'Pirate' Movie Streaming Sites Declared Legal By Italian Court (torrentfreak.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'Pirate' Movie Streaming Sites Declared Legal By Italian Court (torrentfreak.com)

Posted by msmash on Monday March 27, 2017 @05:20AM from the stating-it-clear dept.

A Court of Appeal in Rome has overturned a 600,000 euro ruling against four unlicensed sites that offered streaming movies to the public. From a report: When it comes to passing judgment on so-called 'pirate' sites, Italy has more experience than most around Europe. Courts have passed down many decisions against unlicensed sites which have seen hundreds blocked by ISPs. Today, however, news coming out of the country suggests that the parameters of what defines a pirate site may not be so loosely interpreted in future. It began in 2015 when the operator of four sites that linked to pirated movies was found guilty of copyright infringement by a local court and ordered to pay more almost 600,000 in fines and costs. As a result, filmakers.biz, filmaker.me, filmakerz.org, and cineteka.org all shutdown but in the background, an appeal was filed. The appeal was heard by the Rome Court of Appeal in February and now, through lawyer Fulvio Sarzana who defended the sites' operator, we hear of a particularly interesting ruling. "The Court ruled that the indication of links does not qualify as making direct disposal of files protected by copyright law," Sarzana told TF in an email.

48 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

It won't last by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 05:26 · Score: 1

The various *AA lobby groups won't let this stand.

You'd think they'd bought enough politicians worldwide to ensure rulings like this couldn't happen.
1. Re: It won't last by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  It probably won't last, but it is correct in that linking to a torrent (mostly magnet links) does not constitute copyright infringment.
2. Re: It won't last by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 06:50 · Score: 0
  
  Though, seeding the torrent and hosting the content for the magnet link do.
The law was the problem by pablo_max · 2017-03-27 05:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

IMO, if a very large portion of a population does an action which is technically illegal, but no one considers it wrong, then clearly it should not be illegal.
Will allowing piracy mean that music and movies will disappear? No, of course not.
It just means that shit, mass produced movies and music, designed purely to make money "may" disappear. There will always be people who do a thing just for the thing. Art for the love of art and not to become rich.
1. Re:The law was the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  I think a very large portion of the country think the top 100 richest people in the country should immediately give back 99% of their money.
  Should this be law?
2. Re:The law was the problem by encad · 2017-03-27 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  There might be a difference between thinking and acting. And if >50% of you populace act in a way that is considered illegal you should rethink the law.
3. Re:The law was the problem by chuckugly · 2017-03-27 06:22 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  If rights holders would reap the profits for a decade or MAYBE two and then our cultural artifacts would enter the public domain, as the system was intended to work, people in general would likely respect copyright a lot more. As it is rights holders have perverted the law to the point where the goal of the enforcement of the right of first sale (to ensure the public can enjoy the arts) is no longer even widely recognized as the goal. We have what should be illegal extensions of copyright terms, schemes that restrict and/or outlaw the consumers right to second sale, and all sorts of other infringements promulgated and implemented by a corrupt system. No wonder people don't respect copyright restrictions any more.
4. Re:The law was the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 06:43 · Score: 0
  
  With how frequently I see proposals on rising taxes on the rich, it certainly seems people are trying to make it law.
5. Re:The law was the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Why wouldn't you tax the people with the money? Do you try to get blood from a stone? Water from the desert?
6. Re:The law was the problem by fluffernutter · 2017-03-27 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  If you tax a rich person you are assured that they will still have a house, they will still eat, they will still be mobile and they will have money to enrich themselves and their children to create opportunities for themselves. When you tax a poor person, not so much.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
7. Re:The law was the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  IMO, if a very large portion of a population does an action which is technically illegal, but no one considers it wrong, then clearly it should not be illegal.
  Ah. I see you are not a lawyer. Think about speeding. If everyone drives at 100 miles an hour shouldn't the speed limit be 100 miles an hour? Laws are made to protect people, and in this case the people being protected are the movie producers.
  
