Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy Television Your Rights Online

UKNova TV Torrent Tracker Shut Down After FACT Issues C&D 195

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the anti-culture-conspiracy dept.
New submitter Volfied writes with bad news for fans of UK shows that aren't available for purchase anywhere. From the article: "The UKNova website has stopped letting users share links to copies of UK TV shows, apparently after legal threats from the copyright "enforcement body FACT. 'UKNova is being forced to change. We have been issued with a "cease and desist" order by FACT,' the message began. 'Despite our efforts to cooperate with the UK media companies, FACT have stated: "ALL links or access to content provided by UKNova are infringing, unless it can be proven that explicit permission from the copyright holder for that content has been obtained."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UKNova TV Torrent Tracker Shut Down After FACT Issues C&D

Comments Filter:
  • by currently_awake (1248758) on Monday August 27, 2012 @07:24PM (#41144119)
    There are two basic problems with copyrights. 1- eternal duration (they last until the material is worthless), 2-they are under no obligation to offer it for sale.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27, 2012 @07:30PM (#41144163)

    Actually, they last beyond the time the material is worthless. Some companies who are not offering their intellectual property for sales, and have no intention of doing so, will still take legal action to prevent others acquiring it.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27, 2012 @07:32PM (#41144181)

    Black markets are created by unsatisfied demand, where legitimate supply does not increase to meet demand or is artificially constrained.

    The copyright cartels do not want to meet this demand (it is completely realistic for them to do so) at a price people will pay, however they are often quoted as "not wanting to 'devalue' their content". Bascically they have done the maths and realised they can maximise their profit by creating artificial scarcity and keeping the unit price high while selling less and/or tying content up into lucritive exclusive distribution contracts.
    Even worse is that they often do not want people to access older content as it's value is percieved as lower and because there are only so many hours of media that a person can consume they would prefer that you payed for the more expensive new content.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27, 2012 @07:35PM (#41144203)

    Yes. The purpose of patents are "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." If you don't build it, and you don't license it, then yes, the patent should be invalidated. That phrase you might recognize from somewhere. Any use of patents other than to promote the progress of science and the useful arts is unconstitutional in the U.S.

    US Constitution, Section 8. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27, 2012 @07:45PM (#41144279)

    Just goes to show that you can't play nice with the copyright mafia(a). Might as well play nasty - Same thing in the end.

    AC

  • by alexgieg (948359) <alexgieg@gmail.com> on Monday August 27, 2012 @08:04PM (#41144409) Homepage

    So evidently many of you folks believe this is reason enough to pirate the content. If a patent isn't available for licensing by its owner, and thus not "available for purchase anywhere," is that also reason enough to pirate the patent? What about violating GPL, since it isn't "available for purchase anywhere," either? I'm talking about the enforcement of prevailing law, not anyone's philosophical issues with intellectual property.

    Yes, it is reason enough. I give an example of the silliness copyright causes. Here in Brazil there was a relatively famous writer a few years ago who died. His widow, heir to his copyrights, happened to become member of a religion for which his works were considered offensive. Being the rightful copyright owner, she thus decided to block any new edition of his works. The situation persists, and might continue for about 50 years, unless a Disney happens again and it goes on for longer still.

    Copyright without copyduty is morally abhorrent. If a rights holder doesn't provide the copies only he can presumably make, why, yes, by all means, we, the people, will do it for him! Because the moment he fails on his duty, it becomes ours.

  • by Lumpy (12016) on Monday August 27, 2012 @08:06PM (#41144423) Homepage

    For the same reason that drug dealers dont want legalized drugs. Most drug cartels are against Medical marijuana because it dilutes the price if it becomes legal and wide spread.

    The RIAA and MPAA are no different than Drug Cartels. Instead of cutting off heads, they ruin entire families for generations with billion dollar law suits that are presided over by corrupt judges.

  • So evidently many of you folks believe this is reason enough to pirate the content.

    Indeed.

    If a patent isn't available for licensing by its owner, and thus not "available for purchase anywhere," is that also reason enough to pirate the patent?

    Yes, exactly. Why the hell should the advancement of science or sharing of culture be subject to restriction of any kind?

