You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
It is now, seemingly.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/tv/kodi-law-10-years-prison-12980766
[i]
last week the Digital Economy Act received Royal Assent, meaning it officially passes into law.
...
Clause 27 of the Act states that criminal liability is to be determined by "causing loss" and "risk of loss" to the owner of the copyright.
This is defined as merely failing to pay a licence fee, so ordinary people engaged in domestic "filesharing" on a non-commercial basis could potentially find themselves facing long jail sentences.
Mr Sharp [the CEO of FACT] added that the casual streamer is likely to be threatened with a six month suspended sentence and a costly fee at the most.
However, at some point, an example could be made by prosecuting a casual user.
"At some point, someone who is illegally streaming is going to get caught. Although it's not our wish to go after the end user," he said.[/i]
Whether we could consider FACT a reliable and unbiased source is a matter of debate of course. Worth being aware of the change to the law, though. (It's not something I've ever done, but I know it's been discussed here previously so thought it might be of interest.)
Iteresting that they are specifically mentioning Kodi in the reporting of this.
There's tons of copyrighted material on YouTube, including entire movies and TV series. I watched the entire last season of Game Of Thrones there.
IANAL but the law to which you refer targets people "infringing copyright" however the CJEU ruling on streaming specificially states that streaming does not infringe copyright so... yeah. Not convinced that your (and FACTs) interpretation is correct. Will probably require someone to be hauled before the courts for clarification. 🙂
A person (“P”) who infringes a performer’s making available right in a
30recording commits an offence if P—(ii)knows or has reason to believe that infringing the right
35will cause loss to the owner of the right, or expose the
owner of the right to a risk of loss.
good luck proving I would have bought it in the first place.
btw it's 26 not 27, good start to the article... 😆
(1B)For the purposes of subsection (1A)—
(a)“gain” and “loss”—
(i)extend only to gain or loss in money, and
(ii)40include any such gain or loss whether temporary or
permanent, and
[b](b)“loss” includes a loss by not getting what one might get.””[/b]
guessing that might cover my point above.
tbh, I've no doubt they'll legislate against it, it's been a long time coming, but you have to ask, do entertainment companies have the right to snoop on my browsing? What carry on are the up to on that point, as the above is pointless unless they can enforce it.
Seems very much setup to make a scapegoat or 2 and that'll be it..
Plus all it'll mean in reality, if they can snoop, is a rise in vpns. They can only prosecute what they can catch ye at.
Not convinced that your (and FACTs) interpretation is correct.
Ain't my interpretation, just passing on the info. As you say, it'll no doubt require a test case.
Interesting, thanks.
Taping the Top 10 off the radio was illegal in the 1970's but whoever got "done" for that. Certainly not me.
The financial loss suffered by a film company is limited to the cost of a rental (say £2-5) or the cost of the film itself if you actually downloaded a copy (say £10-15). This IMO is why a film company isn't going to pursue the end user. The Government / CPS might decide to bring a case and apply a fine but I strongly suspect they believe they have better things to do in particuluar if the film companies aren't bringing any cases.
Cougar - Moderator
Not convinced that your (and FACTs) interpretation is correct.
Ain't my interpretation, just passing on the info. As you say,[b] it'll no doubt require a test case[/b].
“loss” includes a loss by not getting what one might get.”
I think that point definitely does, on the face of it looks fairly damming, but you'd think a decent lawyer would run rings around it.
The Government / CPS might decide to bring a case and apply a fine but I strongly suspect they believe they have better things to do
Indeed.
If one were feeling cynical one might suspect that the [i]real[/i] reason for laws like this are to justify fishing investigations under the Snooper's Charter.
