Slashdot Mirror
Newzbin Usenet Indexer Liable For Copyright Infringement
An anonymous reader writes "The world's most popular Usenet indexing site, Newzbin, has been trounced in London's High Court by the movie studios. Held liable for the infringements of its users, later this week Newzbin will be subjected to an injunction which will force it to filter out illegal copies of movies from its NZB index. From the article: 'Newzbin’s help guides were referred to in the decision. They state that the site can help people find what they're looking for, "whether that be obscure music, tv shows, games or movies. Think of us as a TV guide, but we're a guide that applies to Usenet." ... Newzbin has members called "editors" who help to compile reports on material to be found on Usenet. Newzbin's own documentation was used to show that the site encouraged editors to post links to movies. The verdict notes that to assist editors useful links to IMDb and VCDQuality are provided, the latter being useful to provide information about "screeners."'"
Defrauding people is and should always be illegal. Communicating ideas to another person should never be illegal, even if the ideas you are communicating to another person are not yours.
If these guys wanted to openly discuss something that should not be illegal, that's fine.
This whole copyright protection debate is just corporate-sponsored Prohibition for the 21st century. It's unenforceable without totalitarian government control.
Why not? It happens every day. It's been happening since we had laws. Hell the yanks just did it to pass their mandatory purchase medical insurance bail out bill.
First: If copying part of a work isn't a defense then your post is infringement as it is partially a copy of copyright protected material.
Specifically your 6th word is a partial copy of millions of novels.
Second: If this isn't a loophole then why did they create new laws to specifically patch said nonexistent loophole? Why did they not use existing laws?
I find being offended by me offensive.
What's the lower bound on that? At what point are you not infringing? Now what happens if you break the illegal copy into parts smaller than that threshold and post them?
If you didn't make the copy there is nothing wrong with your example.
Possession of illegally made copies is not a crime. Only the creation of said copy is.
I find being offended by me offensive.
That's a complete change of subject. I never said anything about fair use. We are talking about partial copy. Specifically at what point does the random gibberish of a partial copy turn into a "work."
As others have pointed out, people without a basic understanding of the law tend to imagine there are no loopholes where there really are. The law is a mess. Look at the size of the legal system. It takes years for even the simplest case to make it's way. Hell if there were no loopholes then most of my friends would have to find a new line of work. People think it's clear cut but it's really more a ball of wibbly wobbly law-y wawey.
If this loophole doesn't exist then 1. Why do they sue uploaders and not downloaders? 2. Why did they close it with new laws custom written to cover this exact situation. If there is no loophole they would be able to use existing laws.
Wow 1 person doing two jobs and getting paid for each is a loophole? I think you need to look that word up.
I find being offended by me offensive.
Right -- you claimed his quoting your post was infringement;
This is a complete fabrication. Please quote me where I said that.
I find being offended by me offensive.
That's the thing, even what you 'meant' is totally wrong. If you dont know what artificial scarcity is go look it up. Now ask yourself if you are okay with purchasing a physical item that you do not own. Then ponder what it would be like if Sony claimed ownership of all images & sounds stored by your brain that pertained to copyrighted works they 'own'. Does that mean when you share a memory with someone else of a copyrighted work you are infringing? Now the final thing to think about, what on earth did you purchase with that money you gave to them? Was it the right to listen or watch something based on their criteria? If you have not 'leased' a copyrighted work, do you have the right to use your ears and listen to it? Since even your comment stated that they only sell you rights to access something, what exactly are you telling us to go do? Since I can never possess that item in actuality at what point is my want of said item fulfilled? Also, pull your head outta the clouds, that time you made a 'mix-tape' was just as illegal as all this downloading and uploading, your attempt to pretend you are somehow on the moral high ground is transparent and ill thought out.
So the law doesn't specify what a copy is?
I find being offended by me offensive.