Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the anti-culture-conspiracy dept.

Piracy 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."'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ac approves this frosty piss (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41143983)

See title

Copyright and Trikle Down, both say the same thing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41144615)

If you give rich people what they want, they'll trickle liquid gold down your back. Really, when they give us this crap about how society benefits from it, it's no different than Reagan's crap in the 80s. How'd work for y'all by the way? Just smashing, no?

Another example... (2)

ToiletBomber (2269914) | more than 2 years ago | (#41143987)

...of letting someone know that they are guilty until proven innocent.

Right now in a genteel country home (0, Offtopic)

paiute (550198) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144031)

FACT manager: Son, how did you do on your exams?
Son of FACT manager: Great, pops! I got six A+s and one A-.
FACT manager: Not perfect. (Pulls out gun, shoots son dead.)

Re:Right now in a genteel country home (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41144813)

Are all you neckbeards crying cunts or just you? I'm getting a feeling that you all are.
 
Keep crying like a bitch for spoon fed media just like you cry for another cock in your mouth.

not "available for purchase anywhere" (5, Funny)

Un pobre guey (593801) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144073)

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:not "available for purchase anywhere" (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144111)

What's the purpose of copyright again?

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (5, Funny)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144429)

To destroy civilization by protecting it.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145253)

We had to destroy the village to save it.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (5, Insightful)

currently_awake (1248758) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (3, Interesting)

OFnow (1098151) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144665)

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:not "available for purchase anywhere" (0)

chrismcb (983081) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145229)

Actually even if the author wants a work released there is no practical way to release it that is accepted in US law.

Citation needed.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (2)

brantondaveperson (1023687) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145645)

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:not "available for purchase anywhere" (2)

NewtonsLaw (409638) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145129)

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 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.

Copyright is measure of protection - not a weapon!

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (2)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145369)

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:not "available for purchase anywhere" (0)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145299)

Clearly, the solution is to say "ah, whatever, we're not going to follow the law in any case" and post about how copyright is a construct of a corporate industrial complex every time it comes up on slashdot, right?

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41144145)

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?

Yep

What about violating GPL, since it isn't "available for purchase anywhere," either?

GPL stuff is available for purchase at a price of $0 all over the internet.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41144413)

Instead of saying "pirate", let's say "eminent domain".

Both do the same thing.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (2)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144551)

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:not "available for purchase anywhere" (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (4, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144423)

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:not "available for purchase anywhere" (0)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145401)

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.

Im sure having some perspective will get me modded down here, but Im gonna go out on a limb and say thats a pretty significant difference.

If some lawyer came to me and said, "Look, we have two options here: We can either file a lawsuit against you, or we can try some good old execution-by-decapitation", I think Im gonna opt for the lawsuit-- but thats just me.

unstaisfied demand and unreasonable price (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41145219)

stomped copy 5 cents
printing and labels 10 cents
cost to you
29.95

cdr burn ( canada ) 50 cents
daily 5 megabit internet cost 2$
if i burn ONLY one thing a day thats 2.5 plus case so 3$
ten times cheaper on my own......im poor and nvm you get only half the issue....

notice distribution isnt mentioned cause with bittorrent I PAY that with my bandwidth and thus eradicate the need for the label entirely.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (0)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145313)

Black markets are created by unsatisfied demand,

Right, and sometimes the demand is unreasonable.

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,

Songs are available right now on amazon.com for $0.99 per mp3, and music piracy continues. How can THAT be justified?

Lets be honest here. We have a big problem with onerous and unreasonable copyright terms, as well as litigation abuses; but we also have a large problem with people who are either ignorant or flat out dont care what the law has to say about copyright / licensing. I think both are pretty big problems, in their own way.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (1)

God Of Atheism (1003892) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145651)

$0.99 per mp3 is ridiculously high. If an album has say 10 songs that would mean $9.90 for an album in the low quality mp3 format. You can often find hard copies of albums for that price. For a soft copy (which has no production costs per unit, only production costs for the initial unit), the price should be much lower. I'm thinking along the line of at most $2.00 per album in lossless format (possibly including access to relatively high quality lossy), and low quality lossy (say 128k mp3) available as free preview.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (1, Troll)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145663)

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.

Availability is the point of copyright (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41144189)

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:Availability is the point of copyright (2, Funny)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144475)

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:Availability is the point of copyright (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41145159)

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.

Re:Availability is the point of copyright (1)

chrismcb (983081) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145261)

Actually, at least in America, the whole point of copyright is to help the creators create content. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..." It doesn't say anything about making it available to the public. Or are you suggesting that if a performer wants to do a stage show, once, he MUST record it and distribute the recording?

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#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;"

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41144289)

"...reason enough to.."

"...prevailing law..."

"Reason" is closer to "philosophy" than "law". Your questions should have read "...enough to break the law...". But I think you were purposely mixing legality and morality.

