When Tubi carries Lamborghini: The Man Behind the Legend for free and Apple charges 14.99 to buy and 5.99 to buy.

80 for Brady is free on Paramount+ and Apple charges 9.99 to buy and 5.99
to rent.

Cocaine Bear is free on Peacock and Apple charges 19.99 to buy.

M3gan is free on Peacock and Apple charges 19.99 to buy and 5.99 to rent.

Zack Snyder’s Justice League is free in HBOMax and 7.99 to buy from Apple.

Why pay for AppleTV? Ridiculous. Pay for Apple TV and then for content.
Duh!

Surely resident apologists are convinced to pay twice.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 00:05:45 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

When Tubi carries Lamborghini: The Man Behind the Legend for free and Apple >charges 14.99 to buy and 5.99 to buy.

80 for Brady is free on Paramount+ and Apple charges 9.99 to buy and 5.99
to rent.

Cocaine Bear is free on Peacock and Apple charges 19.99 to buy.

M3gan is free on Peacock and Apple charges 19.99 to buy and 5.99 to rent.

Zack Snyder�s Justice League is free in HBOMax and 7.99 to buy from Apple.

Why pay for AppleTV? Ridiculous. Pay for Apple TV and then for content.
Duh!

Surely resident apologists are convinced to pay twice.

I wouldn't pay. I can get all the movies I want for free. Not legally,
of course.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2023-04-19 20:05, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

When Tubi carries Lamborghini: The Man Behind the Legend for free and Apple charges 14.99 to buy and 5.99 to buy.

80 for Brady is free on Paramount+ and Apple charges 9.99 to buy and 5.99
to rent.

Cocaine Bear is free on Peacock and Apple charges 19.99 to buy.

M3gan is free on Peacock and Apple charges 19.99 to buy and 5.99 to rent.

Zack Snyder’s Justice League is free in HBOMax and 7.99 to buy from Apple.

Why pay for AppleTV? Ridiculous. Pay for Apple TV and then for content.
Duh!

Surely resident apologists are convinced to pay twice.

I agree that the price for watching or buying movies on AppleTV is
ridiculously high and thus I've rarely rented a movie from them (you
don't have to have a monthly sub to do so). Also "bought" one because
the price was near nothing and it's a good one to play for young kids
visiting on a rainy day.

I own an AppleTV but don't regularly pay for AppleTV subscription. When
I do it is to watch several series within a 1 month period. So save up
a few series worth of time, subscribe, watch, cancel. Really wish
they'd go to the Netflix model of making the whole series available in
one go.

Note that being a member of various services also has a cost. With
Tubi, for example: adverts - something I've come to absolutely despise
and refuse to suffer. Paramount: fee. Peacock: fee. How many services
must one join.

I only subscribe to Netflix at present.

Ideally you'd buy your programming directly from the producers at far
lower cost. At some point this will happen.

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 20/04/2023 01:05, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

When Tubi carries Lamborghini: The Man Behind the Legend for free and Apple charges 14.99 to buy and 5.99 to buy.

80 for Brady is free on Paramount+ and Apple charges 9.99 to buy and 5.99
to rent.

Cocaine Bear is free on Peacock and Apple charges 19.99 to buy.

M3gan is free on Peacock and Apple charges 19.99 to buy and 5.99 to rent.

Zack Snyder’s Justice League is free in HBOMax and 7.99 to buy from Apple.

Why pay for AppleTV? Ridiculous. Pay for Apple TV and then for content.
Duh!

Surely resident apologists are convinced to pay twice.

Not all of those alternatives are available to all. For instance I've
never heard of Peacock nor Tubi, Paramount+ costs the same as AppleTV+
and HBOMax isn't available here.

Checked Peacock - only available for Sky (expensive) - and Tubi also not available.

There isn't enough on AppleTV+ to justify paying for it regularly. Now
I've got a free subscription with my new phone, I'll catch up on Slow
Horses and maybe get into Ted Lasso.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 20.04.23 11:30, Chris in Makati wrote:

Surely resident apologists are convinced to pay twice.

I wouldn't pay. I can get all the movies I want for free.
Not legally, of course.

You can torrent anything that someone wants to share with you.

If you watch it on the iPhone/iPad, then you have to torrent from another device first and then you can copy it over to the iPhone/iPad with iTunes.

Nearly every movie and tv series and most streaming content is out there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_streaming_media_services

And before idiots jump on that, torrenting legal content is legal, but downloading and sharing any copyrighted material is definitely illegal.

