www.dead-donkey.com
https://forum.dead-donkey.com/

Filesharing NOT illegal in UK???
https://forum.dead-donkey.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9857		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  potmunky [ Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:33 am ]
Post subject:  Filesharing NOT illegal in UK???
News just in from FtI!!! :o


eazbak wrote:
Thanks to heaver at fileheaven for the heads up and to Slyck for the article.

Here's a chunk that heaver highlighted, link to Slyck below.

heaver wrote:
All UK filesharers worried about legal consequences should read this article at slyck, written by a British lawyer.
I'm going to file a copy away and quote from it if ever I receive another cease & desist for a rip which is perfectly legal. :P

The key paragraphs say:

Quote:
The CDPA (Copyright, Design and Patents Act, of 1988) appears to be totally inconsistent with the BPIs (British Phonographic Institute) stated position. For example, section 5 (2) stipulates that "Copyright does not subsist in a sound recording which is, or to the extent that it is, a copy taken from a previous sound recording." Hang on, the term subsist means to continue in existence according to the legal dictionary. If copyright doesn?t continue in existence, then it doesn?t take a genius to work out that copyright actually ceases at the very point a copy of the original ? or ?previous sound recording? - is first taken. Surely then it is the person who first breached copyright who is actually responsible for all subsequent copies, and not those who simply follow on down the chain?

Translated into P2P terms, this appears to mean that the person who initially seeded copyrighted material almost certainly breached the terms of his license with the seller, and could be liable for losses and damages, but this doesn?t appear to apply to reseeded copies. Even if the court begs to disagree, this still amounts to the absolute defense of innocent infringement (S97):

?Where in an action for infringement of copyright it is shown that at the time of the infringement the defendant did not know, and had no reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work to which the action relates, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages against him??


http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=972

:joy:



I think all you UK residents, like me, will find this VERY interesting indeed! :twisted:
Hope its right, and I hope the powers that be dont get wind of this for a while and close it down, somehow...
Anyhoo. Just thought youd like to know...
Pot
Author:  Member13 [ Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:51 am ]
Post subject: 
This is how it was in Finland before. Naturally now everything has changed and I cannot even make MP3s of my bought and paid for audio CDs legally.
Author:  potmunky [ Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:10 am ]
Post subject: 
Sounds about right.
Spose its just a matter of time before the CDPA gets altered. :(
Smoke em while you got em, kiddies! :twisted:
Author:  TaKYoN [ Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:34 am ]
Post subject: 
LOL I just told the Police to fuck off cos they never had a warrant to search my PC.

Yes, when I got raided, one of the times, they actualy asked to see what was on my PC that was "funding my habit". Er, I smoke a bit of skunk, I am no smack head.
Author:  potmunky [ Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:49 am ]
Post subject: 
As NWA once said; 'Fuck Da Police' :lol:
I like your style, Tak! :wacky:
Author:  spudthedestroyer [ Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
original post was at fileheaven in the follow thread, where i posted this reply:
http://www.fileheaven.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=57876
spudthedestroyer wrote:
Quote:
And make no mistake about it, unless the file transfer has been made for commercial reasons (i.e. "not personal and domestic reasons”) the only remedy open to the BPI is to take civil action based on a breach of the license terms.


Great, I thought i was the only one that was saying this. I've said the same things in response to "downloading is illegal", it isn't... they'd love it to be in these big anti-"piracy" organisations, they claim it is... but its a lie. Its all down to the civil disputes courts in this country.

I think this is more glaring:
Quote:
Not that this is the only glaring contradiction. Section 22 of the CDPA states "The copyright in a work is infringed by a person who, without the license of the copyright owner, imports into the United Kingdom, otherwise than for his private and domestic use, an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of the work." Yes, that’s right. If it is done solely for private and domestic use, then it doesn’t amount to an infringement. Couldn’t be clearer. And given that P2P spans the globe, with international transfers being the norm rather than the exception, who is to know the origin of material “imported” into your private and domestic household? Or innocently redistributed to others through P2P for that matter.



And here is a real "here, here!" for me:
Quote:
This same threat has long moderated the UK legal scene, combined with the fact that there are no wildly exaggerated “statutory damages” for file-sharers and therefore copyright owners have to prove actual loss as part of any claim.


Put simply, there's no such thing as a possible lost sale when you download a movie, the copyright laws appear to say, infact that they are only entitled to damages if its the illegal sale of copied goods.

Interesting and bookmarked :mrgreen:
Author:  TaKYoN [ Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
@potmunky, I threw one of them out of my living room because we had a new carpet and he would not take his boots off. Yeah it was a funny raid, so unorganised it was funny.
Author:  potmunky [ Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
@Tak :o
Feckin Police, eh! No manners at all. Tut-tut-tut...
Are they ever organised??? :wacky:
Spud. Nice reply. I still think its only a matter of time before they change things, tho...
Oh, like my new sig? Just figured out how to do it!
:D
Author:  spudthedestroyer [ Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Spud. Nice reply. I still think its only a matter of time before they change things, tho...


