Guilty Until Proven Licensed: FACT Shuts Down Torrent Tracker Despite Cooperation
from the wow dept
Another day, another overreach by the legacy players in the entertainment industry. Hot off its highly questionable win in the SurfTheChannel case, the "Federation Against Copyright Theft" (FACT) has forced torrent tracker UKNova to shut down. Now, some people will assume that this is just another torrent tracker, but the details raise some serious questions.First of all, UKNova appears to have vigorously policed its listings, and was quick to take down content when it was shown to be infringing. The site also had strict rules about what could be listed, stating that it would not allow anything that was available commercially. So if it's available on DVD or on pay TV, it wasn't allowed and was blocked on the site. When FACT contacted them about some content, UKNova immediately removed the links. While this is the UK, rather than the US, this seems to follow the type of "good practices" found under the DMCA's safe harbors that indicate a site willing to act in good faith to prevent infringement. But... not according to FACT. With FACT, you're guilty until proven innocent:
“We immediately removed the alleged offending links to content that could be [connected to] the two companies and replied to FACT assuring them of our cooperation in the matter, but asking them to point out examples of potentially offending links,” a UKNova admin told us.Of course, under such rules, pretty much no user generated content sites could exist. And, given who backs FACT, perhaps that really is their goal...
“ALL links or access to content provided by UKNova are infringing, unless you can prove that you have obtained explicit permission from the copyright holder for that content,” was FACT’s response.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: guilty, proof, torrent tracker, uk
Companies: fact, uknova
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
UKNova has policed it's listings. If that's not enough, I'd like to see how you run such site and still hold your high horse notion plus survive at least 2yrs. Mind experiments don't count. I'd like to see real hard cold facts, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Its actually serving an under served customer. They could look at the results - number of downloads etc - and then determine what best would be served by creating a DVD or Pay Per View etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's where we get into the wooly "moral" argument, where it's supposedly wrong to deprive copyright holders of potential future income if they were to decide to release it as opposed to letting the work be enjoyed by people while the copyright holder has apparently chosen not to make anything at all. I suppose it depends on whether you consider art to be a soulless profit-making exercise or, well, an artistic one. Most of the shills who would say the above situation is morally wrong are in the former camp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually you cannot presume anything in that situation. Innocent until proven guilty is the usual presumption here.
The assumption is that whoever uploaded the link holds the rights or knows that permission has been granted. Otherwise the internet would have to be shut down completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How do you know that commercially available material is not itself infringing?
Many commercially sold items have later been found to infringe someone's copyright.
If you want to establish a standard of "prove that you own the copyright before you distribute" then it has to apply to EVERYONE not just the little people. Note that simply asserting thet you own the rights is not sufficient here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://torrentfreak.com/get-ready-for-another-forty-years-of-corporate-copyright-bullshit-120826 /
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anarky is just around the corner and I think these organizations are creating an even bigger problem without even realizing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
oh, they realise what they are doing. what they are banking on is
a)people not having the balls to fight against them
b)governments fighting the people on the side of the entertainment industries if necessary
what they are forgetting is that as soon as there is a danger of a government losing it's power over the people, it will take a different route. not all countries would go as far as the US and start fighting it's own citizens over 'file sharing'. most have one or two other things that are a tad higher priority!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Watching their fucken football game and texting their 20,000 friends on facebook is too important. People like me will get left doing all the work and probably end up in jail or worse. That's why the public will always be slaves to governments and entertainment industries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A pirate apologist says what?
You claim that all you do is help artists make money in the golden age of piracy. But that's not true.
You write pirate-defensive articles like this. You write articles celebrating the demise of the MPAA like the last one.
You do way more than help artists. You celebrate piracy and defend the pirates.
It's disgusting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Some of us prefer to believe in the rule of law and due process.
And then there's you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Some of us prefer to believe in the rule of law and due process.
And then there's you.
