Have you read the law? It's illegal to copy music in the UK without a license to do so, even for personal use.
Quite correct. Not just music, but books, software (actually, there is a right to backup, which has been severely damaged by a clueless bit of judicial activism) and video. Any copyright work may not be copied without permission. There are a very few exceptions; but copying your own stuff is still not legal. It's insane, and everybody ignores the law. Now the music labels say they won't prosecute - but they also don't back a change to the law either. They want to have their cake and eat it. Also note that they're mega-fans of DRM. So you might have the "right" to copy your music, but not the ability. And it's an offence to bypass DRM in the UK. So, all in all - thanks BPI. And thanks for allowing us to get wet when it rains; and get suntans in the sunshine too.
The simple truth is that the BPI could never have really filed suit over someone filling their iPods with their own CD material. We have no statutory damages for copyright infringement here - so the BPI would have to prove and quantify their actual damage. No court would have bought the argument, so the BPI would (at best) have got nominal damages, and probably end up out of pocket for court costs. The courts don't like people bringing harassing lawsuits. This announcement of policy is just aligning their public face with the reality of the world.
And yes, there was certainly legal controversy over whether VCRs etc. were legal, and the only reason these devices do exist is because have been found to have substantial non-infringing uses.
Actually, video recording (for time-shifting purposes) are specifically not infringing by virtue of section 50 of the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act.
All these points are reasonable; but remember: in the UK there is no right to make a copy of your own CDs in the first place. This is, of course, stupid and ignored by just about everybody (including, it would seem, the Deputy Prime Minister). And it has never, never been enforced. Chances are the courts would give such trivial damages that bringing the suit would be a total money loser.
However, you can expect the recording industry to say "But what's the point of labelling CDs with indications which point to infringing behaviour?". After all, you can't copy a normal CD, and you can't copy a DRM'ed CD?
As I say - dumb as hell, and useless, but these people are dinosaurs struggling against extinction. Expecting logic is a big mistake.
(ObDisclaimer: I work for HP IT. But if you're looking for a "Randy Mott/Mark Hurd Sucks" message, this isn't it. HP has a very vocal set of internal fora for bitching at management. I do my whining through the media which might actually effect change. Slashdot, I'm afraid, isn't it).
Firstly, the policy of colocation is not just tied to telecommuters - the idea is to centralise a highly distributed IT workforce. So, eventually, nearly all IT workers will need to relocate to a few central locations. The teleworkers are just first on the list for relocation.
Secondly the problem for many IT firms is not telecommuting per se, it's the fact that we've just sleepwalked into teleworking without a clear business analysis as to whether the business operations can effectively sustain this model of working in each case. Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't. Now, this is a historic failure of management - senior employees get sufficiently pissed off with life in the Bay Area, or Houston, or Atlanta, and feel the need to get a quieter life in Dogshit, Nebraska. Fine and dandy - but it's effective management to say "Sorry, we can't have you in your current job doing that". Neither mean, nor incorrect - just a manager doing his/her job in keeping the department going. But we don't do that - we just say "Yeah, sure. Get an ADSL line, we'll be cool". Sometimes it's true - sometimes it's not. Now - how do you pull that position back into line? In HP, that's Randy Mott's problem. He's got a system that's been allowed to grow wild in many areas and is, to all intents and purposes, out of control.
Randy Mott has an extremely aggressive set of targets in trying to push up the efficiency of HP's IT. Maybe he's going about it the wrong way - if so, he'll pay with his job.
--Ng (not in any way speaking for HP, HP IT, or Randy)
TPB (good luck getting to it!) is claiming that the warrant for search and seizure was :
In the morning of 2006-05-31 the Swedish National Criminal Police showed a search warrant to Rix|Port80 personnell. The warrant was valid for all datacentres of Rix|Port80 and was directed at The Pirate Bay. The allegation was breach of copy-right law, alternatively assisting breach of copy-right law.
So, obviously Swedish law does have the notion of secondary infringment (ie, even if no infringing materials. Now, whether the hosting of torrent files constitutes assisting breach according to Swedish law remains to be seen. I seem to remember that previous case law said that it wasn't - but my memory could be faulty.
Interestingly, they conclude with:
The TPB can receive compensation from the Swedish state in case that the upcoming legal processes show that TPB is indeed legal.
So, with all the fevered speculation, all we can really do is sit and wait for more details to emerge. I don't know if there is any sort of donations which can be made in the case that all of this is not a hoax, but if anyone knows, details would be appreciated. (Of course, this is an open invitation for any Swedish bloke to play the "I'm Spartacus! Donate to my...err... TPB's account" card.)
When a person [**10] browses a website, and by so doing displays the Handbook, a copy of the Handbook is made in the computer's random access memory (RAM), to permit viewing of the material.
Wow! That's really weird. Again, comparing with UK law is interesting, since transient copies are explicitly exempted from copyright infringement considerations (the copying must be essential to the operation of the machinery - but in the case of a web page or mp3 file, it clearly is).
I can see why you don't care for the result. In effect, it gives a green light for litigants to pursue people who have even seen objectionable material on the Internet, without redistribution. That's got to be pure gold for the Scientologists. Hell - where does this place ISPs who operate web proxies?
