enjoy. You're full of shit if you say otherwise.
 
Umm...right. I think you really should do more research on the entire topic before making such claims. Copyright Infringement is still based on federal law. Breaking that law still makes it an illegal act, so is it illegal? Yes. The penalty could be anything from nothing, to $150,000, or even potentially jail time depending on what all is involved in the process. For most users at home, are they going to see jail time? No, they are likely going to see monetary penalties. Does that make it "legal"? No, it is still illegal. It is illegal to speed, but you are not likely going to be arrested for it or go to jail for it.

You are talking about DISTRIBUTION remedies in such a law. The reason most people in the US pay up when threatened is because they have bought the propaganda surrounding this issue. The federal gov in your country and mine do pass civil laws, they are intended to protect specific industries. Again the simple test is... if you get a summons that doesn't list the Federal or State/Provincial gov it is 100% a civil case. If you get a threat from a rights holder it is a CIVIL threat... if there was criminal wrong doing they would be expected to refer the case to the proper authorities with the power to lay charges and arrest.

If you are going to get hit by a distribution level case that is entirely different and yes some countries in the world do have criminal offense charges that can be laid in those cases, people that get hit for that will be arrested by actual police and their court case is going to say... The Federal Gov VS sucka.

In the case of driving, speeding is a criminal act sure. The remedies for something like speeding are minor. However if you where to commit a great crime while in the act of speeding yes you can go to jail. Speeding away from a robbery for instance is a felony in most countries (not sure about the US but it is on the books in Canada). Last time I checked you can't use "Illegal Downloading" as an aggravating offense anywhere in the world. You can't use any CIVIL offense as an aggravating offense.
 
Last edited:
Seriously get it into your head already piracy is not stelaing. I swear people today have completely lost their marbles. It's called piracy for a reason. It's not theft. But the MPAA propaganda bullshit equating it to theft seems to be working well. If piracy is stealing, then photographing an exhibit in a museum is stealing too.

Exactly. Sure it deprives HBO and any workers that get a piece of the profits of money, but it's not stealing. It's just taking an item that's for sale and not paying for it. That's not stealing.
 
Umm...right. I think you really should do more research on the entire topic before making such claims. Copyright Infringement is still based on federal law. Breaking that law still makes it an illegal act, so is it illegal? Yes. The penalty could be anything from nothing, to $150,000, or even potentially jail time depending on what all is involved in the process. For most users at home, are they going to see jail time? No, they are likely going to see monetary penalties. Does that make it "legal"? No, it is still illegal. It is illegal to speed, but you are not likely going to be arrested for it or go to jail for it.

No, it couldn't. Fines in Canada are capped at $5000 and jail time is not on the table.

The maximum statutory damages of C$5000 is for all infringements (not per infringement)
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, local moneygrubbingrightsholderbullshit precludes me from using HBO in my country.

That said, they're not doing a very thorough job to uhh.. combat this issue.
 
You can always... read the books.

With a little searching you can find the real paper books used for $1 or less at your local church/community sales.

The show has past the book and at the rate GRRM is writing them I doubt they'll ever be finished. Also book 4 & 5 were boring as hell. Show is much better IMO.
 
No, it couldn't. Fines in Canada are capped at $5000 and jail time is not on the table.

Typically those are capped per incident. In the US, the cap is $150,000 which is why I specifically mentioned it. It could also result in jail time depending on the situation, for instance if you were using torrent, and ended up uploading the content to someone else, which could be considered distribution. Or if you fail to pay a fine, or any number of other possibilities involved in the acts of copying said work.

Seriously, you guys keep trying to find every little crack and crevice here to try and justify something that is illegal.

You are talking about DISTRIBUTION remedies in such a law. The reason most people in the US pay up when threatened is because they have bought the propaganda surrounding this issue. The federal gov in your country and mine do pass civil laws, they are intended to protect specific industries. Again the simple test is... if you get a summons that doesn't list the Federal or State/Provincial gov it is 100% a civil case. If you get a threat from a rights holder it is a CIVIL threat... if there was criminal wrong doing they would be expected to refer the case to the proper authorities with the power to lay charges and arrest.

