Slashdot Mirror
UK Court: MPAA Not Entitled To Profits From Piracy
jfruh writes "The MPAA and other entertainment industry groups have been locked for years in a legal struggle against Newzbin2, a Usenet-indexing site. Since Newzbin2 profited from making it easier for users to find pirated movies online, the MPAA contends they can sue to take those profits on behalf of members who produced that content in the first place. But a British court has rejected that argument."
apk is the worst troller on slashdot
Fuck You. Parasitic Bastards.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
I assume that would be a McLaren F1, cost 0.5M pounds when new, now worth significantly more.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Wouldn't collecting the profits from pirate copies translates into making those copies legit?
Since Newzbin2 profited from making it easier for users to find pirated movies online, the MPAA contends they can sue to take those profits on behalf of members who produced that content in the first place.
This is a bit like saying that asphalt manufacturers profit from making it easier for getaway drivers to whisk bank robbers away from the scene of the crime.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
..with the view to giving those profits *to* those members?
Newey ruled that a copyright infringer cannot be compared to a thief who steals a bag of coins, as submitted by the studios' lawyer. "A copyright infringer is more akin to a trespasser" than to a coin thief, Newey said.
Oh boy oh boy, it seems british judges haven't lost their fucking minds.
I've been comparing so-called piracy to historic real estate squatting, rather than comparing it to stealing or thievery as has become the propaganda of Big Content. When a court compares it to real estate trespass, it's recognizing the same disingenuous manipulation of Big Content's propaganda.
"That leads to the next point: that a landowner has no proprietary claim to the fruits of a trespass," he said. While the landowner could claim an account of profits in some exceptional circumstances, the authorities do not, however, support the proposition that the landowner could assert a proprietary claim against the trespasser, Newey wrote.
"Suppose, say, that a market trader sells infringing DVDs, among other goods, from a stall he has set up on someone else's land without consent. The owner of the land could not, as I see it, make any proprietary claim to the proceeds of the trading or even the profit from it. There is no evident reason why the owner of the copyright in the DVDs should be in a better position in this respect," he said.
As inspector Callahan would say "you just made my day".
So when is the US of A coming to liberate those euro-comunist british pigs ?
oops *legal*
Well, the judge's argument seems logical to me.
"Suppose, say, that a market trader sells infringing DVDs, among other goods, from a stall he has set up on someone else's land without consent. The owner of the land could not, as I see it, make any proprietary claim to the proceeds of the trading or even the profit from it. There is no evident reason why the owner of the copyright in the DVDs should be in a better position in this respect," he said.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Since you don't know what profits were from piracy and what was actually legit use of the service can't be determined.
Could be an MP4-12C. Still the F1 is nice and all, but for half a million pounds, you don't even get passenger seats. Obviously my beat up '97 SHO is much better and just as exclusive, being the only Taurus variant to have a V8.
"I assume that would be a McLaren F1"
Why? They have more than one model now?
The world is finally getting sick and tired of hearing stupid shit from the MPAA/RIAA media mafia.
I know i sure am...
On another silly note. I deserve profits for life because i worked on construction of all MPAA buildings. I'll be waiting for my royalty check you deadbeat fucks.
Sounds pretty stupid. But hey. That's what you're arguing on some non physical property. So pay me now. Or forever shut the fuck up.
I also paid taxes that built the roads that the mpaa uses every day. I'll need a kickback on that too. For life.
I also had children. Future mpaa customers. You need to pay me for providing those. If it wasn't for me you'd have less customers in the future.
An exponential number of future customers all because of me... Pay up now.
What? That's all stupid as fuck? Go fuck myself? Well now you know how the world feels about you mpaa assholes....
The F1 has two passenger seats?
Infringement itself is not criminal; it is a civil matter between the infringer and the copyright holder. Under some DMCA legislation in various countries breaking a digital lock makes you a criminal.
From TFA:
[High court judge] Newey ruled that a copyright infringer cannot be compared to a thief who steals a bag of coins, as submitted by the studios' lawyer. "A copyright infringer is more akin to a trespasser" than to a coin thief, Newey said.
Originally, I thought the judge lost his marbles. Of course it's more akin to stealing something rather than just trespass, they are part of stealing/redistributing a product!
But then I realized how the media conglomerates played the whole DRM thing as effectively leasing you (and only you) the rights to listen to the music you purchased (and only in the media format they presented it!). That sure sounds a bit like charging an admission's fee to experience some wonderful scenery to me (a scenery experience that you obviously can't share with anyone else!). In that respect, it really does seem like NZB(2) did was criminally trespass over this entity of music or what-have-you that we are allowed to take part in (but not take a part of).
Seems like the MPAA screwed their own pooch on this one. I hope this sets a precedence (even if Bri'ish) and people can start owning their music again.
You may not be allowed to profit from your own criminal behavior, but the 'criminal' is the person making the copy of the copyrighted material (once upon a time this was a tort, i.e. a wrong against someone that one could be sued for, not a crime against the state or general public; that's what these guys are always trying to do: turn torts into crimes so they can sic the government on you), not the specialized search engine or directory of links. The Usenet-indexers are profiting in the same way that Truman Capote profited when he wrote a book about a notorious murder.
udin
if there were no roads then crime in cars could not exist lol
I stopped reading at "the supreme court has emphatically said otherwise"...we are talkung about the US supreme court right?
actually im going to be your attorney in a class action lawsuit to sue the mpaa/riaa for every time they entered the buildings you helpedmake
and we'll sue using the new BMCA ( BULLSHIT MAKERS CORRECTIVE ACT)to have the doors removed until they get in line and pay up....OH and ill take 99% of the settlement so you will end up with 4.92 and then must pay taxes on the full trillion dollar settlement so you will likely owe 5 billion dollars.....and if you cant pay the
prison guards will be waiting
yep - right and left of the driver
The MPAA once again sued on irrational claims and their claim got rejected, of course.