Does US law allow for a defence that you didn't know the content of a web page before you saw it, so cannot be held liable for the offence of making an automatic copy? It just seems that this ruling could be ridiculously applied to ban the web in total! After all, every copyrighted web page probably doesn't come with a license saying you have rights to copy it - just to read it. But the court fails to see that those are identical operations when it comes to the web.
as far as AllOfMP3 are concerned, they're not doing anything wrong.
Eh, I find that doubtful. They are in fact breaking the law.
Seriously - which law? They're based in Russia. They consider themselves bound by Russian law. I know that in certain situations, US law considers itself valid outside of the territory of the USA; but that's a US issue. You really cannot expect nationals outside the USA to consider themselves bound by US law merely because their service is used by Americans.
As Russian nationals, they think (and have good historical reason to think) that they are obeying their law - the only one they could and should respect. If your legal theory is correct (and my knowledge of US law is insufficient to challenge it), then AllOfMP3 aren't breaking US law in allowing Americans to download materials from them - surely its those American nationals copying their MP3 files from them.
Or put another way - at what point should my national (or supra-national, in the case of the EU) judiciary decide that the laws of the land should actually submit to the laws of another land? Ideally, without the use of tanks and nuclear warheads.
No - I stand by my statement. I don't think that they think that they are doing anything wrong. They may know that because of the pecularities of US law they are enabling something illegal within the USA, but that doesn't immediately translate as doing something wrong.
What, you really think they're fine, upstanding guys, who help old ladies cross the street, or something? I don't know if they're involved with organized crime, but they're certainly not on the level. Hence 'shady.'
You misunderstand me. I was referring to the fact that various other posters have stuck the Russian Mafia tag on AllOfMP3 elsewhere, but that you refrained from that term, and used the term "shady Russians". I was not suggesting that they are wonderful human beings who help small fluffy animals in their spare time. They are running a business, and have spotted a business opportunity. There are precious few successful business people who enjoy a spotless ethical chart.
My point was that if they were considered shady, then any evidence gained from them wouldn't go down well in a court. However, you were right in saying that it could be the basis of another investigation. A bit like wiretapping not being directly admissible, but acting as the spur to find corroborative evidence of a more solid nature.
Well, they've been having some legal troubles in Russia lately (Russia wants to improve trade relations with the US), recently shut down for a few days, and now have come back.
Possible, but I'd say that the "cock-up" theory is more likely than conspiracy. If all they wanted to do was log IPs from their Apache servers, they wouldn't have to take the site down at all. In fact, if I were those guys, I'd probably be logging IPs anyway in case of DoS attacks from external copyright holding organisations. Remember: as far as AllOfMP3 are concerned, they're not doing anything wrong.
I'm suspicious enough that I would not put it past Allofmp3 to be logging their users, either as part of a deal with RIAA and Russian authorities, or in anticipation of having to make a deal.
If the "Russian Mafia" tag is correct (or "shady Russians" as you put it), wouldn't that make the evidence supplied be of dubious veracity? I don't think American courts are in the business of treating the word of drug-runners and arms dealers as being golden testimony.
That copies and phonorecords are defined in 17 USC 101 as being material objects, which means that no physical object in Russia can be moved to the US via the Internet, making section 602 a red herring.
I'm not getting into the US law bunfight, but I will comment that UK law (which I understand more, but by no means completely) takes the opposite view, namely that
Section 5A: Sound recordings
5A.-(1) In this Part "sound recording" means-
(a) a recording of sounds, from which the sounds may be reproduced, or
(b) a recording of the whole or any part of a literary, dramatic or musical work, from which sounds reproducing the work or part may be produced,
regardless of the medium on which the recording is made or the method by which the sounds are reproduced or produced.
So I think that the importing of potentially infringing materials would count as true importing into the UK by virtue of (a) the recording was in Russia, (b) it's now in the UK, so at some point the recording crossed the border.
As for whether importing infringing materials is illegal; it is - with one important exception. If the material is for private and domestic use, and you don't sell it, or copy it further, it is not a case of secondary infringement (Section 22 of the CDPA). Note that this section applies, even if you know that the material is infringing in the country in which it was made. I guess that the logic goes that the UK isn't responsible for enforcing copyright in other countries, and we only care about grey market dealing when someone in the UK is trying to get money from it. Note, however, that it is an offence to bring in counterfeit goods into the UK, but that's about trademark violation, not copyright.
So, my current belief (always subject to review) is that AllOfMP3 purchases in the UK are currently legal, if done for personal use. The ethical/moral argument is another one entirely. I keep hearing the "Russian Mafia" label getting thrown around, but would really appreciate some evidence of this being pushed my way. Unless, the label simply means that all Russian businesses are Mafia controlled.
It's back up, but my $10.00 re-charge attempted to charge $257.10 on my card as opposed to $10.00. Thankfully I noticed at the Verified by Visa page, but, it makes me wonder if this is their 'exit strategy' of taking 25x more money than they were authorized to, then running away from the mob to a different country.
Nah - that $257 was 257 roubles. I just attempted a refill for $10, and it said 297 RUB = $10. I don't think anyone was trying to cheat you.
Put another way: They're making boatloads of cash as is - why put all that at risk for the sake of a few hundred bucks, which they'll earn normally in the space of a couple of hours?
