UKNova TV Torrent Tracker Shut Down After FACT Issues C&D 195
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."'"
Another example... (Score:2)
not "available for purchase anywhere" (Score:5, Funny)
bad news for fans of UK shows that aren't available for purchase anywhere
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.
Re: (Score:3)
What's the purpose of copyright again?
Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
We had to destroy the village to save it.
Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (Score:4, Interesting)
AC writes: "Actually, they last beyond the time the material is worthless".
Actually even if the author wants a work released there is no practical way to release it that is accepted in US law. Plenty of authors have no illusions and plenty of works have very short useful lives. But existing law provides no way to deal with that.
The book "How To Fix Copyright" by William Patry has details on this and much more. I have no financial or other interest, I just like the book.
Re: (Score:2)
The book "How To Fix Copyright" by William Patry has details on this and much more.
Doesn't that constitute at least a semi-citation?
Re: (Score:3)
It is worth noting that law only prescribes the *maximum* term of copyright protection that applies.
There is no reason why the creator of intellectual property can't define a shorter term if they choose.
The book I'll be releasing shortly will have a clearly stated copyright term of just five years.
I'm hoping that by being *sensible* about the term of protection, those who might otherwise have opted to simply download a copy (it won't be DRMed) without paying the paltry sum being asked, will think again abou
Re: (Score:3)
I'm hoping that by being *sensible* about the term of protection, those who might otherwise have opted to simply download a copy (it won't be DRMed) without paying the paltry sum being asked, will think again about doing so.
We're not talking a literary work on the scale of Dickens -- but I do expect that it is something which the public domain will benefit from in a few years time (whether it sells in quantity or not) so I'm not going to be stupid about my use of copyright protection.
Sadly, I believe you will be disappointed.
Re: (Score:2)
I can cite an anecdote over this too.
I have a friend who is a botanist and who was researching the history of a specific taxonomic classification to find the reasons for the classicification as he was trying to determine with modern knowledge, whether the classification was still valid.
I can't remember the exact details, but the book in which the classification was defined was published in something like 1916, but for some reason was allowed to be re-published (as an updated version perhaps) in about 1937.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The main problem of copyright is, that it creates artificial scarity where none is needed. Without copyright, the whole knowledge of humankind could be available to anyone on the planet instantly. With copyright, only the knowledge you can personaly financialy afford and the creator is willing to sell you is available. This is imo totaly wrong and there is absolutely no reason for such cripling restriction to exist.
Money is not the problem. We already pay for intelectual property. We just don't want to shar
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I support copyright (and patents), but only in a reasonable (ie, not eternal) form. Depending on material (or format I should say), 5-25 years is more than sufficient. If you can't make money off your creation in that time frame, too fing bad, it's time to let someone else try by creating a derivitive work.
Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that you have no perspective. It's not a choice, it's a different but just as deadly punishment.
Drug cartels murder you. Media cartels Financially Murder you, your children, your wife, your mother, etc... You will not be able to work in a professional career ever again, because they made it a felony. You will never have any credit, and any income you get will have 90% of it garnished for the rest of the days your family name will exist on this planet.
At least with decapitation there is
Re: (Score:2)
a different but just as deadly
Im not sure you understand the meaning of that word. Im sure noone has ever died because the RIAA sued them, regardless of whether their tactics were legal or not.
Financially Murder
You keep using that word, I dont think it means what you think it means.
At least with decapitation there is an end to it all.
Yes, and I think most sane people would prefer bankruptcy to that kind of end.
Re: (Score:2)
And you consider "being out of money" in a first world country to be on par with decapitation by mexican drug cartels?
Wow, speaking of lack of perspective...
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
A product's price being higher than what you think it should be is not justification for circumventing that price and just taking it. If it were, you would be justified in figuring out what a gallon of milk costs to stock in-store, and simply leaving that amount instead of paying the store's price.
But we call that shoplifting of course, and tend to recognize it as destructive to society.
