Just another news site
Rund 25 Projekte sollen in Norddeutschland zeigen, wie eine Wasserstoffstrategie in die Praxis umgesetzt werden kann. (Wasserstoff, Internet)
Rund 25 Projekte sollen in Norddeutschland zeigen, wie eine Wasserstoffstrategie in die Praxis umgesetzt werden kann. (Wasserstoff, Internet) Die WHO meldet Corona-Höchststände. In indischen Krankenhäusern liegen Tote unter den Betten. Der Premierminister empfiehlt klassische Weisheiten zur Steigerung der Immunabwehr
Etwa jede 65. Begegnung kann inzwischen von der Corona-Warn-App erfasst werden. Eine Version für Google-freie Huawei-Handys soll es vorerst nicht geben. (Corona-App, Google)
Etwa jede 65. Begegnung kann inzwischen von der Corona-Warn-App erfasst werden. Eine Version für Google-freie Huawei-Handys soll es vorerst nicht geben. (Corona-App, Google) Copyright law is rarely straightforward, something which leaves some situations open to interpretation. Today we take a look at some activities people believe they may be able to partake in legally but in most circumstances almost certainly can’t.
From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.
Two decades ago, when obtaining and consuming digital content via the Internet was a mere twinkle in most people’s eyes, knowledge of copyright law was strictly the domain of the experts.
Today the landscape has been transformed. With file-sharing, streaming and downloading now something carried out by millions of Internet users, not to mention the masses who upload content to YouTube and social media every day, most people now have at least a rudimentary grip on what behavior could lead them into trouble.
On the fringes, however, are activities that at first view may seem borderline acceptable, often because they seem relatively reasonable, even if some require a little creative thinking. The questions/statements below regularly appear on discussion forums when people are trying to carve themselves a safe niche under the law. As we will see, solid ground can be difficult to come by.
Is it legal to stream pirated movies and TV shows as long as I’m not sharing them using torrents?
The confusion here seems to have its roots in differing mechanisms of delivery and distribution. When it comes to streaming, a permanent copy of a movie or TV show isn’t stored on the users’ machine, neither is it uploaded to other users. With torrents, on the other hand, a permanent copy is stored and also distributed to people sharing the same content.
What we know, particularly given the thousands of copyright troll lawsuits around the world, is that downloading and sharing copyrighted content using BitTorrent is definitely illegal. What we also know is that in the EU, following a ruling from the area’s highest court, is that it is categorically illegal to stream unlicensed content from an unlicensed source.
While some may choose to split hairs and try to predict what may or may not happen in courts elsewhere in the future, it seems extremely unlikely that streaming pirated content from a source that is unlicensed by rightsholders could ever be seen as legal.
That said, tracking people who only stream movies and TV shows from third-party sources is fraught with difficulty so while it is probably illegal in any country with robust copyright laws, doing so anywhere is far less risky than using torrents.
I subscribe to Netflix and can download a copy of a movie/TV show from there. Can I legally download a copy from the Internet to keep?
Having a subscription to Netflix allows the user to do all the things that Netflix allows under the terms of the subscription. This includes watching movies and TV shows on the Netflix platform for the duration of the customer’s contract. It does not extend to any other activity, including obtaining the content from anywhere else via streaming, torrents or downloads.
I buy videogames legally but hate DRM including Denuvo. If I own the original, can I legally download a cracked copy from the Internet as well?
While there can always be exceptions depending on the terms of the purchase, in most instances ‘owning’ a copy of a game does not necessarily mean that people actually own it. What they have obtained is a license to use and play that game within the specific terms of that license. Those terms never state that it’s permissible to download a DRM-free version from a pirate site.
I own a game on Xbox, can I legally download a copy for Playstation and/or PC too?
This is again covered by the licensing issue detailed above. When people obtain a copy of a game for Xbox or any other platform, the license that comes with the title governing how it can be used is unlikely to allow people to download a pirate copy for another system. If in an exceptional circumstance it did, that would be made very clear and in that case only, obtaining a secondary copy would be entirely legal.
However, it would be extremely unlikely for a games company to instruct people to obtain that copy from a pirate source which in itself would be unlicensed to distribute. In any event, that would probably involve torrents or file-hosting sites offering cracked, aka illegal copies, something that companies never openly tolerate.
As I already bought Windows 10 for another computer, is it ok to download a cracked copy for use on another computer?
Yet again, this is an issue of licensing. When using Windows 10 or indeed any other software, people need a license to use that software. In the event that the license covers usage of the software on a single machine, obtaining another copy from elsewhere and using it on another machine would not be covered. Regardless of where the copy was obtained, a second or in some cases enhanced license is generally required.
I want to test a piece of software before buying it. Is it legal to obtain a cracked copy as long as I delete it after seven days if it doesn’t suit me?
This is one of those urban myths that has persisted since the early days of ‘warez’ (pirate software), where piracy groups provided cracked copies on the basis they should be used for a limited period and then deleted if unsuitable.
While in some instances people are allowed to make backups of software they have legitimately acquired, copyright law doesn’t have a ‘trial’ clause which permits people to break the law for a limited period and then get off the hook later providing they do the ‘right thing’.
While many downloaders still obtain cracked software on this ‘for-testing’ basis, they would be much better off checking out the legitimate provider to see if they already offer this thing of service – many do.
By their very nature, laws are usually complex and limited to geographical areas. As a result, someone, somewhere will probably dig out their interpretation of local law in order to justify why some or indeed all of the above points are entirely legal or in a ‘gray area’ where they live. That being said, most questions usually have clues in their titles.
So, if someone is asking if it’s legal to download a pirated and cracked game from a pirate site without paying the people who made it, they probably haven’t thought it through. Or, more commonly, are just trying to see if they can get the necessary wiggle-room and authorization to go ahead and do it anyway.
