Streaming Pirate Content Isn't Illegal, UK Trading Standards Says (torrentfreak.com)

Every day millions of people use PCs, tablets, phones and Kodi-style devices to stream pirated content, but is it illegal? According to Trading Standards, local UK authorities tasked with investigating commercial organizations, if users only stream and don't download, they're likely exempt from copyright law. An anonymous reader shares a TorrentFreak report: "Accessing premium paid-for content without a subscription is considered by the industry as unlawful access, although streaming something online, rather than downloading a file, is likely to be exempt from copyright laws," the spokesperson added. This statement certainly carries some weight. Although in a different region of the UK, Trading Standards is the driving force behind the prosecution of Kodi box seller Brian Thompson who entered a not guilty plea in January. He'll face a trial in a couple of months but it now seems more clear than ever that his customers and millions like them around the country are not breaking the law, a position that's shared by the EU Commission.

Comments

The ignorance is astounding

[Baron_Yam]

When I stream, I'm downloading. The data goes from their servers to my device.

You may play some tricks to minimize caching and delete the data as quickly as its done with, but it's still downloading.

So how is copyright enforcement supposed to know if I'm capturing that data for later additional use?

Re:The ignorance is astounding

[stinerman]

Yes. Apparently if you keep all the data in RAM, it's "streaming" and not infringement. But the moment you write that sucker to disk, you're a dirty pirate.

The philosophers are still trying to figure out if swapping memory to disk counts as streaming or downloading.

Re:The ignorance is astounding

[DontBeAMoran]

In my town, people call music players "MP3". We both know MP3 is a CODEC, a file extension and file type, but to them it's the player itself. I call them dumb but they reply "everybody calls it an MP3" and I'm the idiot according to them.

People from other fields keep using words to mean other things. It happened before and it will happen again.

In this case, streaming means "transferring data from a server to a device for the sole purpose of viewing" and downloading means "transferring data from a server to a device for the sole purpose of having your own copy of the media".

Re:The ignorance is astounding

[gnick]

It seems they're drawing the line at downloading a copy that could be shared. Uploading, after all, is the mortal sin.

Re:The ignorance is astounding

[TWX]

Mmmhmm.

They're trying to establish a distinction between merely watching something and recording it.

Re:The ignorance is astounding

[Calydor]

In this case, streaming means "transferring data from a server to a device for the sole purpose of viewing" and downloading means "transferring data from a server to a device for the sole purpose of having your own copy of the media".

Phew. I never download just because I want a copy, but because I want to watch it at some point.

Re:The ignorance is astounding

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Apparently if you keep all the data in RAM, it's "streaming" and not infringement. But the moment you write that sucker to disk, you're a dirty pirate.

If a court ruled along similar lines with software, that would also challenge a commonly claimed legal basis for many click-through EULAs and similar agreements being enforceable here (England). That might create an interesting legal landscape for the next few years, though with more software being supplied online by the original creators and subject to their direct terms of sale, that issue may be less relevant as time goes by.

Getting back to the original topic, it's always been the case that copyright actions have tended to go after the distributor rather than the purchaser/downloader. They're much easier targets in terms of clearly breaking the law, and it's also much more useful to stop one large distributor than one individual downloader.

But even if because streaming doesn't infringe copyright, that doesn't necessarily mean those doing it are safe. For example, if they're using some sort of crack to download from an authorised source but without the proper payment/permission, they're still subject to all the normal laws about unauthorised access to computer systems.

Re:The ignorance is astounding

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

To be fair, that's hardly unprecedented in the history of copyright laws. I can't remember exactly which of the attempts to modernise the legal framework in recent years survived the subsequent challenges, but it might still be the case that, strictly speaking, recording a broadcast TV programme just to time-shift is legal but doing so to keep permanently and watch as often as you want is not.

Re:The ignorance is astounding

[AK Marc]

Nobody in the US has ever been sued or charged for downloading. The media organizations have lied and called prosecuting a bittorrent uploader "a downloader" while prosecuting solely for the act of uploading. This is a deliberate lie to convince people that downloading is illegal, when it isn't. The proof of this is the fact that nobody ever has been prosecuted or persecuted solely for downloading.

Re:The ignorance is astounding

[ljw1004]

When I stream, I'm downloading. The data goes from their servers to my device. You may play some tricks to minimize caching and delete the data as quickly as its done with, but it's still downloading. So how is copyright enforcement supposed to know if I'm capturing that data for later additional use?

"The ignorance is astounding"? indeed! :)

The difference between "temporary copy made that's inherent to the process of watching it" and "permanent copy" has long been a topic of debate. It was codified in UK law in 2003: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

Copyright in a literary work, other than a computer program or a database, or in a dramatic, musical or artistic work, the typographical arrangement of a published edition, a sound recording or a film, is not infringed by the making of a temporary copy which is transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process and the sole purpose of which is to enable -- (a) a transmission of the work in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or (b) a lawful use of the work; and which has no independent economic significance."

You wrote "so it's still downloading" but that's irrelevant. You should have written "it's still copying" since that's what the law is about (and what the exemption above relates to).

You asked "So how is copyright enforcement supposed to know if I'm capturing that data for later additional use?" -- First, note that the topic of this article is someone's opinion of EXISTING law, not new law. Second, note that although copyright law defines infringement, it's left up to the enforcement agencies to figure out how and what to pursue.

Anyway, enforcement of copyright infringement has largely been driven by the copyright holders themselves, e.g. UK's Federation Against Copyright Theft or America's RIAA. An opinion like this is a shot across their bows, telling them "hey stop sending infringement notices to folks who merely download your movies because we think you're not going to prevail".

