Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK Court: MPAA Not Entitled To Profits From Piracy

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the not-so-fast dept.

Movies 159

jfruh writes "The MPAA and other entertainment industry groups have been locked for years in a legal struggle against Newzbin2, a Usenet-indexing site. Since Newzbin2 profited from making it easier for users to find pirated movies online, the MPAA contends they can sue to take those profits on behalf of members who produced that content in the first place. But a British court has rejected that argument."

cancel ×

159 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42817507)

apk is the worst troller on slashdot

Dear MPAA (5, Insightful)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | about a year and a half ago | (#42817513)

Fuck You. Parasitic Bastards.

Re:Dear MPAA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42817551)

Wherever your butthole is, I'll be there. I'll be there to fuck it off until absolutely nothing is left to fuck directly off! Wow! Wow! Wow! I'll transform your asshole into a cummy delight! Nothing will be left of it once I'm through with it!

Re:Dear MPAA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42817895)

You think the parasitic bastards are the ones creating things rather than the ones stealing them? You really are a fucking twat, aren't you?

Re:Dear MPAA (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42817909)

The MPAA creates things ? I thought the artists did.

Re:Dear MPAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42817957)

I do not think the word 'steal' means what you appear to think it means.

Re:Dear MPAA (5, Insightful)

Pieroxy (222434) | about a year and a half ago | (#42818005)

You aren't much into the MPAA's business model are you? The only thing the MPAA creates it wealth for itself.

Re:Dear MPAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42818117)

lolwut do you even know what the MPAA is?

Re:Dear MPAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42819545)

The MPAA/RIAA is nothing more than a legal Mafia.

Apparently running Newzbin gave a good lifestyle (2, Informative)

whoever57 (658626) | about a year and a half ago | (#42817545)

and another company Motors for Movies, which owns the McLaren car Harris uses, Newey wrote.

I assume that would be a McLaren F1, cost 0.5M pounds when new, now worth significantly more.

Re:Apparently running Newzbin gave a good lifestyl (3, Funny)

Squiddie (1942230) | about a year and a half ago | (#42817685)

Could be an MP4-12C. Still the F1 is nice and all, but for half a million pounds, you don't even get passenger seats. Obviously my beat up '97 SHO is much better and just as exclusive, being the only Taurus variant to have a V8.

Re:Apparently running Newzbin gave a good lifestyl (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42817777)

The F1 has two passenger seats?

Re:Apparently running Newzbin gave a good lifestyl (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42817923)

yep - right and left of the driver

Re:Apparently running Newzbin gave a good lifestyl (3, Funny)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about a year and a half ago | (#42818679)

Yep, one for the wife and one for the mistress.

Re:Apparently running Newzbin gave a good lifestyl (1)

BigZee (769371) | about a year and a half ago | (#42818419)

The McLaren F1 has two passenger seats.

Re:Apparently running Newzbin gave a good lifestyl (1)

Squiddie (1942230) | about a year and a half ago | (#42818477)

Yes, but no one actually fits in them.

Re:Apparently running Newzbin gave a good lifestyl (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42819379)

If you can afford the F1, you can afford the women that will fit into the "seats."

Re:Apparently running Newzbin gave a good lifestyl (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42817693)

"I assume that would be a McLaren F1"

Why? They have more than one model now?

Re:Apparently running Newzbin gave a good lifestyl (1)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | about a year and a half ago | (#42818115)

They brought out a new one in 2011, I believe; they also have some others in planning stages.

Er... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42817549)

Wouldn't collecting the profits from pirate copies translates into making those copies legit?

Re:Er... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42817779)

Heck, how it wouldn't be piracy? They profit from Illegal copies!!!!

Re:Er... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42818777)

If a gas station is operating in an area where many arsonists are operating, and it turns out that quite a few arsonists bought the gas they used to burn down houses at that gas station, is the owner of the gas station then guilty of arson?

Re:Er... (1)

steviesteveo12 (2755637) | about a year and a half ago | (#42819097)

I'm going with no on that.