Anyway, your question is to the masses and they have answered well before you asked... YES. Now, stop asking stupid questions. Fact is, copyright no longer respects the public. Why should the public respect copyright?

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (1)

fredprado (2569351) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144347)

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.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144417)

My garbage can keeps filling up. What the point of emptying it? Horrible analogy, but I feel like walking the wild side with a zany rationalization for copyright today...

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (2)

fredprado (2569351) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144517)

If your garbage can kept filling faster each day it would be smart on your part to stop emptying it and trying to figure other ways to get rid of your garbage, because even if you do not at some point your efforts will make very little difference.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (5, Informative)

CanEHdian (1098955) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144611)

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:not "available for purchase anywhere" (5, Insightful)

alexgieg (948359) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144409)

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:not "available for purchase anywhere" (1)

chrismcb (983081) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145269)

So if I paint a painting, and sell ONE copy... It is your duty to copy the painting and sell it?
If I decide to make a limited edition set, it is your duty to make the set unlimited?

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (0)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145407)

So if I paint a painting, and sell ONE copy... It is your duty to copy the painting and sell it? If I decide to make a limited edition set, it is your duty to make the set unlimited?

You're not obliged to create more copies. It's about threatening anyone else who does -- even if they are willing and offer to pay for the privilege.

Anyway, your painting is unique and no one, not even you, can duplicate it exactly. If someone else does make a copy, including your signature or claiming that it was an original would of course be fraud.

If no one was allowed to reproduce a work of art, even imperfectly, without explicit permission, the only people who would even know what the Mona Lisa looked like would be those who had gone to Paris and seen it at the Louvre.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (2)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145481)

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:not "available for purchase anywhere" (5, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144431)

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:not "available for purchase anywhere" (1)

fredprado (2569351) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144593)

Well said! And I do believe IP laws will be ignored more and more until copyright is finally broken. Regardless of any amount of money you put at it there is no way to force millions of people to obey unjust laws unless you have a gun pointed to each of their heads.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (-1, Flamebait)

Wolfling1 (1808594) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144843)

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.

There was a time in the past when humanity largely lived by this philosophy. It was called the Stone Age.

As long as you perpetuate a Fight Club mentality, or encourage others to do so, you are effectively supporting anarchy. Whilst you may think that a little anarchy in copyright law is a good thing, you may not like a little anarchy in your daughter's classroom - or in your parents' retirement village.

The world is a complex place, and only children have the luxury of viewing it in black and white terms.

If the laws are wrong, change them. Carry on breaking them willfully, and I will continue to fight like hell to see you in prison where you belong.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (1)

psiclops (1011105) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145107)

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:not "available for purchase anywhere" (1)

Wolfling1 (1808594) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145473)

Do you not even understand the difference between oppression and 'video piracy'? I suppose that you would apply 'stand your ground' laws if someone tried to take your parking spot too?

So if it became law that laws could not be changed...[snip]

What world do you live in?

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (5, Interesting)

aekafan (1690920) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145155)

So you are saying that Rosa Parks and Gandhi were both wrong? I mean, they were anarchistic lawbreakers, right? That the Jews Germany and political dissidents in Russia should have shut up with their whinging and worked within the system? Sometimes some selective anarchy is a great tool for change, when there are no other avenues. There are times when a government will not change no matter what, because the people support it, even when it is wrong. Hell, Plato recognized this in The Republic. Sometimes, to do what is right you simply have to break the law.

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" (0)

Wolfling1 (1808594) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145421)

Laws are intended to maintain a consistent environment within which people can carry out their lives. Laws define their rights and obligations as members of their society. The whole idea is that if people abide by the laws, the life experiences of those people will be better than if they did not (abide by the laws). Some societies have police forces to uphold and maintain the laws. People who refuse to abide by the laws are incarcerated in jails - to either be reformed so that they may re-enter society - or to protect society from them.

Your frustration with the laws is understandable. There are plenty of laws out there that I dislike (eg I am not allowed to go and beat up my partner's ex husband when he abuses their children). However, society as a whole have decided that if we act outside the law, society will put us in jail.

You mentioned Rosa Parks and Gandhi. They were people who were willing to go to jail to support their desire to change the laws. They were contesting substantive human rights violations.

By contrast, this thread is about 'not being able to download some old episode of The Kenny Everett Video Show'.

Now, I liked that show. I liked it heaps. I'm not prepared to go to jail over it. Are you?

Are you encouraging others to destroy the fabric of society over such an insignificant thing?

Do you genuinely believe that you can use Gandhi to validate video show piracy?

