Extradition on grounds of Copyright infringement with regards to linking.

[linz2d]

Although this is news, I believe because of its implications it should not be limited to the news section.
A 23-year old UK male is waiting today to see if he will be extradited to the US on copyright infringement, after creating a website called TVshack which allowed users to search and access content across a number of video sharing sites. Essentially providing links to video content and embedding such content in his website. In other words its essentially similar to a google video search but having the video play on the google website like when we play videos from youtube on this site and this is why this affects everyone on the Internet.

Technically what Richard O'Dwyer did was not complicated by any means, in fact he did not copy the video files which would actually be a breach of copyright and even though a person could access videos off his website they still had to be played from a video sharing server like youtube, if the file was deleted on youtube then it would no longer be available on his site. He also utilised existing search services, which was used to look for video content, such services are available through search engines like google. Using such services meant that a person could look for and access any video that was available on a video sharing site. This is why he was arrested because a person could search multiple video hosting sites to watch a movie which had been illegally copied on youtube for example, with the aid of his site.

There have been many people and companies who have utilised these technologies in a similar way for a long time, youtube and google probably have greater ground for breaching copyright than this young man. In fact with a popular video sharing website like Veoh it is possible to view content from other sources like youtube. Yet we do not see that Veoh, now owned by an Israeli-American company being sued. No just some young man at university, who may spend the next 10 years in jail for using technology in the same way that countless other organistions have. It is not about that he is British or that he has being extradited but the fact that he is being made an example of, it is warning that anyone embedding a video on website could be locked up or fined. All the people who posted videos here and those many millions on the net would be considered breaching copyright, simply because they embeded a video.

The following video was used to explain to the judge how the video linking worked


Similar Threads:

• UK copyright lobby holds closed-door meetings with gov't to discuss national Web-censorship regime

[Northern Boy]

US laws only apply to US citizens you can`t force any one in the UK to live by them thats how stupid it is getting

[linz2d]

US laws only apply to US citizens you can`t force any one in the UK to live by them thats how stupid it is getting

I have to agree, its not illegal in the UK to do such a thing but because the domain for tvshack was .net which is registered by a US company and because many of videos were from the US which in turn hurt US business they feel its justified to ask for to such a thing. Its something to keep in mind in the future to make sure a domain name is not registered by a US company which means avoiding things like .com .net, it is really stupid though how things are getting, the politicians here are just as much to blame.

[Northern Boy]

Me being one to seldom follow rulez I`ll test it out

[magamud]

Methinks the real reason for this international co-op between the Fed, Interpol and United Nations to stop "Copyright" infringement is to give the Military Complex more opportunities to get rid of people they dont want and Centralize under the guise of Anti Piracy.
Totally Pathetic....

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is one of the 17 specialized agencies of the United Nations. WIPO was created in 1967 "to encourage creative activity, to promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the world".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_I...y_Organization

HistoryThe predecessor to WIPO was the BIRPI (Bureaux Internationaux R?unis pour la Protection de la Propri?t? Intellectuelle, French acronym for United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property), which had been established in 1893 to administer the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.

As with all United Nations multi-government forums, WIPO is not an elected body.

More stuff on the Huge Infrastructure for Policing Information.
Digital rights management
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management

Anti-piracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-piracy

World Anti-Piracy Observatory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_A...cy_Observatory
The World Anti-Piracy Observatory (WAPO) is a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) program engineered to help combat piracy.

Interpol Logo

[linz2d]

TVShack student Richard O'Dwyer can be extradited to US, court rules

Well so much for UK justice.

[Richard]

Its something to keep in mind in the future to make sure a domain name is not registered by a US company which means avoiding things like .com .net

dot CA baaaby

Canada's internet laws are behind the times..

[Odah]

sopa and pipa will only make it worse and most likely set the net back several years if they get passed..or just get used in ways that shut down those with dissenting voices..

by 12/21/2012 my belief is that where humanity in general believes their leaders are special gifted or chosen..or at least compitent. by the date of the shift most people will think everyone in politics is a worthless idiot who cant tie their shoes without having to first bend down to pick up bribe money..

hollywood the record industry and video game companies are supporting this internet butchery and buying the politicos..and the politicians have no idea what they are doind when they write legislation..

[Northern Boy]

Canada's internet laws are behind the times..

they are just what they are supposed to be

sopa and pipa will only make it worse and most likely set the net back several years if they get passed..or just get used in ways that shut down those with dissenting voices..

by 12/21/2012 my belief is that where humanity in general believes their leaders are special gifted or chosen..or at least compitent. by the date of the shift most people will think everyone in politics is a worthless idiot who cant tie their shoes without having to first bend down to pick up bribe money..

