Slyck.com
 
Slyck Chatbox - And More

File sharing and copyright 101. Part 1. Infrigement

Discuss any general File-Sharing Topic or Issue

Please use the relevant forum below for non file-sharing issues or questions about a specific program or network.
Forum rules
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Slyck Forum Rules

File sharing and copyright 101. Part 1. Infrigement

Postby bobb » Sat Dec 29, 2012 9:14 am

It seems I greatly misunderstood copyright law despite being reading it 15 yrs ago...

here are the excerpts from answers of more knowledgeable members of the forum pulled from here: viewtopic.php?f=66&t=57634&start=600

All participants who are downloading / uploading have searched for, found and initiated a download of a video that they may or may not be aware of it being copyrighted. If you start to download it on p2p, you are downloading a copyright film

all relevant works are covered by copyright automatically.

if the defendant does not know nor have reason to believe the work is covered by copyright, ... it would be argued everyone should have reason to believe that most works (particularly modern ones) are covered by copyright, simply from general knowledge of the existence of copyright.

pretty much all file sharing is illegal in the UK unless all elements of the works are out of copyright


I am not being sarcastic or bitter (in this case anyway). I am just seriously trying to understand who far it is really f@cked this copyright law stuff.

it seems that downloading a video (or a file appeared to be a video) is illegal on premice - everything is copyrighted.

Question - does the law also says that once you get yourself a copy of a copyrighted video without paying - it is automatically infringement?

Question - if a payment is to separate good from bad - if you paid a pirate but you didnt know - again - is it my fault? Can I still be sued? (could be not a pirate but simply another company disputing the copyright and feeling - it is their right to sell it, although that might be proven wrong later after few years of litigation).

(what about videos on youtube? there are simply promotions or people just sharing content because (a - they dont like money or b - they cant be bothered or c - the content worth less than the smallest available fraction of money (a penny for instance))

(does this automatic stuff means that strictly speaking if you see a piece of colourful paper on a street and you take it and unfold and that become a picture - which is someones work, hence automatically copyrighted, hence you are already guilty)

(does all of this mean - you have to throw out your computer because these days pretty much any website can display content from other places - like a video - to avoid any electronical contact.. and you have to walks streets in dark glasses with hands bandaged and deep in your pockets to avoid any contact with printed material)...

are you really serious? is it how the world works?? or am I just stupid and this is how it should be anyway. I mean orwell must have been laughing in his grave for past 10 yrs at least.
bobb
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:43 am

Re: File sharing and copyright 101. Part 1. Infrigement

Postby MrFredPFL » Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:26 am

Question - does the law also says that once you get yourself a copy of a copyrighted video without paying - it is automatically infringement?


i am not aware of the UK having any such law.
User avatar
MrFredPFL
 
Posts: 15682
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

Re: File sharing and copyright 101. Part 1. Infrigement

Postby bobb » Sat Dec 29, 2012 2:08 pm

OK, so why I was just told on the other thread that : "pretty much all file sharing is illegal in the UK" (with superficial exception) ? is that strictly because of the uploading (as you mentioned in my other thread) ?
bobb
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:43 am

Re: File sharing and copyright 101. Part 1. Infrigement

Postby MrFredPFL » Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:03 pm

i am not familiar with the comment u refer to, and even if i were, unless i made it myself, i'd have a hard time authoritatively answering the "why" ;)
User avatar
MrFredPFL
 
Posts: 15682
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

Re: File sharing and copyright 101. Part 1. Infrigement

Postby MrFredPFL » Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:11 pm

i have looked for the comment u refer to, and don't see it offhand. if u could point me to the specific remarks, i could possibly offer an opinion.

the closest thing i saw was something that stated that pretty much all material was copyrighted. is that what u refer to?
User avatar
MrFredPFL
 
Posts: 15682
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

Re: File sharing and copyright 101. Part 1. Infrigement

Postby DukePPUk » Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:24 pm

I am not a lawyer, but have formally studied copyright law in the last 6 months (and done quite a bit of research recently). You shouldn't rely on this, if you want actual advice, talk to a specialist copyright lawyer.

Very Brief summary of copyright law

The following types of work are automatically protected by copyright:
  • original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works;
  • sound recordings, films and broadcasts;
  • the typographical arrangement of published editions.