Get some perspective.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (5, Interesting)

Jiro (131519) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145557)

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:not "available for purchase anywhere" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41145207)

Of course there will always be strife when many people are forced to live by the same set of laws. There are bound to be laws you can accept that I would naturally reject and vice versa. Living in a peaceful, productive society requires a little give and take, and sometimes following laws that you think are bad laws because you understand that your opinion may not be common and correct.

However, when laws go to far, the civil disobedience described by GP is, in my opinion, just. With as much effort as you would expend putting people like that in prison, I would spend defending them, not necessarily because I agree that the law is worth fighting, but because of his motivations for fighting it.

Of course nothing is black and white, GP is merely calling for the immediate abolishment of copyright law which may be appropriate given the very dark shade of grey of copyright itself. What I can't stand here is resistance from people like yourself that see copyright in its current form as close to medium grey, not because you've spent years reading about it and thinking hard about it, but just because it's been the law for such a long time. I agree requirement of "proof" is a little strong for not ignoring a law but I myself would want something a little better than "people fear change".

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (1)

grahammm (9083) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145701)

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:not "available for purchase anywhere" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41144973)

> 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.

Since the ability to research is scarce, mgaybe we could incentivize researchers by giving them a monopoly on their research for 17 years or so.

Since the ability to create new content is scarce too, we should probobly incentivize creators by giving them the only rights to copy their creation. Life plus 75 years should probably be enough to encourage the creation of new content.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (3, Insightful)

bane2571 (1024309) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41144723)

Exactly. This should be made a requirement by law: if you do not provide a reasonable way for people to obtain your content you do not deserve the privilege of copyright. Let's remember that copyright is something that we (the people) grant to others, not something they are naturally entitled to.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (2)

pla (258480) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144567)

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

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 won't license that great new antimalarial drug to companies willing to make it cheap enough for the 4th world to afford. I also don't care about rounded corners or XOR, but, different battles.


What about violating GPL, since it isn't "available for purchase anywhere," either?

Nice try, but now cross out the "purchase" part of that. Again - I don't care about whether or not some dead-from-the-hair-down exec can make a buck on it. I care about available, full-stop.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (5, Informative)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144627)

Fuck prevailing law. Seriously. You think that just because it's always been it always has to be? The parties over. Content owners had their run and got incredibly rich while they could. Back in the 1800s people in Canada made a fortune chopping up ice from their frozen lakes late into the spring and summer, packing it in straw and shipping it south. They made a fortune from rich people living in the south and the Caribbean. Then someone invented the freezer. Oh snap.

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:not "available for purchase anywhere" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41145297)

The problem is that you are distributing their content without permission, you are not the creator of their content.

Distribute YOUR OWN content, that you made, however you see fit. You need permission of the copyright holder to reproduce beyond exclusive personal use, and any distribution is subject to copyright laws.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144817)

Hollywood accounting is stealing. Interesting you have said nothing about that.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41144951)

Actually, yes, I do believe that. And this is a discussion of copyright, not patents.

The basic purpose behind copyright is that so the creator of works, nowadays that could also be the rights-holder, is for a time, the only person with the right to profit from that work. UKNova was not a for-profit enterprise, and they went to great lengths to not infringe on rights-holders ability to profit. Typically this was by not allowing torrents of television programs that were going to be released within 30 days. Basically, they just operated as a DVR for fans of British television.

I'm not arguing about legality though, just the morality side.

A case for me, I still want to know why UK rights-holders care in the slightest if people in the USA watch their music videos on YouTube, if they have no intention to sell that music in the USA? (refers to YouTube blocking the viewing of many videos based on your IP address)

you dont need violate gpl stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41145201)

linux is a free download turkey...and its cause of the restrictions of copyright that it exists and the gpl is made to protect OUR USER rights and the code so we can have something we can do as we please with.....

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41145501)

What about violating GPL, since it isn't "available for purchase anywhere," either?

Are you willfully stupid? If you can get at the source - presumably with the licensing details attached - then you are able to "purchase" it. You do that by releasing any derivative works under the same license. Not a monetary cost, nut that is the price.

Subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41144095)

Comment and comment.

Links are not infringement (5, Interesting)

freman (843586) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144113)

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:Links are not infringement (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41144221)

Intent, intent, intent...

Re:Links are not infringement (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41144247)

Intent to link to illegal content shouldn't be a problem either. The problem is the illegal content.

Re:Links are not infringement (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41144737)

The content is not illegal. Offering or downloading the content without a license is illegal.

Re:Links are not infringement (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145467)

If you intentionally give people the facilities to commit a crime, with the knowledge that they intend to do so, you're liable.

"Well, I'm going to swing my arms like this, and if you get hit then it's your fault" only works in courts run by 5-year-olds.

Re:Links are not infringement (1)

kamapuaa (555446) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144583)

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:Links are not infringement (1)

currently_awake (1248758) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144663)

My name is a link to me. Does that mean I can issue a takedown notice to advertisers?