  Will allowing piracy mean that music and movies will disappear? No, of course not.
  Will allowing people to drive at 100 MPH mean people will get where they want to go faster? Of course it does. That's not the point. The point is Will People Be Harmed? In both cases the answer is yes.
  It just means that shit, mass produced movies and music, designed purely to make money "may" disappear. There will always be people who do a thing just for the thing. Art for the love of art and not to become rich.
  Did you just suggest that pirating is a "good thing" BECAUSE it takes money away from people, and then make a VALUES JUDGMENT about what sort of movies deserve to be made based solely on your personal tastes?
  Son, take my advice; stay away from the law.
8. Re:The law was the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  I think a very large portion of the country think the top 100 richest people in the country should immediately give back 99% of their money.
  Should this be law?
  Good point. Principle should not automatically give way to popularity.
  Easy corollary: Income taxes should not be mandatory.
9. Re:The law was the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 11:36 · Score: 0
  
  I think a very large portion of the country think the top 100 richest people in the country should immediately give back 99% of their money.
  Should this be law?
  Yes. If the majority of the people actually want it, then elected politicians should translate it into law. That's how democracy is supposed to work.
10. Re: The law was the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 11:37 · Score: 0
  
  "if a very large portion of a population does an action which is technically illegal, but no one considers it wrong, then clearly it should not be illegal."
  That doesn't seem clear to me at all. The laws are there to maintain a functioning society, not to impose your arbitrary morals upon anyone.
11. Re:The law was the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  I find that in human history, one hundred percent of the time that someone says "art for the love of art and not to become rich", that they are about to rip off an artist.
12. Re: The law was the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 11:59 · Score: 0
  
  ...Which is exactly the reason our founding fathers decided not to create a pure democracy
13. Re:The law was the problem by Neuronwelder · 2017-03-27 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  Very well put. I feel that the 70+ years of copyright laws is almost your - if not all of your lifespan. So it might as well be infinite.. If the rotten piracy laws triumph.. I will just do without purchasing them because: Charging $2.00 (or less) a movie is more than enough to make a decent profit. More people will be prone to impulse buy it. With a wider buying audience, their profits will be equal, if not better, than what they had before.
14. Re:The law was the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 18:47 · Score: 0
  
  Same goes for when someone say "How are the artists supposed to get paid?"
  The people pushing the copyright laws have a tendency to screw over artists more than pirates does.
15. Re:The law was the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 19:14 · Score: 0
  
  IMO, if a very large portion of a population does an action which is technically illegal, but no one considers it wrong, then clearly it should not be illegal.
  Ah. I see you are not a lawyer. Think about speeding. If everyone drives at 100 miles an hour shouldn't the speed limit be 100 miles an hour? Laws are made to protect people, and in this case the people being protected are the movie producers.
  
  Will allowing piracy mean that music and movies will disappear? No, of course not.
  Will allowing people to drive at 100 MPH mean people will get where they want to go faster? Of course it does. That's not the point. The point is Will People Be Harmed? In both cases the answer is yes.
  It just means that shit, mass produced movies and music, designed purely to make money "may" disappear. There will always be people who do a thing just for the thing. Art for the love of art and not to become rich.
  Did you just suggest that pirating is a "good thing" BECAUSE it takes money away from people, and then make a VALUES JUDGMENT about what sort of movies deserve to be made based solely on your personal tastes?
  Son, take my advice; stay away from the law.
  Ah I see you are not very smart.
  The majority of people would not choose to allow driving at 100mph because most people realize, or could be made to realize thats not safe. So your strawman there is really of no use.
  If 99% of people thought everyone should eat dogshit for lunch then I guess democracy fails, is about as relevant a comparison as yours is.
16. Re:The law was the problem by Altrag · 2017-03-27 21:22 · Score: 1
  
  very large portion of a population
  This is your problem. We're redefining "population" to mean "big companies." In the same way that the Romans only cared about people who owned land (well, men who owned land,) we're running headlong into only caring only about people who run giant companies.
  I suppose we're one step up on the Romans though -- we treat women as 82% of a person instead of 0%.
17. Re: The law was the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 22:32 · Score: 0
  
  ... which is exactly why the US has one of the biggest wealth inequality in the west, and - surprise! - one of the lowest median (don't confuse with "average") per-capita private wealth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  In particular, note how in some countries that have been reportedly facing relevant economic problems, like Iceland, Greece and Spain, private individuals have actually a higher median per-capita wealth than US citizens.
  Yes, you read it right: the median Icelandic, Greek or Spanish household is actually richer than the median US household. No joke, it's OECD data.
  Thank your "founding fathers" for that.
18. Re:The law was the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-28 01:27 · Score: 0
  
  Speed limits were enacted to save gas? Did you clean that fiction off after you pulled it out of your ass?
19. Re:The law was the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-28 01:45 · Score: 0
  
  The majority of people would not choose to allow driving at 100mph because most people realize, or could be made to realize thats not safe. So your strawman there is really of no use.
  Um... yes. That's why the United States, as one example of a nation where laws are (nominally) voted on on, decided to impose a speed limit. It does protect people from being injured. Simply allowing everyone to do whatever they want, as THE ORIGINAL POSTER SUGGESTED, because everyone has decided to do it, AS THE ORIGNAL POSTER SUGESTED, harms people. This is true both is unlimited speed limits and "pirated" downloads.
  
