Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Unknown on from the anti-culture-conspiracy dept.

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."'"

16 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. not "available for purchase anywhere" by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" by currently_awake · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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;"

    4. Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" by alexgieg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    5. Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 5, Funny

      To destroy civilization by protecting it.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    6. Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" by CanEHdian · · Score: 5, Informative

      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*!

      --
      When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
    8. Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    9. Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" by aekafan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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

    11. Re:not "available for purchase anywhere" by Jiro · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  2. Links are not infringement by freman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  3. Availability is the point of copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. Re:So much for playing nice by Anaerin · · Score: 5, Informative

    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).

  5. Let me pay the licence fee. by JRR006 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.