Thanks to rather excessive and one-sided lobbying over the last few decades the police in England have very broad powers, and even when they go beyond them no one usually cares (or in one high-profile case in 2011, the government subverted the courts and passed a new law in a week, to make what they were doing legal).
That the police didn't know what law they were supposedly using doesn't surprise me - it is fairly common (police aren't taught the law); the TorrentFreak article refers to s17 Copyright Designs and Patents Act, which is relevant, but I think they really want s107. The last time there were prosecutions under the CDPA for this, the prosecutors got the wrong crime anyway...
What worries me about this is the apparent lack of a defence lawyer in the interviews. From what I've seen of previous cases such as this (with the film and music industries) where a good lawyer has been involved from early enough on, the case has collapsed (in one case, when the prosecutors were forced to admit they had no idea what was going on as the music industry enforcers were running everything).
There was a case a few years ago (over SurfTheChannel) where Federation Against Copyright Theft Ltd and a local police force were taken to court over their actions in an arrest (including the police's decision to hand over all their evidence to Fact Ltd after they'd decided not to prosecute), but the court of appeal sided with Fact Ltd. The guy in question is currently (iirc) in prison pending appeal of his conviction.
Private prosecutions are rare but do happen from time to time; they're something of a historical oddity, but not all that unreasonable - it wasn't the Fact Ltd paying the police, but Fact Ltd paying for their own private prosecution (providing lawyers etc.).
Re: The only real question is whether you're against Google too.
Of course; although there are the questions of who we trust more, and the fact that Google isn't planning to spend billions of government money giving itself new legal powers which would allow it to compel anyone to help it spy on people using any method of communication, and provide the data it gets to a wide array of organisations...
Given that The Sun gave Theresa May a full-page article supporting it when it was announced, I think we can say he is in favour of it.
Strangely enough most of the tabloids seem to support this mass-gathering and storage of personal details on everyone, including celebrities... I can't imagine why.
You're missing the point if you think this is about stopping people from viewing porn in public places.
It's about appeasing people, making them feel safer, and making them think the Government is DoingSomething™.
It's not about "protecting children" (otherwise they'd be implementing that recent recommendation in the UK that children be taught about porn in school, as part of sex ed, from a young age), it's about making parents and the religious right feel that their children are being protected.
It's also being done on an entirely voluntary basis (as with the nationwide child-abuse-image filtering). Probably because doing it through law would be illegal.
There's a lot of FUD going around about this, and it's nice to see someone actually looking into what is really happening.
You can see a draft of the text of the law here (clause 79, which inserts a few new sections into the CDPA). My understanding is that this won't be giving ordinary people new powers, but will allow certain "authorised bodies" (probably collecting societies) to licence orphan works, collect the money, and save it until a copyright owner comes forward.
It seems the photographers are complaining that this is all about big US companies (iirc Google), but my impression is that it was museums and archives originally behind this, but then the collecting societies got involved, so they'll end up being the only real winners (as they may get to keep all those licence fees).
Personally, the orphan works provisions don't worry me that much - not as much as the extended collective licensing (new section 116B), which may allow certain existing collecting societies to licence and collect on *any* works (orphan or not) provided they are within the normal scope of the collecting society. This would be opt-out, but with no requirements that a reasonable royalty rate be gathered, or that any of the money has to be paid to the actual copyright owner if they complain.
Are you still a "pirate" if you play a version that they distributed themselves for free?
Maybe I've spent too much time among lawyers, but I can see it being arguable (down to the precise definition of "authorisation" used, the existence of implied licences, whether knowledge is important).
It should pretty much scupper any claim for damages, though, unless there were some sort of statutory level for them - but only a crazy country would have something like that...