You means like the EU imposing laws? They already tried and failed it seems:
spudthedestroyer wrote:
eazbak wrote:
Someone at FTi mentioned that this may be usurped by the latest EU laws regarding copyright infringement, as I know little to none when it concerns copyright law I'm hoping someone here might be able to throw some light on the subject.

cheers.


spudthedestroyer wrote:
Isn't the 1988 copyright act superseded now by the EUCD?
http://www.fipr.org/copyright/eucd_intro.html

In the EUCD they have introduced the concept of statutory rights and other such, well, delusions of damage to appease big business conservatism at the expense of the people.

How does this effect this article? Isn't the UK a signatory nation?


SlyckNick wrote:
No and yes.

No, the CDPA contains comprehensive EUCD compliant provision for anti-circumvention of copyright devices.

Yes, the UK is a signatory to the EUCD and already considered a compliant nation. Pro copyright pressure groups think we don't go far enough, and have lobbied for changes. After their defeat over the software issues last year, I consider this unlikely
Author:  potmunky [ Wed Nov 02, 2005 7:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
'Unlikely', but not impossable imo. Where Big Business is concerned, it will always have its way with politicians. They fund the Parties coffers, afterall... :(
These, usually minority, pressure groups are often set-up by the companies themselves. They are well funded and have all the right connections to guarantee maximum press-coverage for their demands, whilst stifling the rational thinkers out there. Its the same load 'o shite thats kept 'ol Mary Jane, (no, not Spideys MJ! :wacky: ), illegal all these years. :cussing:
Oh. Just a piece 'o useless info that some of you might not be aware of; The British Government made Mary Jane illegal in 1971, using the scientific 'proof' gained whilst experimenting on a rabbit! :o
Yup. A poor, innocent 'lil white rabbit had more than two-thirds of its blood replaced by liquid-pot.
It died, surprisingly. :roll:
Sorry. Bit off topic there :oops:
Still. It boils my piss. :cussing:
Rant over.
Pot
Author:  GrindCallus [ Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
potmunky wrote:
Oh. Just a piece 'o useless info that some of you might not be aware of; The British Government made Mary Jane illegal in 1971, using the scientific 'proof' gained whilst experimenting on a rabbit! :o
Yup. A poor, innocent 'lil white rabbit had more than two-thirds of its blood replaced by liquid-pot.
It died, surprisingly. :roll:


Is that really true?! :o I thought scientists had to , like *tosses hair*, go to school and stuff....

But really I know all of us here like free stuff, but of course its illegal and will remain so. Intellectual properties must be protected. If any music I make ever has a potential to generate revenue, I would like to see some of it. Too bad all the purvayors of their rights are douchebags. Metallica doesn't deserve a dime. You think the people who made <insert rare old horror film> care that we download a VHS copy? No, they'd be happy anyone is even enjoying the piece of shit. Every mp3 you download, the artist loses 8 american cents. The record company loses about 8 dollars. You sneek into a concert, the artist loses 5 dollars, the record company loses 15. Thats why as we speak, the big '5', now the big 4, are trying to find ways to prevent copying with infringing EULA. We see what Finland has done... and sadly that is the direction its going. In the US, if you get pulled over and your vehicle searched, and they find copied CDs of which you cannot prove you own the legitimate disc, BOOM off to jail you go. Movies are probably headed in the same direction.
Funny thing though. I pay for digital cable, including Showtime. According to EULA, I can 'timeshift', ie record and watch later. So downloading the Masters of Horror episode was completely legal for me. Same goes for any show on TV, as long as you pay for that channel.
Author:  TaKYoN [ Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
@potmunky, I like ya fucking style mate, we think alike.
Author:  spudthedestroyer [ Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
GrindCallus, sorry but its not illegal to download. Have you not read the posts and article? Its not illegal, its a civil matter where the prosecution has to establish damage, and downloading does little to no damage although they make the case anyway.

I agree that intellectual property rights have to be maintained, and the sale of duplicated material is illegal and should be prosecuted. However, its clear in black and white in the act (i haven't read it all yet, but i've read some sizeable chunks of it), and I agree with the idea that downloading is not illegal and should not be illegal. Its not about getting something free either, its about domestic rights... statutory rights is a complete falsehood, its based on the delusion that you are taking the download as an alternative to buying, and herein lies my objection.

Not in this country, and its a better country for it, until the money erodes it down to no longer protecting the electorate.

Of course, they can change it, and probably will. They've tried to repeatedly. imo thats unethical and anti-electorate, or at least contradictory of established law that protects consumer rights from egomanical "protection" of copyright, but what does the government care?

However, saying its illegal is untrue, there's just been a sustained campaign to make it illegal for 20 years that you seem to have forgotten your rights and the legal reality. Of course, I wouldn't say your safe, that would be deeply misguided, and I'm certainly not doing that, they've shown time and time again that their money puts them above the law and they'll try and prosecute based on their beliefs, not on the law.

