story
See section 198 of the relevant law, which is clear about the need for business to be involved for a criminal offence. (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/cdpact1988.pdf)
See section 7 (http://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law) - where they don't mention "trading", which is what tips it into a criminal, rather than civil, offence.
See also section 8, which doesn't mention "format shifting" - it's not legal to rip a CD that you buy to MP3, but this is changing. (Or has changed?) (http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/dec/20/uk-copyright-la...)
I think it is ok to go after the sharks but where do you draw the line, 10 copies, a 100?
I think common sense applies in drawing the line. A kid who burns the occasional DVD and sells it in the school playground to cover his costs, probably not worth pursuing. An organized group importing counterfeit DVDs by the container-load and distributing them through an established distribution network, probably worth pursuing.
However, I must credit them as they warn people before taking them to court. So, if you're a website owner in the UK. I'm just giving you a heads up to say that if you're being investigated, they will probably contact you in person.
I do think the BPI have definately gone too far, they currently trying to get Grooveshark blocked from popular UK ISPs. The BPI only exists to monopolize the music industry.
Grooveshark is a company that profits off of content that they have no rights to. They hide behind the DMCA and are complete scumbags who pretend to engage in fair business practices and then turn around and renege on agreements, all the while people defend them as if they're making some form of moral stand against the oppressive music industry, when in reality they're choosing to make money on the back of the hard work of others.
Spotify is a fantastic alternative to Grooveshark that has a wealth of music in their library, they're compliant with labels and the law and have millions of users, I don't see the BPI trying to shut them down. Maybe, just maybe, there can be an instance where the "music industry" is in the right. Grooveshark is a shameful business.
I look forward to the day that Grooveshark shuts down. I'm all for revolutionising the music industry and changing the world, but there is a serious line crossed when a company consistently uses others work to profit, without permission. Spotify is doing it legally.
http://www.theverge.com/policy/2013/8/6/4592346/grooveshark-...
The only reason Spotify doesn't have too much competition is because few are those willing to waste so much money on such a low margin business, not because they have a ground breaking technology or business model. The fact that they now have to compete with rdio, pandora, apple and google streaming will probably deepen their losses.
A fantastic company in this field will be one that will print money like it streams music.
http://allthingsd.com/20121206/spotifys-daniel-ek-on-profits...
If the BPI is unhappy with Grooveshark because of their music being on it, either make a deal with them or DMCA all the artists. If they block the whole site, they're only making it harder for me to listen to the type of music I want to listen to. As I said, it's a monopoly.
The piracy wars are going to be won or lost based solely on user experience, mark my words.
You're completely missing the point. It's irrelevant that you can get music for free, because it's not produced for free. It costs money to produce music and to arrange it to be available on Amazon or iTunes or where ever.
It's not unreasonable to expect you to pay for music. I don't mean to imply anything about "stealing", but you wouldn't walk into a supermarket expecting to just take stuff either. It's about someone producing something of value that you want.
> UK Launches Intellectual Crime Unit
Mistake or premonition?
Er... is that implying that a police unit is being given judicial powers?
Allowing the police to deal with certain minor infractions themselves is far more efficient than the alternative; ordering every offender to appear before a magistrates' court even for the most minor infraction, such as a speeding ticket.
Both of those i had to appeal and won instantly when talking to the magistrate.
Allowing these morons to issue fines and penalties for more complicated issues such as in this case is a very bad idea.
This is a fine principle provided that someone innocent who defends themselves successfully in court will then be compensated so they don't lose out in any way. The reality appears to be that for things like minor traffic offences, you can wind up spending more time and far more money travelling to have your day in court than you would have lost if you just paid up under protest, and you might also be risking a higher penalty if the court does find you guilty of exactly what you were previously charged with.
With motoring offences there is also the points system to consider, so it might be worth going to court for that reason. However, generally someone prosecuted but found not guilty in the UK doesn't seem to get any sort of compensation for even actual financial losses they incur defending themselves, never mind the value of their lost time or anything to make up for the obvious distress for an extended period that going to court in these cases is likely to cause.
It's rather like the small claims track. In principle, it's a worthy public service. In practice, for a professional with a full time job and family commitments who is working without expert advice because the point is to avoid involving expensive lawyers in low-value cases, the time just to figure out how to file against someone without jeopardizing your case before it's even started is prohibitive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Flag_Act
The first link concerns a small group protesting against increased automation...this has happened in practically every place that has had manufacturing...
The second concerns road safety acts, although they sound ludicrous by todays standards, served as an important step in the transition from horses to automobiles - in a country which had been relying on horses for transport for atleast 1000 years prior.
The distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident.
The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to lump together disparate laws. Nonlawyers who hear one term applied to these various laws tend to assume they are based on a common principle and function similarly.
Nothing could be further from the case. These laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues.