[i]"Why did you invoke your powers under the [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016 ]Investigatory Powers Act[/url] to establish internet surveillance of the subject?"[/i]
[i]"Well y'honah, we 'ad reason to believe that he was committing a crime under the Digital Economy Act. Specifically that, on the night of Wednesday the 3rd of May 2017 he did knowingly and with malicious intent, stream a VHS copy of the 1987 episode of Neighbours featuring Scott and Charlene's wedding, thus depriving Grundy Television of valuable revenue."[/i]
😆
Taping the Top 10 off the radio was illegal in the 1970's but whoever got "done" for that. Certainly not me.
Sure, and FACT / FAST's assertion that a copied title equates 1:1 with a lost sale is patently mince.
When I was a kid I had a box of C90s full of copied ZX Spectrum games. Say 20 cassettes with ten games on each side at a fiver a pop... anyone seriously suggesting that that's £2,000 in lost sales from a 14-year old kid in a dying cotton town? I spent pretty much all my pocket money on games, if I hadn't been able to swap them in the playground I wouldn't have bought more, I couldn't, I'd just have had fewer games (and 90% of them I probably only played once for ten minutes before going "this is crap, let's see what's next on the tape.") Arguably, it [i]increased[/i] sales as in order to trade you had to have something new to trade with. Even back in the 80s, leeches were frowned upon.
The same is broadly true today, I spend as much as I'm prepared to justify on media and subscriptions. Historically I've bought things which I've already "owned" by illicit means if I've thought it's worth the money. Some people are serial pirates and won't spend a penny on TV / films / games which I think is immoral, they probably do equate to lost sales but many (most?) people aren't like that.
Has there ever been a test case that the subscriber of a broadband connection is liable for any dubious activity on thier ip adress from other users?
All my friends and family have my wifi password so they can use thier devices when visiting, it's not an unreasonable thing to do.
Far as I'm aware most if not all cases of end user prosecution have only been when the alleged pirate didn't defend thier case or simply admitted liability.
Also with most end users having dynamic IP's, so there'd be some rigmarole proving that was actually your IP at the time of the infringement.
What if you are a charitable sort and leave your router with no password so your impoverished neighbour can do job searches?
I'm sure there must be many more 'what if' arguments that have never been tested in court.
It is a scaremongering though, can you imagine the prison talk on your first day..
'what you in for?'
'downloading a season of lost, ten years, you?
'rape, I should be out in 5 with good behaviour'.
Taping the Top 10 off the radio was illegal in the 1970's but whoever got "done" for that. Certainly not me.
Your every move wasn't monitored and stored in the 70s!
They'll prosecute enough people to scare of the average punter. The determined will carry on using them.
Not yet they haven't. I don't even recall anyone being prosecuted for peer to peer file sharing of movies etc. Not an end-user. I don't see them bring any prosecutions for streaming a film. They are going after "the money"' eg box sellers.
All my friends and family have my wifi password so they can use thier devices when visiting, it's not an unreasonable thing to do.
With my IT head on you're still accountable, if you've given out your password that's your own fault for not safeguarding your account.
However.
Compare this to driving prosecutions. You have to proffer who was driving, they can't prosecute a car. Maybe this is where Internet crime needs to head, you're immediately liable as the "keeper" of the router, to either accept the blame or nominate who was downloading kiddie porn / last night's X-factor at the time of the offence?
Not an end-user. I don't see them bring any prosecutions
Sure. But it'd be in their interests to make a couple of 'example' cases to scare everyone off.
speaking of snooping, seems whatsapp is down worldwide, the security services must be having a feild day with it! 😆
Still?
aye, still gubbed here on phone and desktop.
But it'd be in their interests to make a couple of 'example' cases to scare everyone off.
It depends on if they thought the case would go their way. As opposed to the court going "here is a 10p fine" or if they did have the "examples" whether the politicans would suddenly realise their campaign contributions from the media companies is outweighed by the number of voters realising they could be done.
The big companies have tried it in the past but seem to have given it up as a bad idea. Crap publicity and limited to no success in terms of scaring people off.
It wont be helped that there are the various bottom feeding "law firms" who have given the entire process a really, really bad reputation both for lack of accuracy and also lack of success.