If you are going to get hit by a distribution level case that is entirely different and yes some countries in the world do have criminal offense charges that can be laid in those cases, people that get hit for that will be arrested by actual police and their court case is going to say... The Federal Gov VS sucka.

In the case of driving, speeding is a criminal act sure. The remedies for something like speeding are minor. However if you where to commit a great crime while in the act of speeding yes you can go to jail. Speeding away from a robbery for instance is a felony in most countries (not sure about the US but it is on the books in Canada). Last time I checked you can't use "Illegal Downloading" as an aggravating offense anywhere in the world. You can't use any CIVIL offense as an aggravating offense.

Yet again, you need more research. Legality of it is not based on distribution. You receive a fine, because what you did was illegal. If it was not illegal, then why would you even receive a fine? Also failure to pay the fine could result in further punishment.
 
Umm...right. I think you really should do more research on the entire topic before making such claims. Copyright Infringement is still based on federal law. Breaking that law still makes it an illegal act, so is it illegal? Yes. The penalty could be anything from nothing, to $150,000, or even potentially jail time depending on what all is involved in the process. For most users at home, are they going to see jail time? No, they are likely going to see monetary penalties. Does that make it "legal"? No, it is still illegal. It is illegal to speed, but you are not likely going to be arrested for it or go to jail for it.

Yet again, you need more research. Legality of it is not based on distribution. You receive a fine, because what you did was illegal. If it was not illegal, then why would you even receive a fine? Also failure to pay the fine could result in further punishment.

Your point?

No one is saying that it isn't illegal. What they are saying that it isn't theft/stealing. We have a clear definition of what constitutes theft and a clear definition of what constitutes copyright infringement. With that being said, you are incorrect when you keep referring to them as though they are one in the same because they aren't. What we're talking about here is also not piracy as piracy is defined as murder and pillage on the high seas. It has nothing to do with intellectual property or copyright law.
 
You are talking about DISTRIBUTION remedies in such a law. The reason most people in the US pay up when threatened is because they have bought the propaganda surrounding this issue. The federal gov in your country and mine do pass civil laws, they are intended to protect specific industries. Again the simple test is... if you get a summons that doesn't list the Federal or State/Provincial gov it is 100% a civil case. If you get a threat from a rights holder it is a CIVIL threat... if there was criminal wrong doing as REQUIRED by law almost everywhere they would be expected to refer the case to the proper authorities with the power to lay charges and arrest.

If you are going to get hit by a distribution level case that is entirely different and yes some countries in the world do have criminal offense charges that can be laid in those cases, people that get hit for that will be arrested by actual police and their court case is going to say... The Federal Gov VS sucka.
No, it couldn't. Fines in Canada are capped at $5000 and jail time is not on the table.

The Canadian government has made it clear they will not abide the demand letter brigade here. This is a quote from the Canadian governments industry page describing the intent of the bill limiting awards;
"The Bill ensures that Canadians are not subject to unreasonable penalties by significantly reducing statutory damages for infringement for non-commercial purposes by individuals, providing the courts with the flexibility to award between $100 and $5,000 in total damages. Using the same example of five illegally downloaded songs, the individual would only be liable for a penalty of between $100 and $5,000 under the proposed changes. The Bill will ensure that courts take proportionality into account in awarding damages."

The law is very specific... a company can't sue for multiple instances seeking the max payout for every infringing case. Meaning if I download 10 songs off an album they can't seek 5k x 10... that also applies to TV shows. Canadian judges have also been very good at protecting common sense. The few awards they have handed out at this point have tended to be around the $100 mark... as arguing a show that can be purchased on a disc for 15 bucks somehow warrants a massive penalty is silly. Most of the major American rights holders have backed off, realizing they are unable to bully our courts into acting like their own inexpensive gestapo. In fact a few of them like... cough *voltage* have been told in very direct terms by our judges that what they have been doing is illegal. There is talk here of actually charging a few of the US petitioners with actual Canadian laws... as they have abused our Notice system to send illegal settlement demands. (it is 100% not legal in Canada to threaten someone with legal action if they don't pay up... it falls under our extortion legislation, and no I'm not exaggerating at all... ceg tek ended up in a Canadian court where a Canadian judge warned them to end the practice or the the judge was going to refer the case for criminal action.)
 
