Hacker News Reader

Comment by sandworm101 | Hacker News Reader

Of course canada loves piracy. Canada is part of US and UK media culture but is often blocked by licensing restrictions. Every time a canadian is refused the ability to stream a US tv show, a pirate is born. Every time a canadian clicks on a link and is hit with "not availible in your country", a pirate is born. Tell me I cannot watch the Dr Who christmas eve special until after christmas? Ill defend that torrent in court with my last breath.

(Fyi, the first season of the Doctor Who reboot was cosponsored by CBC, making it canadian. Look at the credits of most every movie these days and you'll find it recieved canadian tax benefits, yet Canada is often blocked or delayed at release. And half of US actors are secret Canadians.)

View on HN

Frankly this doesn't have much to do with not being able to watch a specific show.

I think this is due to people deeming media companies, same with how grocery companies are shifting, as companies you are free to steal from because they steal from us. Nobody cares if you steal from Disney or Warner Bros because they are giant trillion dollar companies. Same with how Loblaws, Sobeys are shifting. Stealing from them becomes something that is not frowned upon by your local populace and in some cases encouraged.

I suspect as we advance further alone this timeline it will only get worse.

People just have ZERO empathy for trillion dollar companies. The only recourse is a extremely small chance you get caught. And even then if the police also don't care, nobody will enforce it.

It's just rather hard to be on the side of MPAA against single mom of 2 torrenting The Grinch for her kids to watch.

And everytime you boot up Disney Plus and see the new Marvel movie "pre-release" for $30 that opinion just grows and grows.

>People just have ZERO empathy for trillion dollar companies.

Unless that trillion dolar company makes shiny phones and laptops with a fruit on them ;)

> Unless that trillion dolar company makes shiny phones and laptops

.. after mass adoption of $1 song purchases with trivial sync to iPod

.. followed in 2009 by removal of DRM from iTunes music purchases

.. without media piracy lawsuits against their customers.

>.. without media piracy lawsuits against their customers.

Huh? How can you pirate from Apple when they're not the IP owners? I don't remember Apple being the owner of the IP on iTunes, but the music studios were: Sony, BMG, Universal, etc. Apple was a middle-man.

> Apple was a middle-man

Who negotiated with IP owners for unprecedented music availability, then removal of DRM.

With Apple TV, they are IP owners for some content.

> Ill defend that torrent in court to my last breath.

Well, not that you would win on those grounds, but you wouldn't have to you wouldn't ever be charged in Canada anyway unless you left it seeding for mad long.

There is a mounting problem in Canada with CBC and public funds funding productions we can never see or are delayed/pay walled.

Movies that are 100% paid by public money are not available to see anywhere, after a short theater release. Even if you are willing to pay for it.

I fear the result is that the public funding will dry up completely, shutting down an entire industry. That would be a big cultural loss, just because they manage the funds so badly. Fund projects people actually want to watch. Fund more diverse works. And make the damned product available to the population that paid for it.

Sounds like something legislation has to catch up with.

Kind of like how US streaming companies are purging content for 'tax breaks' but then you don't find a copy of the content anywhere.

Give me one scifi fan on the bench or jury and ill pay nothing. After 30ish years of media sharing culture, most of those in power are sympathetic to the issue, which is why Canada turns a blind eye.

Jury's can't vacate the verdict just because they sympathize with you.

Your argument is "I take what I want because I want it and I have no other way" isn't at all convincing.

Canada doesn't turn a blind eye, they explicitly decriminalized it especially for people that are not distributing.

Your argument would be bunk regardless though.

Juries absolutely can vacate the verdict. Its called Jury Nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Yeah, no.

I almost mentioned that in my comment to preempt you mentioning that, seems I should have. Jury nullification would not apply in your case, and the jury may not even have that option.

If you honestly think you could take some illegally with the defense "I wanted it" and walk you are delusional.

I don't think there's a coherent point here. Jury nullification can occur in most common law jurisdictions (i.e.: legal systems that descend from the British legal system). There's no specific limit (say civil versus criminal) on when it can occur. And it absolutely could apply in a copyright case - that happened to come before a jury. It specifically does not depend on the validity of a legal defence, but despite it.

On a different but related note It's worth remembering that the reason piracy is enforced with legal payment demands in Germany and Japan, but not the US, UK or most of continental Europe, is that civil disobedience made such legal demands ineffective in most territories.

There is certainly a coherent point here and it's been conveyed pretty clearly - you just disagree. So say that instead of pretending you don't understand what the point being made is.

> Jury nullification can occur in most common law jurisdictions (i.e.: legal systems that descend from the British legal system). There's no specific limit (say civil versus criminal) on when it can occur

You need to do some more reading. As much as people like to post jury nullification as though it's some sort of 'aha', it's kind of amazing they miss all the stories and articles about how jury nullification is removed as a practical option for a jury to exercise.

> And it absolutely could apply in a copyright case - that happened to come before a jury. It specifically does not depend on the validity of a legal defence, but despite it.

A judge will order what facts a jury can consider and deliberate on.

The parents argument "I took it because I wanted it" wouldn't even be allowed as a defense most likely, and certainly the jury would not be allowed to consider it.

> On a different but related note It's worth remembering that the reason piracy is enforced with legal payment demands in Germany and Japan, but not the US, UK or most of continental Europe, is that civil disobedience made such legal demands ineffective in most territories.

What are you talking about when you say "civil disobedience"

The judge is key. They are always in a position to drift a case one way or another. There are two thing you never speak bad about in front of a judge: cats, and star trek. Either one will put you in the bad books of half the bench.

Buddy, again, you're delusional if you think your argument would work.

Clearly you have no legal education, at all. Someone told you about jury nullification or you read an article and now you think it has all sort of powers it actually doesn't.

The judge doesn't matter. Jury nullification doesn't matter.

"I took it because I wanted it" is a shitty argument, end of story.

Maybe, but jury selection weeds out people with any hard opinion to begin with. If you say "Yes I have received illegal content and I don't give af" then prosecution will likely nix you.

Try to strike scifi fans for being scifi fans and The Church of Jedi will alledge discrimination. Go after trekkers for being trekkers and half of Comicon will be on your front lawn.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jediism

Reply on news.ycombinator.com