Soldato
So most people can sleep safely at night 
.
Yeh what is it with that? "Arrgh"LordSplodge said:
.UK court to unmask 'file-sharers'
- Thread starter HaX
- Start date
Soldato
This worries me quite a lot, I used to download a lot of anime and it has big file sizes so I could have easily been in the top 1000 (of my ISP).
Last edited:
Don't assume a classical work isn't still copyrighted.greenlizard0 said:
Sure, the actual musical score isn'tv(if it's old enough), but a given recording may well still be. Typically, copyright exists in any given recording for 50 years from the end of the year in which it is recorded, so you'll need recordings made before 1956 for them to be clear of copyright.
So while there's no copyright on, say, Handel's Messiah, all that means is that you're free to go hire an orchestra and record your own version, but it does NOT mean you're free to pirate the latest Deutsche Grammophon recording.
Soldato
Sudden said:
Off topic {
Really, don't suppose you'd care to name a few?
;
I'm not really that in the know when it comes to where to get anime from.
}
Essentially, that is what happens.Raikiri said:
The circumstances in which punitive damages are available to a court ot award in the UK are VERY limited indeed. So, any award against a file sharer will be based on the actual loss suffered by the copyright owner .... and possibly legal costs.
This is why any action is likely to be against uploaders, not downloaders, unless a downloader is operating on a grand scale.
Also, in each case I've seen so far, an out of court settlement has always been offered, and it only goes to court if the offender declines the settlement. And THAT is a gamble.
What'll probably happen is that the 'accused' get a letter saying "We've got you cold. Send a cheque for £x,000 by such-and-such a date, or we take legal action".
You then have a choice. You can send the cheque, or you can fight it. If you fight, you may win and get costs awarded, in which case all it'll cost you is the time, aggravation and stress of the case. Or you may lose, in which case it'll probably cost you more in damages than the out of court settlement costs would have been, and you pay your legal fees and you might get to pay the other guys legal fees too. And THAT could get very expensive.
So most people fork over the few grand for the out of court option. It takes a fair degree of confidence, and some balls, to opt to fight.
Not really. Suppose I produce a TV show, but opt not to put it on DVD. The reason might be that I want to be able to sell repeats in a year or two, or that I want to sell to other geographical locations. If you are downloading a program that's only been on TV and not DVD, the implication is that somebody else is uploading it, and THAT has the potential to affect my marketing and sales opportunities. So, I've invested time, effort and quite a bit of money in producing the program, and somebody screws that up by sticking it on the web.Raikiri said:
In those circumstances, you can bet your sweet patootie you're gonna get sued if I get the evidence to do so.
Commissario
Sudden said:
It's all copyrighted, just not generally enforced until it's licenced outside of Japan.
Copyright is pretty much worldwide, regardless of where it was created, and where the copyright is being ignored/broken.
The question is not if it's copyrighted in your region, but if there is someone who has it in their interests to protect that copyright (something that normally falls upon the heads of the companies that pay the original creators for the local licence).
Please don't discuss anime file sharing sites on the forums, as they are strictly speaking no more legal than sites that share the latest hollywood movies, and as such would fall foul of the forum rules.
Associate
Some here will disagree, but I firmly believe if movies and music was cheaper then more would buy it. I certainly would. I don't download hardly any music let alone buy it, and I know if WindowsXP was cheaper I would buy it (I was thinking of getting the XP 64 bit edition in actual fact), and I could download it, but can't be bothered really, for that reason i'm sticking with 98SE.
What I don't like is this "intellectual property" thing. Perhaps i'll get a flaming but it really guiles me when I hear things like "this company had to pay someone X amount of dollars to use X song (which could be 100 years old) in their film", or the radios have to pay X amount to play the songs. It should be the radios being paid to play the songs (unless i'm confused on this), as it is giving the artists recognition.
I don't see it any different to say, me doing a clutch on someones car and then getting a wedge every time it successfully changes gear (bit over the top but you see my point) or say X car manufacturer getting a royalty every time the car starts up in the morning.
Can't see that kind of thing happening to me, just seems to me that it was bought in so people could make huge amounts of cash for eternity. I mean, if a songs artist has passed away then the family of said artist get the royalties. Nice, isn't it?
What I don't like is this "intellectual property" thing. Perhaps i'll get a flaming but it really guiles me when I hear things like "this company had to pay someone X amount of dollars to use X song (which could be 100 years old) in their film", or the radios have to pay X amount to play the songs. It should be the radios being paid to play the songs (unless i'm confused on this), as it is giving the artists recognition.
I don't see it any different to say, me doing a clutch on someones car and then getting a wedge every time it successfully changes gear (bit over the top but you see my point) or say X car manufacturer getting a royalty every time the car starts up in the morning.
Can't see that kind of thing happening to me, just seems to me that it was bought in so people could make huge amounts of cash for eternity. I mean, if a songs artist has passed away then the family of said artist get the royalties. Nice, isn't it?
tb2000 said:
Always agreed on this point whenever piracy talk has come up. If it was cheaper then there'd be no reason not to buy it. Music is pretty cheap over the net these days if you look around so I dont mind buying albums, and movies are coming down in price too. What I would like is movies made available day of cinema release for download aswell through legal forms. All profits still going to the company. I'd jus rather have it.