Re:Er... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42819125)

If he knew the arsonists were using his gas, didn't inform police, and instead provided the gas free to the arsonists, then yes. At the very least he is guilty of aiding and abetting.

Re:Er... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42817801)

Absolutely brilliant observation. It makes the analogy of the landowner and trespassing DVD salesman make a bit more sense. Although, if the landowner takes the profits from the trespasser and still has the trespasser arrested, wouldn't it would be more like extortion?

Re:Er... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42818357)

It'd also mean they'd be guilty of receiving the proceeds of crime, a criminal offense in itself.

Re:Er... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42818837)

If a bank robber buys a map in order to find the way to the bank he is going to rob, is then the owner of the shop selling him the map guilty of receiving the proceeds of the crime?

Re:Er... (4, Insightful)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about a year and a half ago | (#42819023)

That's the most retarded comment I've read all day. How can it be receiving the proceeds of the crime before the crime has been committed? If the robber bought the map from the proceeds of the bank robbery, then why does he need to buy the map?

Re:Er... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42819851)

That's the most retarded comment I've read all day. How can it be receiving the proceeds of the crime before the crime has been committed?

The same way that California can retroactively change tax laws in order to charge businesses interest and penalties for not filing their taxes properly (which they did legally at the time).

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/01/24/2232237/californias-surreal-retroactive-tax-on-tech-startup-investors

Re:Er... (4, Insightful)

Tapewolf (1639955) | about a year and a half ago | (#42819051)

It'd also mean they'd be guilty of receiving the proceeds of crime, a criminal offense in itself.

More to the point, I am sure that books, music and music are also traded on usenet. So they would actually be profiting from the 'theft' of other people's work, not merely the ones which they own.

Re:Er... (1)

AtrN (87501) | about a year and a half ago | (#42818529)

No.

Re:Er... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42819085)

Wouldn't collecting the profits from pirate copies translates into making those copies legit?

No, it's punitive punishment.

If you get caught robbing a bank and get sent to jail, you don't get to keep the money.

Ok, that's not a perfect analogy, but if you get caught download music and have to pay a fine, that doesn't mean the music automatically becomes legit. The fine is punishment.

Re:Er... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42819155)

Yeah, but the proceeds of the fine don't go to the music studios. It goes to the government.

Asphalt Manufacturers Too! (5, Interesting)

Bob9113 (14996) | about a year and a half ago | (#42817559)

Since Newzbin2 profited from making it easier for users to find pirated movies online, the MPAA contends they can sue to take those profits on behalf of members who produced that content in the first place.

This is a bit like saying that asphalt manufacturers profit from making it easier for getaway drivers to whisk bank robbers away from the scene of the crime.

Re:Asphalt Manufacturers Too! (5, Insightful)

Sperbels (1008585) | about a year and a half ago | (#42817615)

Well... don't they?

Re:Asphalt Manufacturers Too! (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42817707)

No, asphalt manufacturers make it easier for police to respond and arrive at the scene. Ergo, asphalt manufacturers discourage crime.

but but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42817863)

if there were no roads then crime in cars could not exist lol

Re:but but (2)

CBung (1572609) | about a year and a half ago | (#42817971)

Where we're going, we don't need roads!

Re:but but (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | about a year and a half ago | (#42818009)

Where we're going, we don't need roads!

Push it further: We don't need.

Re:Asphalt Manufacturers Too! (1)

davester666 (731373) | about a year and a half ago | (#42818021)

No, they are playing both sides!

Re:Asphalt Manufacturers Too! (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42818345)

No, asphalt manufacturers make it easier for police to respond and arrive at the scene. Ergo, asphalt manufacturers discourage crime.

And newzbin2 makes it easier for the MPAA to find out about pirated content. So they discourage piracy.