Yet again, you need more research. Legality of it is not based on distribution. You receive a fine, because what you did was illegal. If it was not illegal, then why would you even receive a fine? Also failure to pay the fine could result in further punishment.

In Canada it isn't a FINE... its a civil award (ie damages). If your laws are different you should likely be talking to your political types about working for you and your fellow citizens instead of any specific industry.
 
Seriously, get it into your head, piracy IS illegal. Arguing between stealing and copyright infringement is semantics, they both are illegal. Photographing an exhibit is a false correlation, the two are not remotely equal. Also, in a number of museums, photography is strictly forbidden, so that is a double whammy on your argument.
Then lest just call everything that's illegal rape. Just because stealing a mars bar from a shop and premeditated killing are both illegal doesn't make them equal.

As for the other part you fell on your own sword. I'll let you think on that some more. Being prohibited is exactly why it works as an analogy to piracy. Copying copyrighted material is prohibited, stealing is prohibited, and taking photographs in most museums is prohibited, and yet they are not the same thing.
 
Then lest just call everything that's illegal rape. Just because stealing a mars bar from a shop and premeditated killing are both illegal doesn't make them equal.
How is that even remotely relevant or at all applicable? My argument was the legality of something, not its severity. I did not equate copyright infringement to any serious crime at all. I simple stated facts, which was that it was illegal. So I have no idea where you even get off trying to make these comparisons?


As for the other part you fell on your own sword. I'll let you think on that some more. Being prohibited is exactly why it works as an analogy to piracy. Copying copyrighted material is prohibited, stealing is prohibited, and taking photographs in most museums is prohibited, and yet they are not the same thing.

I fail to see your point here? Again the comparison was to legality, not being exactly the same. I was not the one that made the comparison of copyright infringement to taking pictures in a museum. Someone else went down that road and I merely pointed out the absurdity of their comparison. So I thank you for trying to continue what I started there.
 
So according to you, arguing between murder and jaywalking is semantics too because they're both illegal?

Worst logic I've ever heard.

Lol, I love how you guys get so far off track. Again there was not equating of the severity, just the legality. Someone was arguing that piracy was not illegal. My point was that it was illegal. Where you guys get off trying to bring in severity and murder and rape and all that crap is laughable.
 
Your point?

No one is saying that it isn't illegal. What they are saying that it isn't theft/stealing. We have a clear definition of what constitutes theft and a clear definition of what constitutes copyright infringement. With that being said, you are incorrect when you keep referring to them as though they are one in the same because they aren't. What we're talking about here is also not piracy as piracy is defined as murder and pillage on the high seas. It has nothing to do with intellectual property or copyright law.

Actually yes, ChadD was very clearly trying to say it was not illegal. I refer you to post #43. Also I was not arguing that Copyright Infringement was theft or stealing. I was saying that it was illegal. That my point was the legality of the action. EDIT: I did originally mention stealing, which sent us down this rabbit hole, but the point was the legality of the action.

Again here are a bunch of people arguing over semantics trying to take away from the point which was that it was illegal and the suggestion was that someone do something illegal because they cannot obtain the content they want right now for a price they deemed fair. Really all the arguments to the contrary are getting completely ridiculous.
 
Damn, here we go again. :p

Tell you what, call me "entitled," don't care. Tell me I'm breaking a law, don't care. I no longer buy in to the copyright propagenda again. Technology does make a difference. It impacted the mail system, how we get news, how we listen to music, and now how we watch movies and TV. The cable and movie industry hasn't kept up. Feel sorry for them I do not.
 