Re: (Score:2)
If you know a way of replicating cartons of milk, I'm all udders.
Meanwhile, in the real legal and moral world which recognises the difference between theft and copyright infringement, it is still unreasonable for the middle man to take a huge cut when selling a physical product. This doesn't mean you just steal the milk, but you most certainly raise awareness and campaign for a greater share of the profits to go to those involved in doing the real work - this must involve work by the content producers too [dailypost.co.uk].
L
Re: (Score:2)
You miss the point. What I described could be defended as "not stealing", because technically the amount you paid covered all of the store's costs and they did not take a loss; yet certainly your actions robbed them of value-- not only with lost profits but in that the remaining milk now has less value to everyone who knows what you did. The fact that your actions are now a "legitimate" course for your peers means that more may be likely to do the same.
It is a very good parallel, and in each situation the
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike music, milk exists within a somewhat healthy market, so its price is already much closer to the cost of production. Were that not the case, it absolutely would be reasonable to replicate that gallon of milk, leaving the original right where it was on the shelf.
Re: (Score:3)
> milk exists within a somewhat healthy market
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18898830 [bbc.co.uk]
In short: big supermarkets reduce the price they pay for milk, causing farmers and milk processing plants to operate at a loss. Big supermarkets claim the price cuts are for the good of everybody because of the state of the economy and bla and bla.
Re: (Score:2)
The farmers should sell directly to the public and cut the supermarkets out entirely. Or, as they threaten, just not sell to the supermarkets at all. Perhaps rather than pouring it down the drain, they should make cheese (originally we made cheese as a way to preserve the food value of milk in a compact form long after it would otherwise spoil).
In general though, this is the elephant in the room for economists. When they crunch their numbers and spin their theories of markets and corrective actions, they im
Re: (Score:2)
Music is now cheaper than ever, especially when you consider inflation. You can now get sub-99cent DRM free MP3s, which is what everyone was crying over a few years ago.
If people are honest with themselves, they will never be satisfied with any sustainable price; the argument will always be that the MP3s could be cheaper, and hey isnt limewire just so much easier.
Sorry, when I stopped doing P2P downloads a few years ago it was partly because I saw the utter hypocrisy of it all and that even my own actions
Re: (Score:2)
The same argument applies to eBooks. On Amazon (at least in the UK), the price of the Kindle edition is often more than that of the paperback edition.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all Webpage; but I've been in those meets and some of those pages once done are embarrassing. Why is it so slow? errm you didn't listen when we said you shouldn't do that as it will make it slow........
Availability is the point of copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
The whole point of copyright is to ensure the works are created for the public good and made available to the public. If the works are not being made readily available at a reasonable price poin then the copyright should expire and the ditributors (torrent site) is legal. Anything short of this is unethical.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The whole point of copyright is to ensure the works are created for the good of the media companies and made available to the public over their dead bodies. If the works are not being made readily available at a reasonable price point then the media companies are doing the job they made for themselves. Copyright should never expire and the distributors (torrent site) is illegal. Anything short of this is unethical since it violates the media company's government-mandated profits, imaginary or not.
FTFY. Seriously, dude, anything other than eternal copyright is un-American, and we will shove this down your throats and up your ass until the only words you can ever say OR think again is "America!! FUCK YEAH!!"
Re: (Score:2)
The story is about a UK site offering last week's TV shows, but yet here you are, shrieking like a high-pitched fattie about excessive US copyright length.
You do realise that the UK is bringing the last bits and bobs of its copyright laws into line with US copyright laws, don't you?
And the actions of FACT in this matter are a direct correllation to actions done by RIAA/MPAA/etc in their attempts to silence The Pirate Bay.
And besides, every redblooded American KNOWS all copyrights belong to the *AAs. It practically says so right in the legislation they paid cold hard cash for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (Score:5, Insightful)
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;"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (Score:5, Informative)
Laws that are unenforceable are moot. Copyright laws are unenforceable in the current world. So lets stop wasting our efforts trying to preserve outdated business models that can't be possibly preserved.