Re:Asphalt Manufacturers Too! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42817915)

Not quite. Newz2bin pretty much just archived binaries that were posted to usenet. They may knowingly have done this, (hell that's the only incentive to use usenet at all after spam destroyed it from being useful for anything else.) But the piracy scene on usenet is mostly old-school. The actual distribution system for pirated material is more like
Pirate (ripper) -> IRC -> Bittorrent -> Usenet

WRONG (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42818059)

scene 1
pirate (ripper) - topsite - back to scene pirate

scene 2
pirate ripper - topsite - leaked to usenet, via priviledged uploaders to usenet

thats it
irc is he george whats new ok hows life
and done securely with encryption etc.

leaks get to torrents

torrents are a leak of whats going on and when caught a scene pirate is kicked from scene/

Re:WRONG (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42818987)

Someone has apparently never heard of DCC/XDCC on IRC.

Re:Asphalt Manufacturers Too! (2)

cdrudge (68377) | about a year and a half ago | (#42819381)

Not quite. Newz2bin pretty much just archived binaries that were posted to usenet.

Newzbin2, like all the other nzb sites, doesn't archive binaries. It indexes. IIRC, it didn't even automate crawling like Newznab does (although I could be wrong).

It is to Usenet what The Pirate Bay is to Bittorrent or Yahoo was in it's early years to the web...a directory allowing people to search for what they wanted and pointing to the resource where they could get to it.

UK Court Translation: (-1, Flamebait)

BlueKitties (1541613) | about a year and a half ago | (#42817573)

"The Eurozone needs a good windfall so we'll just help ourselves to those profits." The only bigger parasite than the RIAA/MPAA: European courts sucking money from foreign companies.

Re:UK Court Translation: (3, Insightful)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a year and a half ago | (#42817675)

Well, the judge's argument seems logical to me.

"Suppose, say, that a market trader sells infringing DVDs, among other goods, from a stall he has set up on someone else's land without consent. The owner of the land could not, as I see it, make any proprietary claim to the proceeds of the trading or even the profit from it. There is no evident reason why the owner of the copyright in the DVDs should be in a better position in this respect," he said.

"on behalf of members" (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42817617)

..with the view to giving those profits *to* those members?

Re:"on behalf of members" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42818573)

Yeah of course, just like artists get their fair share of P2P settlements. /s

Take that MPAA/RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42817635)

Newey ruled that a copyright infringer cannot be compared to a thief who steals a bag of coins, as submitted by the studios' lawyer. "A copyright infringer is more akin to a trespasser" than to a coin thief, Newey said.

Oh boy oh boy, it seems british judges haven't lost their fucking minds.

Re:Take that MPAA/RIAA (1)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | about a year and a half ago | (#42817897)

"Oh boy oh boy, it seems british judges haven't lost their fucking minds."

If so then the US Supreme Court has too, since they long ago similarly ruled that copyright infringement IS NOT THEFT.

My point exactly! (3, Insightful)

macraig (621737) | about a year and a half ago | (#42817643)

I've been comparing so-called piracy to historic real estate squatting, rather than comparing it to stealing or thievery as has become the propaganda of Big Content. When a court compares it to real estate trespass, it's recognizing the same disingenuous manipulation of Big Content's propaganda.

Re:My point exactly! (5, Interesting)

julesh (229690) | about a year and a half ago | (#42817785)

I've been comparing so-called piracy to historic real estate squatting, rather than comparing it to stealing or thievery as has become the propaganda of Big Content. When a court compares it to real estate trespass, it's recognizing the same disingenuous manipulation of Big Content's propaganda.

Exactly. Now we just need a law saying that if we infringe on copyright for 10 years without the owner doing anything to intervene, the copyright becomes ours... not only does it make the comparison to tresspassing/squatting even more accurate and obvious, it's also a useful solution to the orphan works problem.

Re:My point exactly! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42818143)

it's also a useful solution to the orphan works problem.

No it's not. We want orphaned works to pass into public domain, not being taken by someone else.
Take a song like The House of the Rising Sun. The original writer is unknown. The oldest known recording is from 1934. If Asley and Foster would have been able to claim that song as theirs then The Animals would not have been able to do their version in the 60's.

