10 years in prison for kodi

[L00b]

I don't believe so, so long as the device recording it has a valid license through someone. Ie a TV license, or a subscription.

Time-shifting a broadcast by recording in one's home for private and domestic use is entirely legal from an IP point of view.

 

It's the making of a recording of a broadcast for other purposes, which is likely to be illegal.

 

[the above, just for the avoidance of doubt ]

 

The TV license (or Sky sub) issue is unconcerned with copyright infringement, when the licensor does not own the works (because in that case, the licensor has no claim, the licensing copyright owner does, so the licensor must get the owner to sue instead).

Edited May 4, 2017 by L00b
additional precisions :-)

[Guest]

Technically, only if you torrented with an upload (rather than in leeching-only mode) and/or saved the file(s) anywhere else than in your cache folder.

 

So, if he wait to finish download, and click remove torrent, he is clear because he is not seeding?

 

 

The business in R4 cartridges for Nintendo DS did not start to really taper down, until a student e-tailing them from his bedroom in Hull, got sent down for a couple of years (IIRC). .

 

what! what!? I am going to flush my slot 1 and slot 2 adapter in the toilet!

goodbye Castlevania!

[L00b]

So, if he wait to finish download, and click remove torrent, he is clear because he is not seeding?

No.

 

My understanding of torrents is that they upload and download at the same time (whatever portion of a file you download also gets uploaded to others in the swarm at the same time), but the option is there to set the uploading speed at 'zero' b/s (i.e. no uploading at all during download, what is known as 'leeching' I believe), at the expense of a slower download speed.

 

'Owning' downloaded copies is illegal, but 'transient' copies are removed from the scope of infringement, so if your downloaded copies live in e.g. your web cache folder which you somehow always forget to clean/clear...are they 'owned' or 'transient'?

 

Let a judge decide, if it ever comes to it (which, objectively, is doubtful for Joe Average in the UK).

 

In that context, Kodi has pretty much nullified the whole argument anyway: there's no need to download or torrent anymore, because with kodi the content is only ever transient (within the plain and conventional meaning of the adjective this time).

what! what!? I am going to flush my slot 1 and slot 2 adapter in the toilet! goodbye Castlevania!

That was for retailing them, not owning them. That said, they are still "encryption-circumventing devices" (i.e. illegal)...so if I had one, I wouldn't go through e.g. airport customs waving and flashing one about, if you catch my drift Edited May 4, 2017 by L00b

[tinfoilhat]

But prime isn't free, so you could easily argue that actually you are obtaining a service for free that should be paid for. My specific example is different as I'm already paying for the service that I'm watching, I just used torrent to obtain a copy of the show I'm already paying for through other means.

 

I'm glad it generated an interesting discussion, because there doesn't seem to be a *right* answer even from lawyers. This is a part of my day job working in this kind of area, the digital communications bill and it's impact on how my company needs to adapt, how the data harvested is stored, if the government did ban UK public from using VPN how can we do that as an ISP etc. It's fascinating TBH

 

Ah, but you missed the boat so what you want to watch isnt available any more. 30 years ago it would have been a case of tough luck but now, particualrly with the all pervasive fear of missing out, youve found a way to watch it. Now using my Fear the walking dead analogy (it could be another show I have to pay for on prime for sake of argument) - my situation is diffrent, I dont want to wait to when its inevitably free. whats the difference?

 

As you say its a minefield and law is decades behind.

[sgtkate]

Ah, but you missed the boat so what you want to watch isnt available any more. 30 years ago it would have been a case of tough luck but now, particualrly with the all pervasive fear of missing out, youve found a way to watch it. Now using my Fear the walking dead analogy (it could be another show I have to pay for on prime for sake of argument) - my situation is diffrent, I dont want to wait to when its inevitably free. whats the difference?

 

As you say its a minefield and law is decades behind.