In the US, torrenting for personal use is not a criminal act,
although offenders are subject to a lawsuit. https://proprivacy.com/vpn/guides/torrenting-illegal

Here is an article on how to torrent safely if you choose to torrent. https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/is-torrenting-safe-illegal-will-you-be-caught/
--
miniLock ID: AUDETPpz34FaiQcKwV8yw5wgqU22s54UNm1boJPqY7J3L
Please use base64 or base91 for ASCII armor.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <u1sa2l$3i8e6$1@solani.org>, Stefan Claas <not-for-mail@protonmail.invalid> wrote:

In the US, torrenting for personal use is not a criminal act,

it is when it infringes copyright, which it would with movies, tv
shows, music, software and many other types of content.

although offenders are subject to a lawsuit.

now guess why that is.

defending a lawsuit is *not* cheap, even if the verdict finds that the
person is not liable for the infringing act(s).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 20.04.23 23:39, nospam wrote:

In the US, torrenting for personal use is not a criminal act,

it is when it infringes copyright, which it would with movies, tv
shows, music, software and many other types of content.

There is federal law on "criminal copyright infringement" but it's for rare cases according to the article I've read on the subject matter. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1847-criminal-copyright-infringement-17-usc-506a-and-18-usc-2319

"However, copyright violations that do not elicit any profit and were not intended to elicit any profit fall outside the purview of the statute."

That means it will likely be only a civil offense for anyone reading
this thread who is then moved to torrent from their PC (because they can't
do it from the iPhone or iPad) & iTunes it back to the iPad/iPhone to view.

although offenders are subject to a lawsuit.

now guess why that is.

Mainly because personal torrenting is not considered a criminal offense.

Most people don't understand copyright law which is almost always if not
always civil in the case of torrenting for personal use (not for resale!).

This article directly asks & answers the civil versus criminal question. https://www.garfinkelcriminallaw.com/chicagocriminalblog/are-copyright-violations-a-criminal-matter

"Copyright violations are usually thought of as strictly a civil matter."

"It is true that copyright violations are usually handled in civil court."

"The retail value of the unlawfully copied work must reach $1,000 before misdemeanor charges apply, so there is some leeway for very minor
incidents."

"A felony may be charged if the value exceeds $2,500."

"Criminal law requires direct financial gain, such as by selling illegal
copies of a movie, but it also includes more indirect gain, such as using stolen intellectual property like a computer program to gain a business advantage."

defending a lawsuit is *not* cheap, even if the verdict finds that the
person is not liable for the infringing act(s).

If you worry about that, you don't know how to torrent safely since you
won't get any notice from your ISP if you use proper safety measures.

Besides, it's never a crime to torrent protected works for personal use.

"Copying or distributing a protected work is not a crime unless it was done
for profit."

Anyone who torrents for personal use takes the risk that someone might sue
them in civil court, just as anyone who walks alone in a city at night
instead of taking the taxi takes a risk which is fully up to them to take.

If they're so afraid of taking the walk, then they should pay for the taxi.
--
miniLock ID: AUDETPpz34FaiQcKwV8yw5wgqU22s54UNm1boJPqY7J3L
Please use base64 or base91 for ASCII armor.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <u1ubm2$3j851$1@solani.org>, Stefan Claas <not-for-mail@protonmail.invalid> wrote:

Most people don't understand copyright law

clearly.

Least of all you.

You know nothing about copyright law as it applies to personal torrents.

You had no idea that you must profit by selling it for it to be criminal.

as usual, you are incorrect on all counts, and trying to justify
illegal acts.

<https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1851-copyr ight-infringement-fourth-element-commercial-advantage-or#:~:text=A%20con viction%20under%2017%20U.S.C.,of%20financial%20gain%20or%20benefit.>
It is a common misconception that if infringers fail to charge
subscribers a monetary fee for infringing copies, they cannot be
held to have engaged in criminal copyright infringement. It is the
position of the Department that the term "for purposes of commercial
advantage or private financial gain" does not require the payment in
money for the infringing works, but includes payment by trading
anything of value for them. Thus, when "bartering" (i.e., the
practice of exchanging infringing works for other infringing works)
results in the unauthorized dissemination of substantial amounts of
infringing product without recompense to the copyright holders,
prosecution appears to be fully consistent with the purposes of the
criminal copyright statute.

and as i noted before, lawsuits are expensive, so even if you were to
somehow ultimately prevail at trial, you'd still be out a lot of money.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 22.04.23 0:41, nospam wrote:

Most people don't understand copyright law

clearly.

Least of all you.

You know nothing about copyright law as it applies to personal torrents.

You had no idea that you must profit by selling it for it to be criminal.
--
miniLock ID: AUDETPpz34FaiQcKwV8yw5wgqU22s54UNm1boJPqY7J3L
Please use base64 or base91 for ASCII armor.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <u1t0sj$3oee0$1@solani.org>, Stefan Claas <not-for-mail@protonmail.invalid> wrote:

Most people don't understand copyright law

clearly.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

On 20/04/2023 01:05, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

When Tubi carries Lamborghini: The Man Behind the Legend for free and Apple >> charges 14.99 to buy and 5.99 to buy.

80 for Brady is free on Paramount+ and Apple charges 9.99 to buy and 5.99
to rent.

Cocaine Bear is free on Peacock and Apple charges 19.99 to buy.

