Support NeoGAF

[Tak3n]

Dont panic, this is a educational letter, and a bit late as the EU court all ready rules that streaming is not breaking the law (KODI add ons) New ruling due in 2017 to clarify confusion

so it is only if you download stuff, you will now get a 'educational' letter explaining what you are doing is wrong... and how to do it right!

This is not the same as the trial a few years back where you got sent a threatening letter.... this is a new ethos..... the 'please stop' approach.

As part of this the ISPs have agreed to adopt a Voluntary Copyright Alert Programme (VCAP), which aims to ”send millions of educational notices" to those detected by copyright owners as infringing their content via ”unlawful" Peer-to-Peer (P2P) File-Sharing (e.g. BitTorrent) networks (these networks will often expose your IP address to the public Internet and Rights Holders can spot that).

Unlike the bullying letters sent by dubious copyright protection firms (aka – ”speculative invoicing”), the ”alerts" issued by this new system will NOT contain any threats or demands for money and should only act as a tool for educating customers about the legal alternatives (Netflix and Spotify etc.). The idea is to discourage future infringement, as opposed to punishment.

Sample Piracy ”Alert" Email / Letter

Get It Right from a Genuine Site' has got in touch with us.

Get it Right is a government-backed campaign acting for copyright owners who think their content's been shared without their permission.

It looks like someone has been using your broadband to share copyrighted material (that means things like music, films, sport or books).

And as your broadband provider, we have to let you know when this happens.

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...st-internet-piracy-warning-letters-month.html

 

[Bold One]

 

[Baleoce]

 

[Symphonia]

I always assumed it only becomes a crime when you yourself start sharing the files with others. I mean, I have a 2TB HDD full of downloaded films, but I've not seeded a single one. Am I still in the wrong?

Edit: For the record, this is poorly-implemented sarcasm.

 

[breakfuss]

I always assumed it only becomes a crime when you yourself start sharing the files with others. I mean, I have a 2TB HDD full of downloaded films, but I've not seeded a single one. Am I still in the wrong?

lol

 

[Keyser Soze]

I always assumed it only becomes a crime when you yourself start sharing the files with others. I mean, I have a 2TB HDD full of downloaded films, but I've not seeded a single one. Am I still in the wrong?

 

[Symphonia]

lol

Not obvious it was sarcasm? My bad. I was ironically quoting people who think 'just downloading' files is legal. GAF needs a sarcasm extension.

 

[Tak3n]

I always assumed it only becomes a crime when you yourself start sharing the files with others. I mean, I have a 2TB HDD full of downloaded films, but I've not seeded a single one. Am I still in the wrong?

 

[kyser73]

Isn't that kind of confession banable?

Ah, /s

 

[Auctopus]

Good Lord, this has taken a long time to come in to effect. I remember Cameron talking about bringing this in about 4 years ago.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

We noticed someone from your IP address has been sharing copyrighted furry hentai overwatch gore transalien sissy macho cow stroking material.

As your Internet Spying Police, we are obligated to infoem you of this.

Pls stahp.

 

[SuperBanana]

VPN? VPN.

 

[Tak3n]

VPN? VPN.

I know right, it is like they are advertising to use a VPN as it says the owner of the media may be able to see your IP

 

[Dougald]

I'm not quite sure I really see the point of this, other than to maybe put the scare onto people. Educationally, who doesn't know that piracy is illegal at this point? For many things such as music/TV the "downloading it to try it" or "I can't find it anywhere else" is pretty moot these days with services like Netflix/Spotify, too (though I'm sure there are plenty of super obscure things that aren't available through legal means).

Almost anyone pirating content in 2017 is doing it because they don't want to pay for it, I can't see why this would stop them.

 

[Transhuman]

I always assumed it only becomes a crime when you yourself start sharing the files with others. I mean, I have a 2TB HDD full of downloaded films, but I've not seeded a single one. Am I still in the wrong?

Edit: For the record, this is poorly-implemented sarcasm.

 

[SKINNER!]

Edit: For the record, this is poorly-implemented sarcasm.

 

[danowat]

I know right, it is like they are advertising to use a VPN as it says the owner of the media may be able to see your IP

Ok, so I am not super savvy with the internets.......

Would it be possible / enforceable at all, for the British government to make the use of VPN, or other IP masking devices illegal?

 

[Herr Schwarz]

How about divesting in the fight against piracy, take that money and invest it into combating tax dodging cunts like Amber Rudd?

Oh right fuck that, stop them poors from entertaining themselves illegally!!!

 

[StayDead]

Ok, so I am not super savvy with the internets.......