Sony Trinitron television that is is over 10 years old but still runs as good as new
Yup , we've got one of those too except it dates from 1985! Still works like a
dream.
Agree with above. My Trinitron is at least 1985 (friend gave it to me for nothing. It was fully of clag and barely working). Got it cleaned out, and it's been firing on all cylinders ever since.
In fact, it's almost annoyingly perfect! I want a widescreen (and probably 100Hz HD-ready TV) but I can't justify getting one until the original Sony curls up its toes and dies on me. With the way it's going, it'll be another 20 years before this happens
Alternatively, ask the media - "Why does Rep. Smith like child molesters more than he likes average Americans? After all - he wants the average American downloading music tracks to be in prison for longer?"
Of course it's unfair - but this bill is so out of proportion that it actually ranks as "evil". Unfair questions are justified by the threat. And why should a Brit care about this - because of the magic of policy laundering, the EU will be pushed to bang people up for 12 years.
We really may get to the stage where P2P gets you the death penalty.
And who creates those ideas? Dust bunnies? The ideas and innovation comes from creators, and those creators are being protected by copyright law so that they can reap the benefits of their research, work, or whatever. Without such protections there would be little incentive to create, which would lead to your "rot and die" scenario.
I think we're counting angels here. Of course copyright law grants the temporary monopoly of copying to rightsholders. However, I was arguing about your interpretation about what copyright is for. Temporary monopoly is the means to an end - the end is progress in arts and science. You had stated that copyright law is created for rightsholders and nobody else. I would argue that this is wrong. It is there to ensure overall social benefit. You don't normally restrain free trade unless you can provide some greater benefit. Put it this way - if copyright was there to benefit creators and no-one else, then copyright would not expire - it would be perpetual. What benefit is there to creators to have their works pass out of their (and their heirs) control?
(re: Fair Use)
Of course you have a right to it. The right to quote, excerpt, review, criticise, parody are enshrined (if you are a US citizen) in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. I can't stop you saying something because I said it first.
Very true. However, you are citing only a few cases that are allowed (relatively speaking) without restriction.
But that's the whole point! You specifically stated that while Fair Use may be desirable, it is not a right. By having the legal immunity from prosecution for fair use, it becomes a legal right (ie, I can quote works without asking permission). Copyright law normally says that any copying is prohibited (without permission). How can you make the statement that Fair Use is not a right?
Can you imagine not being able to quote people like Martin Luther King, or John F Kennedy, in print, online, or whatever? I choose the examples deliberately, since the King estate in particular is quite hot on ensuring that Dr Kings full speeches are paid for.
And you have a problem with this...why? If Dr. King's estate wishes to make his speeches expensive property to make use of, that is their right. It is also your right as a consumer to refuse to use such material.
Who said I had a problem? I was pointing out that while Dr King's estate pursues copying of entire speeches, quoting excerpts such a central figure of US history must count as an inalienable right. If we have no right to such quoting (as you seemed to be saying), then society as a whole suffers grievously.
Please note: copying entire works is not Fair Use. I concede that no such right exists. However, I ask you to concede that copyright is not an absolute right - it is a temporary monopoly given on distribution with some critically important exemptions established so as not to excessively infringe on other human and civil rights.
Fair Use is not optional, and it is not in the gift of rightsholders.
Copyright law exists to protect and benefit the copyright holder, nobody else.
This statement is incorrect, insofar as it applies to Western concepts of copyright.
Copyright law is there to ensure a flow from creative authors into the general culture of arts and science of a population. A culture which does not have a rich shared commons of cultural works will rot and die.
It is most certainly a balance between the needs of creators to have the opportunity to recoup costs of creation (note: opportunity to recoup, not right to recoup) and the rights of the community to communicate those ideas through the medium of shared culture. No-one - and I mean no-one - has produced completely original art for millenia beyond counting: all of art is founded upon popular culture.
Do I want Fair Use? Sure I do. Do I have a right to it? No, I do not.
Of course you have a right to it. The right to quote, excerpt, review, criticise, parody are enshrined (if you are a US citizen) in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. I can't stop you saying something because I said it first.
Fair Use is what stops copyright becoming censorship. Can you imagine not being able to quote people like Martin Luther King, or John F Kennedy, in print, online, or whatever? I choose the examples deliberately, since the King estate in particular is quite hot on ensuring that Dr Kings full speeches are paid for.
And all of this is without consideration for those who would like to enjoy works but for various reasons cannot enjoy them in the format in which they were originally distributed. Should visually impaired people not be allowed to enjoy books because suitable media were thought to be of insufficient economic value to the original producer?
For example, a drug company can spend a billion dollars researching a cure for a particular disease. If a competing drug company could then immediately copy that formula the day it's released, it could sell it much cheaper than the creator due to not having to have done any R&D.
What you describe here is more properly covered under patent law, not copyright law. You cannot copyright a drug.
To return to the original topic - what is copyright for. The US Constitution defines it thus:
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;
So clearly the rewarding of authors is set down, but that is a means to an end. The end is progress in arts and science. The beneficiaries of the temporary derogation of the normal rights of free expression is the population at large.
