MPAA & FACT lead the charge in new round of *Piracy* blocks

Hello all,
I have just been reading over at ISPreview (HERE) regarding more ISPs to block certain *Infringing* websites

In this round of blocks it seems the following *infringing* websites will be targeted next:
EZTV and Yify-Torrents

ISPs like Sky Broadband, BT, TalkTalk and Virgin Media usually implement the block within a couple of weeks from receipt of a court order.

Does the world need more of this kind of Censorship?

What do you think?

A simple poll of YES/NO or Not Bothered will give a better understanding of the feelings regarding these kinds of matters.

IMHO, I think NO as I believe its setting a dangerous president.
Also because they are going about it like a bull in a china shop.
However I do believe some websites should be closed off, not just the ones which are causing Hollywood and the minority to loose out from royalties fees and lost revenues, they should adapt to the changing times and change their business models..

Torrent sites ? Not bothered.

ISPreview? Not bothered.

'More of'? Not bothered.

Any site found to be infringing laws shall be able to have legal sanctions made against it. Yes.

In reply to a post by majika2007:

IMHO, I think NO as I believe its setting a dangerous president.

I agree. There are far too many dangerous presidents in the world. Give me a constitutional monarchy any time.

However I do believe some websites should be closed off, not just the ones which are causing Hollywood and the minority to loose out from royalties fees and lost revenues, they should adapt to the changing times and change their business models..

You mean they should loosen up?

Edited by RobertoS (Sun 28-Jul-13 22:43:13)

you say the world. it seems to be just the uk.

with the attack on adult sites as well, within a few years I expect quite a lot of web pages will be blocked.

there is also the asa doing something on adult advertising so we could see filtering on advertising also.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23489363 Google and link culls

It is not censorship but the prevention of theft.

BT blocked a certain usenet site a few years back. To get around the block all you had to do was enter the IP address of the site instead of the web address. These blocks never work, and there is always a way around it

not the same thing.

Noticed isohunt on the list, well if they block this then they might as well ask for google to be blocked? I don't know of hardly any on the list so they might work the same way isohunt does. But isohunt gives links to other torrent sites such as TPB well if you googled for example "monsters university torrent" you are going to get a list of sites where you could grab a torrent from?

I can understand the blocking of sites like TPB and other torrent hosting sites but isohunt does not provide the trackers and I think of it just like a google of torrents.

But the stupid thing is the more people who cannot access these sites will turn to google, then look for an answer as to how to get around the block the result will be one of the top results so it is a pointless exercise in my opinion as it just draws more attention to these sites.

I am guilty of using a "workaround" to access pandora in the US which is completely legal and I have used it since it first came out. Then all the licensing issues outside the US came out so it was blocked, I wanted to still use it so I used google...... I still use it!

Whats the legal position of downloading TV shows from America that will never make it to the UK or released on Region 2 dvd?

As if the mpaa would take on google, they know they would be smacked down into next week, so they take on the lesser man.

Edited by lockyatlrg (Sat 03-Aug-13 09:40:48)

In reply to a post by bobble_bob:

Whats the legal position of downloading TV shows from America that will never make it to the UK or released on Region 2 dvd?

Do you have permission of the rights holder to download it ? Is the distribution in accordance with their stated policies ?

I suspect the answer is a bit obvious.

Watching an online stream does not involve downloading and is quite legal. It can also be recorded without anyone being the wiser.

In reply to a post by professor973:

Watching an online stream does not involve downloading

Erm... yes it does.

Anything from a remote server that arrives at your modem is a download. Even a remote ping.

What you do with it after that is another matter entirely.

In reply to a post by billford:

In reply to a post by professor973:

Watching an online stream does not involve downloading

Erm... yes it does.

Anything from a remote server that arrives at your modem is a download. Even a remote ping.

What you do with it after that is another matter entirely.

Maybe it does clever-cloggs, but it's still not against the law to watch a stream, so you carry on forum tradition of splitting hairs.

In reply to a post by professor973:

... but it's still not against the law to watch a stream ...

I think you'll find that if you do not have the copyright holders permission to view it, or the content of the stream is itself illegal, then it is.

In reply to a post by billford:

In reply to a post by professor973:

... but it's still not against the law to watch a stream ...

I think you'll find that if you do not have the copyright holders permission to view it, or the content of the stream is itself illegal, then it is.

This is quite wrong I can assure you. It has been judged legally many times, but of course everyone is right on forums.

I don't know the outcome (probably isn't one yet as the ECJ is involved) but:

In reference to www.out-law.com/page-12096:

The UK High Court is to ask the European Court of Justice (ECJ) if streaming live TV programmes over the internet is an act subject to copyright laws after provisionally ruling that it is.(19 Jul 2011)

My bold.

OTOH, looking further down the linked article I see:

The Copyright, Design and Patents Act states that copyrighted material is communicated to the public unlawfully if a broadcast or film is made available to the public via an "electronic transmission" in a broadcast that is accessible by the public "from a place and at a time individually chosen by them".

and

Under UK copyright laws temporary copies are not unlawful if they are "transient or incidental" to the whole works and are made in order to ensure the programme is technically broadcast with "no independent significance".

So it looks like the usual grey area where the internet is concerned.

Edited by billford (Sat 03-Aug-13 16:02:34)

I see TVCatchup still works, so it's unlikely to be illegal.