    What about violating GPL, since it isn't "available for purchase anywhere," either? I'm talking about the enforcement of prevailing law, not anyone's philosophical issues with intellectual property.

    Translation: Let me coach my question in such a way that no sane answers apply. You began with asking a questions of reason, yet no reason is allowed in the answering? Sir: Fuck you as immensely as can be conceived.

    The English Monarchy could do as it damn well pleased under prevailing law until the Magna Carta came to be. Slavery used to be a prevailing law in the United States, and Segregation was on the law books after that. Women used to not be allowed to vote as well.

    The point is, Fuck the unjust Prevailing Law. Laws CAN BE WRONG. Disobeying a law via action that can not lead to physical harm is equivalent to sitting at the front of a bus regardless of the colour of your skin. Obeying unjust laws for the sake of obeying the law is folly. Sometimes we must participate in civil disobedience in order to improve the law, other times we must take more drastic measures. I can think of no more a peaceful demonstration than to ignore a law preventing the sharing of information.

    It is typically not the end user that can even violate the GPL, only a publisher or distributor of information; That said, I'm all for allowing companies to ignore copyright and "violate the GPL" as long as the common man is free to ignore copyright laws as well.

    This is the Age of Information. Laws promoting and enforcing Artificial Scarcity of Information are Ridiculous, Tyrannical, and should be completely ignored since they infringe upon everyone's right to communicate freely any information they wish. Copyright and Patent law are hindrances to true innovation that do not benefit the society as a whole. Removing or ignoring these laws does not reduce the demand for new and better information and technology, nor would abolishing these prevent one from producing technology or media. What's scarce is the ability to research, not the discovery. What's scarce is the ability to create new content, not copies of said content. Artificial Scarcity of information is abhorrent, both ethically and economically.

    The only logical thing to do is to abolish patent and copyright laws. Only then can we test the hypothesis by which the laws were made. Things have changed so drastically since the laws were conceived that such an experiment must be done. Until then, we're operating under unproven conjecture and NO logical argument can be made for them!

    Prove to me such laws are beneficial. So long as you're unwilling or unable to do so, the law should be ignored.

  • by bane2571 (1024309) on Monday August 27, 2012 @08:07PM (#41144439)
    Actually, yes. The entire purpose of copyright is to allow a creator a reasonable period of time to make profit on their work to promote the creation and distribution of that work. If a work is not actively being distributed anywhere, then logically it is past the reasonable period of making profit on it and should not be covered by copyright.
  • by jtownatpunk.net (245670) on Monday August 27, 2012 @08:22PM (#41144541)

    Holders of trademarks and such are required to go after every infringer they're aware of or they lose the right to protect their IP. Flip it around and make it necessary for content owners to provide their content for sale in order to make an infringement claim. If they're not currently selling or licensing their content, they should lose the right to protect it from unauthorized distribution.

  • by 1u3hr (530656) on Monday August 27, 2012 @09:29PM (#41144931)

    I mean, that's a lovely assumption, but unless FACT can show it represents the interests of those copyright holders, they have no standing to do anything against UKNova. Or is that not how the law works in the UK?

    A C&D isn't issued by a court, it's just a letter from a lawyer.

    If UKNova had a QC to defend them in a court they might indeed win on that basis, five years and a million pounds later.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27, 2012 @09:43PM (#41145007)

    It was called the Stone Age.

    No, it's called a brain. Use it. The legality of something has nothing to do with morality.

    If the laws are wrong, change them.

    And they are. They're also ignoring them.

    Carry on breaking them willfully, and I will continue to fight like hell to see you in prison where you belong.

    You'll fight like hell to see people who copy data in prison? I see you've got your priorities straight.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27, 2012 @10:01PM (#41145121)

    "Try applying that logic to physical goods: if you don't sell me your desk, you lose the right to keep it."

    Some of the 'logic' you fuckwits come up with, would require a whole new definition of the word stupid.

    If you don't sell me your desk, no problem. I can make a copy of it. You had a chance to make money, chose not to. So by all means keep your desk - be buried with it for all I care.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27, 2012 @11:16PM (#41145459)

    If that painting is historically, socially and/or culturally significant, yes.

    Humanity should not artificially inhibit itself just to satisfy the greed of a few.

In order to get a loan you must first prove you don't need it.

Working...