OK, it's frivolous, but worth a laugh. DMCA takedown notices have no legal effect within the UK, but they are certainly issued to UK citizens (usually by US lawyers not paying enough attention, for things like running BitTorrent trackers). Now, the intent of a DMCA takedown notice is certainly to deny service (by closing it off via threat of litigation). Remember - the proposed law covers threats to deny service unless financial settlement is reached (DoS blackmail).
So, now methinks, would that count as a denial of service attack, and therefore a criminal offence? For crimes which carry 10 year jail terms, the USA would be bound to honour extradition requests; so would carelessly issued C&D letters or takedown notices which had no force of law become the way that the British courts could jail sloppy Hollywood lawyers?
It's not so much that the law will outlaw learning. It will, though, make people think twice about it. Few people learn something just for the kick of doing something illegal. Most do it because it's fun or because it offers them some opportunity for a great job later.
I'd point to examples like the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, which contain explicit exemptions for security researchers and the security services. I would imagine that the government would insist on those same exemptions within the bill when it hits the Commons. And even if it didn't, the Lords would stick the amendment in and the Commons would accept it.
Don't get me wrong - there's a hell of a lot wrong with UK laws right now - but cutting their noses off to spite their faces is not one of their faults. Research and the spooks will still remain legal.
The common carrier idea has never really flown that well in the ISP world. The real safe harbor here is the 512 exception, and it more or less treats search engines and providers of material placed there by users the same. Of course, it also requires that the ISPs in question take affirmative steps to be protected, and that they honor takedown requests by copyright holders.
Since I know YAAL, I defer to your statements in such matters.
Therefore, from a theoretical perspective, if the NZB site in question offered a feedback/takedown mechanism, which the *AA chose not to use - rather jumping instantly to a C&D/lawsuit mode, would a court be more likely to say that the site was acting within the 512 exception provisions? [I notice that NZB-Zone does indeed have a feedback option, but it's non-specific re: takedowns].
I suppose what I'm really asking is does the court look unfavourably upon plaintiffs who make no good faith attempt to use non-litigation based avenues before filing suit? If this is the case, I think that the NZB guys have probably got a strong defence. With sufficient donation, they may even have a chance to field it...
The other difference is that torrent sites exist with the primary intention of assisting people in downloading illegal content, whereas generel prupose search engines exist with the primary purpose of assisting people in finding legal content.
That's the key bit here - intent. The Grokster case was clear that those were commercial entities clearly intent on facilitating unauthorised redistribution. Hosting torrents is not per se unlawful. Now, if it can be established that there was no discernable intent to facilitate unlawful distribution, there's no case. But I suspect that they're counting on many of these guys settling rather than going to court. The MPAA gets their "victory", the site owners open up elsewhere (maybe outside of the USA), and everyone is happy. What, did people think it was about preventing infringement? Course not, it's about appearing to prevent infringement.
Also, I think that establishing the intent of a tracker is much easier than establishing that of a search engine.
A quick glance at TorrentSpy shows that they haven't given up, they're still dishing out torrents. They have a news story about it, but they don't seem to be too concerned.
Isn't TorrentSpy based in the Netherlands? Can't remember what the Dutch equivalent of the MPAA is. (BREIN?) Either way, I suspect that they're going to have a hell of a harder time targetting search engines than trackers.
True - but it's the Government that gave that one person the power to do that. If they allow one person to have that power without safeguards to prevent abuse, then arguably they are still nonetheless responsible.
Well, a bit of a stretch there. Trading Standards have the power to seize fraudulently traded goods, but in the event of a prosecution failing, or not being pursued, they have to return the goods. And there is a safeguard, by way of the Ombudsman.
I mean, police officers have a fair bit of power, and we expect them to use it responsibly. Most of the time, they do just that. Occasionally, a mistaken or corrupt officer goes beyond responsible use of power. I don't think the government can legitimately be blamed for according police officers appropriate powers every time a bad copper screws up.
This was just a case of a poorly trained TS officer screwing up. And it sounds like the situation has been resolved. Don't think we can call it a catastrophic failure of government (local or national).
Unfortunately making back-up copies has never actually been legal in the UK...
Equally, it's not known to be illegal either. It's never been tested in court (the law is more than the text on the statute books). Anyone who got prosecuted (chance == nil) would lodge a defence of fair dealing. Now, traditionally the English and Scottish courts have held that fair dealing is acceptable so long as the interests of the copyright holder are not materially harmed. In this case (backup in the case of loss), I think they would probably establish that no material harm had resulted, therefore it would be fair dealing. But, IANAL, and this will never be tested. Why? Because the BPI and other would be terrified to get a precedent stating that private and domestic ripping was legal. Because then a good FUD based revenue stream would be foreclosed.
Lawyers are a cagey bunch. They won't tell you something is good or bad - they'll tell you that there is precedent for or against this, or an explicit right for that, or no specific provided right for the next thing. But whether something is legal or illegal is for a court to decide, based on statute, precedent and equity.
Incidentally, backing up of software in the UK (and in the EU in general) is explicitly legal, and any terms and conditions prohibiting it are void.
If you check http://www.spatz-tech.de/spatz/spatz.htm the website, you see that the devices are still on sale - just more of them and newer kit. I think it's called the HDMI3X, HDTVX and so on.