Re:My point exactly! (2)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about a year and a half ago | (#42818315)

Now we just need a law saying that if we infringe on copyright for 10 years without the owner doing anything to intervene, the copyright becomes ours...

We want orphaned works to pass into public domain, not being taken by someone else.

I'm pretty sure that's what the OP meant. Despite this being a story about the UK I don't think they were using the royal "we".

Re:My point exactly! (4, Insightful)

abigsmurf (919188) | about a year and a half ago | (#42818923)

That'll actually make things worse. It'll mean that every company has no choice but to to pursue infringers or risk losing the copyright. An indie studio who can't afford to sue people (especially when the awards would be small or not paid)? They're fucked.

and the hits just keep on comin' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42817653)

"That leads to the next point: that a landowner has no proprietary claim to the fruits of a trespass," he said. While the landowner could claim an account of profits in some exceptional circumstances, the authorities do not, however, support the proposition that the landowner could assert a proprietary claim against the trespasser, Newey wrote.

"Suppose, say, that a market trader sells infringing DVDs, among other goods, from a stall he has set up on someone else's land without consent. The owner of the land could not, as I see it, make any proprietary claim to the proceeds of the trading or even the profit from it. There is no evident reason why the owner of the copyright in the DVDs should be in a better position in this respect," he said.

As inspector Callahan would say "you just made my day".
So when is the US of A coming to liberate those euro-comunist british pigs ?

Re:and the hits just keep on comin' (1)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | about a year and a half ago | (#42818151)

They wouldn't have far to go; we (the British) used to sarcastically refer to the UK as the USS Great Britain for a reason...

Re:and the hits just keep on comin' (1)

Alranor (472986) | about a year and a half ago | (#42818669)

Airstrip One

Profiting from criminal acts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42817657)

Yes, I think there's something in most countries' legat statutes to the effect that no-one is to be allowed to profit from criminal behaviour, and I'm pretty sure that is the case, regardless of whose behaviour it is.

Re:Profiting from criminal acts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42817669)

oops *legal*

Re:Profiting from criminal acts (1)

Gogogoch (663730) | about a year and a half ago | (#42817819)

Infringement itself is not criminal; it is a civil matter between the infringer and the copyright holder. Under some DMCA legislation in various countries breaking a digital lock makes you a criminal.

Re:Profiting from criminal acts (3, Interesting)

udin (30514) | about a year and a half ago | (#42817843)

You may not be allowed to profit from your own criminal behavior, but the 'criminal' is the person making the copy of the copyrighted material (once upon a time this was a tort, i.e. a wrong against someone that one could be sued for, not a crime against the state or general public; that's what these guys are always trying to do: turn torts into crimes so they can sic the government on you), not the specialized search engine or directory of links. The Usenet-indexers are profiting in the same way that Truman Capote profited when he wrote a book about a notorious murder.

Re:Profiting from criminal acts (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year and a half ago | (#42818781)

That's voted up as "interesting", when it has nothing to do whatsoever with this court case. The court case ruling would have applied to someone selling illegally copied DVDs, which they copied themselves. That's actually what the judge said. The copyright holder may have rights to damages, but not to the profits. Everything you said is totally irrelevant.

well still problem... (4, Insightful)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about a year and a half ago | (#42817677)

Since you don't know what profits were from piracy and what was actually legit use of the service can't be determined.

Re:well still problem... (1)

Adriax (746043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42817919)

They were going to err on the side of caution and only take 2x what was reported take in for the entire company.
A very conservative estimate I know, but they can't be completely sure of just how much that obviously irrevocably sinfully evil company full of thieves and pirates hid from their earnings report. Why one professional expert's very conservative estimate put the amount of piracy on the site equal to 10 billion USD a month, so they obviously made atleast that much and used terrorist money laundering tactics to hide it from the government.

