Johnny Hekker: "Humbled for the opportunity to come back"

[1maGoh]

So you’re telling me if you buy a CD and give it to your friend to play in his car that it is wrong? Or a video game? Or movie? It’s all the same, intelectual property and you have the right to do what you want with it as long as you aren’t trying to profit from it etc. What do you think a user agreement means etc etc?

Legally you can do it, I don’t give a shit about morally because nobody else pays my bills to dictate what I should do and what I shouldn’t.

Legally, you can give your one copy to your friend. You can't copy and sell it or copy it and give it out for free. That's the whole point of copyright law. This is why Lars got pissed off at Napster. By giving away someone else's intellectual property you're hurting their business or profiting off of their labor. You can sell the one copy you own, because you're just transferring the right to use that one copy. And the EULA's you sign when you purchase those subscriptions almost always include sections that say you can't share them out reproduce the content. Those are also legally binding.

 

[PhillyRam]

Only 7 more days guys... Relax.

 

[Mackeyser]

So... to sum up... no, is not enough time, lemme me summarize:

* Hekk's a hekk of a punter.

* Copyright law in the age of the internet is not only complicated, but is such a different type of transaction than traditional trade of buying and selling that even in the best sense, the "right to view" being conflated with "buying to own" just seems really wrong... but it's still the law. But we're America, so if you wanna get around copyright law, just animate it... works for basically all animation these days...

* Hekk took a paycut.

* We're all freaking getting cabin fever with the football season being so close that we're all feeling a little Tyrone Biggums up in this bitch.

 

[XXXIVwin]

* We're all freaking getting cabin fever with the football season being so close that we're all feeling a little Tyrone Biggums up in this bitch.

Yeah ... what with Covid... and my eldest boy about to leave and go away to college.... I freaking need the g$$dam* football season NOW

Gimme football to distract me from the cruel realities of mortality

 

[Faceplant]

Let's stay on topic:

Says the guy that wrote a few words "on topic" before going completely off topic for the rest of his post, lolz...

 

[Corbin]

The problem with your theory here is you didn't purchase the content. You purchased the right to view the content. You don't own the writer's words and you can't just do whatever you want with them. It's not any different than buying a paperback book or a newspaper. USA today can't walk outside and buy a New York Times and then reprint it word for word. Penguin can't buy something published by Tor and then reprint it word for word. We can't buy a subscription to the Athletic and then reprint it word for word. When you write a research paper you have to cite the sources you used both because you need to prove you didn't make shit up and because of copyright law. You can't just do whatever you want with other people's written work.

But where you’re making your assumption is that USA Today would be selling the NYT content, there is always trouble when it comes to money. But copying and pasting words to a random fan website with no money exchanged? Nope I don’t see that as a problem.

No, I don't believe that's correct, it is not legal to reproduce content from stuff that's behind a paywall site. That's in violation of the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act).

A better example would be a major movie released in a theatre. No, it is not legal for someone to create a bootleg video of the movie, and then share it with their friends. The movie studio released the movie only under certain conditions: to be viewed (a) for a fee and (b) in a specific manner. Same with the Athletic-- their content is meant to be viewed only by those who pay the subscription fee, then get the app to view their content.

So yes, I believe it is illegal to copy and paste articles from the Athletic. (Not like someone would get busted for doing it just once, but if it became the norm around here, I wouldn't be surprised if ROD got a "cease and desist" warning from the Athletic. Apparently the Athletic is very protective of their stuff and issues warnings frequently).

FWIW, I think Jourdan Rodrigue is a very talented and hard-working reporter. I rarely pay for these things, but her work is so good that I decided to fork over a few bucks and subscribe to the Athletic. If all her Articles were reproduced here, and I got to read them for free, would I bother to pay for a subscription? No, probably not.

So yes, it's legal to buy a CD and play it in the car for a friend. But no, it is not legal to go watch a movie in a theatre and make a bootleg video.

You can believe what you won’t but their is no monetary gain from copy and pasting regardless what you guys say.

And if if was such a huge deal I’ve seen articles posted on this site for a decade and now all of a sudden the moral police are out here trying to say linking, copying and pasting is wrong? Even when the site and author are usually given credit?

Im sorry, but hey I’m sure you paid the photographer who took that picture for your profile for their hard work and content right? Or did you just Google and steal it off the internet?
is that right to do? Are you the owner of that photo?