That gets me thinking. What kind of problems will I face in the future if I pirate all my content, assuming I do it without getting caught? The hardware I have now (CPU, graphics card, monitor, TV) is not sufficient for 1920x1080 playback. Will I be able to get hardware that doesn't have enforced DRM?
Yes. The hardware capable of displaying full-res HDTV using AVC codec is here already - something like a 3.0Ghz PC, with 1Gb RAM and a decent nVidia chipset will work just fine. And the fast processor is just because the AVC codec is an absolute hardware bitch right now. That will change as the ffmpeg crew improve their codebase (they've already started).
Which brings me to another point. At the moment, people like HD-Net and C-More are doing movies using OTA HDTV right now, with 5.1 sound. This (MPEG-2 stream) can be played on a 2.0Ghz machine quite happily. These movies appear on BitTorrent and UseNet regularly.
Now - when it comes to HD-DVD and Blu-Ray: will their pictures and sound be better? Frankly, yes. Their bitrates are higher and they have more capacity to play with. Will they be that much better that people will drop OTA HDTV and stop using their HTPCs and HD-TiVos? Not a chance. And for so long as that continues, the sharing of HD content will continue. Of course people will still buy the BD and HD-DVD players - but I suspect their uptake will be much slower than the content producers would like.
I reckon they'll have to start deliberately sabotaging the quality of DVDs so that HD-DVDs look like a better deal. Even so, I think that the filesharing community won't even notice a dent with the advent of HDCP and AACS locked content. Worst case scenario, it might delay the release of disk copies on the net for about a week while people transcribe subtitles and chapter marks.
If no, how can I watch HDTV home movies I filmed myself?
Yes - you should be able to do this in any case. HDCP authentication is a display validation mechanism. In other words, the thing sending the content decides whether or not to display the content, depending on the identity of the display device. The display device doesn't decide whether the sender is OK to receive from (indeed, the HDCP protocol only allows the sender to check whether the display is on a blacklist - I don't think the reverse applies). Thus, an HDTV with HDCP built in will still take non-encrypted HDMI/DVI signals and display them properly.
Slashdot Mirror
Quite correct. Not just music, but books, software (actually, there is a right to backup, which has been severely damaged by a clueless bit of judicial activism) and video. Any copyright work may not be copied without permission. There are a very few exceptions; but copying your own stuff is still not legal. It's insane, and everybody ignores the law. Now the music labels say they won't prosecute - but they also don't back a change to the law either. They want to have their cake and eat it. Also note that they're mega-fans of DRM. So you might have the "right" to copy your music, but not the ability. And it's an offence to bypass DRM in the UK. So, all in all - thanks BPI. And thanks for allowing us to get wet when it rains; and get suntans in the sunshine too.
The simple truth is that the BPI could never have really filed suit over someone filling their iPods with their own CD material. We have no statutory damages for copyright infringement here - so the BPI would have to prove and quantify their actual damage. No court would have bought the argument, so the BPI would (at best) have got nominal damages, and probably end up out of pocket for court costs. The courts don't like people bringing harassing lawsuits. This announcement of policy is just aligning their public face with the reality of the world.
Actually, video recording (for time-shifting purposes) are specifically not infringing by virtue of section 50 of the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act.
--Ng
All these points are reasonable; but remember: in the UK there is no right to make a copy of your own CDs in the first place. This is, of course, stupid and ignored by just about everybody (including, it would seem, the Deputy Prime Minister). And it has never, never been enforced. Chances are the courts would give such trivial damages that bringing the suit would be a total money loser.
However, you can expect the recording industry to say "But what's the point of labelling CDs with indications which point to infringing behaviour?". After all, you can't copy a normal CD, and you can't copy a DRM'ed CD?
As I say - dumb as hell, and useless, but these people are dinosaurs struggling against extinction. Expecting logic is a big mistake.
--Ng
(ObDisclaimer: I work for HP IT. But if you're looking for a "Randy Mott/Mark Hurd Sucks" message, this isn't it. HP has a very vocal set of internal fora for bitching at management. I do my whining through the media which might actually effect change. Slashdot, I'm afraid, isn't it).
Firstly, the policy of colocation is not just tied to telecommuters - the idea is to centralise a highly distributed IT workforce. So, eventually, nearly all IT workers will need to relocate to a few central locations. The teleworkers are just first on the list for relocation.
Secondly the problem for many IT firms is not telecommuting per se, it's the fact that we've just sleepwalked into teleworking without a clear business analysis as to whether the business operations can effectively sustain this model of working in each case. Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't. Now, this is a historic failure of management - senior employees get sufficiently pissed off with life in the Bay Area, or Houston, or Atlanta, and feel the need to get a quieter life in Dogshit, Nebraska. Fine and dandy - but it's effective management to say "Sorry, we can't have you in your current job doing that". Neither mean, nor incorrect - just a manager doing his/her job in keeping the department going. But we don't do that - we just say "Yeah, sure. Get an ADSL line, we'll be cool". Sometimes it's true - sometimes it's not. Now - how do you pull that position back into line? In HP, that's Randy Mott's problem. He's got a system that's been allowed to grow wild in many areas and is, to all intents and purposes, out of control.