Re:The ignorance is astounding

[donaldm]

Nobody in the US has ever been sued or charged for downloading. The media organizations have lied and called prosecuting a bittorrent uploader "a downloader" while prosecuting solely for the act of uploading. This is a deliberate lie to convince people that downloading is illegal, when it isn't. The proof of this is the fact that nobody ever has been prosecuted or persecuted solely for downloading.

How would someone upload on bittorrent if they've not downloaded first?

The way a torrent works is that the leech ( the person doing the download) in turn actually becomes a seeder ( a person doing the upload).

As an example say you decide to download a movie via torrent. You first find out via a torrent website what movie you are looking for and the torrent site will assign you tracking sites (may only be one) which in turn give your torrent program information that allows you to connect to a computer or computers that are serving that movie (these computers are called "seeders"). At this stage, your torrent program that is downloading that movie is called a "leech".

Once your torrent program has downloaded a pre-defined "chunk" (eg. 256kB, 512kB, 1MB, 8MB) of the particular file then your torrent program will make that "chunk" available to any request to upload to another site or "leech" so effectively after the first "chunk" your torrent program effectively becomes a "seeder" or uploader. Of course, the torrent program will continue to "leech" all new chunks until completion and depending on your torrent configuration it will become a full seeder until you stop it or if configured times out or reaches an upload threshold.

For more information you could try here .

what is "streaming", exactly?

[spikenerd]

Does "streaming" imply the use of some protocol that attempts to prevent the recipient from saving? What if we stream using a protocol with a known vulnerability? What if we develop a new streaming protocol and deliberately include a vulnerability? What if it is based on encryption with a password that is hard-coded to be "password" and cannot be changed? What if it merely requires the use to check a box that says, "I solemnly swear that I obey the law, mostly"?

Re:what is "streaming", exactly?

[ljw1004]

Does "streaming" imply the use of some protocol that attempts to prevent the recipient from saving? What if we stream using a protocol with a known vulnerability? What if we develop a new streaming protocol and deliberately include a vulnerability? What if it is based on encryption with a password that is hard-coded to be "password" and cannot be changed? What if it merely requires the use to check a box that says, "I solemnly swear that I obey the law, mostly"?

Your hypotheticals come from someone thinking like a geek, which is a bit pointless here. You should instead think like a lawyer. Start from the relevant quote: http://www.derbytelegraph.co.u...

Accessing premium paid-for content without a subscription is considered by the industry as unlawful access, although streaming something online, rather than downloading a file, is likely to be exempt from copyright laws."

That presumably relates to a long-running question about copyright as regards temporary copies in computers. Here's the wikipedia explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

For a long time, the legal position of services such as Internet caches was dubious under British law, with such copies technically being infringing. However, an amendment explicitly allows temporary copies of literary works, other than when in computer programs and databases; of dramatic works; of artistic works; of musical works; of typographical arrangements; and of films or sound recordings – provided that such temporary copies are necessary for a technical process, are transient or incidental, and are made only for the purpose of transmitting a work across a network between third parties, or for a lawful use of the work. That amendment eliminates the awkward position of the cacheing services of Internet service providers. It is in a similar vein to an exception for the incidental inclusion of a copyright work in an artistic work, sound recording or film. However, deliberate inclusion of a copyright work negates the exception.

Here's the actual text of the law: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

Copyright in a literary work, other than a computer program or a database, or in a dramatic, musical or artistic work, the typographical arrangement of a published edition, a sound recording or a film, is not infringed by the making of a temporary copy which is transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process and the sole purpose of which is to enable -- (a) a transmission of the work in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or (b) a lawful use of the work; and which has no independent economic significance."

That answers most of your questions: "Does "streaming" imply the use of some protocol that attempts to prevent the recipient from saving?" -- no. "What if we stream using a protocol with a known vulnerability?" -- irrelevant. "What if I check a box which says I solemnly swear to mostly obey the law?" -- irrelevant. It also answers a question implied by your train of thought: if you use software to watch a stream, and you take advantage of flaws or deliberate designs in this software to save a copy, then the exceptions won't apply to you, and you'll be guilty of copyright infringement.

Your other questions were about authoring a protocol or software that has flaws or deliberate designs that allow folks to save a copy. This doesn't fall foul of anti-circumvention law because you're authoring the protocol yourself, not circumventing someone else's. And if a publisher uses this protocol? -- it's up to them, but using a protocol wouldn't constitute a waiver of their copyright rights.

Already done

[Comboman]

What if we stream using a protocol with a known vulnerability? What if we develop a new streaming protocol and deliberately include a vulnerability?

All streaming protocols have this vulnerability. It's called the 'analog hole'.

Non-story - these are local civil servants

[kronix1986]

Torrentfreak have misunderstood the situation. "Trading Standards" are departments within each local council which investigate poor conduct in business related to things like consumer rights, safety and so forth. They're roughly equivalent to "Consumer Protection" departments within US city governments, and their opinion means absolutely nothing because copyright infringement is legislated for and ruled upon at the "federal" level i.e. Parliament and the various courts.

"My local council's Trading Standards body said it was probably legal" is not a defence because they do not have the power to legislate or to unilaterally declare something is legal.

All this means is that X Borough Council won't go around market stalls looking for Kodi boxes loaded with "piracy-enabling" streaming plugins. It doesn't make the boxes legal or illegal; it's just the council's civil servants deciding it's not worth the effort to look for and confiscate the Kodi boxes.

It'd be like if a single US city said, "We don't think console mod chips violate the DMCA."; all that'd mean is the city won't come after you for selling mod chips - not that selling mod chips is legal.