 

And sadly getting more and more behind as government are rapidly finding out. People do not like being watched and more and more people are hiding their online activities, normal people, not just techies but people like my Dad and aunt.

 

Just because something is inevitably free in the end doesn't mean it's ok to get it for free now if there is an associated charge at this point. DVDs always cost more at initial release because of the higher desirability of a new film. That would most defo be illegal and your argument wouldn't stand up. The difference is that what I want to watch is already paid for by me at THIS point in time (but it could be free the argument still holds) but what you want isn't free at THIS point in time, to watch it legally you'd need to pay to watch it.

 

A different but possibly more complex example:

- A film is available on Netflix on Monday

- You subscribe to Netflix and pay for their content and do not use VPN or other tricks to access tuff outside of the UK

- The film is gone Tuesday when you want to go and watch it.

- You download it using torrent

 

Ok or not ok?

[nowt2pctoday]

it will never be stopped as when one thing gets blocked another one will be found, years ago when sky boxes first came out we found a guy in manchester making his own skycards with a chip and circuit board, they worked for a good 2 years until sky found a way to block and encrypt, we sold thousands especially out to ex pats in Spain.

[geared]

A different but possibly more complex example:

- A film is available on Netflix on Monday

- You subscribe to Netflix and pay for their content and do not use VPN or other tricks to access tuff outside of the UK

- The film is gone Tuesday when you want to go and watch it.

- You download it using torrent

 

Ok or not ok?

 

Probably not ok as you can only view it through Netflix.

 

but you also raise another good point, if you pay for Netflix but then VPN to the states to watch that content is that ok??

[sgtkate]

Probably not ok as you can only view it through Netflix.

 

but you also raise another good point, if you pay for Netflix but then VPN to the states to watch that content is that ok??

 

And there's another massive discussion. This thread is clearly demonstrating that:

- our internet usage laws are not clearly enough defined

- copyright laws are not clearly enough defined

- definition of piracy is no longer valid since electronic copies became mainstream

 

I think the music industry found it's way (just about) through Spotify. I'd save in many ways Spotify saved it, although the royalties issue is still contentious, I don't think I know of anyone who illegal downloads music anymore, unless they cannot obtain through Spotify or equivalent. The music industry has mostly eradicated piracy by being shown an alternative. Artists on the whole like the Spotify model as the money spinners for artists and musicians are live gigs and not record sales, at least in the short term. So for smaller up and coming groups and singers, Spotify and the like offer an easy platform to showcase their tracks with an audience they'd have had wet dreams over 20 years ago. Some of those who listen a track on Spotify might then go and look up an artist and then go a concert. That would NEVER have happened until Spotify came along unless your mate happened to own the CD.

 

Now it's the film and TV industries turn for their revolution. I'd say films are easier to solve than TV shows. Release a film to all format with the cinema release. I've gone to see older films in the cinema simply for the experience. Many others do similar and I think more and more people would do this is the model was changed. Add a subscription model like Spotify has for music and royalties going back to the studios per view. It might be that the pricing model needs to increase, £5.99 a monthly for Netflix isn't high enough for brand new film content, but then again I and many others would happily pay more if that was enabled. They need to realise that our desire to watch new films and TV shows isn't down to not paying for most people, it's a lack of access to that even if you are willing to pay anything that ask for. Content needs to be open access on all formats across all platforms. Companies like Sky who hoard content will get shafted and rightly so. There has to be a change to encourage new and smaller film and TV companies to produce stuff. Majority of Hollywood films are ok, but there's a much bigger world out there and we need to take that into account when we try to 'protect' the status quo that isn't working.

[barleycorn]

No. Do you steal CDs from supermarkets?

No, how is that comparable to borrowing a CD off a mate? Or going round to their house to listen to one?

[tinfoilhat]

No, how is that comparable to borrowing a CD off a mate? Or going round to their house to listen to one?

 

How is illgally downloading stuff whenever you want comparable to borrowing a cd off a mate?