You don't "copyright" something; copyright is automatic - you own the copyright in it. As for your suggestion that money is owed;
(a) by posting the comment, you gave an implied, worldwide, royalty-free licence to anyone to copy it for their own personal use, connected with browsing this site (possibly a broad one, that would have to be argued before a court);
(b) additionally or alternatively, viewing the comment is not an infringement in the copyright as it falls within the exceptions of fair dealing for criticism and review, and/or private study;
(c) additionally or alternatively, the comment lacks sufficient originality to be protected as a literary work, and thus is not covered by copyright,
(d) finally, even if a claim for copyright infringement were to be successful, any damages awarded (based either on a "reasonable royalty rate" or "actual loss suffered") would be negligible, and below the de minimis threshold.
So there...
[Also, please be aware that dishonestly making a false representation ("you owe me money") intending to make a profit by it (or cause a loss) is a criminal offence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, under s2 Fraud Act 2006.]
if the temporary caching of info means a person is committing infringement, then either every single internet user in the world is guilty or no one is able to browse the 'net.
Yes, which is why the original rulings were considered to be insane by many (including myself - with all due respect to the judges involved). There was some discussion of their being an "implied licence" to copy introduced by uploading stuff, but it wasn't relevant on the facts, so wasn't looked in to.
And it was the collecting society for UK newspapers behind this (the kind of people who want Google to pay them for indexing their websites etc.).
The difference is that the "arrogant" thing is English law thing (and may be overturned by the English court of appeal anyway), whereas this case turns on a point of EU law. As such, the authority for ruling on it is the CJEU. In fact, if there is an unclear point of EU law in a ruling, the highest appeal court *has* to refer it to them. Although the CJEU only answers the questions referred to it, rather than making a ruling on the underlying case.
as a downloader, not uploader, how effective would the excuse "I believed he was a licensed distributor, otherwise why would it be available through them?" be?
In UK law, it isn't at all effective, as there is no defence to copyright infringement for belief (genuine or even reasonable) belief in having a licence. You can still be sued. I think the appropriate remedy would be to try to recover any damages/costs from whoever supposedly licensed it to you.
Blackmailers rely on you believing that it's worth paying to avoid possible discomfort.
Which is presumably why this patent troll has been requiring confidentiality agreements before disclosing any material information (as have similar trolls). By keeping it quiet they make it much harder to gain publicity and band together to fight them off.
It doesn't make much sense. The main argument is that broadcasters provide a service (compiling, producing and distributing their broadcast) and are sometimes paid for doing so by those receiving the service. If there is no broadcast copyright then anyone who received the service would be free to re-broadcast it (subject to any contract) for free.
So cable and satellite broadcasters not wanting to lose their little monopolies; in Europe (where this originated, I think), it's mainly over sports events etc., where broadcasters make significant sums (and pay out significant amounts) for exclusive broadcast rights, which become almost worthless when there's no broadcast copyright.
If it works like the existing broadcast copyrights, you would get rights over the *broadcast*, which meant that if someone then re-broadcast your broadcast, they'd have infringed your copyright.
You wouldn't get any rights over the movie itself. The copyright in that would remain with the original copyright owner.
As mentioned in the IP Watch article, there already is a Broadcast copyright - it's in Article 13 of the 1961 Rome Convention. Some 91 countries already have this right, but it seems the US never signed up.
By my reading, this "updated" treaty is wanted (a) to get the US on board, and (b) because the Rome Convention only applies to "wireless" broadcasts (although the Treaty, as usual, sets a minimum standard and some countries, including the UK, have used a broader definition).
Broadcast copyright has been under scrutiny in the UK and EU recently with a few high-profile cases, some involving the streaming of sports events - where there is no underlying copyright, so a broadcast right is "needed" to prevent "evil pirate sites" from streaming the broadcasts for free online, and some involving sites (mainly one called "TVChatchUp") which re-transmit normal terrestrial broadcasts on the Internet.
Whether or not this right (or the rest of copyright) is needed is another matter, though...
While the situation is rather silly, having read the actual legal threat is seems perfectly accurate (within UK law).