Would it be possible / enforceable at all, for the British government to make the use of VPN, or other IP masking devices illegal?

It would be possible, but then every big business in the country would leave.

VPNs are far too important.

 

[Mindwipe]

How about divesting in the fight against piracy, take that money and invest it into combating tax dodging cunts like Amber Rudd?

Oh right fuck that, stop them poors from entertaining themselves illegally!!!

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that any government money is being spent here.

 

[Tak3n]

I'm not quite sure I really see the point of this, other than to maybe put the scare onto people. Educationally, who doesn't know that piracy is illegal at this point? For many things such as music/TV the "downloading it to try it" or "I can't find it anywhere else" is pretty moot these days with services like Netflix/Spotify, too (though I'm sure there are plenty of super obscure things that aren't available through legal means).

Almost anyone pirating content in 2017 is doing it because they don't want to pay for it, I can't see why this would stop them.

well you say that, but we have Exodus/Kodi and my 8 year old does not realise at all, he just thinks that is where the movies are.....

I remember once we tried to explain how the world works with media, and we started discussing a particular film, and he went "it is ok, we watched that in class the other day"!!

The younger generation, have no idea where films et al comes from, they just know they press a button and it appears

 

[Herr Schwarz]

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that any government money is being spent here.

They lean on ISPs to do this. That's time ergo money spent on doing this shit. Locking up pirates, is again govt money. Like you honestly think the govt hasn't spent any time trying to do anything about it?

 

[Mindwipe]

Dont panic, this is a educational letter, and a bit late as the EU court all ready rules that streaming is not breaking the law (KODI add ons)

They didn't.

 

[danowat]

well you say that, but we have Exodus/Kodi and my 8 year old does not realise at all, he just thinks that is where the movies are.....

Is streaming is still piracy?

 

[spineduke]

It would be possible, but then every big business in the country would leave.

VPNs are far too important.

They could restrict VPNs to businesses only. I think India does something like this.

 

[Tak3n]

Ok, so I am not super savvy with the internets.......

Would it be possible / enforceable at all, for the British government to make the use of VPN, or other IP masking devices illegal?

Most VPNS are based in different countries, so no....i mean sure they could make some law, but it would be completely unenforceable, they allready have a black list law in this country, where companies can appeal to the courts to have them blocked by ISP's but that does not work either..

 

[Mindwipe]

They lean on ISPs to do this. That's time ergo money spent on doing this shit. Locking up pirates, is again govt money.

No pirates are being locked up as a result of this.

And ISPs would not be spending their money going after tax cheats either.

 

[Tak3n]

Is streaming is still piracy?

not in the EU

Back in June 2014, there was a “landmark” case where a media service company (Meltwater) was sued by several media groups including the UK-based Newspaper Licensing Agency.
Essentially, the CJEU ruled against the NLA saying that viewing copyrighted content online is not copyright infringement. It all boils down to the fact that the copyrighted information is stored only temporarily on the user’s computer, and temporary copies are exempt from copyright laws.
That’s big news, since it has implications beyond simple web pages, which is what the case was all about.
Since then, the CJEU was asked to clarify whether these existing EU copyright exemptions also apply to viewing and streaming videos online. The court said that streaming videos is different to making a copy, so is also exempt from copyright laws.

 

[danowat]

not in the EU

Interesting, so by the letter of the law it's legal, surely it's still morally ambiguous?, how can someone be vilified for downloading a movie and someone not by streaming it?, you're still getting something for free that you should really pay for.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

No pirates are being locked up as a result of this.

And ISPs would not be spending their money going after tax cheats either.

https://torrentfreak.com/uk-government-expands-crackdown-on-online-piracy-160510/

Of course no Govt money or time being spent on anything

"As part of this the ISPs have agreed to adopt a Voluntary Copyright Alert Programme (VCAP), which aims to ”send millions of educational notices""

Send millions of notices, so who's footing that bill? the govt giving them money to send the notices?

 

[Tak3n]

They didn't.

are you arguing on a technical point, then no they did not explicitly say KODI is not illegal, but their ruling was quite specific

the CJEU ruled against the NLA saying that viewing copyrighted content online is not copyright infringement. It all boils down to the fact that the copyrighted information is stored only temporarily on the user's computer, and temporary copies are exempt from copyright laws.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

not in the EU

Damn.

Should have built the remain campaign around the fact that the EU protects streaming of copyrighted content. Would have been a unprecedented victory.

 

[Zaph]

well you say that, but we have Exodus/Kodi and my 8 year old does not realise at all, he just thinks that is where the movies are.....