It's not just that they are unenforceable. They have lost popular support, the only reason that they are still there is that these laws still do no really affect the older folk. Plus at election time there are somehow always "more important issues" that need to be talked about.
In the mean time, behind closed door, Hollywood is pushing it's agenda in TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement) and CETA. Would anyone believe that Hollywood is trying to extend Canada's copyright term by another 2 decades? Today that's longer than most kids take to grow from a baby into someone that's out the door and in college. And that's just the term *extension*!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My garbage can keeps filling up. What the point of emptying it?
because if you didn't empty it you would have to either:
A: throw your rubbish on your floor or
B: take your rubbish all the way to the tip yourself bypassing the garbage man
are you saying if we were to abolish copyright laws the outcome would be either
A: an excess of music and movies for me to easily access or
B: artists would sell their music directly to me - bypassing the 'distributor'
Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
If I decide to make a limited edition set, it is your duty to make the set unlimited?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
if they take a digital picture of it there should be no moral issue, you see you are making a error of confessing physical objects and digitally replicateable media.
Re: (Score:2)
Having seen first hand quite a few master pieces in many museums in Europe, I can assure you that a digital replica is in no way a replacement for the original. They are a pale shadow by comparison.
PS I assume you mean confusing, not confessing.
Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I torrent The Big Bang Theory, I am not the moral equivalent of Rosa Parks. Someone who sat at the front of the bus, despite the color of her skin was in fact risking that skin. There was a very large social structure invested in keeping the races segregated and people were beaten and/or killed for violating that.
Deciding that The Big Bang Theory is worth $
Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
So if it became law that laws could not be changed ever and that every morning all people must sing the national anthem upon waking; you would just continue to do that for the rest of your life?
Re: (Score:2)
So if it became law that laws could not be changed...[snip]
What world do you live in?
Re: (Score:2)
I believed you were arguing that we should blindly follow piracy laws regardless of their effect on society simply because they were law.
If that is not the case then why should we stop downloading movies despite their being no negative effects*
So which is it? Should we blindly follow all laws, or use some judgement?
*assuming no negative effects for the sake of this post as you were not obviously contending this in your post
Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (Score:5, Interesting)
You are quite right, the world is not a black and white place. Not all laws are right, and few leaders are good. Often, our leaders don't care if the laws are right, they simply want to use the laws for their own advantage. And changing leaders generally doesn't affect this
I will fight against people like you who believe in their government and their laws, right or wrong
Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know. Which is more inconvenient, not being able to sit in the front of the bus for a 30 minute bus ride, or not being able to watch a 30 minute episode of a TV show?
They both last the same length of time and you can do perfectly well living your life without either one. The bus discrimination can be repeated, but of course so can not being able to watch a TV show. The only substantial difference is that it's equal opportunity oppression that screws over everyone, instead of just screwing over blacks.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's not get carried away here, disobeying copyright is not going to unravel the whole of civilization at all. The big media companies like to portray themselves as cornerstones of our society, but economically speaking they are just a spit in the ocean. They do contribute a disproportionately large amount of corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
This might come as a surprise, but I think you will find most people just live how they feel, and the laws just happen to vaguely correspond to that some of the time. Laws don't prevent crime, they just give the government a tool to stop people causing trouble. So, if you feel that watching the Kenny Everett show is causing trouble and that you should go to prison for it... well..
Anyway, my point is, you can't just legislate something and expect society to fall in line with military obedience. Society has i
Re: (Score:2)
I should probably add that the morality of the current system feels very suspect to most people, who are working a shitty job, while the artists who are getting the same song played every 2 and a half minutes on the radio are wearing clothing made of steak and driving road adapted military 4x4's to take their pampered, show groomed actor children back and forth to private schools.