Typical mindless demagoguery, Mike. I don't know who's "guilty" or "innocent" here. There was merely a cease and desist letter sent. I don't have the facts, and neither do you. You're quoting a torrentfreak article like it's a fully-developed record. I'm not sure how a private communication invokes the "rule of law and due process," but you feel free to spin this anyway you won't. What's questionable is your claim that all you ever do is help folks out who are facing rampant piracy. Obviously, as this article demonstrates, you do way more than that. This article, like so many, is pirate-apologism, pure and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If "pirate-apologism" continues to be what props up the blatant realities of communications than so be it. It's your fault and yours alone whether or not you can succeed. Or choose to rather.
We are no longer born kings - we are all kings. -me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I *DO* have all the facts. The TF piece is accurate. The claim in the C+D was very real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So you assume guilt and attack me for suggesting that perhaps it would help if there was actual evidence of guilt.
You're *such* a winner.
What's questionable is your claim that all you ever do is help folks out who are facing rampant piracy. Obviously, as this article demonstrates, you do way more than that. This article, like so many, is pirate-apologism, pure and simple.
When did I say that "all" I do is help folks out who are facing piracy?
I also highlight gross abuses and excesses in the law which don't help anyone. Like in this situation.
That's not "piracy apologism" no matter how much it fries your circuits.
In the meantime, I will ask you, politely, to stop lying about me. It's unbecoming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The fact is that all of these sites hiding behind the DMCA could make it much easier to report infringing material. It takes someone ten seconds to upload something to YouTube, but it practically takes a lawyer to wade through their DMCA forms.
If YouTube (and the others) really cared about due process and the rule of law, they would ask uploaders to at the very least establish their identity. Then they could ask the uploaders to verify that they really own a license for what they distribute. Perhaps they could even ask them to upload a scan of a registration page from the Office of Copyright.
If it's sauce for the goose, it's sauce for the gander.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"How does Content ID work?
Rights holders deliver YouTube reference files (audio-only or video) of content they own, metadata describing that content, and policies on what they want YouTube to do when we find a match.
We compare videos uploaded to YouTube against those reference files.
Our technology automatically identifies your content and applies your preferred policy: monetize, track, or block."
- http://www.youtube.com/t/contentid
It's up to the rights holders to be proactive as it should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry. ALmost only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Besides, Google pretty much built that for the RIAA/MPAA for free. I wouldn't complain if someone built me a $32 million dollar system to maintain my broken business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes! Now we know why the legacy gatekeepers are so screwed up, they're all crossed eyed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why? As long as they follow the rule of law to the letter regarding DMCA Safe Harbors they don't need to do a thing more. You want them to do more at their expense? Sounds like an entitled, pirate attitude if you ask me.
"It takes someone ten seconds to upload something to YouTube, but it practically takes a lawyer to wade through their DMCA forms."
bobby, bobby, bobby. Just how dense are you? You're aware that they specifically make bots that scour websites and then file DMCA notices on behalf of copyright holders, right? Which they then blame for filing false DMCA notices, despite being under penalty of perjury for doing so. (No slap on the wrist for even that.)
"If YouTube (and the others) really cared about due process and the rule of law, they would ask uploaders to at the very least establish their identity."
No, because there is no way short of asking for a birth certificate, social security card, etc. to establish a person's identity.
Also, there is no such mandate under the law requiring that any of that be done so in order to register on any website, much less any website that allows users to upload material. (Which means Facebook, Instagram, Dropbox, Amazon, etc would all be subject to the same law.)
"Then they could ask the uploaders to verify that they really own a license for what they distribute. Perhaps they could even ask them to upload a scan of a registration page from the Office of Copyright."
And exactly how would they do that? You are aware everything created, including this very comment, is automatically covered by copyright, right? Seriously, this very comment is protected by copyright. Yet I have no registration page from the "Office of Copyright" for it. (Does such a place even exist? Or did you pull that out of your ass much like your "facts" in your usual comments?)