I remember once we tried to explain how the world works with media, and we started discussing a particular film, and he went "it is ok, we watched that in class the other day"!!

The younger generation, have no idea where films et al comes from, they just know they press a button and it appears

Yup, and it's not just younger people. My mum asked me about this "online box" her friend's son bought her, and how she's able to watch new films for free. I'm pretty sure they're talking about those KODI sticks on ebay.

I think letters that are educational and non-threatening are a good idea.

 

[Tak3n]

Interesting, so by the letter of the law it's legal, surely it's still morally ambiguous?, how can someone be vilified for downloading a movie and someone not by streaming it?, you're still getting something for free that you should really pay for.

aged old argument.... a new ruling is due in 2017 to clarify, but the crux of it seems to be, the person who is uploading the film to be viewed is the one who is wrong

reading about it, it looks like the EU decision may say that pre loaded boxes will become illegal (maybe) but a person who installs Kodi, then installs a add on, that is fine...

Ebay is full of people who buy a fire stick, install Exodus and sell it for 3 times the price, even though it takes 2 mins to do it yourself.... a fool and their money

 

[Herr Schwarz]

Yup, and it's not just younger people. My mum asked me about this "online box" her friend's son bought her, and how she's able to watch new films for free. I'm pretty sure they're talking about those KODI sticks on ebay.

I think letters that are educational and non-threatening are a good idea.

Yep, "In order to watch these movies, whenever whatever, you'll probably need to lock yourself into about 3 different subscription services at 10 bucks a month and as a struggling parent earning 20% less than your forbears, you can probably definitely afford that or fuck off you scabby poor"

 

[Mindwipe]

are you arguing on a technical point, then now they did not explicitly say KODI is not illegal, but their ruling was quite specific

No, it isn't.

The Meltwater case makes that ruling on the originating source of the content being itself legal, which it isn't in the case of a streaming service. Unambigously.

Indeed, there is a case at the CJEU *right now* on this. Which they wouldn't need to take to the CJEU if the Meltwater case applies. It doesn't.

I know a lot of Kodi box sellers and YouTubers have put this bullshit in to the public domain, but it isn't true.

EDIT: Also Meltwater is not settled - there is plenty of court precedent the other way too, so further rulings are inevitable.

 

[Zaph]

Yep, "In order to watch these movies, whenever whatever, you'll probably need to lock yourself into about 3 different subscription services at 10 bucks a month and as a struggling parent earning 20% less than your forbears, you can probably definitely afford that or fuck off you scabby poor"

Letting people, who may be unaware, know they're pirating content isn't class warfare.

 

[Symphonia]

They could restrict VPNs to businesses only. I think India does something like this.

I'm pretty sure someone will figure out a way to bypass a business-only model for VPNs.

 

[Tak3n]

No, it isn't.

The Meltwater case makes that ruling on the originating source of the content being itself legal, which it isn't in the case of a streaming service. Unambigously.

Indeed, there is a case at the CJEU *right now* on this. Which they wouldn't need to take to the CJEU if the Meltwater case applies. It doesn't.

I know a lot of Kodi box sellers and YouTubers have put this bullshit in to the public domain, but it isn't true.

I agree there is a new case.... and they may well rule it is ok to stream

2 questions being asked, one about pre programmed boxes and the other is

“Is it lawful under EU law to temporarily reproduce content through streaming if the content originates from a third-party website where it’s made available without permission?”

Spain argued that streaming pirated content should not be allowed in any way. BREIN agreed with this position and argued that streaming should be on par with unauthorized downloading since a temporary copy of the infringing file is made, which is illegal under EU case law.

Interestingly, the European Commission doesn’t believe that consumers who watch pirate streams are infringing. From the user’s perspective they equate streaming to watching, which is legitimate.

Based on the hearing the Advocate General will issue a recommendation later this year, which will be followed by a final verdict from the EU Court of Justice somewhere early 2017.

 

[brokenbeans]

Time to look into a vpn.

For you know, scientific purposes.

 

[Acorn]

Ok, so I am not super savvy with the internets.......

Would it be possible / enforceable at all, for the British government to make the use of VPN, or other IP masking devices illegal?

Possible sure, enforceable not really.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

Letting people, who may be unaware, know they're pirating content isn't class warfare.

Oh please man, of course they do, and also of course it is, the only folks who won't know are boomers. These letters are a scare tactic.

I'm frankly shocked that Hollywood and the Gaming industry is still going with all that rampant piracy year after year after year. It's almost as if they're not hurting and they're just using their lobby influence to gouge a bit more "hypothetical dollars" out of the poors.