Lol, I love how you guys get so far off track. Again there was not equating of the severity, just the legality. Someone was arguing that piracy was not illegal. My point was that it was illegal. Where you guys get off trying to bring in severity and murder and rape and all that crap is laughable.

I fail to see where someone claimed it was not illegal, just that it was not theft. Which is true, by definition it is not theft. Nowhere in the post you quoted do I see any mention of the legality.

If anything is off track it's because you are forcing it off track.
 
Damn, here we go again. :p

Tell you what, call me "entitled," don't care. Tell me I'm breaking a law, don't care. I no longer buy in to the copyright propagenda again. Technology does make a difference. It impacted the mail system, how we get news, how we listen to music, and now how we watch movies and TV. The cable and movie industry hasn't kept up. Feel sorry for them I do not.

And that's what kills me. I'm sitting here, wallet open, pleading for them to take my money so I can consume their product, but they won't take it. They don't want it unless they can sell me a different product that I desperately don't want.
 
I fail to see where someone claimed it was not illegal, just that it was not theft. Which is true, by definition it is not theft. Nowhere in the post you quoted do I see any mention of the legality.

If anything is off track it's because you are forcing it off track.

Again, I point you to post #43, and since you don't seem to be able to go and find it and read it yourself, I will quote:

Really is it Illegal ? People need to understand in what way it is "Illegal"... can you be sent to prison/jail for downloading and watching a TV show. The answer is NO. It is not a criminal offense. It is a civil offense to break a copyright sure and if they are willing to bring suit and seek civil remedy they can be awarded financial compensation... and that is all.

I wish people would stop using the word illegal... when the proper term is. "Possibly civilly liable" lol

He was trying to say it's not really illegal, at best it is civilly liable. Illegal is illegal. That was my point. What you and others are now trying to do is equate that to me saying everything illegal is the same, which it is not, nor did I ever say that or insinuate it.
 
And that's what kills me. I'm sitting here, wallet open, pleading for them to take my money so I can consume their product, but they won't take it. They don't want it unless they can sell me a different product that I desperately don't want.

Yeah it certainly sucks, especially that you can't get HBO Now. But it's not that HBO can't take your money, it's more like they don't have a proper vector in your area to offer you the services you want yet.

Damn, here we go again. :p

Tell you what, call me "entitled," don't care. Tell me I'm breaking a law, don't care. I no longer buy in to the copyright propagenda again. Technology does make a difference. It impacted the mail system, how we get news, how we listen to music, and now how we watch movies and TV. The cable and movie industry hasn't kept up. Feel sorry for them I do not.

Many people and companies are slow to adapt, mostly because no one really knows what a new system is going to look like. HBO is trying out the Go and Now options, which I believe is still ahead of their respective market currently (that being movie subscription channels). It would be nice if the whole entertainment industry could more easily transition to a different model. At least we are starting to see more of that with Twitch and Youtube and the like. Also with Amazon and Netflix creating their own content, I believe that is also helping push the industry a bit. But the problem is there is a lot of money going into producing something as high quality as Game of Thrones on HBO. I don't think anyone has found a safe way to monetize that in a different format than the current subscription models.

Perhaps the future will have HBO giving options for paying for original content separately, perhaps a per episode/season or even per series basis. But how do you monitor that? HBO would then have to pay for all the resources to either stream that themselves, or for someone else to stream it for them. And if the major cable companies aren't on board, that could really hurt their relationship with the hand that has been feeding them for decades.
 
I have no problem with torrenting stuff .
the day Netflix was made available in my country i subscribed even though i can download everything for for, if i could subscribe to HBO streaming in the same way i would .
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this
Actually yes, ChadD was very clearly trying to say it was not illegal. I refer you to post #43. Also I was not arguing that Copyright Infringement was theft or stealing. I was saying that it was illegal. That my point was the legality of the action. EDIT: I did originally mention stealing, which sent us down this rabbit hole, but the point was the legality of the action.

