10 years in prison for kodi

[crookesjoe]

It's basically impossible to catch someone for this.

 

Just refuse access to your property to any police requesting to search, not a chance they would get a warrant for this, and ISP records cannot conclusively prove Kodi (or similar equipment) usage.

 

A load of hot air, just like when they tried to scare everyone about downloading torrents. Everyone still does it and no one ever gets in trouble really.

[barleycorn]

Borrowing a Cd or DVD is not the same as wholesale downloading which depriving artists revenue. Im genuinly not sure when it comes to library. Do they pay additional copyright fees for a book etc when buying it from a publisher?

 

Your behaviour might generate future sales but, by your own admission, they lost one sale becasue youve downloaded it for free. You might buy through legal methods if you fancy it, but millions like penistone999 absolutely wont.

No, they did not. I had no intention of ever making the purchase. If I hadn't downloaded they would never have got any money from me.

[TORONTONY]

As far as I know, the battle is still on with the cable companies and 45 android box retailers in Canada. The cable guys won round one with a temporary injunction last summer but the retailers have recently gone to court to get it thrown out. To be fair when you think about it , one has to have the fastest internet plan available for these things to work good, and that is bloody expensive. So no one is really getting stuff absolutely free.

[tinfoilhat]

No, they did not. I had no intention of ever making the purchase. If I hadn't downloaded they would never have got any money from me.

 

But you watched it/listened to it. Ergo they lost a sale.

[barleycorn]

But you watched it/listened to it. Ergo they lost a sale.

Only if you consider everyone who doesn't watch it a lost sale. Otherwise then no, they didn't.

[sgtkate]

Only if you consider everyone who doesn't watch it a lost sale. Otherwise then no, they didn't.

 

But if you hadn't been able to find an 'illegal' source for it, you couldn't have watched it without paying. Again, the problem with our copyright and piracy laws is that they were written as a kneejerk and have been playing legal catch up ever since. There are so many unclear parts and loopholes, in particular with regards to internet viewing that I'd be doubtful if a single conviction would ever be upheld for people downloading. Indeed even the law has been in place for a while, and people have been using torrents and other sources for just as long, the ONLY convictions in the UK have been for mass distribution. However, don't be so naïve as to think that the new DRIPA and Digital Economy Bills will continue that status quo...

 

A lot of it does come down to intent. If you never intended to pay anything for the content then in my mind that should be illegal. However, if you would be happy to pay a fair price (i.e. Spotify type subscription pricing) or the content is free without a subscription but something stops you from viewing it (i.e. free to air in the US but not licensed here) then I really struggle to understand either the moral or legal issue here and any money invested to stop this behaviour is an absolute waste as no one is losing out on anything at all.

Edited May 8, 2017 by sgtkate

[L00b]

Again, the problem with our copyright and piracy laws is that they were written as a kneejerk and have been playing legal catch up ever since.

They were never written as a "kneejerk", but they were written in an age wherein copying and transmission was (essentially printed and so-) laborious and capital intensive. They have been gradually updated since, to try and match pace with technological development as it relates to copying.

 

At its simplest, copyright means exactly what it says on the tin: it's a right to prevent copying of one's work by another without authorisation.

 

When all under the sun that could be authored could not be digitised, and had to be represented in one (usually printed-) form or another, then whilever a printer, or phonogram disc or <...> duplication device cost 50 years' of the average wage and was capital investment for a business, it was easy enough to control copying, and enforce copyright in that context.

 

Fast forward nowadays, and you can create content with a PC costing £100, upload it to a free-access platform through an internet connection costing £5 a month, and either sell it, or license it, or gift it (e.g. blog post), or <...> as you see fit.

 

Recall that 30 years ago, as people were still using mostly cassettes and VHS, and PCs were very expensive and not that powerful (never mind easily connected to t'Internet), format-shifting opportunities were very limited.

 

The reason why it takes a long time to change law about something like copyright (and other types of IP), is because it has been internationally-imbricated for decades (and longer for copyright), there is a Himalaya of case law here, there and everywhere, and another Himalaya of activities, markets and jobs hinged upon it all everywhere: you can't do it off your own bat as you'd wish lest you 'break it all' (whence funding and investment into creating expensive new works stops entirely), you have to do it hand-in-hand with other countries to maintain cross-border legal compatibility, a fair balance between rights owners, consumers and 'fair users' everywhere, and maintain the monopoly-vs-public interest equilibrium inherent to any form of IP right.

 

As with everything else, there is no easy or straightforward solution. Because the interests in conflict are global, and non-trivial (and these interests are not only vested/capitalistic, but equally public and normative).

Edited May 8, 2017 by L00b

[Cyclone]

It took several court cases before using a home VHS to record something was actually legal didn't it?

[L00b]

It took several court cases before using a home VHS to record something was actually legal didn't it?

Are you thinking of Universal Studios vs. Sony Corporation of America? (the 'Betamax' case, about the right to record broadcasts for time-shifted consumption). That was in the US, no relevance to the UK.

 

The main Case Law authority in the UK involving anything-VHS is CBS Songs v Amstrad plc (about Amstrad's double-cassette VHS deck in the late 80s, an important case that settled the principle in the UK under which providing a facility [the double-VHS deck in question] to commit a tort [infringing copyright by making an unauthorised copy of a VHS] does not give rise to liability [of Amstrad for making these decks available]). Thankfully for computer manufacturers and owners nowadays, I'd say

[Cyclone]

Does that mean that it never actually became legal or fair use in the UK to copy something (time shift it) for your own use or for backup?