.

Not in my eyes

[Odah]

Not in my eyes

the majority .. not everyone .. basically i see a massive loss in compliance around the world..for various reason most people take their support away from the governments. the collapse of debt based currencies. the main things that our modern society works on.. governments with compliant population and the currencies used to control them..

the internet can be used by the masses to replace current method of governing.. so the us and the powers that be will make their assault on it

---------- Post added at 05:18 ---------- Previous post was at 05:16 ----------

in any case i am just getting back in the mode of discussing this stuff so my ideas are still not clear

[Northern Boy]

I agree with your last Statement O

[Heretic]

SOPA and other legal moves hatched and backed by the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America, Inc) and RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) which, by the way, ironically merged in 2006 to form MAFIAA ( Music And Film Industry Association of America, Inc) have been doing all they can to impose themselves on the digital movement that is the internet since the days of Napster and similar file-sharing software movements. Hahah the MAFIAA....you just cant make that stuff up folks.

All the while the radio blasts this stuff for free for anyone with the various types of recording tech to copy anyway. Its a really messed up system and the bottom line is they just cant stop it, but they still try to make examples out of some pretty harmless people to scare everyone into compliance. This has been an ongoing battle for two decades now and there is no end in sight as everyone goes digital. No one is clean and everyone has crossed these lines just by browsing youtube unknowingly. Some make a good argument in saying that they have bought the same music album on vinyl, 8 track, cassette, CD and finally a digital download so they feel a sense of entitlement to go grab it from ...well it is nearly omnipresent these places.

I dont endorse piracy, just saying.

There has been some blowback over the this SOPA and even earlier legislation because now that nearly everyone who participates by just pointing to sources for free watching like the Richard O'Dwyer case....which is very similar to other "pointer cases" like the Pirate Bay case now implicates everyone who is even involved in making such things available.

It came down in the MGM vs Grokster Copyright Ruling:

We hold that one who "DISTRIBUTES" a "DEVICE" with the object of "PROMOTING" its use to infringe copyright, as shown by expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement is "LIABLE" for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties." regardless of the device's non infringing uses.



If you remember, many of the places you would have to go to download Napster, Limewire, Kazaa, Morpheus, torrent software and all the tools necessary to "infringe" with, well these places were run by the very companies who are now bringing these lawsuits to bear and have been for a while. CNET, AOL, ESPN, Go.com, Go Network Express, Scour, MSN, and many more to list, not to mention the very ISP's who gave you internet service were making these things available on thier own home pages because it was such a big fad and everyone was doing it so it was the marketing thing to do, to generate advertisement revenue. So in essence with the ruling and the constant consolidation of the media, the complainants find themselves culpable and liable. Of course they are not letting that bother them, what can WE do?

well...we can sue lol, its all crazy!

also see:

Artists Sue CBS, CNET, for Promoting and Profiting from Piracy

Manhattan Federal Judge Kimba Wood Calls Record Companies' Request for $75 Trillion in Damages 'Absurd' in Lime Wire Copyright Case

Artists Call CBS the Chief Copyright Pirate

The Painful Irony of an Anti-Piracy Group Being Sued for Piracy

CBS/CNET Responsible for Piracy Downloads

U.S. government also a villain in piracy act story

[Odah]

nice info burke..

this is all a very big lesson is why capatalism is really almost dead in the US..The big compaies stop investing in better ways to serve customers and invest in politicians who will make laws to hinder the ways others can serve their customers.

[pillaroflight]

Something I've wondered about, is the common practice on this forum and others of copying and pasting entire articles in posts.(often without quote bubbles to show it is not the work of the poster) Common sense would indicate that this is not "Fair use" and should be avoided. I hope the forum is not negatively affected by this practice--especially with the new draconian copywrite laws that are on the horizon.

Fair use
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Fair_use

Another thing I wonder about is embedding videos. Copywrite law is very ambivalent here imo because why would youtube make it so easy to embed a video (and if the video producer doesn't want it embedded they can disable by request)--or the "video2MP3" which is available for music videos and others. It comes down to what the guy says in Burke's post--they provide it and encourage it only to potentially hang us for using it!

[magamud]

They give you the rope to hang yourself with...

[Heretic]

nice info burke..

thanks - hahaha just ran across another one this morning, this one on Time Online

Irony Alert: Congressman Who Wrote SOPA Violated Copyright Law

I hope the forum is not negatively affected by this practice--especially with the new draconian copyright laws that are on the horizon.