From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.
Erster Wahlkampfauftritt vor Publikum nach mehrmonatiger Pause. War die Halle halbvoll oder halb leer?
Die Ukraine in den Zeiten von Corona – Teil 1
Kompromittierende Abhöraufnahmen und Fotos aus seinem Schlafzimmer bringen Bulgariens Ministerpräsidenten Boiko Borissov in Bedrängnis
Director David Koepp talks about the challenge of making internal mental states external
Enlarge / Kevin Bacon reunited with Stir of Echoes director David Koepp for the new horror film You Should Have Left (credit: Universal)
Kevin Bacon stars as a middle-aged man forced to face his demons in You Should Have Left, a dark psychological horror film from Universal, about a mysterious house in Wales that doesn't seem to want to let its occupants leave. Tonally, it's in a similar vein to The Others (2001) and The Shining (1980), with a dash of Rosemary's Baby (1968) for good measure.
(Some minor spoilers below, but no major reveals.)
Co-produced by Jason Blum and Blumhouse Productions, the film is adapted from a 2017 German novella of the same name by bestselling author Daniel Kehlman. It's written in the first-person style of a diary belonging to an unnamed screenwriter attempting to write a sequel to an earlier hit film. With the studio pressuring him for a draft, he rents a house and takes his wife—an aging actress for whom work is becoming scarce—and four-year-old daughter on a long vacation in hopes of finishing the script.
Read 11 remaining paragraphs | Comments
ISP Charter Communications is accusing several major record labels of having violated the Colorado Consumer Privacy Act. The music companies allegedly sent copyright infringement notices for tracks they didn’t own the rights to, resulting in false accusations against subscribers. While the record labels don’t deny that mistakes were made, they argue that Charter’s claims don’t hold up in court.
From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.
Last year, a group of major music companies sued Charter Communications, one of the largest Internet providers in the US with 22 million subscribers.
Helped by the RIAA, Capitol Records, Warner Bros, Sony Music, and others accused the ISP of deliberately turning a blind eye to its pirating subscribers.
Such claims are not new. The same music companies have sued several ISPs in the past and booked a major victory when a jury ordered Cox to pay a billion dollars in damages for turning a blind eye to piracy on its network.
Charter is determined to avoid ending up in a similar position. In March, it denied the copyright infringement allegations in court while striking back with some accusations against the record labels. According to Charter, the companies abused the DMCA by sending notices for tracks they didn’t own the rights to.
At the end of April, the ISP expanded its claims by arguing that by sending false takedown notices, the record labels also violated the Colorado Consumer Privacy Act. This claim comes on top of the accusation that the music companies violated the DMCA.
“In the course of their business, the Record Company Plaintiffs caused their agent, the RIAA, to engage in unfair, unconscionable, deceptive, deliberately misleading, false, or fraudulent trade practices,” Charter argued, while highlighting the unauthorized copyright infringement notices.
The false notices harmed Charter, which spent significant resources processing the notices. In addition, they also impacted the broader public, who were falsely accused of breaking the law and received “baseless threats” based on the inaccurate notices.
These are strongly worded claims. However, according to the record companies they don’t hold up in court.
This week, they submitted their answers to the Colorado federal court. As indicated before, the music companies ask the court to dismiss the claim that they violated the DMCA, arguing that the notices were not intentionally sent in error. In addition, the companies argue that the DMCA claim is barred because Charter didn’t remove or block any infringing content.
In a similar vein Warner Bros, Sony Music and the other labels also dispute the deceptive and fraudulent trade practice accusations under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. These don’t hold us and should be dismissed as well, they say, for two separate reasons.
Firstly, the music companies argue that the DMCA preempts Charter’s CCPA counterclaim. The issue at hand is a DMCA matter and Congress intended for federal law to exclusively govern the DMCA notice process, which would mean that a state law claim can’t apply to the same conduct.
This argument doesn’t mean that there were no inaccurate notices sent. That’s also the case with the second defense from the record labels, which holds that Charter failed to state a proper claim under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.
A proper claim would require proof that the music companies knowingly sent false notices and intended to mislead and deceive the receivers. This isn’t something Charter can prove, the labels say. The labels may have sent notices for music they didn’t own, without being aware of it.
In addition, Charter hasn’t provided any evidence that its customers were harmed, according to the labels. While subscribers may have received inaccurate threats, they were not disconnected from the Internet.
“Charter has not alleged that its subscribers suffered any harm resulting from any allegedly inaccurate notices. Indeed, Charter does not allege that it ever suspended or terminated a single subscriber based on infringing use of its network identified in an inaccurate notice sent by Plaintiffs,” the labels write.
The ISP will likely disagree with how the labels present the issue and ultimately it is up to the court whether Charter can continue to pursue its claims in court, or not.
—
A copy of the record labels’ motion to dismiss Charter’s counterclaims is available here (pdf).
From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.
Move to shutter almost a dozen reopened outlets delivers “gut punch to reopening bulls.”
Enlarge / NEW YORK, June 17, 2020 -- Staff workers serve customers outside an Apple store on Fifth Avenue of New York City, the United States, June 17, 2020. (credit: Xinhua News Agency | Getty Images)
Apple says it will again close almost a dozen stores in the US because of a recent rise in coronavirus infections in the south and west, reversing its recent move to begin reopening stores as states start to ease lockdowns.
The move sent US stocks lower, as investors feared that Apple’s caution could signal wider apprehension among businesses about whether it is safe to begin reopening the US economy.
Apple shares turned negative on the news, dropping 1.4 percent, while the entire S&P 500 index shed its gains from the morning. Apple stock remains near a record high, however, with investors valuing the group above $1.5 trillion—about $220 billion more than at the start of the year.
Read 9 remaining paragraphs | Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.