In reply to a post by bobble_bob:

Whats the legal position of downloading TV shows from America that will never make it to the UK or released on Region 2 dvd?

same as others, not illegal to download.

illegal to distribute.

we all know copyright enforcement bears little relation to income protection, its more about control.

the firstrow dev pointed out most of its users are kids or people without the means to pay for premium sport channels. so in other words no damage to revenue. But whats more important is it doesnt host the content.

These courts are making judgements that are looking a bit shady and google will get left alone of course. But remember the UK is the most pro copyright country in the world, even more so than america.

In reply to a post by professor973:

In reply to a post by billford:

In reply to a post by professor973:

Watching an online stream does not involve downloading

Erm... yes it does.

Anything from a remote server that arrives at your modem is a download. Even a remote ping.

What you do with it after that is another matter entirely.

Maybe it does clever-cloggs, but it's still not against the law to watch a stream, so you carry on forum tradition of splitting hairs.

given its also not illegal to download you both arguing over nothing.

There have been many judgements, especially in the U.S. that have stated that the person uploading the content is committing a crime, but the person watching is not. Sites like vipbox are just like Youtube, some streams are taken down if a complaint is put in, usually the likes of Sky don't bother, probably because there are many many links to the same content on the likes of Sportslemon or Wizwig. As you say, a grey area. A little like online tv, a slight delay deems it not live and no license needed. You do get a lot of do-gooders that climb on the stolen content bandwagon, but as usual it does not hold a lot of water. For a start, the Sky bod illegally uploading content has paid for it, so those watching are not much different to a guest watching in the up-loaders lounge. More importantly from a revenue point, most users could either not afford, or would refuse on principal to pay, which may be why providers seem the least worried of all.
I prefer the stereo of vipbox and can get 7.1 with all screens here, try that with a Sky box Lol. http://imageshack.com/scaled/large/38/k2nw.jpg

Edited by professor973 (Sat 03-Aug-13 16:15:39)

In reply to a post by professor973:

There have been many judgements, especially in the U.S. that have stated that the person uploading the content is committing a crime, but the person watching is not.

Note carefully what I actually said

In reply to a post by billford:

if you do not have the copyright holders permission to view it ...

If there is no copyright restriction given then yes, you're correct.

But if something is made available with a specific restriction to the US and, for example, you use a proxy to access it from the UK then you are infringing copyright law.

Whether you'd ever get caught or not...

But if something is made available with a specific restriction to the US and, for example, you use a proxy to access it from the UK then you are infringing copyright law.

Whether you'd ever get caught or not...

Yes, a little like my Still ...Oops!

Edited by professor973 (Sat 03-Aug-13 16:24:58)

In reply to a post by billford:

In reply to a post by professor973:

There have been many judgements, especially in the U.S. that have stated that the person uploading the content is committing a crime, but the person watching is not.

Note carefully what I actually said

In reply to a post by billford:

if you do not have the copyright holders permission to view it ...

If there is no copyright restriction given then yes, you're correct.

But if something is made available with a specific restriction to the US and, for example, you use a proxy to access it from the UK then you are infringing copyright law.

Whether you'd ever get caught or not...

What would the legal position be, if you did nothing to invoke the proxy other than use Tails or Tor browser? ... Bearing in mind you have to be caught first!

In reply to a post by professor973:

What would the legal position be, if you did nothing to invoke the proxy other than use Tails or Tor browser? ... Bearing in mind you have to be caught first!

My guess it that if you knew you were using TOR etc then you'd be breaking the law, if you didn't then ignorance is generally no defence!

In reply to a post by billford:

The Copyright, Design and Patents Act states that copyrighted material is communicated to the public unlawfully if a broadcast or film is made available to the public via an "electronic transmission" in a broadcast that is accessible by the public "from a place and at a time individually chosen by them".

How does it define broadcast? Does broadcast not mean that it is being sent for simultaneous reception by (potentially) multiple people. Also the decision to broadcast is made by the broadcaster (or by a third party instructing/requesting that the broadcast be made) not by the recipients of the broadcast.

So as far as the internet is concerned, unless it is a live stream or a recorded one where someone connecting receives the current 'position' rather than staring at the beginning (ie in cases where everyone connected to stream receives the same data at the same time (give or take propagation delays etc)) then it is not a broadcast.

In reply to a post by grahammm:

In reply to a post by billford:

The Copyright, Design and Patents Act states that copyrighted material is communicated to the public unlawfully if a broadcast or film is made available to the public via an "electronic transmission" in a broadcast that is accessible by the public "from a place and at a time individually chosen by them".

How does it define broadcast? Does broadcast not mean that it is being sent for simultaneous reception by (potentially) multiple people.

If it does then the bit I've emboldened makes no sense.

Edited by billford (Sun 04-Aug-13 08:17:00)

downloading was the questioner's term. He can do anything which complies with the rights afforded to him by the copyright holder if he's doing it from an authorised distribution channel..

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

I see TVCatchup still works, so it's unlikely to be illegal.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/10/tvcatchup_lo...

"Rebroadcasting copped a hit in Europe, with the Fourth Chamber of the European Court of Justice deciding that TVCatchup is infringing on ITV's copyright."

http://www.tvcatchup.com/press/

"TVC is here to stay, we may have relinquished some ground in a minor part of our battle, but the war has already been decided in our favour. We remain Europe's first and only legal internet cable service and the ECJ opinion affects only a handful of channels we carry"

Edited by yarwell (Sun 04-Aug-13 15:36:03)