But!...BUT!....(stutters the MPAA) (-1, Troll)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year and a half ago | (#42817721)

These are the people that think they are entitled to have their business model protected by legislation, despite the supreme court of the US emphatically stating otherwise prior, and who feel that engaging in quid pro quo is a perfectly legitimate practice, and openly complains about politicians not staying bought.

These are people that are the very poster child for "entitlement complex", while openly complaining about that aspect in others, making them the poster children for "hypocrite" as well.

I fully expect them to stamp their little feet and throw a tantrum over this, and do so by employing very petty means, including but not limited to whining about how unfair the EU courts are, threatening to alter distribution timetables for licensed products until demands are met (WTC be damned!), offering clandestine kickbacks and flat out bribes to european lower courd judges to muddy the waters surrounding the matter with related cases, and stepping up enforcement efforts against eurozone companies it has dirt on.

Really, the best thing that can happen here is for somebody like NK to decide that their little "ownership" game is offensive, and give them a nuclear firecracker.

California is theoretically in range of NK's rickety ICBM "technology" right? Hitting the MPAA headquarters for daring to thwart their propoganda efforts would probably have a more profound effect on the US populace than hitting the pentagon would. Seriously.

Re:But!...BUT!....(stutters the MPAA) (2)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about a year and a half ago | (#42817893)

I stopped reading at "the supreme court has emphatically said otherwise"...we are talkung about the US supreme court right?

Re:But!...BUT!....(stutters the MPAA) (1)

Yaa 101 (664725) | about a year and a half ago | (#42819043)

I see...

Another post being marked troll because the overlords don't like the message, Slashdot is becoming unbearable as platform.

I hope somebody with mod points will change this back to at least neutral.

Hopefully... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42817749)

The world is finally getting sick and tired of hearing stupid shit from the MPAA/RIAA media mafia.

I know i sure am...

On another silly note. I deserve profits for life because i worked on construction of all MPAA buildings. I'll be waiting for my royalty check you deadbeat fucks.
Sounds pretty stupid. But hey. That's what you're arguing on some non physical property. So pay me now. Or forever shut the fuck up.

I also paid taxes that built the roads that the mpaa uses every day. I'll need a kickback on that too. For life.

I also had children. Future mpaa customers. You need to pay me for providing those. If it wasn't for me you'd have less customers in the future.
An exponential number of future customers all because of me... Pay up now.

What? That's all stupid as fuck? Go fuck myself? Well now you know how the world feels about you mpaa assholes....

Re:Hopefully...(part2) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42817903)

actually im going to be your attorney in a class action lawsuit to sue the mpaa/riaa for every time they entered the buildings you helpedmake
and we'll sue using the new BMCA ( BULLSHIT MAKERS CORRECTIVE ACT)to have the doors removed until they get in line and pay up....OH and ill take 99% of the settlement so you will end up with 4.92 and then must pay taxes on the full trillion dollar settlement so you will likely owe 5 billion dollars.....and if you cant pay the

prison guards will be waiting

Re:Hopefully...(part2) (1)

EvilIdler (21087) | about a year and a half ago | (#42818641)

No, you need to install double doors. That's double the security against illegal entry :)

Took me a second to see the logic... (4, Interesting)

XiaoMing (1574363) | about a year and a half ago | (#42817821)

From TFA:

[High court judge] Newey ruled that a copyright infringer cannot be compared to a thief who steals a bag of coins, as submitted by the studios' lawyer. "A copyright infringer is more akin to a trespasser" than to a coin thief, Newey said.

Originally, I thought the judge lost his marbles. Of course it's more akin to stealing something rather than just trespass, they are part of stealing/redistributing a product!

But then I realized how the media conglomerates played the whole DRM thing as effectively leasing you (and only you) the rights to listen to the music you purchased (and only in the media format they presented it!). That sure sounds a bit like charging an admission's fee to experience some wonderful scenery to me (a scenery experience that you obviously can't share with anyone else!). In that respect, it really does seem like NZB(2) did was criminally trespass over this entity of music or what-have-you that we are allowed to take part in (but not take a part of).