Any capable company would look at ACS Law and co and probably think to give it a miss.
The ACS Law fiasco was brilliant, for those not aware they were a small law firm headed by one guy sending out speculative invoices to scare people into paying huge sums or risk going to court.
They annoyed the entire internet basically, and every man and and his dog went to town on him, he ended up getting all his stuff hacked and leaked online and subsequently he got struck off for his dubious activity.
He got trolled to the extreme.
They are going after "the money"' eg box sellers.
Firstly who is the "box seller" for the copyrighted stuff on YouTube? Google? Good luck chasing them in UK courts!
Likewise all the dodgy streaming websites which are based well outside UK jurisdiction.
Secondly, talking specifically about Kodi boxes. They are nothing special, just little computers running some software. You could equally use a PC, a Raspberry Pi, an X Box etc
If you bought one from a trusted retailer, say Amazon when they did sell them, sure that makes them as complicit as anyone
You can put kodi with exodus on an amazon fire stick in about 5 mins.
The horses have well and truly bolted, and the barn door is well and truly open.
Kodi is an evolution of xbmc, or xbox media centre.
Burn all x boxes!
they are probably referring to the ones pre-loaded with plugins to watch pirate streams, which are illegal to sell.Secondly, talking specifically about Kodi boxes. They are nothing special
Does anyone really think that because they are streaming it is any less illegal than downloading? Whichever method you are depriving the copyright holder of an income. Now would you watch all that tat if you actually had to pay for it, that is another question.
This weekend I watched the boxing, match of the day and the F1 about 1-2 hours after broadcast on youtube. Ironically I get most of these (or the live events) on the TV here but the commentary is garbage so its more pleasurable to watch the version online.
The horse hasn't just bolted, it has died been made into glue...
Banning something just makes it a challenge. If there was a half decent model for getting the TV/Sports worldwide people would probably pay. Look at the success of netflix.
Exodus? Wookie wizard is where the cool kids are down with, grandad
Secondly, talking specifically about Kodi boxes. They are nothing special
No, the issue there is selling what's called "fully loaded" boxes with all the dodgy plug-ins preinstalled. There's nothing inherently dodgy about Kodi.
Does anyone really think that because they are streaming it is any less illegal than downloading?
It's been posited as a truism several times previously on other discussions, yes.
Yep petard wierd, they will bang on about it but never admit they did anything wrong.
On a side note bein sports now does a heap of stuff worldwide, sports in the UK is distorted by Murdoch although it's also what's made it so popular.
Does anyone really think that because they are streaming it is any less illegal than downloading?
Because copyright law comes from the age of bits of paper and books it requires a copy to be made for infringement to occur. So who is infringing depends on who made the copy. In the downloading case there is a fair bit of precedence now that the downloader is making the copy and therefore infringing. Until now though when streaming it was the sender who was making a copy and therefore infringing. So it was the website and not the end user.
Of course FACT generally spout drivel about this because they want people confused.
There's nothing inherently dodgy about Kodi.
Yep, but sadly these laws (and the media coverage of them) tend to be technologically illiterate and usually somehow manage to combine being overly specific with non-specific blanket bans.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Kodi boxes effectively being made illegal - even though the box itself does nothing illegal.
See also: torrents.
In the downloading case there is a fair bit of precedence now that the downloader is making the copy and therefore infringing
with the added side note that in the case of torrents, the downloader is sharing the copyrighted content too.
and the site providing torrent files are technically only sharing an index to the copyrighted content, and not the content, although there is precedence that they are guilty too, and several have been shut down and/or "went straight".
peer-to-peer streaming might spice up the fight a little more.
the big guys will always "win", but never learn or adapt.
(b)“loss” includes a loss by not getting what one might get.”
Does that mean I can hold them liable for not broadcasting and paying me the rights for the film I've not written yet, but might at some random point in the future?