  If 99% of people thought everyone should eat dogshit for lunch then I guess democracy fails, is about as relevant a comparison as yours is.
  Son, acid for breakfast is not a sound dietary choice no matter how fun it might seem.
20. Re:The law was the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-28 03:35 · Score: 0
  
  It just means that shit, mass produced movies and music, designed purely to make money "may" disappear. There will always be people who do a thing just for the thing. Art for the love of art and not to become rich.
  You are absolutely within your right and abilities to watch only free art films. Start today, I dare you.
  Bad films end when you stop buying them and stop pirating them.
My thinking on the issue... by Frosty+Piss · 2017-03-27 05:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

I should be paid for and own that which I create. You? Not so much.

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
1. Re:My thinking on the issue... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 07:20 · Score: 0
  
  "I should be paid for and own that which I create."
  As an developer, I create lots of things that I do not own.
  Why is it acceptable that I can sell my creations to my employer and they end up with ownership (a.k.a. reproduction rights),
  while at the same time they sell my creations and don't lose ownership?
  Both of those transactions involve money, but only one involves transfer of ownership.
  I've always found that curious. It seems a twisty sort of logic to me.
  A kind of serf mentality where those who are already rich, but don't actually create anything,
  are the ones that end up with most of the goodies at the end of the day.
2. Re:My thinking on the issue... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 12:28 · Score: 0
  
  Huh? It IS a 'serf'/'worker' mentality...you know you get paid for doing something & the person who pays you gets the thing you sold them. If you don't want to transfer copyright to the work you do to the person paying you don't take contracts to create a 'work for hire'...that's up to you.
  It's not at all odd or limited to copyright. You're a plumber, you work for a contractor or developer who gets an architect to design a building, the developer pays everyone money for their job, the developer owns the building & an rent out space or do with as he pleases. No one considers this odd or would say something like 'its a kind of serf mentality'...ok maybe some people would, they're what we call communists and they seem\ to actually believe that those with capital "don't actually create anything" they only pay others to do it. Guess what? That person with the money is 'creating' the single most important thing in this whole discussion...they create the DEMAND. If you don't have someone with money willing to spend it for whatever it is you can sell/produce then you can produce something ALL DAY LONG, be your own man...don't be a 'serf'...lets see how far that gets you.
  So either you're a communist or like 16 years old & have no idea how economics works or what rights you have to keep ownership of the things you make (though others may not value those things the same way you do).
3. Re:My thinking on the issue... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 18:52 · Score: 0
  
  There is another alternative.
  That which I own I do with the way I like.
  No-one else has a say in what I do with my computer. If I want to copy a file I do so. If I want to give it to a friend I do so.
  That is a fundamental right of property and there shall be no infringement on that.
  You have no say on what goes on in my house or what I do with my friends.
  Copyright is an infringement on much more fundamental rights. You can't both have copyright and still respect the right to physical property.
4. Re:My thinking on the issue... by Altrag · 2017-03-27 21:33 · Score: 1
  
  Most people don't deny that.
  What we get annoyed with is when some faceless company you sold your rights to for a (relative) pittance wants to get paid for what you created 70+ years after your death.
  And as it stands, DRM'd works can technically never be released into the public domain even after their copyright expires unless someone with an unencrypted original decides to release it, because decrypting it is illegal under the DMCA.
  It's an open question whether or not someone (illegally) breaking the DRM and releasing a copyright-expired work will allow that ripped version to remain in the public domain or if only a legitimately released version will qualify. And it'll remain an open question for another 60ish years since nothing released (only) with DRM can possibly expire until around 2070.. assuming the copyright terms aren't extended yet again by that point (and Mickey Mouse is set to expire again in another few years, so we can bet that issue will be hitting congress again fairly soon.)
when way too much is never enough by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 05:57 · Score: 0

motive=results... greed/fear/ego based manic behavior results may vary... cease fire stand down.. sing along.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-kA3UtBj4M .. fair enough... that's the spirit..
Common sense victory by Khyber · 2017-03-27 06:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Linking is the core idea of the internet. To kill it means to kill the internet as it exists.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Italian courts... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 06:10 · Score: 0

Where they convict scientists for not predicting an earthquake but let pirates go free. Seems logical if you're Italian.
1. Re:Italian courts... by dstyle5 · 2017-03-27 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  Italians are known to frequently climb in and out of large green pipes, throw turtles at things and dress up like raccoons so this doesn't seem too far fetched.
2. Re:Italian courts... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 07:35 · Score: 0
  