No flaming from me, but I do disagree. Copyright doesn't last "for eternity" or, for that matter, exist on 100 year old songs.tb2000 said:
Also, it is, of course, entirely possible for a radio station to decide it is going to charge to play songs. They have that right. Why don't they? Because it isn't their business model. It is also up to a rights holder to charge less for songs. They could do that, and more people might buy. But more people buying doesn't necessarily mean higher profit. In any event, it is up to the owner to decide what to charge for what they own. If they charge too much, people should just not buy. It doesn't give them either a moral or legal right to take it anyway.
Soldato
I think movies are cheap enough to buy especially from a well known jersey company, if i want an album or a film i just buy it from there with free delivery, no point spending hundreds of pounds on a TV and surround sound then getting a crappy copy of a film. People who dont want the full album and just want 1 track shouldn't get into trouble as its just like taping from the radio like millions of people do without any legal action. Also TV programs being downloaded shouldn't be illegal, people have been taping programs and films from the TV for years, i bet every single person on this forum has done that, thats no different than downloading the episode, and this sky plus wouldn't that be illegal then?.
I keep hearing people say uploading will get you into more trouble, what exactly is uploading?, is this something to do with torrents or p2p?.
mark
I keep hearing people say uploading will get you into more trouble, what exactly is uploading?, is this something to do with torrents or p2p?.
mark
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 474
If you are downloading a file off Mr.X, then Mr.X is uploading that file to you.
Associate
I agree that some are cheap, but some are still expensive. Actually the point you bring up about taping off of the telly is amusing to me as I would bet that even the people who conceived and work for the FAST or FACT federations all have at least some programmes on tape at home that they have kept on tape because they want themMark A said:
.Uploading is making the material you have on your computer available for others to download. The logic is that when you download, you make ONE copy. When you upload, you enable others (maybe thousands of others) to make copies from your material.Mark A said:
As for the copyright points you make, yes there are some apparent inconsistencies. But a line has to be drawn somewhere. We are all entitled to watch material that is broadcast. That is, after all, what it's broadcast for. Copyright law allows you to make a copy for "timeshifting" purposes. That is, to delay that watching by a reasonable period. It does not allow you to make "archive" copies. So, if you record a TV broadcast and watch it a few days (or a couple of weeks) later, it's "timeshifting" and legal, because timeshifting is a specific exemption to the 'no copying' principle, and is specifically allowed by copyright law (in the UK). If you record a film (or whatever) with a view to watching it months or years later, that's archiving and is a copyright breach. Exactly where the line between timeshifting and archiving, in terms of how long you're allowed, is not defined. It's likely to be weeks though, not months.
Sky PLus is neither illegal nor legal. It isn't what the equipment will do, but what you do with it. Sky Plus has the capability to be used illegally, as do video recorders, DVD and CD recorders, cassette tape recorders, and so on, but it would be that usage that weas illegal, not the device itself. If you were talking about equipment, devices or software specifically designed to break or bypass copy protection, that can be very different.
As for downloading one track being OK because it's like taping from the radio, taping from the radio is a copyright breach and long has been. That's rather like saying breaking into cars should be OK because burglars have been breaking into houses for hundreds of years. The only reason(s) no action is taken against people taping from the radio are :-
- it's damn hard to prove
- it's a one-to-one process, rather than the one-to-many that internet file sharing is
- the damages the rights holder suffers from any specific breach are so small as to make legal action uneconomic
HaX said:
Hardly anything I expect (relative to the value of software distributed). Last year when I read about people busted in the UK for file sharing they were getting meagre fines of a few thousands pounds each.
To be honest people who are hardcore enough to warrant getting taken to court have likely bagged themselves more than a couple of grands worth of dodgy material over the years anyway, so they are still quids in.
To be a proper deterrent we need widerspread prosecution of copyright infringers coupled with more severe punishments for those found guilty.
Found the relevant article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/4116710.stm
Sequoia said:
I wouldn't say they are the only reasons - in theory it's also much harder to detect such offences in the first place (compared to internet downloading) since the process is completely independent of anyone else. This of course ties into your first point about being hard to prove.
Furthermore I think it is fair to say that taping off the radio is not deemed to be a significant threat to record sales, relatively speaking. The quality is inferior, coupled with some songs being cut short, or having presenters waffling over the top of them etc. Admittedly some people with low disposable income may go down this road but in all likelihood these are the sort of people who would not be buying those records in the first place. Contrast this with digital recordings copied over the internet which are of very good quality, and are in a format people are comfortable using (I see more people using mp3 players than traditional cassette Walkmans these days). The illegal distribution of music over the internet is a very real threat to record sales because the people doing it are the people who would otherwise be making legal purchases - whereas the 'old skool' tape recording isn't to the same degree.
Werewolf said:
Allright, thanks
I just looked at in more detail at the FAQ on that site. It states taht it only lists unlicensed anime and goes on to explain that the only one's who can sue are the original creators. But the fact that someone can makes it illegal.Thanks
I hadn't read that until now, thought the site was listing legal anime torrents dmpoole said:
As a ISP we dont know what people are doing specifically with their connection - we get reports from lawyers working for the big boys (Sony, Warner Bros.. etc) who email our abuse team with evidence that an IP belonging to us was downloading *whatever* at *specific time*.
We check into it, see who had the IP at that time (might by dynamic IP) and then suspend their account.