Copyright lasts until the end of the year 70 years after the death of the last author (or relevant person) alive, apart from:
  • anonymous works; where copyright expires at the end of the 70th year after being made or issued to the public (whichever is longer);
  • foreign works; where copyright expires when it would in the author's jurisdiction if that is before the default term (but it cannot last longer);
  • computer-generated works; 50 years from the end of the year after being made;
  • sound recordings and broadcasts; 50 years (going up to 70 soon) from the end of the year it was first made, published or made available to the public (which ever is longer);
  • typographical arrangements; 25 years from the end of the year in which it was first published;

The following are things restricted by copyright:
  • copying (which includes making temporary copies on computers, i.e. downloading);
  • issuing copies to the public;
  • renting or lending copies or originals;
  • performing, showing or playing the work in public;
  • communicating the work to the public;
  • making an adaptation, or doing any of the above with an adaptation;

If you do any of those to a work protected by copyright, or a substantial part of it, directly or indirectly, or authorise someone else to do so, without permission from the copyright owner, or an applicable exception applies, you have committed copyright infringement. There are also some types of "secondary infringement" which involve doing things with infringing copies (such as importing, possessing, dealing with, helping make them) in a commercial context.

-------------------------

it seems that downloading a video (or a file appeared to be a video) is illegal on premise - everything is copyrighted.
Yes. It is illegal if you don't have permission or a valid exception.

does the law also says that once you get yourself a copy of a copyrighted video without paying - it is automatically infringement?
Payment isn't directly relevant - it is permission that is important. You pay for something but not have permission (due to paying not enough or the wrong person), or have permission without paying (such as with something released under a Creative Commons licence). However, simply getting a copy of something for personal use isn't itself an infringement – provided you don't actually copy it (or perform any other restricted act).

if you paid a pirate but you didnt know - again - is it my fault? Can I still be sued?
If you bought a physical copy (a DVD or CD) for your personal use, you probably won't have infringed copyright (if you didn't know - if you did know, there might be a secondary infringement) as you haven't done a restricted act - it was someone else who made the copy. If it was a licensing thing (i.e. downloading from a site/service which didn't have authority to distribute) you would be committing copyright infringement. This is partly why licensing/download services are so rare/limited; if anything goes wrong they can get in a lot of trouble. Ignorance or misinformation is no defence to primary copyright infringement.

what about videos on youtube? there are simply promotions or people just sharing content because (a - they dont like money or b - they cant be bothered or c - the content worth less than the smallest available fraction of money (a penny for instance)
If the copyright owner uploads it then it is all fine as there is permission. If someone uploads it without permission then by viewing it you will probably be breaking the law (as downloading/watching is an act of copying).

if you see a piece of colourful paper on a street and you take it and unfold and that become a picture - which is someones work, hence automatically copyrighted, hence you are already guilty
Probably not. You're not infringing copyright in the work on the paper as you aren't copying it. While you might create something that matches another work, copyright infringement requires actual copying of the work - not merely creating something identical, so provided your thing wasn't a deliberate copy of the other work, you'd be fine.

you have to throw out your computer because these days pretty much any website can display content from other places
This is an issue of some academic debate at the moment (after the Meltwater case); at the moment it seems that pretty much any serious web-browsing in the UK involves infringing copyright (but the Supreme Court might fix that). It's all rather silly. The Meltwater case even argued that someone receiving an email could be liable for copyright infringement by doing so...

you have to walks streets in dark glasses with hands bandaged and deep in your pockets to avoid any contact with printed material
No; because you wouldn't be making copies (copies made in someone's brain don't seem to count... yet).

And yes, copyright can be fairly ridiculous in many ways.
DukePPUk
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:45 am

Re: File sharing and copyright 101. Part 1. Infrigement

Postby MrFredPFL » Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:27 pm

thanks duke :toast:
User avatar
MrFredPFL
 
Posts: 15682
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

Re: File sharing and copyright 101. Part 1. Infrigement

Postby bpaw » Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:38 pm

Just my own thoughts here (And is covered in Dukes excellent post) but to look at it the other way, a copyright holder will argue that although a downloader hasn't completed the download to read a copyright notice, the person has uploaded it to numerous people. So even if the person sees the copyright notice then deletes the file, the sharing has been done. Copyright holders will argue their rights.