Re: (Score:3)
This is not about just the 'Kenny Everett Video Show' (Whoever he is). This is about a manipulative group of corporations working in concert to tell us what our culture is and then making us pay dearly to be part of that culture and then proceed to lord that over us for perpetuity.
This is a fight for the ownership and ability to produce cultural works that outlast ourselves. Every previous generation has built on those that came before it and we are no exception, but it is getting progressively harder to do
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, this mentality is too prevalent in the Science/IT community. It goes like this:
If 'person X' can't prove to me that 'law Y' is 'beneficial/valid/just/whatever-polarised-measure-of-truth-I-like-at-the-time', then we should all just ignore it.
I disagree. The way I think it goes is "This law/procedure was introduced because of X and Y. Now X & Y no longer apply/exist but we have situation A which means that the reason/justification for these laws no longer exists so the laws should be revoked or amended to take into account the current circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
Civil disobedience is a well respected non-violent means to effect change when the government proves reluctant to hear the voice of the people or the public is not sufficiently aware of the need for change.
There are many silly laws still on the books that have not been obeyed by a single person in decades. In some cases it would actually be illegal to obey those laws today (just imagine stopping at an intersection in a large city and firing a shotgun into the air before driving through as is required by law
Re: (Score:2)
The world is a complex place, and only children have the luxury of viewing it in black and white terms.
Lordy. Talk about the pot calling the kettle beige.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with your argument is that a documentary could be off air for a decade or more before being repeated, at which point the copyright owner is in line for thousands of pounds of income.
We just have to say "after 10 years that's it, you get nothing more and have to do some new work". That would encourage new work and be fair to everyone. There will always be a few cases of things only becoming popular decades after their initial release, but even then there is plenty of money to be made by the autho
Re: (Score:2)
But amend that to add 'once the content has been made available to the public'. There are a multitude of works that are subject to copyright that are never released to the 'public'. Every time you write a letter or email to someone, you own the copyright to that letter but you would not want the public to be able to obtain the content. I agree with you in the case of things like books, musical works, movies etc., copyright should be sacrificed once they go 'out of print'.
Re: (Score:3)
Um... Yes? Let us have it, for a decent price, and in a format we want... Or we'll just take it and the "content barons" can go pound sand. Simple as that.
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?
Absolutely! I don't give the least damn about your "profit motive" when you want to let kids die because you w
Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (Score:5, Informative)
And before you get all high and mighty and tell us, well this is different, there are artists involved... no there are not. The people making money off the content in question here are doing EVEN LESS work than the people that shipped ice south. At least that was hard and had technical challenges. I'm a musician, I've worked with hundreds, if not thousands of other musicians. The vast vast majority of us make very little if any money playing music. We do it because it's a blast. The record companies use us to open for their acts, charge us ridiculous prices for copyrighted sheet music, to use studio time, it's all a sham. The only people making money are the record companies and ticket master and a very very very small minority of musicians. I bet if you talked to some of your favorite bands you'd find out they make far less than you thought. Record companies buy them clothes, rent them cars, all to make them "appear" wealthy. And if you think playing a large show makes you money? Fuck no. I've played shows where part of the contract was that WE THE BAND had to buy 100 tickets and sell them on our own. We had to pay to play the damned show. But that's the only way ticket master will let you in. In return you get exposure and maybe, just maybe, get to meet the headlining act and pick their brains if they're worth a shit.
They don't have control anymore. I can distribute my music any way I fucking want. If people want to download it for free, fine... it's costing me a hell of a lot less than back when I had to pay $20k in studio time and then another $5k to get CDs pressed. Now I can pop MP3s onto a website... or advertise a show just about anywhere for free... Ticket master still has a cast iron grip on all the large venues but that'll change. And as far as robbing the recording industry? Do it. They more than deserve it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
bad news for fans of UK shows that aren't available for purchase anywhere
So evidently many of you folks believe this is reason enough to pirate the content.