We shouldn't talk about it or make articles about it on Slashdot. It should have been rejected silently. The more we talk about it, the more their claim becomes normal. The MPAA is taken more and more seriously, which is scary. It doesn't deserve all that publicity. Their plea should be ignored like the random pleas from mad people that happen all the time.
scene 1
pirate (ripper) - topsite - back to scene pirate
scene 2
pirate ripper - topsite - leaked to usenet, via priviledged uploaders to usenet
thats it
irc is he george whats new ok hows life
and done securely with encryption etc.
leaks get to torrents
torrents are a leak of whats going on and when caught a scene pirate is kicked from scene/
They brought out a new one in 2011, I believe; they also have some others in planning stages.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
It's nothing like stealing something. It's like walking into an art gallery which is open to the public and making a perfect replica of an exhibit for yourself. (If there were DRM, it would be a locked gallery instead of an open one.)
Before there was one piece, and now there are two. The gallery is still in possession of its exhibit, so this is nothing like stealing an exhibit from them. It's more akin to creating new exhibits.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
The McLaren F1 has two passenger seats.
Yes, but no one actually fits in them.
I refer the MPAA to the response given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.
I'm quite happy that this Judge thinks it's also a perfectly reasonable statement too.
No, you need to install double doors. That's double the security against illegal entry :)
"After a long battle with the international arm of the MPAA, Usenet indexing site Newzbin2 has called it quits. The site had been operating under adverse conditions, not least almost total censorship by a court-ordered ISP blockade in the UK."
"Add to this a climate of fear driving individuals providing vital services away from the site, plus legal action against PayPal aimed at Newzbin2's UK-based payment provider, and the site's operators have decided to shut down."
AccountKiller
Yep, one for the wife and one for the mistress.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
Of course not. Those profits belong to the government.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
That's voted up as "interesting", when it has nothing to do whatsoever with this court case. The court case ruling would have applied to someone selling illegally copied DVDs, which they copied themselves. That's actually what the judge said. The copyright holder may have rights to damages, but not to the profits. Everything you said is totally irrelevant.
Does this mean all the income from compilation albums where they've used music without the rights-holder's permission is illegal?
It ought to be!
They're the biggest profiteering pirates afloat.
All the court has decided, it appears, is that the copyright owners don't have a "proprietary" right to the proceeds of infringement. That's a specific form of legal shortcut to seizing assets. The issue of whether there is a valid claim is still proceeding, just not using that specific legal mechanism. No decision has been made on anyone's entitlement to anything, except the entitlement of a copyright owner to make a particular form of legal submission.
I see...
Another post being marked troll because the overlords don't like the message, Slashdot is becoming unbearable as platform.
I hope somebody with mod points will change this back to at least neutral.
Wasting modpoints, but oh well. The McLaren P1 is set for a 2014 release.
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
C'mon folks, cough 'em up...with several nzb sites down where are the freshest indexing sites now? Couch Potato isn't going to run itself, you know.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
If you can afford the F1, you can afford the women that will fit into the "seats."
If you are suing a search engine for "piracy" and non-piracy material, why dont they sue google who help piracy too?
Yes, but no one actually fits in them.
This should read "Yes, but no American actually fits in them."
That San Diego republican who turned out to be an ex-'scene' member?
I don't remember the group, but it was one of the main 80s/early 90s warez group people.
I suppose warez fits well with actual republican policies rather than stated ones though. (It's only stealing when the other guy does it... For us, it's 'liberating.')
You made my day! Thanks :)
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
It cost 910k to repair Rowan Atkinson's after he drove it into a tree and that was still cheaper for the insurance company than replacing it.
to have a bad day. Criminal money goes to police everyone not corporations directly.
This causes them to pay politicians to write laws for profit from crime no telling what might happen.
To continue down this path is the same thing as no check or balance.
What could go wrong 230,000 per song is just a start of what they really want for their dying industries.
Not really -- I don't see how they are parasitic at all.
... The MPAA are not 'parasitic' in a technical sense but you don't take exception to the assertion that they are 'bastards' in a colloquial descriptive sense?
IMHO 'bastards' is term well used in this context.
'Abominable, hideous and abhorrent agents of cold, manipulative and greedy international corporations' would be more accurate and precise than 'parasitic' but a bit wordy. Given that 'bastards' is a figurative description, 'parasitic' isn't so wrong; matches the tone and meaning of the comment.
Besides, 'parasitic' is not so far off: sucking from the stream of income originating from the people they prosecute is somewhat 'parasitic'.
Just sayin' . . .
8=>
In a world where interllectual property can be converted into a computer file and redistributed for almost zero cost, the ONLY way the content creators can get paid is to be paid UP FRONT via crowdfunding before they lift a finger to create said content. After that, the recipients (acting ethically) can do whatever they want with what they chipped in to buy except resell it. Since the pirates will resell the IP anyway, the creators should factor the anticipated (realistic) losses when they set their price when the project is crowdfunded.
CAPTCHA: coffer (how apt! :D )
Lets make a more accurate analogy. Someone steals my computer, flees to the UK, and then sells it. The UK decides to keep the money. The EU has a debt crisis, and conveniently they start making billions off of foreign companies.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]