Again here are a bunch of people arguing over semantics trying to take away from the point which was that it was illegal and the suggestion was that someone do something illegal because they cannot obtain the content they want right now for a price they deemed fair. Really all the arguments to the contrary are getting completely ridiculous.

Your correct I was saying it is not illegal... and in Canada at least I am correct. It is not illegal. A rights holder in Canada can seek civil dispensation... that doesn't make the act illegal. Its on par with a breach of contract suit in Canada. The awards are legislated in Canada, just as they are in many other Civil situations. There are legal limits imposed in regard to employment laws as well... that hardly makes breaches of such civil statue "Illegal" behaviour. Perhaps that is a bad example as employers can be found criminally responsible in some cases of labour law. Anyway my point stands. In Canada copyright cases fall under a very strict statue that is civil in nature... there is no "criminal" wrong doing involved in such cases, its a civil breach. Just as if you where suing someone for owing you money, its not a criminal offense where the local police or the RCMP or CSIS is going to come and break down your door and haul you off to debtors prison.

In the entire history of Canadian law regarding the issue the only time a Judge ever threatened to elevate a case to a criminal court... was in response to American companies that where illegally attempting to extort Canadians. After the judge admonished them and dismissed that particular civil case the American company in question has not pursued anyone in Canada. They where one wrong argument away from having the Canadian Gov bring extortion charges. (cause regardless of country, sending demand letters with a threat of court action unless payment is remitted does fit the description of the crime of extortion and in many places the statute as well... I won't claim to know if that charge would be possible in the US I doubt it would be as it seems most of your laws are bought and paid for)
 
Last edited:
Your correct I was saying it is not illegal... and in Canada at least I am correct. It is not illegal. A rights holder in Canada can seek civil dispensation... that doesn't make the act illegal. Its on par with a breach of contract suit in Canada. The awards are legislated in Canada, just as they are in many other Civil situations. There are legal limits imposed in regard to employment laws as well... that hardly makes breaches of such civil statue "Illegal" behaviour. Perhaps that is a bad example as employers can be found criminally responsible in some cases of labour law. Anyway my point stands. In Canada copyright cases fall under a very strict statue that is civil in nature... there is no "criminal" wrong doing involved in such cases, its a civil breach. Just as if you where suing someone for owing you money, its not a criminal offense where the local police or the RCMP or CSIS is going to come and break down your door and haul you off to debtors prison.

According to the Copyright Modernization Act it is illegal. Also the $5000 limit is not all encompassing. Again, like many things it depends on the situation. Apparently the rights-holder can elect to pursue actual damages which could be more than the $5000 limit. Of course then they would have to go through a lengthy trial and prove the actual damages they are trying to collect. However, this would also mean the defender would have to pay more to defend themselves and the rights-holder has the option at any point before judgement is determined to instead request statutory damages which are far, far easier to prove now. Instead of going through that, they can agree to statutory damages, but they cannot be more than $5000.

Also according to this new law that Canada made, its actually more likely for a Canadian citizen to be served and required to pay damages for downloading content. So it seems to be a double edged sword, on the one hand they did greatly reduce statutory damages, but on the other hand it is not nearly as difficult to prove or request statutory damages as actual damages which is required in other countries. Also it seems to be far easily for rights-holders to request take downs of ISPs and more severe penalties for ISPs for not sending on notices to its users or complying with the laws.
 
I think NeoNemesis is saying that HBO is missing out on a lot of potential $$$.
And that should be a perfectly fine decision that the executives at HBO get to make. He does not get to make the call on how HBO markets.

Seriously, he said he wants to watch it, and would gladly pay for a service but he can't without having massive fees shoved down his throat. Why's that mean he has to pass on the show?
Settle the fuck down bros.
They're not massive fees, they're other channels which is how the cable service can even operate in the first place, if a large portion of users only wanted to pay for HBO al a carte, then guess what? then HBO would cost a non-insignificant more than $15/month. And that's why he has to pass on the show, look I get it, you want something and want to pay a price that YOU feel is fair for it, but since they're unwilling to sell for the price he wants his only option is to pirate it? It's a fucking TV show, don't watch it!!! I would love to catch a few other football games too, but I'm unwilling to pay the prices they want for the NFL pass channels and all that shit, so I should be able to pirate that, because fuck them I pay for standard cable channels including ESPN, they shouldn't have extra tiers of channels that cost more!!!!