Whats the difference?

 

[kurtfaulk]

now all of a sudden the moral police are out here trying to say

seems to be a lot of that here lately. thought we were immune from that.

they seem to have a problem if you don't have the exact same views as them. you might get an inappropriate tag thrown at you. careful.

.

 

[wolfdogg]

So basically, he prayed to God and God said oh no, don't put this on me. Take the pay cut dummy.

 

[XXXIVwin]

But where you’re making your assumption is that USA Today would be selling the NYT content, there is always trouble when it comes to money. But copying and pasting words to a random fan website with no money exchanged? Nope I don’t see that as a problem.



You can believe what you won’t but their is no monetary gain from copy and pasting regardless what you guys say.

And if if was such a huge deal I’ve seen articles posted on this site for a decade and now all of a sudden the moral police are out here trying to say linking, copying and pasting is wrong? Even when the site and author are usually given credit?

Im sorry, but hey I’m sure you paid the photographer who took that picture for your profile for their hard work and content right? Or did you just Google and steal it off the internet?
is that right to do? Are you the owner of that photo?

Whats the difference?

First of all, I don't have a huge emotional investment in this. I just think it's an interesting question. And I'd agree with you that I don't shed tears when huge corporations lose a few bucks here and there.

I noticed you didn't engage with my "bootleg video" scenario. My point is, ppl can do things for "zero monetary gain" for themselves, but yes, it would illegally reduce monetary gain for the producer of the product. I don't shed tears for the fact that 20th century Fox loses some revenue because people watch bootleg videos for free-- but at least I understand the reasoning behind why making a bootleg videois illegal.

I guess I just disagree with your argument that "as long as you don't personally make money, you can do whatever you want with copyrighted material."

BTW, my views on this kinda change depending on the circumstance. I personally think DirecTV is a shady, corrupt, exploitative company that unfairly price-gouges consumers. So if some ppl here on ROD are able to illegally stream a Rams game, I say hey, go for it. OTOH, my own personal take is that Jourdan Rodrigue is an unusually awesome young reporter, and so therefore I'll admit I don't think it's great to infringe upon her livelihood and share all her pay-to-view content for free.

Lastly... this issue of Athletic content on fan message boards is hardly unique to ROD. There are hundreds of message boards across all sports that have this same issue with Athletic content. Generally speaking, my understanding is that moderators discourage cut-and-pasting Athletic articles, because the Athletic aggressively protects their copyrighted content.

 

[Faceplant]

It's like $30 a fucking YEAR for that Athletic subscription. Well worth it. . Why are we even arguing about it? Lol...

 

[badnews]

Says the guy that wrote a few words "on topic" before going completely off topic for the rest of his post, lolz...

That was intended as humor!
Please don't tell me you guys read what I write at face value?!?! Oh dear God!!! If I really meant half of what I said here, I'd be a giant asshole lol!!

I'm going to have to be more disciplined with using the blue font!

 

[Mackeyser]

That was intended as humor!
Please don't tell me you guys read what I write at face value?!?! Oh dear God!!! If I really meant half of what I said here, I'd be a giant asshole lol!!

I'm going to have to be more disciplined with using the blue font!

Yeah, believe it or not, text is about the worst form of communication in that there is no context provided beyond other text and often that's not nearly enough.

A recent study (and sorry, major migraine, can't be arsed to look it up) showed that 53% of all communication is non-verbal. I presume that means in person, but yeah.

I think that's why people who don't speak Spanish can watch those telenovelas and still follow along... and they are kinda addicting...

 

[Corbin]

seems to be a lot of that here lately. thought we were immune from that.

they seem to have a problem if you don't have the exact same views as them. you might get an inappropriate tag thrown at you. careful.

.

Meh, I have always lived my life by going about it as I see fit. I don’t see getting all up in arms and upset over nothing as per usual, and their opinion is the same if in Nigeria there are winds out the SW at 8 mph or the SE at 4-7 mph. It means little and effects my none.

Now a intelligent conversation is different where I can challenge my own views, ideals, and morales to see if they need refining. With 34Win I don’t necessarily agree with him but I’m not going to get all upset about it.

People these days have it in there head that somebody else has to agree with them 100% or they are a terrible or no un moral person.

First of all, I don't have a huge emotional investment in this. I just think it's an interesting question. And I'd agree with you that I don't shed tears when huge corporations lose a few bucks here and there.