Yeah bob, let's all do that though. Just to please you. But, if someone files a DMCA takedown, a FALSE one, on something that they have no copyright to will they be properly punished for violating the DMCA notice? Will they be properly punished for copyright infringement, because claiming to hold copyright on something and having it taken down sounds a lot to me like copyright infringement.
Yeah, seriously, start thinking things through before you hit submit. You just might realize how ridiculous you sound and how unrealistic your ideas would be to implement for anyone, your beloved copyright holders included.
"If it's sauce for the goose, it's sauce for the gander."
I consider myself a quote person. Huge fan of them. Yet I've never heard this one before. Care to tell me where you heard it? Because I always thought it was, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." But all knowing and wise bob is surely an expert on quotes, just like he's an expert on DMCA law and also on technology, since it would be sooooo easy to implement everything he's demanding and asking for.
[rolls eyes]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Replacing "sauce" with "good" preserves the sense but obliterates the charm of the phrase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't agree. I'm pretty sure I have seen Mike blast players from both sides of the piracy issue when it comes to rule of the law and due process. And what the hell is a "pro piracy group" anyways?
The fact is that all of these sites hiding behind the DMCA could make it much easier to report infringing material. It takes someone ten seconds to upload something to YouTube, but it practically takes a lawyer to wade through their DMCA forms.
So basically you are saying that want these sites to go beyond the rule of law and what is actually required of them. You footing the bill for that?
If YouTube (and the others) really cared about due process and the rule of law, they would ask uploaders to at the very least establish their identity. Then they could ask the uploaders to verify that they really own a license for what they distribute. Perhaps they could even ask them to upload a scan of a registration page from the Office of Copyright.
Get off it. YouTube DOES go above and beyond what is required by "rule of the law". On their own dime no less. And you realize that everything is copyrighted at creation don't you? Don't even have to register at the Office of Copyright. Now if you advocating going back to "opt-in" copyright, I'm with you on that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, lordy, me too.
If just this one single change were made, it would make everyone's lives so much easier. Everyone's, from authors through every intermediary on the way to and including the final user.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know, Big Search, Big Hardware, Big... Um... etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Except, of course, that you don't necessarily have to be the copyright holder or licensee to legally use copyrighted material in a YouTube video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if you don't drown, you're a witch
So the "very least" wouldn't satisfy you, and neither would the "then", and I'll bet not even the "even", even if that were enough to effectively kill the service.
The article shows what happens to those who try to appease the guardians of copyright: no matter how hard you've tried, if the self-policing measures you've taken haven't put you out of business, then they're not satisfactory, you could still do more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Also, not that I agree but congrats on actually posting a semi-reasonable solution to the problem as well.
Though a Epic Fail for trolls everywhere, you might actually becoming normalized to internetizenship. =)
A problem with your proposal though, what happens in a situation of fair-use that big content doesn't like?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If I remember correctly, you used to be preaching/ranting about how you "anonymized" your browser, speaking evils of "big search" tracking scheme, and all that. I agree with you on that, and heck even starting to get cues from you about how.
And now this. Is privacy your own privilege but not others?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Could you please prove that you, bob, really wrote the above sentences yourself, and have not copied it from someone else?
You can't. And neither can all those uploaders for the movies of their kittens and their minecraft castles they uploaded.
Copyright happens to be a CIVIL right, which means if you feel yours is offended, YOU have the means to go to court against the violator. And NOBODY has any duty to act on your behalf preemptively.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am an Artist and I put out Music and I also share all my Music for free.Come on over to www.bigmeathammer.com where my Band resides.I have close to 6 Albums of Material given away for free and with my permission to share.
That being said (whether you believe me or not) I do support the views of Techdirt and am very glad a Site like this exists.
Lastly, I will never allow the MPAA,RIAA, ETC a dime out of my Wallet and I mean it.Whatever money I can spend will be spent on Local Art and on the greater Indie Art Scene.