Randy Mott has an extremely aggressive set of targets in trying to push up the efficiency of HP's IT. Maybe he's going about it the wrong way - if so, he'll pay with his job.
--Ng (not in any way speaking for HP, HP IT, or Randy)
So, obviously Swedish law does have the notion of secondary infringment (ie, even if no infringing materials. Now, whether the hosting of torrent files constitutes assisting breach according to Swedish law remains to be seen. I seem to remember that previous case law said that it wasn't - but my memory could be faulty.
Interestingly, they conclude with:
So, with all the fevered speculation, all we can really do is sit and wait for more details to emerge. I don't know if there is any sort of donations which can be made in the case that all of this is not a hoax, but if anyone knows, details would be appreciated. (Of course, this is an open invitation for any Swedish bloke to play the "I'm Spartacus! Donate to my
--Ng
Wow! That's really weird. Again, comparing with UK law is interesting, since transient copies are explicitly exempted from copyright infringement considerations (the copying must be essential to the operation of the machinery - but in the case of a web page or mp3 file, it clearly is).
I can see why you don't care for the result. In effect, it gives a green light for litigants to pursue people who have even seen objectionable material on the Internet, without redistribution. That's got to be pure gold for the Scientologists. Hell - where does this place ISPs who operate web proxies?
Does US law allow for a defence that you didn't know the content of a web page before you saw it, so cannot be held liable for the offence of making an automatic copy? It just seems that this ruling could be ridiculously applied to ban the web in total! After all, every copyrighted web page probably doesn't come with a license saying you have rights to copy it - just to read it. But the court fails to see that those are identical operations when it comes to the web.
--Ng
Seriously - which law? They're based in Russia. They consider themselves bound by Russian law. I know that in certain situations, US law considers itself valid outside of the territory of the USA; but that's a US issue. You really cannot expect nationals outside the USA to consider themselves bound by US law merely because their service is used by Americans.
As Russian nationals, they think (and have good historical reason to think) that they are obeying their law - the only one they could and should respect. If your legal theory is correct (and my knowledge of US law is insufficient to challenge it), then AllOfMP3 aren't breaking US law in allowing Americans to download materials from them - surely its those American nationals copying their MP3 files from them.
Or put another way - at what point should my national (or supra-national, in the case of the EU) judiciary decide that the laws of the land should actually submit to the laws of another land? Ideally, without the use of tanks and nuclear warheads.
No - I stand by my statement. I don't think that they think that they are doing anything wrong. They may know that because of the pecularities of US law they are enabling something illegal within the USA, but that doesn't immediately translate as doing something wrong.
You misunderstand me. I was referring to the fact that various other posters have stuck the Russian Mafia tag on AllOfMP3 elsewhere, but that you refrained from that term, and used the term "shady Russians". I was not suggesting that they are wonderful human beings who help small fluffy animals in their spare time. They are running a business, and have spotted a business opportunity. There are precious few successful business people who enjoy a spotless ethical chart.
My point was that if they were considered shady, then any evidence gained from them wouldn't go down well in a court. However, you were right in saying that it could be the basis of another investigation. A bit like wiretapping not being directly admissible, but acting as the spur to find corroborative evidence of a more solid nature.
--Ng
Possible, but I'd say that the "cock-up" theory is more likely than conspiracy. If all they wanted to do was log IPs from their Apache servers, they wouldn't have to take the site down at all. In fact, if I were those guys, I'd probably be logging IPs anyway in case of DoS attacks from external copyright holding organisations. Remember: as far as AllOfMP3 are concerned, they're not doing anything wrong.
If the "Russian Mafia" tag is correct (or "shady Russians" as you put it), wouldn't that make the evidence supplied be of dubious veracity? I don't think American courts are in the business of treating the word of drug-runners and arms dealers as being golden testimony.
--Ng
I'm not getting into the US law bunfight, but I will comment that UK law (which I understand more, but by no means completely) takes the opposite view, namely that
http://www.jenkins-ip.com/patlaw/cdpa1.htm(Emphasis mine)
So I think that the importing of potentially infringing materials would count as true importing into the UK by virtue of (a) the recording was in Russia, (b) it's now in the UK, so at some point the recording crossed the border.
As for whether importing infringing materials is illegal; it is - with one important exception. If the material is for private and domestic use, and you don't sell it, or copy it further, it is not a case of secondary infringement (Section 22 of the CDPA). Note that this section applies, even if you know that the material is infringing in the country in which it was made. I guess that the logic goes that the UK isn't responsible for enforcing copyright in other countries, and we only care about grey market dealing when someone in the UK is trying to get money from it. Note, however, that it is an offence to bring in counterfeit goods into the UK, but that's about trademark violation, not copyright.
So, my current belief (always subject to review) is that AllOfMP3 purchases in the UK are currently legal, if done for personal use. The ethical/moral argument is another one entirely. I keep hearing the "Russian Mafia" label getting thrown around, but would really appreciate some evidence of this being pushed my way. Unless, the label simply means that all Russian businesses are Mafia controlled.
Just my 2p.
--NgNah - that $257 was 257 roubles. I just attempted a refill for $10, and it said 297 RUB = $10. I don't think anyone was trying to cheat you.