They start by pointing out that the photos were obtained in breach of the Computer Misuse Act, which is probably true. Under the generic unauthorised access offence there isn't really any requirement that the stuff be password protected etc., merely that it is accessed, without authorisation. So, as with the other cases mentioned above, there's a reasonable chance whoever obtained them committed a crime in doing so, and so they are being reported to the police. The law may be a bit silly, but the legal threat makes sense.
While Nutsville may not be committing any crimes (although I'm not sure), the police could be informed of their involvement as part of the above investigation, so nothing wrong there.
The stuff about injunctive relief in the High Court is a separate thing; that's about getting the content removed from the website (possibly through misuse of private information). Yes, the lawyers should have specified what their cause of action would have been, but it isn't rare for a situation to have both civil and criminal elements.
Treating it as a joke and making fun of the solicitors may be popular, but could come back to hurt them later.
From what I've seen of music industry actions elsewhere, Veoh is their ideal target. They want to get a favourable ruling on this point of law, so will throw everything they can at it - and Veoh no longer exists which (I assume) means that it won't be fighting back.
If they try to go after anyone else, they run the risk that that person will fight back, in which case (a) they could make things worse if they lose badly (i.e. they could legitimise an "evil pirate site"), (b) it will be more expensive, and (c) the court might have to hear the other side's arguments.
For anyone interested, the full text of the EDM, along with the two signatories, can be found here (emphasis added):
That this House notes that Twitter is now a very widely used mode of social networking; further notes that Twitter is a US-based enterprise whose primary motivation is to maximise its profits; further notes that Twitter is now used for a variety of criminal activities including sending malicious communications; further notes that Twitter refuses to co-operate with the UK authorities in general and the police in particular in trying to detect the source of criminal communications 'unless it is a matter of life and death', to be determined by Twitter; believes that this failure to co-operate with the detection of the sources of criminal behaviour is reprehensible; and calls on the Government to impose sanctions on Twitter until it agrees to fully co-operate with the UK authorities and police in the detection of crime.
So just the usual grandstanding. I'm not even sure if that is Twitter's policy, and whether or not they do co-operate when required to by law - there are, of course, criminal offences with not aiding the police where required and impeding their progress etc., but I don't know how broad they are.
Appealing to emotions may be a great way to drum up signatures for online petitions, but has no place in policy discussions.
From my experience of working in policy (and opposing copyright maximalists), I agree, and wish we *could* eliminate emotional appeals from legal or policy debates.
I'm perfectly happy to agree not to keep spouting out rhetorical nonsense focused on eliciting emotional reactions if they will do so as well. I have a feeling I know which one of us will be hit harder...
No... because most of us don't watch films (or read film scripts) to find out what happens. We watch them for the experience as a whole. Thus even a spoiler isn't the only bit with "value" in it.
On the post: Why Are UK Police Allowing Entertainment Industry Employees To Arrest And Interrogate People With Their Help?
Re:
That the police didn't know what law they were supposedly using doesn't surprise me - it is fairly common (police aren't taught the law); the TorrentFreak article refers to s17 Copyright Designs and Patents Act, which is relevant, but I think they really want s107. The last time there were prosecutions under the CDPA for this, the prosecutors got the wrong crime anyway...
What worries me about this is the apparent lack of a defence lawyer in the interviews. From what I've seen of previous cases such as this (with the film and music industries) where a good lawyer has been involved from early enough on, the case has collapsed (in one case, when the prosecutors were forced to admit they had no idea what was going on as the music industry enforcers were running everything).
There was a case a few years ago (over SurfTheChannel) where Federation Against Copyright Theft Ltd and a local police force were taken to court over their actions in an arrest (including the police's decision to hand over all their evidence to Fact Ltd after they'd decided not to prosecute), but the court of appeal sided with Fact Ltd. The guy in question is currently (iirc) in prison pending appeal of his conviction.
Private prosecutions are rare but do happen from time to time; they're something of a historical oddity, but not all that unreasonable - it wasn't the Fact Ltd paying the police, but Fact Ltd paying for their own private prosecution (providing lawyers etc.).