I want to see the Big Boys go Extinct.They have preyed upon us for to long and I hope their day is coming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, it's not true. He's never claimed that. What he has done is write articles ABOUT ways artists can make money utilizing all the tools at their disposal. Ranging from simply connecting with fans (via social networks) to trying different methods of distribution (website only with donation buttons, through torrents to save on bandwidth costs, etc.) to avoiding gate keepers entirely and going it alone (which involves a variety of methods).
"You write pirate-defensive articles like this."
Can you cite what in this article is defending piracy?
Or did you ignore the following: "First of all, UKNova appears to have vigorously policed its listings, and was quick to take down content when it was shown to be infringing. The site also had strict rules about what could be listed, stating that it would not allow anything that was available commercially. So if it's available on DVD or on pay TV, it wasn't allowed and was blocked on the site. When FACT contacted them about some content, UKNova immediately removed the links. While this is the UK, rather than the US, this seems to follow the type of "good practices" found under the DMCA's safe harbors that indicate a site willing to act in good faith to prevent infringement."
All of which sounds, or better said IS, Mike pointing out that the website kept within the bounds of the law as required and then some.
"You write articles celebrating the demise of the MPAA like the last one."
Really? I thought the article was about the MPAA getting some of their funding cut back. Nowhere did it seem to celebrate the demise of the MPAA. But then again, I took time to actually read the entire article and pay attention, rather than read what I imagined Mike wrote in order to justify my attacks upon him.
"You do way more than help artists."
He does a lot more than those who claim to speak for and fight for the artists. He praises them when they go out on their own. He writes about their successes (ranging from just selling some albums, to making the charts, to successful attempts at new business models, etc).
Your side cheats artists at every turn (or should I bust out all the links to HUGE artists having to sue to get the royalties owed them, or even revealed that they're owed in some cases), attempts to stifle the artists attempts to go out on their own (taking down mp3s and whatnot that the artists are themselves posting online, as well as shutting down various new ways for them to distribute their music, etc), and so on and so forth.
"You celebrate piracy and defend the pirates."
No, he acknowledges piracy and points out the methods aimed at lowering it or stopping it entirely don't and won't work. Not without more legitimate offerings available around the world.
He also doesn't defend pirates, but he does point out the hypocrisy in some of the methods used to bring them to justice. As well as point out the gross violations of law and due process in general in attempts to do so. (Which as someone who claims to hate piracy, should appall you just as much if not more than it does Mike. You're all for law and order, til it gets in the way. Then it's do what you need to to bring these scum to justice, right?)
"It's disgusting."
That's funny. That's the same thing your parents and the doctor said at the same time you popped into this world. Unfortunately, by that point it was too late to do anything legal about it.
Oh, and you're "outrage" is even more disgusting. We get it, you think Mike is a horrible, horrible person. Can we move on already? Or is that asking too much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Overall good post, only marred by this paragraph. Please refrain from ad hom, so we can at least show the trolls/shills/martian/etc that we can hold an argument without resorting to the same tactics they use.
Show me don't tell me - Rush
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To Share = Original sin.
You should feel guilty. Always. Otherwise, how can god be omnipotent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That should be their slogan. Fits them well. I bet they've hired a private detective to check whether I'm writing this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As pointless as the other "wars" were/are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, that's known as the "Getting Rid of Every External Distribution" plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Like whores trying to shut down wives, because they do sex for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fixed that. They must've been drinking martinis at the time.
It's been clear for some time that "user generated content" competes with "corporate media management" thus the war is definitely for total control. Even your blogs and chat logs are not immune from an offensive such as this.
The thing is that we, the public, know the strength of the enemy. The Great Media Wars are upon us, indeed. Taunt the enemy from every quarter. Extend the skirmish lines beyond enemy lines. Harass their generals where and when they sleep so that they cannot sleep. The corporate media cartel is the enemy and the Constitution, the rule of law and the public are the spoils. Copyright is the weapon. Will the spoils be captured, tortured and enslaved or will they remain to be the foundations of an evolving humanity for the betterment of all? Mmm, yeah, I'm still on the fence. The fence that guards the piked heads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In order to sue FACT, you would have to show FACT did something unlawful (possibly not that hard given some of their actions) and that you were at a loss because of it.