Put another way: They're making boatloads of cash as is - why put all that at risk for the sake of a few hundred bucks, which they'll earn normally in the space of a couple of hours?
--NgAgree with above. My Trinitron is at least 1985 (friend gave it to me for nothing. It was fully of clag and barely working). Got it cleaned out, and it's been firing on all cylinders ever since.
In fact, it's almost annoyingly perfect! I want a widescreen (and probably 100Hz HD-ready TV) but I can't justify getting one until the original Sony curls up its toes and dies on me. With the way it's going, it'll be another 20 years before this happens
--NgAlternatively, ask the media - "Why does Rep. Smith like child molesters more than he likes average Americans? After all - he wants the average American downloading music tracks to be in prison for longer?"
Of course it's unfair - but this bill is so out of proportion that it actually ranks as "evil". Unfair questions are justified by the threat. And why should a Brit care about this - because of the magic of policy laundering, the EU will be pushed to bang people up for 12 years.
We really may get to the stage where P2P gets you the death penalty.
--Ng
I think we're counting angels here. Of course copyright law grants the temporary monopoly of copying to rightsholders. However, I was arguing about your interpretation about what copyright is for. Temporary monopoly is the means to an end - the end is progress in arts and science. You had stated that copyright law is created for rightsholders and nobody else. I would argue that this is wrong. It is there to ensure overall social benefit. You don't normally restrain free trade unless you can provide some greater benefit. Put it this way - if copyright was there to benefit creators and no-one else, then copyright would not expire - it would be perpetual. What benefit is there to creators to have their works pass out of their (and their heirs) control?
But that's the whole point! You specifically stated that while Fair Use may be desirable, it is not a right. By having the legal immunity from prosecution for fair use, it becomes a legal right (ie, I can quote works without asking permission). Copyright law normally says that any copying is prohibited (without permission). How can you make the statement that Fair Use is not a right?
Who said I had a problem? I was pointing out that while Dr King's estate pursues copying of entire speeches, quoting excerpts such a central figure of US history must count as an inalienable right. If we have no right to such quoting (as you seemed to be saying), then society as a whole suffers grievously.
Please note: copying entire works is not Fair Use. I concede that no such right exists. However, I ask you to concede that copyright is not an absolute right - it is a temporary monopoly given on distribution with some critically important exemptions established so as not to excessively infringe on other human and civil rights.
Fair Use is not optional, and it is not in the gift of rightsholders.
--Ng
Download limit? What's one of those? :-)
Newshosting - $14.95 a month. No limits.
--Ng
This statement is incorrect, insofar as it applies to Western concepts of copyright.
Copyright law is there to ensure a flow from creative authors into the general culture of arts and science of a population. A culture which does not have a rich shared commons of cultural works will rot and die.
It is most certainly a balance between the needs of creators to have the opportunity to recoup costs of creation (note: opportunity to recoup, not right to recoup) and the rights of the community to communicate those ideas through the medium of shared culture. No-one - and I mean no-one - has produced completely original art for millenia beyond counting: all of art is founded upon popular culture.
Of course you have a right to it. The right to quote, excerpt, review, criticise, parody are enshrined (if you are a US citizen) in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. I can't stop you saying something because I said it first.
Fair Use is what stops copyright becoming censorship. Can you imagine not being able to quote people like Martin Luther King, or John F Kennedy, in print, online, or whatever? I choose the examples deliberately, since the King estate in particular is quite hot on ensuring that Dr Kings full speeches are paid for.
And all of this is without consideration for those who would like to enjoy works but for various reasons cannot enjoy them in the format in which they were originally distributed. Should visually impaired people not be allowed to enjoy books because suitable media were thought to be of insufficient economic value to the original producer?
What you describe here is more properly covered under patent law, not copyright law. You cannot copyright a drug.
To return to the original topic - what is copyright for. The US Constitution defines it thus:
So clearly the rewarding of authors is set down, but that is a means to an end. The end is progress in arts and science. The beneficiaries of the temporary derogation of the normal rights of free expression is the population at large.
--Ng
That's all right. We just use compatible technologies like P2P($0) and Usenet($15).
Arrr, shipmate
--Ng
OK, it's frivolous, but worth a laugh. DMCA takedown notices have no legal effect within the UK, but they are certainly issued to UK citizens (usually by US lawyers not paying enough attention, for things like running BitTorrent trackers). Now, the intent of a DMCA takedown notice is certainly to deny service (by closing it off via threat of litigation). Remember - the proposed law covers threats to deny service unless financial settlement is reached (DoS blackmail).
So, now methinks, would that count as a denial of service attack, and therefore a criminal offence? For crimes which carry 10 year jail terms, the USA would be bound to honour extradition requests; so would carelessly issued C&D letters or takedown notices which had no force of law become the way that the British courts could jail sloppy Hollywood lawyers?
Yeah, like that'll happen. But I can still dream.
--Ng
I'd point to examples like the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, which contain explicit exemptions for security researchers and the security services. I would imagine that the government would insist on those same exemptions within the bill when it hits the Commons. And even if it didn't, the Lords would stick the amendment in and the Commons would accept it.
Don't get me wrong - there's a hell of a lot wrong with UK laws right now - but cutting their noses off to spite their faces is not one of their faults. Research and the spooks will still remain legal.