 

[kraspkibble]

i think this would be better than threatening letters. just say what you're doing is wrong. you would be surprised at how many people think downloading stuff is legal through torrents. a lot of people will be doing it thinking it's perfectly fine. this will genuinely teach them or if the person knows what they are doing is wrong then it will put the fear into them and stop doing it since they know their ISP has caught up to them.

At that point if they don't stop they will keep doing it as they were before and get another letter with a strict warning or notice of cancellation or they will use other means to try conceal what they are doing (use of VPN for example).

 

[Herr Schwarz]

i think this would be better than threatening letters... it will put the fear into them and stop doing it since they know their ISP has caught up to them.
.

Uh huh. I think that's the same thing... just dressed up passive aggressive British style, no?

 

[Tak3n]

No, it isn't.

The Meltwater case makes that ruling on the originating source of the content being itself legal, which it isn't in the case of a streaming service. Unambigously.

Indeed, there is a case at the CJEU *right now* on this. Which they wouldn't need to take to the CJEU if the Meltwater case applies. It doesn't.

I know a lot of Kodi box sellers and YouTubers have put this bullshit in to the public domain, but it isn't true.

EDIT: Also Meltwater is not settled - there is plenty of court precedent the other way too, so further rulings are inevitable.

infact, the AG just ruled, and presuming the court follows his advice, here it is...

and it looks like to me the onus is still on those those who upload to show due diligence that they are not sharing copyrighted material... and little to no ruling on people who stream the movies

Assuming the CJEU follows the AG’s opinion and reasoning:

The communication to the public right is very powerful and sufficiently flexible to be applied in a variety of different contexts. The defendant in Filmspeler was not doing any “transmission” of the works at all; instead he was essentially selling a physical product which gave access to unlawful transmissions by third parties.
We are no clearer on which hyperlinkers are operating for profit and on how the rebuttable presumption of knowledge operates.
The AG hints at what could become a unified theory explaining the communication to the public right: a focus on who in a chain of communication is deriving value from intervening to provide access to works.
Right owners would have two helpful new causes of action in their armoury: they can take action against a wider range of people in the piracy ecosystem for communication to the public and in relation to a wider range of acts, including the temporary reproductions carried out when streaming infringing content.

 

[SolidusDave]

I always assumed it only becomes a crime when you yourself start sharing the files with others. I mean, I have a 2TB HDD full of downloaded films, but I've not seeded a single one. Am I still in the wrong?

Edit: For the record, this is poorly-implemented sarcasm.

Not sure why that's sarcastic when that was basically the legal state years back and probably still is in several countries.

Laws exempting streaming are dumb btw because of course you still download something to your hdd. Just temporary.


Not that it would make much of a difference as they can only track you via torrent anyway and not e.g. in itself legal file hosting websites.
(And maybe the ISPs can rat you out for visiting known streaming sites but that's not really proof).


@OP: I like that educational aspect of literally telling you about legal alternatives.

 

[Mindwipe]

infact, the AG just ruled, and presuming the court follows his advice, here it is...

and it looks like to me the onus is still on those those who upload to show due diligence that they are not sharing copyrighted material... and little to no ruling on people who stream the movies

The AG cannot "rule". He can only publish an opinion. He's not a judge.

He has published an opinion, yes, but that doesn't mean there is a judgement. And there are numerous other issues, not least any EU country's signatory status to the Berne convention and the three step test.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

Do we have a sales stats on how SO MUCH BETTER, games with Denuovo are doing in their first week or so?

Do we have any kind of real data suggesting that Hollywood or the Gaming industry is actually suffering and not making more profit year over year due to piracy?

 

[Symphonia]

Not sure why that's sarcastic when that was basically the legal state years back and probably still is in several countries.

Because it was the legal state doesn't mean it is still the legal state. I implied sarcasm because there are a load of people - perhaps yourself, included - who believe they are entitled to download pirated films and not be warned/cautioned for doing so. It is no different to buying pirated games. I remember the days of going to car boot markets and finding stalls with boxes full of pirated games. It's damaging to the industry.

 

[Tak3n]

The AG cannot "rule". He can only publish an opinion. He's not a judge.

He has published an opinion, yes, but that doesn't mean there is a judgement. And there are numerous other issues, not least any EU country's signatory status to the Berne convention and the three step test.

yeah, I did not mean rule, as in 'the ruling' I don't know how many times the court has gone against his opinion, and TBH I have a headache allready reading all of the legal arguments allready, but looking at his ' opinion' looks about as muddled as before