Actually, they'd probably react with laughter, then turn up at your door with a (dubiously legal) arrest/search warrant, on the grounds that, as a user of a known pirate site, you were obviously a serious criminal.
Anyway, as the SurfTheChannel case (and similar cases) shows, FACT are pretty much beyond the reach of mere mortals; if you've suffered a loss because of them (say, they've lied to the police in order to get you arrested, used their pet financial investigation unit to illegally freeze your assets and so on), they've probably done a good enough job that you won't have any money left with which to sue them. Whereas they have full-strength Hollywood backing...
Remember, justice isn't about right and wrong, it is about who has enough money...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
User generated is possible-- if the user actually does the work
Wrong. If I create the work, it's easy for me to give permission to a site to redistribute it. I own the copyright and I can license it as I choose.
But the fact that you've written your response this way shows that you rarely consider these kind of users, the kind that actually do work and actually create things. You're just thinking of that kid who snarfed a copy of something from a friend who got it from another friend who got it from a torrent site but said he didn't. If that's your definition of a "user generated content", you're right. No one will be able to properly license something because none of the people in that chain hold a copyright.
It's rather sad that you can't imagine users actually generating content and being happy to hold the copyright even though it happens every day. Everyone with a digital camera is an artist and I bet almost everyone likes holding the copyright. But only a small percentage of the world are the torrent-addled cheapskates who seem to act as your definition of the word "user."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: User generated is possible-- if the user actually does the work
Prove it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: User generated is possible-- if the user actually does the work
Proof comes as it always has, in the court of law. It's easy for user generated content sites to insist upon a valid id. Heck, if you want to upload something to Google's AppEngine, you've got to go through two factor identification. WHy? Because they want to be able to chase you down if you cheat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: User generated is possible-- if the user actually does the work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: User generated is possible-- if the user actually does the work
That's just silly. Proof is what you present in a court of law to make your case. It is not generated by a court of law.
Again, that's silly. The way copyright operates now does not go back for hundreds of years. Not that long ago, you had to register your copyright for it to be valid. That registration was your proof (and pretty solid proof at that!). That is no longer required.
Actually, that's very very hard to do. Nonetheless, for Google services, they come as close as you can get, as you noted with AppEngine. Even for YouTube uploads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: User generated is possible-- if the user actually does the work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: User generated is possible-- if the user actually does the work
Indeed it was, but I knew from long experience that Bob wouldn't get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: User generated is possible-- if the user actually does the work
It's not being nihilistic, it's being realistic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: User generated is possible-- if the user actually does the work
All this uppity nonsense around who is right and who is wrong is appalling. INNOVATE (or die) and, for the record, strong-arming is not innovation. It's hole digging and they're getting deep.
Here we have an EXTREMELY SMALL HANDFUL of organizations representing THE ENTIRETY OF THE COPYRIGHT REALM and you're good with that? No offense but - you're an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: User generated is possible-- if the user actually does the work
No FACT and the cartels can't imagine that, otherwise someone wouldn't have claimed a bird song. Someone would not have claimed the rover landing on Mars. Someone would not have had an action because a commercial was heard in the background.
Oh and when the cartels do it, the law looks the other way. When regular people do it, they get sued for piles of cash. Why is it acceptable for the cartels to ignore the law and not expect others to ignore it as well?
You leftoff pay-wall and Somalia... your slipping bob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: User generated is possible-- if the user actually does the work
I would hazard a guess that in the case of the vast majority (and I mean vast; >99%) of works covered by copyright the copyright owner is probably not even aware that the work is covered by copyright. Works such as everyday emails, doodles, tweets, Facebook posts, TechDirt comments etc.