--Ng
Since I know YAAL, I defer to your statements in such matters.
Therefore, from a theoretical perspective, if the NZB site in question offered a feedback/takedown mechanism, which the *AA chose not to use - rather jumping instantly to a C&D/lawsuit mode, would a court be more likely to say that the site was acting within the 512 exception provisions? [I notice that NZB-Zone does indeed have a feedback option, but it's non-specific re: takedowns].
I suppose what I'm really asking is does the court look unfavourably upon plaintiffs who make no good faith attempt to use non-litigation based avenues before filing suit? If this is the case, I think that the NZB guys have probably got a strong defence. With sufficient donation, they may even have a chance to field it...
--Ng
That's the key bit here - intent. The Grokster case was clear that those were commercial entities clearly intent on facilitating unauthorised redistribution. Hosting torrents is not per se unlawful. Now, if it can be established that there was no discernable intent to facilitate unlawful distribution, there's no case. But I suspect that they're counting on many of these guys settling rather than going to court. The MPAA gets their "victory", the site owners open up elsewhere (maybe outside of the USA), and everyone is happy. What, did people think it was about preventing infringement? Course not, it's about appearing to prevent infringement.
Also, I think that establishing the intent of a tracker is much easier than establishing that of a search engine.
--Ng
Isn't TorrentSpy based in the Netherlands? Can't remember what the Dutch equivalent of the MPAA is. (BREIN?) Either way, I suspect that they're going to have a hell of a harder time targetting search engines than trackers.
--Ng
Well, a bit of a stretch there. Trading Standards have the power to seize fraudulently traded goods, but in the event of a prosecution failing, or not being pursued, they have to return the goods. And there is a safeguard, by way of the Ombudsman.
I mean, police officers have a fair bit of power, and we expect them to use it responsibly. Most of the time, they do just that. Occasionally, a mistaken or corrupt officer goes beyond responsible use of power. I don't think the government can legitimately be blamed for according police officers appropriate powers every time a bad copper screws up.
This was just a case of a poorly trained TS officer screwing up. And it sounds like the situation has been resolved. Don't think we can call it a catastrophic failure of government (local or national).
--Ng
Evidence for this statement? I haven't seen any linking Russian Mafia to AllOfMP3.com, but that doesn't mean there isn't any.
--Ng
Equally, it's not known to be illegal either. It's never been tested in court (the law is more than the text on the statute books). Anyone who got prosecuted (chance == nil) would lodge a defence of fair dealing. Now, traditionally the English and Scottish courts have held that fair dealing is acceptable so long as the interests of the copyright holder are not materially harmed. In this case (backup in the case of loss), I think they would probably establish that no material harm had resulted, therefore it would be fair dealing. But, IANAL, and this will never be tested. Why? Because the BPI and other would be terrified to get a precedent stating that private and domestic ripping was legal. Because then a good FUD based revenue stream would be foreclosed.
Lawyers are a cagey bunch. They won't tell you something is good or bad - they'll tell you that there is precedent for or against this, or an explicit right for that, or no specific provided right for the next thing. But whether something is legal or illegal is for a court to decide, based on statute, precedent and equity.
Incidentally, backing up of software in the UK (and in the EU in general) is explicitly legal, and any terms and conditions prohibiting it are void.
--Ng
If you check http://www.spatz-tech.de/spatz/spatz.htm the website, you see that the devices are still on sale - just more of them and newer kit. I think it's called the HDMI3X, HDTVX and so on.
--Ng
Yes. The hardware capable of displaying full-res HDTV using AVC codec is here already - something like a 3.0Ghz PC, with 1Gb RAM and a decent nVidia chipset will work just fine. And the fast processor is just because the AVC codec is an absolute hardware bitch right now. That will change as the ffmpeg crew improve their codebase (they've already started).
Which brings me to another point. At the moment, people like HD-Net and C-More are doing movies using OTA HDTV right now, with 5.1 sound. This (MPEG-2 stream) can be played on a 2.0Ghz machine quite happily. These movies appear on BitTorrent and UseNet regularly.
Now - when it comes to HD-DVD and Blu-Ray: will their pictures and sound be better? Frankly, yes. Their bitrates are higher and they have more capacity to play with. Will they be that much better that people will drop OTA HDTV and stop using their HTPCs and HD-TiVos? Not a chance. And for so long as that continues, the sharing of HD content will continue. Of course people will still buy the BD and HD-DVD players - but I suspect their uptake will be much slower than the content producers would like.
I reckon they'll have to start deliberately sabotaging the quality of DVDs so that HD-DVDs look like a better deal. Even so, I think that the filesharing community won't even notice a dent with the advent of HDCP and AACS locked content. Worst case scenario, it might delay the release of disk copies on the net for about a week while people transcribe subtitles and chapter marks.
Yes - you should be able to do this in any case. HDCP authentication is a display validation mechanism. In other words, the thing sending the content decides whether or not to display the content, depending on the identity of the display device. The display device doesn't decide whether the sender is OK to receive from (indeed, the HDCP protocol only allows the sender to check whether the display is on a blacklist - I don't think the reverse applies). Thus, an HDTV with HDCP built in will still take non-encrypted HDMI/DVI signals and display them properly.
--Ng