I think claiming its illegal when the law at this point in time says its not is untrue. However, you can always get prosecuted in a civil court even if you haven't done anything illegal. The prosecution has to presuade a judge that you have.
Author:  hipraptor [ Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
It is illegal to share in the UK I believe via p2p, and ISP will cut you off if they find out you are downlaoding also.
Author:  spudthedestroyer [ Thu Nov 03, 2005 12:24 am ]
Post subject: 
hipraptor wrote:
It is illegal to share in the UK I believe via p2p, and ISP will cut you off if they find out you are downlaoding also.


once again, that's not true, read the law. ISPs are just scared of being taken to civil courts, but its not actually illegal.

There's a difference between illegal and being taken to court over it

Read the entire article and you should be clear on what it says.
Author:  TaKYoN [ Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:36 am ]
Post subject: 
Ah fuck it, I got my condensed version right here, tell em all to fuck right off and catch some real crooks.
Author:  potmunky [ Thu Nov 03, 2005 10:32 am ]
Post subject: 
GrindCallus; Yup, thats true. :wacky:
They doped a rabbit-up, and in the process replaced nearly two thirds of the poor 'lil buggers blood with, basically, MJ oil! :o
It was some animal testing lab darn Sarf 'o UK, (which was closed-down shortly after, strangely), and the Gov of the time asked a 'leading expert' to conduct a series of tests...
As I understand it, they basically just kept increasing the dosage to the rabbit to work out how much would kill it. The Gov just took this and used the 'Rabbit dies from MJ-OD; Ban MJ' bit of the research, and 'forgot' to mention the bit about the rabbit having 'most of its blood missing'... :o
It was pointed-out at the time that if you replaced two thirds of ANY animals blood with anything other than more of the same blood, it would die. Unfortunately, this counter-research was observed by bearded hippy-types, and so was discredited/ignored by the general populace.
That would have to be the worlds most schtoned rabbit! :wacky: :lol:
Now its the 'E kills' bollox that our Sunday rags slap accross the front pages.
'E' doesnt kill, (unless you have an allergic reaction to it, and, apparently, you have a higher(pun intended!)chance of being allergic to, and dying from, two Paracetamol!!! :o )
Its all about trends in a way. Theres always summat for the PowersThatBe(tm) to make-up new rules about. Usually at the expense of our Freedom...
ID cards anyone?
Fruckin' Baskets.
Oh, (back-on topic), and while its not illegal to actually DL in the UK, an ISP can ban/stop your account if you breach their rules. Thats the daft thing, tho. Most ISPs have the diff tariffs to cover all types of net user preference; ie, 2G unlimited DLs, 1G limited to 30G of DLs a month, etc, etc. They ARE aware of the DLing that goes on, they just hide behind the 'we just supply a service; if its abused then its not our fault' defense. A bit like the saying 'guns dont kill people, people, (or rabbits!?), do'. :matrix:
My opinion is this; Fair enuff, but if Smith + Wesson, etc, didnt actually make handguns in the first place, then there would be no gun crime. Tho I spose, in a way, that is reducing Civil Liberties as well! Round and round and...
If media, (films, albums, games, etc), were all up to a certain standard and down to a certain price, maybe piracy would be a lot less of a perceived threat than it currently is.
Like back in the C64 day. Cheap games, a lot less piracy, even tho cassette tapes were a doddle to copy! :P
BTW, I create my own music on the PC and with my bass. I generally put the 'better' stuff I do into a shared folder so peeps can mule it off me if they want. I beleive that art/creativity is twisted to fuck when its based on how much cash you can make. Naive, perhaps, but imo it isnt creativity, its exploitation. Of both the artist and the consumer. As soon as an artist tries to provide what they think the buyer wants, then that artist simply becomes a product-seller.
Society is fucked-up and, basically, money is to blame. We ALL do it for the cash and not for the soul(man)!
I smoke too much pot, methinks :wacky: :wacky: :wacky:
Rant over, spleen well n truly vented :P
Pot
Author:  TaKYoN [ Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:50 am ]
Post subject: 
Gotta go with the pot man here, money has fucked everything up. LOL I still get paid for my services, just with goods. I fix a mates PC, he slips me a bit of MJ or something similar I can smoke.
Author:  spudthedestroyer [ Thu Nov 03, 2005 3:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
As just or unjust the decision, pot is illegal :(

I still have hopes that downloading will remain legal. "a fool's hope" perhaps, but its still a hope.
Author:  TaKYoN [ Thu Nov 03, 2005 3:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
I have seen plenty of ppl start on puff and end up on smack, I have known a few who have died but I will never condone it.

I do it because I enjoy the buzz, but now I monitor what I smoke very closely indeed as many ppl, myself included; crave a better buzz, and this is the problem. It all boils down to self control.

No children are permitted to smoke in the house.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
What's blood for, if not for shedding?