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

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."'"

Comments

Another example...

[ToiletBomber]

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

not "available for purchase anywhere"

[Un pobre guey]

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"

[Nerdfest]

What's the purpose of copyright again?

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere"

[currently_awake]

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"

[Anonymous Coward]

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"

[Anonymous Coward]

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"

[Anonymous Coward]

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"

[alexgieg]

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"

[Lumpy]

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"

[Samantha Wright]

To destroy civilization by protecting it.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere"

[VortexCortex]

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"

[bane2571]

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"

[fredprado]

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"

[jamstar7]

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"

[pla]

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"

[CanEHdian]

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"

[Charliemopps]

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"

[OFnow]

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"

[Anonymous Coward]

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"

[NewtonsLaw]

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"

[aekafan]

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"

[Grishnakh]

We had to destroy the village to save it.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere"

[Kalriath]

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"

[Anonymous Coward]

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"

[lister king of smeg]

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"

[Jiro]

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"

[brantondaveperson]

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"

[burne]

> milk exists within a somewhat healthy market

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18898830

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:not "available for purchase anywhere"

[jamstar7]

Laws that are unenforceable make more criminals when they're selectively enforced. See 'The War On Drugs' for further information.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere"

[sjames]

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:not "available for purchase anywhere"

[pantaril]

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 share it with everyone because we fear, that if IP is widely available, none would purchuase new stuff, everyone would just wait for someone else to make the purchuase and share the it. The solution is IMO to force people to spend some money on intelectual property in the form of tax, tax-deductible coupons etc. and then find some fair way to distribute such funds between creators.

Re:not "available for purchase anywhere"

[Shadow99_1]

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 that due to who owns those works. In the not so distant past a work joined the public domain after a decade or two, now few things ever return to public domain and can be used as the ground work for yet more works. That is a crime to society that the media cartels are not being held accountable for, while every 'transgression' by the public is. This imbalance must be corrected.

Links are not infringement

[freman]

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

[DarwinSurvivor]

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?!?

Re:Links are not infringement

[Grumbleduke]

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 uncertainty that those with the scariest lawyers can pretend the law says what they want it to say - hence FACT Ltd.

Of course, copyright infringement doesn't just cover the act of copying (or communicating to the public etc.), under English law (where FACT tends to operate) it also covers anyone "authorising" that act, or through the normal common law principles of joint tortfeasance (i.e. you are somehow involved in another's tort so we'll blame you for it as well). This is how the English courts ruled against the operators of The Pirate Bay (although no one was there to argue the other side) - they were not actually doing any infringing acts, but were authorising them (by setting up the site the way it is) and were working to a common purpose with the users. So in that sense, linking may be enough if there is that extra bit of authorising or a common purpose.

In terms of Google and so on, a few years ago people in power realised how stupid this could be so introduced various limitations on this sort of liability; in the EU, they come from the E-Commerce Directive (which has limitations for "mere conduits", "hosts" and "caches"), in the US iirc it comes via the DMCA (the very small good part of that Act). Some of these are absolute defences (i.e. if you are just providing an intermediary service, you are untouchable, in theory), others can be defeated by knowledge (i.e. if you know content is infringing, you can't keep hosting it while relying on that limitations).

But FACT don't really care about the law; in their last case they didn't even try to use copyright law, but twisted an old conspiracy law to work. And still needed to twist some of the facts in order to distinguish earlier cases that went the other way. By my reading of the facts in the UKNova case, UKNova may well be legal (FACT doesn't care; they are on a crusade against websites which don't pay their masters). But then again, it might not be.

As with all common law, no one knows what the law says until it is tested in a high enough court. So far in England, there have been a few low-level criminal cases on linking (current score 2-2 for it being legal), a few higher level (but questionable) civil cases (2-1 for it being illegal), but nothing higher. That should change in the next couple of years with various appeals going through (including a big Supreme Court case at some point in the next few months which could really clear up this area of law... if the judges are on top of things and don't dodge the questions).

Availability is the point of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[jamstar7]

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!!"

I'm slightly confused

[TubeSteak]

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

[1u3hr]

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

[hawkingradiation]

Fuckers Against Common Thought.

So much for playing nice

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anaerin]

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

[shentino]

You can play nice.

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

It should work both ways.

[jtownatpunk.net]

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.

Thanks UKN

[Anonymous Coward]

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

 

Let me pay the licence fee.

[JRR006]

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.