Seems like the MPAA screwed their own pooch on this one. I hope this sets a precedence (even if Bri'ish) and people can start owning their music again.

Re:Took me a second to see the logic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42817873)

Of course it's more akin to stealing something rather than just trespass

It's actually more akin to copying something.

Re:Took me a second to see the logic... (2)

mrbester (200927) | about a year and a half ago | (#42817901)

Unlike US, trespass in UK applies *only* to physical locations. Criminal trespass is applied to places like infrastructure (railways, electricity substations, etc.) and restricted areas like Downing St, royal residences and military bases.

You cannot trespass on digital media.

Re:Took me a second to see the logic... (1)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | about a year and a half ago | (#42818243)

It can apply to private property as well: trespass at any premise licensed for the storage of explosives automatically becomes criminal trespass as well. I've yet to work out if that includes the homes of people who hold explosives certificates (which I used to), because that could be amusing.

I suspect you get in to a whole new arena of fun when it's a List X site.

Re:Took me a second to see the logic... (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | about a year and a half ago | (#42818379)

Unlike US, trespass in UK applies *only* to physical locations.

Also, trespass only applies if you fail to leave the location after being asked to. If no one asks you to leave, you're not trespassing.

Re:Took me a second to see the logic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42818501)

Wrong: The trespass is only actionable in court if the trespasser refuses to leave when asked. If they trespass, and leave when asked, then no further action can be taken (civil cases only).

Re:Took me a second to see the logic... (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year and a half ago | (#42818619)

He's using it as an analogy, in that trespass and copyright infringement are both torts with no damage, harm or deprivation of property.

Re:Took me a second to see the logic... (4, Informative)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | about a year and a half ago | (#42817907)

The US Supreme Court ruled that copyright infringement IS NOT THEFT.
It's more like breach of contract, in a sense.

Or as the Supreme Court essentially put it - copyright violation is exactly like copyright violation.

Re:Took me a second to see the logic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42818371)

Indeed. Theft is when you derive the original owner of the property. If you make a copy then they still have it - you haven't stolen it. You've only infringed on copyright.

In the physical world exactly the same as if you photocopied a book. All the examination boards going after teachers photocopying mock tests from textbooks don't scream 'theft' they go after copyright violation.

Re:Took me a second to see the logic... (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about a year and a half ago | (#42819039)

And what the hell does the US Supreme Court have anything to do with this?

Stealing differs from making a replica (2)

Morgaine (4316) | about a year and a half ago | (#42818211)

Of course it's more akin to stealing something rather than just trespass,

It's nothing like stealing something. It's like walking into an art gallery which is open to the public and making a perfect replica of an exhibit for yourself. (If there were DRM, it would be a locked gallery instead of an open one.)

Before there was one piece, and now there are two. The gallery is still in possession of its exhibit, so this is nothing like stealing an exhibit from them. It's more akin to creating new exhibits.

Re:Stealing differs from making a replica (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42818729)

It's like walking into an art gallery which is open to the public and making a perfect replica of an exhibit for yourself.

So it's counterfeiting? :-)

Re:Stealing differs from making a replica (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42818773)

So it's counterfeiting? :-)

That would depend on whether the replica is then offered to someone under pretence of being the original.

Re:Took me a second to see the logic... (2)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year and a half ago | (#42818367)

Originally, I thought the judge lost his marbles. Of course it's more akin to stealing something rather than just trespass, they are part of stealing/redistributing a product!

If you read the whole thing, I think he is right. Here is the complete argument: If someone set up a stall selling DVDs, whether legal or illegal, on someone else's land, that would be trespass. However, while the landowner coud remove the trespasser, the landowner would have no rights to the profits that the stall makes. And the copyright infringer trespasses on the copyright holder's rights, but by the same argument the copyright holder has no rights to the profits.

Re:Took me a second to see the logic... (2)

cdrudge (68377) | about a year and a half ago | (#42819489)

If it is now trespassing, does that mean all they have to do is post a "No Trespassing, Violators will be shot" sign on/in their movies? To go from suing alleged infringes to executing them is really upping the ante.