I do for one.
Oh, and there's actually indirect legal precedent for this one - in several trademark, copyright and patent infringement cases a right holder has been denied compensation because they previously didn't actively pursue parties that infringed, thus effectively losing the rights. One of these is somewhat personal by the way; a close friend and her husband has both the trademark and the patent of several metal 'spinners' (metal artwork what spins in the wind, sometimes making bell-like noises when
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK we pay a TV license which is what covers the TV that UK Nova hosted, and it's not clear that UK Nova was actually doing anything illegal by allowing people to share recorded TV we've all already paid for like this as it was deemed akin to simply recording a show on VHS and sharing it with your friends.
They've shut down because they can't afford to fight this sort of organisation, not because they were necessarily doing anything illegal.
Your argument may have made sense in other countries, but here
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble with this argument is three fold:
1) People outside the UK had access to the content. They did not pay a TV license and haven't contributed to that cost
2) You're assuming that everyone in the UK downloading have paid for the licence
3) The licence only pays for content produced by the BBC. Other TV companies have to make their money with adverts, but I would bet the UK Nova "producers" didn't leave the ads in.
Re: (Score:2)
I did use the site some years ago (I think when Spooks was on about season 4, before iPlayer provided it) and they always were very blunt about having to be a valid license holder to use the site, and were quite open that you would be banned if you were not, and that they in fact did even ban people quite often for exactly that, so with regards to points 1 and 2 it's merely a question of whether that was legitimate enough enforcement. I'd say it probably was which is precisely why it's taken so long (best p
Re: (Score:2)
The ad contracts are decided before broadcast, but the rates are based on the projected number of people watching a given program. If the projected number of people watching is significantly lower than expected, because everyone's gone off to watch it on the internet, when it comes to renewing those contracts, the TV producers won't make as much money.
Re: (Score:2)
The number of people viewing online has been static for the best part of a decade now and basically stems from the same pool of people who would used to have borrow a VHS from a friend, any adjustments for that have long been known. As a result contracts have long been based on that such that any financial calculation as to whether a show is viable based on ad revenue will be done purely on forecasted live viewing figures for this very reason.
Unlike people who sell software, music, and DVDs as a product, th
Compulsory license (Score:2)
The answer to your rethorical question, would surprisingly to you be mostly yes. In patent law, "lack of working over an extended period in the territory of the patent" is grounds for applying for a "compulsory license" - which is the legal equivalent of use it or loose it regarding patent protection.
The other comparison also completely misses the point. The GPL'd software can clearly be licensed on fair and equal terms by everyone willing to abide by it's terms. The fact that the pricing on the software is
Re: (Score:3)
Instead of saying "pirate", let's say "eminent domain". Both do the same thing.
Eminent domain is practiced by governments. In this case, the governments are in support of the media companies. BAD pirate, NO torrents!!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they are reserving their rights that we have given them. If you gave people a lawful right to urinate on puppies, then by damn they will defend it to the death until such time as it no longer amuses them.
It isnt just UK anyway, You can't watch hulu outside the us, you can't watch anything at all in germany thanks to GEMA... etc
Links are not infringement (Score:5, Interesting)
If Links to content are infringement then I can sue them for linking to me, you can sue me for linking to slanderous content about you, everyone can sue the pants off Google.
Not saying anyone in their right mind wants to do this, that would break a big part of the internet (yes, web site's aren't the internet but they're a big part of it)
Am saying, how come FACT get to call a link to content infringing but the rest of us can't.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, and handing a guy a gun isn't anything either, after all he has to take it himself.
Also, exactly how many angels can balance on the head of a pin? I'm sure Slashdot's self-appointed lawyers can get to the bottom.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If Links to content are infringement then I can sue them for linking to me, you can sue me for linking to slanderous content about you, everyone can sue the pants off Google.
Basically, yes.