Another aspect of this is how can you ensure all material is copyrighted? What about an mp3? If music had a copyright notice on all songs, it would make for one crappy CD! :wink:
"Hatton & Berkeley, which provides financial services to small businesses, sent the letters on behalf of its client TCYK LLC to Mrs Drew. Robert Croucher, managing director of Hatton & Berkeley, said: "They [the letters] are part of what's referred to as a pre-action protocol. We send them before action...They don't actually make a demand for money."
Source Link: BBC News
bpaw
 
Posts: 1196
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: File sharing and copyright 101. Part 1. Infrigement

Postby bobb » Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:09 pm

thanks guys. it still seems that using internet in the ways we use contradicts to the current law (even if you are not stealing music or movies). a normal 'clean' use of the internet is still a drag.

take news for example. (these should be protected too).. you google you click you read (browser had made the copy on you disk already).. say it was not legitimate site (who cares)..now some lawyer come to the major newspapers (he just read that porn industry made millions suing idiots who got into the system by using torrent).. he got the job, creates fake website in Tongo using fake ID, publishes unauthorized news, prints the webserver log with all IP connections.. job is done.

you'd say that ridiculous.. why?

seriously. look at this porn business. you all are saying - embarrassment is for someone else. but still it feels like most of us is actually embarrassed to be caught not stealing from a bank (those greedy bankers) but porn..

nothing wrong is with porn.

and few months ago if someone suggested that such a stupid case might get real - many of us would think it is ridiculous.. and yet - we have it..

tomorrow some other scam will do.

I do not condone stealing from banks. I don't think bankers are more greedy than many. I don't think it is good idea to steal porn or normal movies.

I am saying - the law does actually limit a person freedom in many shadowy areas. it doesn't really protect much but it does limit a lot...

just nobody (before the f@cking desperate clowns from porn business) bothered to try. but it seems our back is opened for so many things for nothing...

this is why I said that it seems the only way to not break this f@cking law - is never switch computer on.. or at least don't connect it to the internet so there is no good scout like O2 to grass you out. f@ckers
bobb
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:43 am

Re: File sharing and copyright 101. Part 1. Infrigement

Postby bobb » Sun Jan 06, 2013 4:34 pm

Ok.. rant aside... I have a question..

I am typing from my laptop (Windows 8). It has an application (sort of Android/iPhone kinda app) called Music (shipped with the Windows 8). I click on it and there is a list of some music tracks... I don't have time to read disclaimers (but none presented anyway).. so I click the biggest pic with Will I am.. and it says Will I am and Britney Spears.. great... now it starts to stream music..

I didn't pay for it. I didn't subscribe for any streaming music services... so its just that - click - got music.

how that's different from click - got porn from torrent?

how am I supposed to know what is stolen and what is rightfully presented by the owner? (for promotional reasons for example or whatever - do I have to be expert in marketing tactics to use internet) ?
bobb
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:43 am

Re: File sharing and copyright 101. Part 1. Infrigement

Postby DukePPUk » Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:05 pm

bobb wrote:how am I supposed to know what is stolenunlicensed and what is rightfully presented by the owner?

Simple answer; you're not.

Both Amazon and Apple have been caught out distributing unlicensed content (ebooks and films respectively), and there's no easy (or even reasonably difficult) way of telling whether or not something is legal (at the moment). This is due to a combination of automatic creation of copyright, the ability to transfer/assign it, and the ability to sub-license it. Iirc in the MediaCAT case part of the problem with joining the copyright owners was that no one seemed to know who the copyright owner was...

The Government's way around this is to create an "orphan works" scheme and an "extended collective licensing" scheme, by which collecting societies (those bastions of decency and integrity) will be allowed to license stuff without needing permission from the copyright owner, on an "opt-out" basis. Good for collecting societies and their croniesfriends, bad for artists. Not sure how it will affect consumers.
DukePPUk
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:45 am

Re: File sharing and copyright 101. Part 1. Infrigement

Postby bobb » Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:03 am

exactly!! that what I am trying to point out for a while!! that until the legal fathers sort this mess out - normal users cannot be considered pirates.. because internet changed our lives and the law simply doesn't hold any more.

consider land law in England. if you see a fence or a signpost saying - this is private land/road - you know you will be breaking law by entering...

imagine now you are walking a path you did for 10 yrs and then some porn dirty scum shoot you in a back because he secretly bought a title and the exclusive rights to that path (remember sam one fat idiot tried to run 10 yrs ago - he was doing exactly that)...

I think that the public, instead of lobbying rights to steal music and videos, must lobby reasonable rights to be free and then let the 'artists' to care about unlawful distribution of the works.

I think reasonable way would be - to make p2p networks to block certain content by issuing court orders and notifying those who already downloaded the stuff that it is illegal to further use it (further not backwards)
bobb
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:43 am


Return to General File-Sharing Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron
© 2001-2008 Slyck.com