On the post: New Zealand To Ban Software Patents 'As Such'; Tries To Pin Down What On Earth That Means
Re: Hard to pin down
Provided, of course, it was sufficiently novel/inventive, and of industrial application.
On the post: Digital Surveillance Report Exposes Short-Sightedness In UK Law-Making And Shows The Way Forward
Re: The only real question is whether you're against Google too.
On the post: Digital Surveillance Report Exposes Short-Sightedness In UK Law-Making And Shows The Way Forward
Re:
Strangely enough most of the tabloids seem to support this mass-gathering and storage of personal details on everyone, including celebrities... I can't imagine why.
On the post: Why Do Politicians Continue To Insist That A Magic Button Can Make Porn Disappear Online?
Re:
It's about appeasing people, making them feel safer, and making them think the Government is DoingSomething™.
It's not about "protecting children" (otherwise they'd be implementing that recent recommendation in the UK that children be taught about porn in school, as part of sex ed, from a young age), it's about making parents and the religious right feel that their children are being protected.
It's also being done on an entirely voluntary basis (as with the nationwide child-abuse-image filtering). Probably because doing it through law would be illegal.
On the post: No, The UK Did Not Just Abolish Copyright, Despite What Photographers Seem To Think
You can see a draft of the text of the law here (clause 79, which inserts a few new sections into the CDPA). My understanding is that this won't be giving ordinary people new powers, but will allow certain "authorised bodies" (probably collecting societies) to licence orphan works, collect the money, and save it until a copyright owner comes forward.
It seems the photographers are complaining that this is all about big US companies (iirc Google), but my impression is that it was museums and archives originally behind this, but then the collecting societies got involved, so they'll end up being the only real winners (as they may get to keep all those licence fees).
Personally, the orphan works provisions don't worry me that much - not as much as the extended collective licensing (new section 116B), which may allow certain existing collecting societies to licence and collect on *any* works (orphan or not) provided they are within the normal scope of the collecting society. This would be opt-out, but with no requirements that a reasonable royalty rate be gathered, or that any of the money has to be paid to the actual copyright owner if they complain.
On the post: Greenheart Games Trolls Pirates With Altered Cracked Version Of Game Dev Tycoon
Re: Definitions
It should pretty much scupper any claim for damages, though, unless there were some sort of statutory level for them - but only a crazy country would have something like that...
On the post: UK Supreme Court Says Unauthorized Browsing Of Copyright Material Online Is OK, But Asks European Court Of Justice Just In Case
Re: Did you read this?
(a) by posting the comment, you gave an implied, worldwide, royalty-free licence to anyone to copy it for their own personal use, connected with browsing this site (possibly a broad one, that would have to be argued before a court);
(b) additionally or alternatively, viewing the comment is not an infringement in the copyright as it falls within the exceptions of fair dealing for criticism and review, and/or private study;
(c) additionally or alternatively, the comment lacks sufficient originality to be protected as a literary work, and thus is not covered by copyright,
(d) finally, even if a claim for copyright infringement were to be successful, any damages awarded (based either on a "reasonable royalty rate" or "actual loss suffered") would be negligible, and below the de minimis threshold.
So there...
[Also, please be aware that dishonestly making a false representation ("you owe me money") intending to make a profit by it (or cause a loss) is a criminal offence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, under s2 Fraud Act 2006.]
On the post: UK Supreme Court Says Unauthorized Browsing Of Copyright Material Online Is OK, But Asks European Court Of Justice Just In Case
Re:
And it was the collecting society for UK newspapers behind this (the kind of people who want Google to pay them for indexing their websites etc.).