He just said the service he PAYS for includes everything and omits GoT. Fucking read.
So he should pay an additional fee for HBO, whilst everything else is included with a Bell streaming subscription? That's ridiculous.
He pays for *A* service that is *NOT* HBO, explain to me again why he should be upset? HBO owns the rights to the show they produce, they get to dictate the terms at which it gets distributed, and the cable companies get to dictate how much of a package you need to have to watch. Again it's a god damn TV show, his life will go on if he doesn't watch it regardless of how good people feel it might be.

Lets just look at it this way, I just paid $20 to get into a national park, you're telling me Disneyland isn't included in that ticket price? WTF, I'm climbing the gates!
 
According to the Copyright Modernization Act it is illegal. Also the $5000 limit is not all encompassing. Again, like many things it depends on the situation. Apparently the rights-holder can elect to pursue actual damages which could be more than the $5000 limit. Of course then they would have to go through a lengthy trial and prove the actual damages they are trying to collect. However, this would also mean the defender would have to pay more to defend themselves and the rights-holder has the option at any point before judgement is determined to instead request statutory damages which are far, far easier to prove now. Instead of going through that, they can agree to statutory damages, but they cannot be more than $5000.

Also according to this new law that Canada made, its actually more likely for a Canadian citizen to be served and required to pay damages for downloading content. So it seems to be a double edged sword, on the one hand they did greatly reduce statutory damages, but on the other hand it is not nearly as difficult to prove or request statutory damages as actual damages which is required in other countries. Also it seems to be far easily for rights-holders to request take downs of ISPs and more severe penalties for ISPs for not sending on notices to its users or complying with the laws.

You have not read the Copyright modernization act it would seem. There are only 2 references to the criminal code of Canada in that document. They both apply to security, it amounts to someone using copyrighted material to further facilitate criminal behaviour. Just as someone brought up speeding earlier... which isn't a criminal code violation unless it is in furtherance of another crime. In other words speeding is not a criminal code offense... but it becomes one if your evading capture, driving a get away car ect.

We did make it easier for right holders to serve notices of infringing actions... as those noticed can now be passed on by ISPs with out the ISPs having to name users. (they still don't have to name names unless a court orders it) Those notices have no teeth at all of course... as they still can't get a name to bring a suit unless they first bring suit against the ISP, in Canadian history ONE company has won against an ISP, and the judge found that in order to get the information the plaintiff would have to reimburse all costs to said ISP. Another company that was using the notice system to send illegal pay or else letters had their case tossed and was warned if they didn't discontinue the practice, the judge was going to press the crown to bring extortion charges. (they used a loop hole in the Notification legislation to add demands, when the law did attempt to avoid that happening... I don't know about US judges but our Judges in Canada tend to get annoyed when people exploit technical holes in legislation, no judge wants to be the one to set a bad precedent in those cases and they tend to toss them)

So far what has happened in courts is what matters... and the simple fact is one small ISP lost a naming names case... and the judge slapped on costs for the ISP. Meaning the complaining company, everyones fav Voltage, simply went away. As for our larger ISPs... honestly I don't think any of the big American companies want to touch them, there all cozy in bed doing things like tying HBO to insane packages cause they can. They aren't going to start bringing suits against those guys (our major ISPs are also our major content distributors), with all the "piracy" they claim to be upset about in Canada... the truth is per capita Canadians subscribe and buy their content as much as Amercians, only we do it at 10-40% more profit. For the most part they don't want to rock that boat. If our gov ever strikes down the power of the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) which protects their monopoly, then perhaps they would be more willing to push our laws.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top