So, let's use digital cameras as an example. Someone takes a picture with their digital camera (or more likely, their camera phone) and uploads it to a picture-sharing site. Are they aware that they own the copyright in the photo? Probably. Do they consider the intricate systems of licences in place when they upload it? Maybe not. Do they consider that there might be something in the photograph (such as whatever they are taking a picture of) that might be protected by copyright itself thus making their photo unlawful? Almost certainly not.
What about situations where they've given their camera to a second party so that they are in their own picture, do they realise that they might not own the copyright and thus might be breaking the law by copying that photo onto their own computer or uploading it somewhere? Again, probably not.
So... in the vast majority of cases, what is copyright doing for people? Is it encouraging creativity? No. People would almost certainly be taking photos without copyright. Is it making them money? No. The vast majority of photos (and probably an even greater proportion of works in general) are taken with no hope of financial return. Is it getting in the way? Possibly; there will be some situations where their photograph may be illegal (due to the content, or due to someone else taking it). It may be that it will get taken down from a website due to a false (possibly automated) claim by a third party (as in this case, or many of the ContentID screw-ups).
People may like holding copyrights, but chances are that in the vast majority of cases, they have very little idea what they actually hold, and it probably won't be of any use to them. For most people, copyright is something that gets in their way, not helps them. Don't confuse "professional or semi-professional artists" with "copyright owners".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: User generated is possible-- if the user actually does the work
This line, nay this entire post, deserves far more than the humble "insightful" click that I have given.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: User generated is possible-- if the user actually does the work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: User generated is possible-- if the user actually does the work
Most legitimate user generated sites require the user to check a box indicating they have the legal right to upload the work, and grant a license to the site to use the uploaded work (don't believe me? Read the terms of service).
Given this, how is UKnova supposed to know ahead of time which uploads are legitimate users (like yourself), who created the work and are legally uploading it? How do they determine which users lied on the checkbox?
You argue that they must be proactive in policing the works, but you also seem to think that if the user says: "I created this, it's OK to use it" that's sufficient grounds to use a work. Which is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: User generated is possible-- if the user actually does the work
Requiring permission to link to content also puts a massive burden on sites, ad each post of content, or link to content has to be checked before being made available.
Note the asymetry between the MPAA/RIAA members and their associates such as FACT, they want action on accusation, a claim that the material or link is infringeing but, require the accused to prove they do not infringe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: User generated is possible-- if the user actually does the work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: User generated is possible-- if the user actually does the work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FACT declared that all links are infringing and must be removed unless proven innocent.
Let�s hope we can avoid a civil war this time around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Civil legal actions are not cheap. Seriously, would anyone here be willing or prepared to lose everything and have their lives seriously disrupted for years? Even if they won and recovered costs then they would still have a financial and emotional loss. And that's what FACT is relying upon.
And yes, the SurfTheChannel case has clearly emboldened FACT into bringing private prosecutions too, or at least the possibility of more. With the knowledge that they won being commonplace (though it's currently being appealed) would anyone really take that risk?
FACT stated �ALL links or access to content provided by UKNova are infringing, unless you can prove that you have obtained explicit permission from the copyright holder for that content,�. Read that comment from them again. It's *very* carefully worded. It doesn't reveal that they have no legal standing to bring a prosecution (remember, virtually all the UK TV companies aren't members of FACT) but it does make a particular point, that all the (commercially produced) programs listed on UKNova have a copyrightholder somewhere. That the copyrightholder hasn't taken action to date doesn't prevent them doing so in the future. It was superfluous for FACT to state (demand?) that the site obtain the explicit permission of the copyrightholder(s). But I suspect that if FACT were to take proceedings they would claim that to be necessary.
Really, all it would take would be someone slipping copyrighted material belonging to a FACT member onto the site. No matter if it was removed within minutes, the fact it was made available however briefly would suffice to allow FACT to start a civil or criminal action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.fact-uk.org.uk/report-it/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Never Cooperate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FACT doesn't care about copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]