Well, of course. (2)

ta_gueule (2795275) | about a year and a half ago | (#42817993)

The MPAA once again sued on irrational claims and their claim got rejected, of course.

We shouldn't talk about it or make articles about it on Slashdot. It should have been rejected silently. The more we talk about it, the more their claim becomes normal. The MPAA is taken more and more seriously, which is scary. It doesn't deserve all that publicity. Their plea should be ignored like the random pleas from mad people that happen all the time.

Re:Well, of course. (5, Insightful)

admiral snackbar (2559943) | about a year and a half ago | (#42818605)

I disagree. I am very sure that whenever the MPAA wins a lawsuit (and unfortunately that happens too), they will publish the result in order to inform/intimidate the public as to the validity of their claims. If the times when the MPAA loses are not published, people might get the perception that the MPAA always wins. Which would be bad.

Re:Well, of course. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42819103)

The MPAA once again sued on irrational claims and their claim got rejected, of course.

No such thing as "of course" in the IP racket.

I refer the MPAA to... (2)

oPless (63249) | about a year and a half ago | (#42818621)

I refer the MPAA to the response given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.

I'm quite happy that this Judge thinks it's also a perfectly reasonable statement too.

Newzbin2 has called it quits .. (2)

dgharmon (2564621) | about a year and a half ago | (#42818645)

"After a long battle with the international arm of the MPAA, Usenet indexing site Newzbin2 has called it quits [torrentfreak.com] . The site had been operating under adverse conditions, not least almost total censorship by a court-ordered ISP blockade in the UK."

"Add to this a climate of fear driving individuals providing vital services away from the site, plus legal action against PayPal aimed at Newzbin2's UK-based payment provider, and the site's operators have decided to shut down."

ROFL (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year and a half ago | (#42818771)

Of course not. Those profits belong to the government.

So they have stolen a lot of money then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42818877)

Does this mean all the income from compilation albums where they've used music without the rights-holder's permission is illegal?

It ought to be!

They're the biggest profiteering pirates afloat.

Headline grossly misleading? (2)

cardpuncher (713057) | about a year and a half ago | (#42818933)

All the court has decided, it appears, is that the copyright owners don't have a "proprietary" right to the proceeds of infringement. That's a specific form of legal shortcut to seizing assets. The issue of whether there is a valid claim is still proceeding, just not using that specific legal mechanism. No decision has been made on anyone's entitlement to anything, except the entitlement of a copyright owner to make a particular form of legal submission.

Re:Headline grossly misleading? (5, Insightful)

BobTheLawyer (692026) | about a year and a half ago | (#42819265)

absolutely correct. The case was not about whether MPAA could sue Newzbin for damages - it is clear that under English law it can. But to do so, the MPAA would need to show its members suffered loss, and the MPAA could then only recover for their loss. The members' loss has no direct relationship with Newzbin's profits - it could be more than Newzbin's profits; it could be less than Newzbin's profits.

In fact pretty hard to show what the MPAA members' loss is - and this case was about a crafty attempt by the MPAA to avoid that difficulty.

The argument was that Newzbin's profits actually belonged to the MPAA members (in the same way that if you steal my bike, the bike still belongs to me, and if you steal my cash, I can have a proprietary right in your bank account of the same amount). Would be a great result for the MPAA, as they would then simply take the all profit and not need to show any loss. The slight problem was that there was no legal authority for such a claim, and so they lost

Bob

Thread hijack - New Indexing Sites (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about a year and a half ago | (#42819183)

C'mon folks, cough 'em up...with several nzb sites down where are the freshest indexing sites now? Couch Potato isn't going to run itself, you know.

Re:Thread hijack - New Indexing Sites (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42819399)

binsearch.info is free and works perfectly fine.

Sue google too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42819569)

If you are suing a search engine for "piracy" and non-piracy material, why dont they sue google who help piracy too?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>