However, as with most legal things, it is considerably more complex.
I know of no English law case where a link was held to be an infringement of copyright in itself. There are textbooks suggesting it could be, and there's an obscure 90s Scottish, first-instance case using an older version of the law (about as non-binding a case as you can get) that says it might be, but otherwise we have a vague law (mostly written pre-web), and no application. So no one really knows. This creates enough unce
I'm slightly confused (Score:5, Interesting)
âoeWe immediately removed the alleged offending links to content that could be [connected to] the two companies and replied to FACT assuring them of our cooperation in the matter, but asking them to point out examples of potentially offending links,â a UKNova admin told us.
âoeALL links or access to content provided by UKNova are infringing, unless you can prove that you have obtained explicit permission from the copyright holder for that content,â was FACTâ(TM)s response.
If copyrighted content from only two Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT) members was being shared, where does FACT get off telling UKNova that everything is assumed to be infringing?
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?
Re:I'm slightly confused (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
So much for playing nice (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:So much for playing nice (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh well, I should just be thankful that http://thebox.bz/ [thebox.bz] is based in Belize.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You can play nice.
The problems is that they are greedy fucks that won't play nice with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Trolling - you're not very good at it.
simply repeating profanities and shouting offence at someone will not piss them off, they will likely just roll their eyes and ignore you.
you need to make them believe that you are being serious or your words lose all meaning.
if if they don't think that these are your genuine opinions then it will appear to them that they are in a genuine argument, which they will then feel the need to win. then every reply that doesnt agree with them will bring up just a little more ra
It should work both ways. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Flip it around and make it necessary for content owners to provide their content for sale in order to make an infringement claim.
What about specially commissioned private works? If I have a poster design, video, or what-ever, made for myself or a company, would you have the right to copy it? What about my photos from a family holiday that are on my website? Can GreedyShister Ltd. copy them for use in their promotional materials simply because I'm not offering them for sale?
Works in progress would have similar problems: if I hand out a part finished work for people to look at and give feedback (or just because they are interested e
Re: (Score:2)
I see only one issue with this: copyright holders making their content cost $5,000 for the super duper limited edition directors cut edition on Betamax just to say it's technically for sale, instead of having it available for a modest cost for download in a universal format.
I wouldn't really have a problem with that as long as they're actually producing it and have it available for purchase. I suppose a clause could be added requiring a minimum number of units be produced and sold (to consumers) each quarter. Miss the target for 8 consecutive quarters and forfeit the right to control distribution. Numbers drop for 6 quarters, dump ten thousand units in $0.99 bins at Walmart and reset the clock. Even if the usual price is $5,000 quite a few copies would get into the hands o
Re: (Score:2)
Private prosecution (Score:2)
UK "justice" is pretty messed up - a private entity can prosecute individuals.
Ars has a great article about how FACT put the owner of SurfTheChannel behind bars for four years. Maybe this is why UKNova are complying with these idiots.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/private-justice-how-hollywood-money-put-a-brit-behind-bars [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks UKN (Score:2, Interesting)
BBC iPlayer, 4OD etc. official streaming services was a direct response to UKNova.
DVD releases of many, many UK shows immediately after the season ended (during in the case of Dr. Who) can be attributed to UKNovas no torrenting stuff available for purchase.
Thanks to file sharing pioneers like UKNova, we can stream almost all the content (providing you use a UK proxy)
It can also be credited for preserving many, many old shows that would no doubt be lost forever, by inviting users to raid their attics for VHS
Let me pay the licence fee. (Score:5, Interesting)
Because I'd love to. Let me pay the licence fee and have access to BBC iPlayer, legally, and that would cover most of what I want to see.
It wouldn't help for other channels, but what does Channel 4 really have? Jimmy Carr? Meh. Though I would like ITV for shows that only make their way to PBS years later...
Fire all the lawyers everywhere and hire some more techs and make it happen.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is simple enough... (Score:2)