On the post: UK Supreme Court Says Unauthorized Browsing Of Copyright Material Online Is OK, But Asks European Court Of Justice Just In Case
Re:
On the post: UK Supreme Court Says Unauthorized Browsing Of Copyright Material Online Is OK, But Asks European Court Of Justice Just In Case
Re:
On the post: Rackspace Sues Famed Patent Troll For Breach Of Contract
Re:
Which is presumably why this patent troll has been requiring confidentiality agreements before disclosing any material information (as have similar trolls). By keeping it quiet they make it much harder to gain publicity and band together to fight them off.
On the post: Broadcast Treaty Is Baaaaaack: Plan To Create Yet Another Copyright-Like Right For Hollywood
Re: Re: Re:
So cable and satellite broadcasters not wanting to lose their little monopolies; in Europe (where this originated, I think), it's mainly over sports events etc., where broadcasters make significant sums (and pay out significant amounts) for exclusive broadcast rights, which become almost worthless when there's no broadcast copyright.
On the post: Broadcast Treaty Is Baaaaaack: Plan To Create Yet Another Copyright-Like Right For Hollywood
Re:
You wouldn't get any rights over the movie itself. The copyright in that would remain with the original copyright owner.
On the post: Broadcast Treaty Is Baaaaaack: Plan To Create Yet Another Copyright-Like Right For Hollywood
Broadcast Treaty already exists
By my reading, this "updated" treaty is wanted (a) to get the US on board, and (b) because the Rome Convention only applies to "wireless" broadcasts (although the Treaty, as usual, sets a minimum standard and some countries, including the UK, have used a broader definition).
Broadcast copyright has been under scrutiny in the UK and EU recently with a few high-profile cases, some involving the streaming of sports events - where there is no underlying copyright, so a broadcast right is "needed" to prevent "evil pirate sites" from streaming the broadcasts for free online, and some involving sites (mainly one called "TVChatchUp") which re-transmit normal terrestrial broadcasts on the Internet.
Whether or not this right (or the rest of copyright) is needed is another matter, though...
On the post: UK Parking Enforcement Contractor Leaves Sensitive Driver Data Exposed; Compounds Embarrassment By Issuing Bogus Legal Threats
Legal threat "makes sense"
They start by pointing out that the photos were obtained in breach of the Computer Misuse Act, which is probably true. Under the generic unauthorised access offence there isn't really any requirement that the stuff be password protected etc., merely that it is accessed, without authorisation. So, as with the other cases mentioned above, there's a reasonable chance whoever obtained them committed a crime in doing so, and so they are being reported to the police. The law may be a bit silly, but the legal threat makes sense.
While Nutsville may not be committing any crimes (although I'm not sure), the police could be informed of their involvement as part of the above investigation, so nothing wrong there.
The stuff about injunctive relief in the High Court is a separate thing; that's about getting the content removed from the website (possibly through misuse of private information). Yes, the lawyers should have specified what their cause of action would have been, but it isn't rare for a situation to have both civil and criminal elements.
Treating it as a joke and making fun of the solicitors may be popular, but could come back to hurt them later.
On the post: Veoh Still Not Dead Enough For Universal Music; Asks Court To Rehear Case Yet Again
Re:
If they try to go after anyone else, they run the risk that that person will fight back, in which case (a) they could make things worse if they lose badly (i.e. they could legitimise an "evil pirate site"), (b) it will be more expensive, and (c) the court might have to hear the other side's arguments.
On the post: Blowhard UK MP Says Ban Twitter Because Grandstanding Is Fun
Details of the EDM
So just the usual grandstanding. I'm not even sure if that is Twitter's policy, and whether or not they do co-operate when required to by law - there are, of course, criminal offences with not aiding the police where required and impeding their progress etc., but I don't know how broad they are.
On the post: Copyright Lobby: The Public Has 'No Place In Policy Discussions'
I'm perfectly happy to agree not to keep spouting out rhetorical nonsense focused on eliciting emotional reactions if they will do so as well. I have a feeling I know which one of us will be hit harder...
On the post: Sorry Fair Use, Court Says News Clipping Service Infringes On AP Copyrights
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>