M3gan is free on Peacock and Apple charges 19.99 to buy and 5.99 to rent.

Zack Snyder’s Justice League is free in HBOMax and 7.99 to buy from Apple. >>
Why pay for AppleTV? Ridiculous. Pay for Apple TV and then for content.
Duh!

Surely resident apologists are convinced to pay twice.

Not all of those alternatives are available to all. For instance I've
never heard of Peacock nor Tubi, Paramount+ costs the same as AppleTV+
and HBOMax isn't available here.

Checked Peacock - only available for Sky (expensive) - and Tubi also not available.

There isn't enough on AppleTV+ to justify paying for it regularly. Now
I've got a free subscription with my new phone, I'll catch up on Slow
Horses and maybe get into Ted Lasso.

Is there much of anything aside from Apple produced content that’s free to watch? Netflix has a steep subscription cost but just like HBOMax and Hulu
you don’t pay beyond the monthly or annual fee. Apple charges a monthly fee and for content. Amazon has some stuff for free after the Prime membership,
but charges extra for other stuff. If you’re not interested enough in Apple provided content, I can’t see paying the monthly fee.

Oddly this thread has become a pissing contest on copyright law.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

On 2023-04-19 20:05, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

When Tubi carries Lamborghini: The Man Behind the Legend for free and Apple >> charges 14.99 to buy and 5.99 to buy.

80 for Brady is free on Paramount+ and Apple charges 9.99 to buy and 5.99
to rent.

Cocaine Bear is free on Peacock and Apple charges 19.99 to buy.

M3gan is free on Peacock and Apple charges 19.99 to buy and 5.99 to rent.

Zack Snyder’s Justice League is free in HBOMax and 7.99 to buy from Apple. >>
Why pay for AppleTV? Ridiculous. Pay for Apple TV and then for content.
Duh!

Surely resident apologists are convinced to pay twice.

I agree that the price for watching or buying movies on AppleTV is ridiculously high and thus I've rarely rented a movie from them (you
don't have to have a monthly sub to do so). Also "bought" one because
the price was near nothing and it's a good one to play for young kids visiting on a rainy day.

I own an AppleTV but don't regularly pay for AppleTV subscription. When
I do it is to watch several series within a 1 month period. So save up
a few series worth of time, subscribe, watch, cancel. Really wish
they'd go to the Netflix model of making the whole series available in
one go.

Agreed.

Note that being a member of various services also has a cost. With
Tubi, for example: adverts - something I've come to absolutely despise
and refuse to suffer. Paramount: fee. Peacock: fee. How many services
must one join.

I remember when Hulu and Netflix had just about everything you need. The
number of streaming services has exploded but still cheaper than cable.

I only subscribe to Netflix at present.

Ideally you'd buy your programming directly from the producers at far
lower cost. At some point this will happen.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 21.04.23 18:09, nospam wrote:

you are incorrect on all counts, and trying to justify illegal acts.

Personal torrenting of copyrighted items for private use is not criminal.

Your link says you absolutely must intend to profit for it to be criminal.
It includes bartering in trade other goods constituting profit (so what).

Every post from you shows you definitely know nothing about copyright law.
--
miniLock ID: AUDETPpz34FaiQcKwV8yw5wgqU22s54UNm1boJPqY7J3L
Please use base64 or base91 for ASCII armor.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <u1ue30$3j9ie$1@solani.org>, Stefan Claas <not-for-mail@protonmail.invalid> wrote:

you are incorrect on all counts, and trying to justify illegal acts.

Personal torrenting of copyrighted items for private use is not criminal.

it very definitely can be, depending on specifics. there is no blanket
rule that covers all scenarios.

Your link says you absolutely must intend to profit for it to be criminal.
It includes bartering in trade other goods constituting profit (so what).

read it again. it says the exact *opposite*.

you don't even need to read far. the *first* sentence is sufficient:

It is a common misconception that if infringers fail to charge
subscribers a monetary fee for infringing copies, they cannot be
held to have engaged in criminal copyright infringement.

<https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1851-copyr ight-infringement-fourth-element-commercial-advantage-or#:~:text=A%20con viction%20under%2017%20U.S.C.,of%20financial%20gain%20or%20benefit.>
It is a common misconception that if infringers fail to charge
subscribers a monetary fee for infringing copies, they cannot be
held to have engaged in criminal copyright infringement. It is the
position of the Department that the term "for purposes of commercial
advantage or private financial gain" does not require the payment in
money for the infringing works, but includes payment by trading
anything of value for them. Thus, when "bartering" (i.e., the
practice of exchanging infringing works for other infringing works)
results in the unauthorized dissemination of substantial amounts of
infringing product without recompense to the copyright holders,
prosecution appears to be fully consistent with the purposes of the
criminal copyright statute.

Every post from me shows I definitely know nothing about copyright law.

ftfy

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 21/04/2023 13:57, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

Oddly this thread has become a pissing contest on copyright law.

nospam

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)