No it's not. Members of the public can't be expected to know if something is legally acquired. Also the copyright act deals with distribution and not receiving. A person who knowingly consumed copyrighted content can only be held civilly liable for the damage of the event.
MonoChoice is special bro.So...for a company that is bankrupt, still pay their T3 R 120 million, get their sport from Sky Sport & pay court fees then where do they get the money to for it? They provide no real evidence about their content being pirated. It's more of throwing spaghetti against the wall, see what sticks. Didn't know the courts in SA had so much time on their hands. WAKA is apparently all over the world? Not sure. I know IPTV, StarTV is. There's a bunch of others as well. So is Rambo still showing on DSTV. Just asking.
The law hasn't changed since then?Actually there is several cases from the late 80's, early 90's that actually disproves your statement. I have posted the case law before couldn't be bothered post again. Not knowing whether content is copyrighted is not a valid excuse, especially with regards to consumption and distribution and/or copying said content
No mate, there is no ways they can prove someone knew that the false supplier is false, for all they know they have a deal with Multiliars.And NO and the angle MC is spinning now, isn't regard to downloading/streaming a single movie or single episode, which is up to the copyright holder to pursue as a civil case.
It is with regards to streaming a " live broadcast" of one of their channels, there they have you dead to rights, if they can prove you streamed their channel, which is next to impossible to do, the ISP knows that you streamed something, but they would need to actually capture and intercept as well a monitor what you specifically streamed.
This piracy scourge MC is fighting shows that there obviously is a demand for what DStv offers, especially when it comes to sport and those who prefer broadcast TV over streaming.Just make premium R500 pm and we'll all be happy
Precedent is a principle or rule established in a legal case that becomes authoritative to a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar legal issues or facts.The law hasn't changed since then?
Can't see them getting away with that re consumption in court now, post the NP government, it's just BS. And the internet is only a public reality after those dates, so the cases are dealing with other copyright circumstances.
No mate, there is no ways they can prove someone knew that the false supplier is false, for all they know they have a deal with Multiliars.
Nope. Practicality is on my side, and I do have some legal background.and no I am not defending multichoice just pointing out your utter ignorance....
So why argue the point then?And yes they would need to proof with evidence you watched it in the first place, which I mentioned is next to impossible anyways....
Nope. Practicality is on my side, and I do have some legal background.
So why argue the point then?
All this aside anyway - we've heard before that such prosecutions don't happen in this country since the political dynamics changed back in the 90's.
Am I defending it? Nope. But Frikkie's BS must be put to bed.
The only examples I've seen is piracy in general. They seem to think this will have an impact.I think it's a BS claim that their content is being pirated... Nobody has given a clear example. To my mind this means that it's all about one thing... this masepoes dinosaur won't die without a fight.
There is no precedent in this case. In the early 90's and before the only means people had was to physically copy a CD or tape. There was a clear case you knew where the material was coming from. With a streaming service not so much. Do I check everything on Dstv to make sure it is legal? No. This in itself will destroy their case. Either they will be complicit in making me commit a crime or I won't be guilty of it. I would like to see some new case law being established that actually deal with this.Precedent is a principle or rule established in a legal case that becomes authoritative to a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar legal issues or facts.
Copyright act 98 of 1978 is still in force however it has been amended.
There was a precedent set and is still applicable. Go ahead tell a judge he should ignore case law that set the precedent and see how well that goes down for you. In fact the prosecution is going to make sure to mention case law, if you were to mention you weren't aware that some thing is illegal, or was copyrighted.......
Also refereed to as mistake of law.
Confusion Concerning the Defence of Ignorance of Law Recent Case 111 South African Law Journal 1994
VOL 111 THE(Part 1)SOUTH AFRICANFebruary1994 LAW JOURNALRECENT CASESCONFUSION CONCERNING THE DEFENCE OFIGNORANCE OF LAWC R SNYMANProfessor of Criminal and Procedural Law, University of South AfricaIn South African criminal law ignorance or mistake of law is adefence on a charge of having...heinonline.org
It will be physically impossible to claim you weren't aware that the supersport stream you watched is illegal. Your case would be tested against precedent set and what a reasonable person ought to be aware of. You would fail miserably, if you were to claim you weren't aware it was illegal. You would be questioned, how did you know to find the supersport stream or aware of the stream, you would also be asked whether you were aware that supersport channel is owned by DSTV and requires a paid subscription.
In fact you would need to perjure your self in court .....good luck.....
sigh....people who think they know better.....lol
and no I am not defending multichoice just pointing out your utter ignorance....
And yes they would need to proof with evidence you watched it in the first place, which I mentioned is next to impossible anyways....
No go back to my previous comment. How do I know all their streams are legal?I was pointing out what swa said......just claim you weren't aware it was illegal.....Merely pointed out good luck with that defense.....Pretty hard in general with criminal law, contract law, you would have much easier time....It is about the reasonable test, and the precedent has already been set numerous times in various aspects of criminal law.
I mean pretty hard to claim you weren't aware it was against the law to murder someone. The people selling the android boxes ?They are going to claim they weren't aware it was illegal to sell android boxes with the means to watch DSTV illegally ?
What practicality do you have exactly. When applied it is with regards to common sense and reasonable action. Good luck
the end
What's changed so much since the early 90's - a huge and complex new medium for delivering video content, in a wild west arena which even experts can't see through the face value of at its best.
And they lie. And they can't just be taken down. And they have Hollywood in a corner (currently). But the man in the street is to blame??
Lol
That said, you can't really get away with lying to yourself. Not for long ;- )
Again there is no precedent. The precedent set is for copying and not consuming through services. The means didn't even exist during those cases. Common sense and reason may not change but how it is applied does. And you're contradicting yourself and proving my point, a person paying for a service has no idea if the content was legally acquired.Not much actually. 1978 copyright already had protection for digital copyrights, cyber crimes act and the copyright amendment just defined aspects of digital technologies. Didn't change the fundamental parts of the copyright act. Don't be a douche and sell, copy or distribute copyrights. That hasn't changed. Only thing that has changed is how a copyright is consumed. The thing that has evolved with case law is with regards to , fair use, derivative works and certain aspects outside the scope of the copyright that isn't clearly defined. You are arguing that a precedent set that is targeted to copyrights is no longer applicable, do you have evidence that any high court has ruled that such precedent is no longer applicable or of use. The precedent is based on common law with regard to common sense and reasonable. A precedent is a rule of law, it simply doesn't no longer apply or be invalid without due process.
The precedent is still valid regardless of changes how media is consumed, it isn't about how it is consumed it is about whether or not you were aware it was illegal.....