I noticed you didn't engage with my "bootleg video" scenario. My point is, ppl can do things for "zero monetary gain" for themselves, but yes, it would illegally reduce monetary gain for the producer of the product. I don't shed tears for the fact that 20th century Fox loses some revenue because people watch bootleg videos for free-- but at least I understand the reasoning behind why making a bootleg videois illegal.

I guess I just disagree with your argument that "as long as you don't personally make money, you can do whatever you want with copyrighted material."

BTW, my views on this kinda change depending on the circumstance. I personally think DirecTV is a shady, corrupt, exploitative company that unfairly price-gouges consumers. So if some ppl here on ROD are able to illegally stream a Rams game, I say hey, go for it. OTOH, my own personal take is that Jourdan Rodrigue is an unusually awesome young reporter, and so therefore I'll admit I don't think it's great to infringe upon her livelihood and share all her pay-to-view content for free.

Lastly... this issue of Athletic content on fan message boards is hardly unique to ROD. There are hundreds of message boards across all sports that have this same issue with Athletic content. Generally speaking, my understanding is that moderators discourage cut-and-pasting Athletic articles, because the Athletic aggressively protects their copyrighted content.

Haha I like conversations and debates like this. Civil, intelligent, and slowly working to my point lol

Yeah I don’t shed tears to corporations missing out on some money for sure. It’s amazing the amount of hypocrisy calling out one thing is wrong while the sane organization is doing several horrendous things with the other. It seems it happens over and over again.

As far as Jordan, I enjoy reading her tweets and she seems pretty cool, but for me personally I have a -5% to ever purchasing content on a site to read somebody type about a team I already know pretty well. But that the is the difference of living in our society where you can decide that.

As far as reproducing a movie, outside of wholesale distribution I doubt the industry gave two shits about you making a copy for a friend. The only cases like that get reported are some self absorbed self righteous Jack ass reports it thinking their a moral person.

I personally could care less if there is Athletic posts on this site or not. I’ve lived this long without them, And I’m sure many others do as well. Hell I don’t read 1/2 the ones that are posted anyways, I usually watch more media tbh.

But I will say this, if you bastards take away clicks by filming Undisputed and reposting I’m vehemently against Skip Bayless getting 12 more clicks to get paid 2.40$ !! Don’t do it!

 

[badnews]

Yeah, believe it or not, text is about the worst form of communication in that there is no context provided beyond other text and often that's not nearly enough.

A recent study (and sorry, major migraine, can't be arsed to look it up) showed that 53% of all communication is non-verbal. I presume that means in person, but yeah.

I think that's why people who don't speak Spanish can watch those telenovelas and still follow along... and they are kinda addicting...

Absolutely. I imagine that part of me actually appreciates the way that text can be so easily played with to create double meanings, subtle (or not) puns, inside jokes etc. Another way to put it, perhaps how a sociopathic person might put it if they were being honest (big IF...) is that text is just so easy to manipulate. It's own inherent limitations make it much easier to conceal or misrepresent true intentions or feelings.
But those same attributes that make it easy to manipulate are also the same ones that make texting fun for young people.
And it's just a whole lot easier than the real thing.

There is a lot lost between a face to face conversation and a telephone call and an even larger gap between a phone call and a text message.
Even as a guy who grew up without internet at home and one who waited years and years after my peers did before owning a smartphone, even I feel like a standard face to face conversation can be an extremely intense experience, even if it's just a typical, trivial talk. It's not about the content so much as it is a kind of sensory overload... or something like it.. while I consciously carry on the conversation, so much other data is being both simultaneously processed and projected. If I can feel that way about having basic, 1 on 1 conversations in person, I can only imagine how it might be for today's youths. No wonder they gaze at their shoelaces and avoid eye contact! Real conversation is intense when you're not used to talking or listening to someone while your eyes, posture, breathing, tone of voice etc are having their own much deeper exchange.
It's been said that the "eyes are the window to the soul". It's not that I'm uncomfortable with someone seeing me in my eyes... it's that seeing THEM is uncomfortable for me. Not always, obviously, not too often, but it's there. When people use someone's bad eye contact as a reason to doubt or suspect them, a part of me always feels sympathy for that person because I can sort of relate.
I'm always aware that not everyone will recognize when I'm being less than 100% serious on this board, yet I would probably be surprised at just how many simply read what I write and take it at "face value".