TV Shack case due today

[Tom]

http://www.granthamjournal.co.uk/news/website_case_extradition_ruling_due_1_3416045

I hope common sense rules the day.

 

[Chilly]

And he gets extradited for blatantly taking the piss?

 

[Tom]

Presumably you've paid a fee to use that copyrighted image you have as an avatar?

 

[Job]

Just need a good lawyer in our joke of a justice system, the argument that you can use Google to find the same files would stand if you pay enough money to ram home the point.

 

[Raven]

Presumably you've paid a fee to use that copyrighted image you have as an avatar?

As far as I know he isn't profiting from the use of the avatar? Or indeed linking to copyrighted material.

 

[Chilly]

Presumably you've paid a fee to use that copyrighted image you have as an avatar?

Of course not. It's fair use.

What I'm not doing is confusing fair use and blatant, mass scale exploitation of copyrighted material for my own personal gain.

 

[Access Denied]

Google Search links to Newzbin which has been blocked, under order, by BT. Are these people going to take Google to court over that too?

 

[Access Denied]

Chilly did you even read the article? He made money from the ads, not the stuff he was linking to. Just like very other site on the net that relies on ads to run and provide income for the owner.

 

[Chilly]

The difference is difficult, but there. Google is not TRYING to exploit copyrighted works. They are predominently used for legit purposes and they operate (on the whole) in good faith. Of course they do occasionally infringe since they are a filtered index. They respond and remove stuff as quickly as is reported or their algorithms can detect.

TV Shack dealt exclusively in copyrighted content and it's sole reason for existing is to make money from helping people to find it. That's clearly wrong and should be illegal (I have no idea whether it is or not). The problem is defining the boundary between a google and a TV Shack. Conceptually they are the same, but the intent is completely different.

 

[Chilly]

Chilly did you even read the article? He made money from the ads, not the stuff he was linking to. Just like very other site on the net that relies on ads to run and provide income for the owner.

Of course I read the article.

 

[Chilly]

Chilly did you even read the article? He made money from the ads, not the stuff he was linking to. Just like very other site on the net that relies on ads to run and provide income for the owner.

Would you object to someone running a linkfarm to kiddy porn? I certainly would. The content on his site is totally legal but he's making money from it just the same as the cunts with the cameras.

 

[Tom]

Of course not. It's fair use.

What I'm not doing is confusing fair use and blatant, mass scale exploitation of copyrighted material for my own personal gain.

Your use of that image isn't fair use at all (you don't seem to know what fair use is), it's simple copyright infringement.

And the person in this case didn't exploit any copyrighted material.

 

[Scouse]

The difference is difficult, but there. Google is not TRYING to exploit copyrighted works

Of course they are. Youtube is built around copyright infringement.

 

[Soazak]

Your use of that image isn't fair use at all (you don't seem to know what fair use is), it's simple copyright infringement.

And the person in this case didn't exploit any copyrighted material.

While I'm not familiar with the law, surely any directory of illegal materials, where and how to access them, would be illegal?

 

[Mabs]

we asked the americans for stuff and they threatened to reneg on the "special arangement we have for "security services"
they want this ? they can fucking whistle for it we need to stop bending over for stupid cunting corporations that think they can overrule countries

 

[Scouse]

Completely agree. But we're really just more America anyway.

 

[Mabs]

thats my gut reaction, i wasnt implying it was neccesarily viable

 

[Scouse]

While I'm not familiar with the law, surely any directory of illegal materials, where and how to access them, would be illegal?

If that was true, google would be illegal.

 

[Raven]

I think they take a common sense approach. Google (and youtube) are forever removing content due to copyright infringement and do attempt to comply with the law, the very nature of both means that often it has to be pointed out to them... This is nothing at all related to either Google or Youtube, it was/is/whatever a dedicated pirate search tool.

I am fully aware that when I download something I am breaking the law. Whether that law is just or not is no reason to just break it. If we all broke laws when we decided they weren't just then we would be in chaos.

 

[Chilly]

Your use of that image isn't fair use at all (you don't seem to know what fair use is), it's simple copyright infringement.

And the person in this case didn't exploit any copyrighted material.

Ok fair enough, I just looked it up. I havnt applied for permission and I havnt credited the source which are both requirements. I'm infringing, sue me.

As to the other point, of course he did. Without the links to the copyrighted materials his business/page would not exist. It's not direct exploitation but it's exploitation nonethless. And it's not like saying a miner is responsible for all the illegal things made from his metal because the use is prediminantly legit and the intent is legit. In this case where his sole reason for operating is to help people get to dodgy content it's clear he should be shut down. His service helps no one.

 

[Scouse]

By that rationale Google should be shut down.

As for their faux-display of legitimacy by responding to takedown notices - I don't see them removing all searches from thepiratebay from their engine, which would be easily done.

Google knows that if they were in the habit of doing that people would use an alternative search engine. They won't do it as their prime concern is profit.

This guy is just more obvious about it. Why should all the advertising profit go to a massive multinational that does the exact same thing?

 

[Raven]

Cases like this will most probably set a precedent with which they can use against Google and so on, without the massive expense and drawn out legal struggle of suing Google.

 

[Scouse]

Ok fair enough, I just looked it up. I havnt applied for permission and I havnt credited the source which are both requirements. I'm infringing, sue me.

Just checking. Does your realisation mean that you accept that this guy should be allowed to show an organised list of search results that you could get off google?

 

[Zarjazz]

I think they take a common sense approach. Google (and youtube) are forever removing content due to copyright infringement and do attempt to comply with the law, the very nature of both means that often it has to be pointed out to them... This is nothing at all related to either Google or Youtube, it was/is/whatever a dedicated pirate search tool.

Youtube has to remove content because it's actually hosting the data. Google Search doesn't have to constantly remove links to infringing data because its just that, a link.

 

[Tom]

Google Search doesn't have to constantly remove links to infringing data because its just that, a link.

Which coincidentally is exactly what TV Shack was.

 

[Soazak]

If that was true, google would be illegal.

Not really the same though is it?

Everyone seems to be ignoring the context that this is in...a website set up, specifically to direct users to illegal content. To compare that to google, seems to be ignoring the point. While it is possible to find illegal content on Google, it isn't the sole purpose of the website. I'm sure people would take a different view if the material he was dealing with was something different (such as terrorism, paedo-porn etc).

 

[rynnor]

Extradition orders should only be used for serious offences - this is a frivolous use that will only increase the pressure to reform it.

 

[Scouse]

Everyone seems to be ignoring the context that this is in...a website set up, specifically to direct users to illegal content.

Think of it as a simple reorganisation of google search.

Do we bang people up for doing that?

 

[caLLous]

Well, it looks like he can be extradited. :s

 

[Chilly]

By that rationale Google should be shut down.

Not at all. My rationale points to the intent as well as the act. It's the difference between murder and manslaughter, afterall, so why could the same principle not be applied elsewhere in law? Google is 99.9% legit and used for legit purposes. I think it's a reasonable cost to society and business to have that resource at the pretty small cost it incurs via having imperfect copyright infringement procedures.