  No Italian court ever convicted anyone for "not predicting an earthquake". Don't talk about things you cannot understand, you're too mentally challenged, and probably too obese, to read a court ruling, let alone one in a foreign language.
3. Re:Italian courts... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 09:01 · Score: 0
  
  Apparently you missed the article posted here a few years ago about that.
4. Re:Italian courts... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 09:24 · Score: 0
  
  Apparently you missed the article posted here a few years ago about that.
  Apparently I'm a lawyer in Italy, I read the the actual court ruling that you were trying to refer to, and the accusation had nothing to do with "not predicting an earthquake". Not that it should be necessary to read it entirely, decent media reported it correctly, only in the US it was grossly misreported.
5. Re:Italian courts... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 09:40 · Score: 0
  
  Apparently I'm a lawyer in Italy, I read the the actual court ruling that you were trying to refer to, and the accusation had nothing to do with "not predicting an earthquake". Not that it should be necessary to read it entirely, decent media reported it correctly, only in the US it was grossly misreported.
  ... and not only the accusation was entirely different, but finally they were actually acquitted by Italy's Court of Cassation, not convicted. So the OP wrote pure trash, world-class fake news.
Bad headline. by msauve · 2017-03-27 06:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

No, streaming sites are still illegal. They ruled that providing links to streaming sites is not illegal.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
1. Re:Bad headline. by DickBreath · 2017-03-27 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  The links provided by the pirate sites should not be illegal. After all, I want to avoid pirated content. A link is like you telling me where the local crack house is, so that I can avoid going near it. By getting thousands and thousands of links from pirate sites, I can avoid piracy on a big scale. Especially if it is searchable. What movie do I want to avoid pirating today? Um, oh, that one! Search for link, clickety clickety click. Ah, here are five links to that movie so that I can, um, avoid them today.
  
  --
  
  I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
I had no idea it was illegal by rsilvergun · 2017-03-27 06:38 · Score: 1

I mean, it wasn't a great movie but to ban it outright seems harsh...

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Arr by fluffernutter · 2017-03-27 07:34 · Score: 1

Going after pirates is like starting another drug war, but against something that doesn't really destroy lives or kill anyone.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Do pirate sites have a right to be forgotten? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 09:39 · Score: 0

I'm curious, could a pirate website use such a law to remove itself from Google and other indexes, thus making it all but invisible to media companies searching for them?
Pirate Movies by Neuronwelder · 2017-03-27 12:09 · Score: 1

Won't people get tired of watch movies with pirates in them?
WTF today? Not 'streaing' it was 'linking' by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-27 12:15 · Score: 0

Holy crap, what's up today? The summary clearly indicates what the court found legal was LINKING to sites that host pirate media NOT the actual streaming of pirated media itself. I realize its Monday & that 'click-bait' is the norm these days but the title has NOTHING to do with the summary! Seriously, fix it!
Some good news by Penmyemotions+ · 2017-03-27 20:08 · Score: 1

The links provided by the pirate sites should not be illegal. After all, I want to avoid pirated content. A link is like you telling me where the local crack house is, so that I can avoid going near it. By getting thousands and thousands of links from pirate sites, I can avoid piracy on a big scale. Www.Penmyemotions.com shares with the world knowledge ranging from relationship advice,Poems to scam prevention tips and others.
1. Re: Some good news by Penmyemotions+ · 2017-03-27 20:12 · Score: 1
  
  Home Change "www.penmyemotions.com"
Re: Streaming Sites Illegal, Not Links to Them by GargamelSpaceman · 2017-03-28 16:50 · Score: 1

I am thinking in particular of 123moviesfree.whateverthetldtheyhavetodayis
They live behind Cloudflare and presumably pay money to them for the bandwidth to stream movies illegally.
Also things like animeland.tv that do the same.
I must admit I use these things and often it's stuff that I have access to but which doesn't work. For instance I subscribed to Funimation's site because my daughter loves anime. But the site is so slow that the movies are unwatchable. I guess since the same stuff is available illegally for free on animeland.tv I don't feel guilty since a legal site has my cash even if the site itself doesn't actually deliver what I paid for.
Also 123movies works more reliably than Netflix. Even if the movie is available on netflix, I tend to watch it from 123movies.
If I was a total leech I'd just cancel all my paid subscriptions to shit and watch everything illegally with no ads.
In fact I wonder how these illegal sites can provide such excellent bandwidth/reliablilty without making any money. My adblocker seems to block all their ads.
I wonder if it is a state actor funding these things to attack hollywood.
If so, I don't mind. I tend to hate Hollywood with a burning white hot passion these days.
I will pay for shit if I care it gets made on amazon or whatever. Or patreon. There's nothing that's worth watching that needs a budget too big for the honor system.

--
...