Re:Links are not infringement (2)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144779)

That's a stupid analogy. Instead of comparing links (one of the most mundane things out there) to a CONTROLLED FIREARM, why not compare it to say a stick. Sticks can be used to build things, hold things up and once in a while stab someone in the eye. Should it be illegal to leave a pile a sticks in front of your property because someone may go on an eye-stabbing spree?!?

I'm slightly confused (4, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144277)

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 (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144563)

If nobody pushes back, they'll just run over you. We* have become superconductors of fascism. No resistance at all.

* collective.. ok?

Re:I'm slightly confused (4, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:I'm slightly confused (2)

hawkingradiation (1526209) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145321)

Fuckers Against Common Thought.

So much for playing nice (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#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

Re:So much for playing nice (5, Informative)

Anaerin (905998) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144485)

Mod parent up! UKNova was a very fine example of a site playing nice. Anything that was available to purchase on DVD, Blu-Ray or Pay Per View was explicitly banned from the site. Items that were uploaded were set to expire after 14 days, unless there was a DVD/Blu-Ray release imminent, in which case the torrent expired the night before release. There was nothing on that site that was purchasable anywhere else, and nothing that hadn't been broadcast over terrestrial airwaves for free (technically, funded by the License fee).

Re:So much for playing nice (2)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144617)

You can play nice.

The problems is that they are greedy fucks that won't play nice with you.

Re:So much for playing nice (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41144753)

Go suck another cock, neckbeard. You're a fucking piece of fly shit. What have you ever produced? Fucking nothing. Fucking fuck.

Re:So much for playing nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41144871)

...so says the ear buzzing parasite.

Re:So much for playing nice (1)

psiclops (1011105) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145171)

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 rage.

Pirate Party UK links (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41144529)

Why don't these sites put up links to the Pirate Party UK? That's the only thing that's going to break FACT's back. Vote PP UK. Kill FACT.

It should work both ways. (2, Insightful)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:It should work both ways. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41144991)

Try applying that logic to physical goods: if you don't sell me your desk, you lose the right to keep it. It doesn't make any sense. It's their content, they should be able to sell it or keep it (but obviously have no control over copies previously sold).

Obviously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41145103)

If you can find a way to:

1. Copy my desk
2. Leave me the original
3. Pay me the value of a new desk for every copy you make

and I still refuse to let you give me no-work-involved money, then the answer is yes. I should lose the right to keep my desk because clearly I am insane and am a danger to myself or others.

Re:It should work both ways. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:It should work both ways. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41145257)

Try applying that logic to physical goods

The problem with your logic is right there in that very sentence. Let's see if you can find it.

Re:It should work both ways. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41145039)

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.

What do you mean by "and such"? It's trademarks only. Copyright & patents have different rules.

And trademark owners are NOT required to go after every infringer or they lose their trademark. It does increase the risk of losing a trademark though.

Re:It should work both ways. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41145315)

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.

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.

Re:It should work both ways. (1)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145499)

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 of the public every couple years.

The limited availability model works for Disney. People lose their shit when Disney movies hit the shelves for a few months at a time.

Private prosecution (1)

Graham J - XVI (1076671) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144575)

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]

Thanks UKN (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41144647)

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 gems and convert/upload them. I once asked for an obscure one off BBC show about the music careers of the actors of the various Star Trek series 'Funk me up Scotty' - presented by the legendary John Peel. within a couple of hours someone posted it like it was nothing...

now it's on YT... set your eyes to stun...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3k64LZNLD8

 

There is a silver lining to this all.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41144699)

I always makes me laugh to see you copyleft retards get a swift kick to the crotch.

Let me pay the licence fee. (5, Interesting)

JRR006 (830025) | more than 2 years ago | (#41144721)

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.

End of an era (1)

Latinhypercube (935707) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145031)

UK Nova was amazing. I fail to see how it effected anyone's commercial interests. None of its content was viewable or purchasable anywhere else.
FACT can go FUCK themselves.
It's obvious from their wikipedia page they are a bunch of jokers tying up the legal system with warrantless cases.
There are plenty more fish in the sea.

fuc4! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41145137)

halt. Even Emacs reciprocating getting t0gether 7o a GAY NIGGER

The solution is simple enough... (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#41145281)

... stop watching their content entirely. Stop writing about them and stop discussing what they do. Being ignored is the ultimate punishment for a media company gone bad.

www.cougarster.com (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41145629)

Love love...! Do you like older women!? Sick of those boring little girls? Come to the site::C_o_u_g_a_r_s_t_e_r_C_O_M ^_^ C_o_u_g_a_r_s_t_e_r_C_O_M ::!!This site must be very helpful to you.I bet you can find what you want here! There are Over millions of profiles from all over the world! No matter where you are or what you are~ YOU MUST CHECK IT!!gfwhfghfefergr

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?