IMHO they are attacking alternative media and the blogosphere because it is hurting the income of the MSM, ...maybe if they wouldn't lie, they wouldn't get pissed at being exposed which can also be a reason they are cracking down, the memory span of the internet is also showing the hypocrisy through linking older material too

Newspapers and magazines are already in the death throws Magazines & Newspapers Going Out of Business - big ones too - Tribune May Face Potential Bankruptcy Filing

so the media moguls are losing income and they are "circling the wagons" on the internet to which they are trying to adjust the market, not to mention the threat that the alternative media has.

Not really talking about forums but online news sources that get their info from Reuters, AFP, and AP just like they do, complete with easy to produce shows like the Keiser Report etc - but for free with no commercials or just 10 second adds, the 30 second add is fading and only on big sites like Hulu and other TV streaming services

[linz2d]

Something I've wondered about, is the common practice on this forum and others of copying and pasting entire articles in posts.(often without quote bubbles to show it is not the work of the poster) Common sense would indicate that this is not "Fair use" and should be avoided. I hope the forum is not negatively affected by this practice--especially with the new draconian copyrite laws that are on the horizon.

Well if you put it that way and I believe your technically correct on your observation, then I suppose that Google and other search engines would have to be the biggest copyright violators, not only do they actually copy parts of website, for example the title, brief description or a passage without the copyright holders permission but they also 'cache' webpages(a type of archiving) which again directly copies the content of a site. These copyright violations are needed because without them the internet would be useless. But heck Google is worth billions and regardless whether they are actually breaking the law those billions can be taxed by the US government, so the US government will never go after them. There are simply rules for some and rules for others.

[Heretic]

Something I've wondered about, is the common practice on this forum and others of copying and pasting entire articles in posts.(often without quote bubbles to show it is not the work of the poster) Common sense would indicate that this is not "Fair use" and should be avoided. I hope the forum is not negatively affected by this practice--especially with the new draconian copywrite laws that are on the horizon.

Copyright is a economic oriented limitation in which you aren't allowed to profit from someone elses intellectual creation or right to authorship in order to make monetary gains. The liability you incur by breaking copyright is based on the amount of funds accumulated by breaking the copyright. So if you wrote a book and I reprinted it and sold that and made myself a million bucks, while you received no royalties for your work, I would be liable for a million bucks plus civil damages if you chose to pursue "pain and suffering", court expenses, or whatever else it put you through which would fall under reparations under a civil lawsuit separate from the criminal case of my breaking copyright law.

As far as "fair use", this is basically what protects forums, blogs, news articles and TV news stations.

Examples of fair use include commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. - source

A good example of "shady" fair use and how it can violate copyright in the gray areas of commerce is the Lindsay Lohan playboy shoot that came out recently, not that I am all that interested in Lindsay Lohan, but I do pay attention to Hollywood and what effects it has on the people so I come across these things and include "gossip, tabloid journalism" in my routine news gathering to assess this element of influence on the plebs.

Playboy had marketed this with all the bells and whistles as usual, but someone leaked the prints that were to appear in the magazine on to the internet. This set in motion a not all that unusual response from the media. Due to "fair use" and the fact that these pictures are the actual topic of the discussion, they can then be included in the news article under "news reporting and commentary". Of course just about every media outlet had a story on it, which boosted viewership and the number of hits generously because sex sells. Now that the pictures are on the net, all the horny folks who would have bought the magazines just to check her out no longer have to buy it. This created a financial loss for playboy of course and yet they cannot seek reparations from all those websites who published the pics, and can only hope to criminally indict the perpetrator who leaked them. So much for "fair use" being "fair" all the time.

[linz2d]

Well even "fair use" is limited, if we take Burkes example, If I a copied a book but desired to give that book away for free even though I am not profiting from it, it would still be violation of copyright. If you look at US law on "fair use" you come across the following "The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole". So even though it does not specify the amount of content that can be taken for non-profit use, the more that is taken, brings a person closer to a copyright violation. Even so its very ambiguous, it is probably meant to be that way so that authorities could charge someone for the violations if it was in their interest to do so, I mean what constitutes a portion of copyrighted material? So while lets say Google may not be in violation of US copyright with it search results, it is in violation with regards to its caching of websites... well thats how i see it anyway, it should also be noted that copyright laws differ from country to country.

[Chicodoodoo]

Hahah the MAFIAA....you just cant make that stuff up folks.

It's practically at the point where just surfing the Internet is a copyright infringement. What's next, just the act of thinking becomes a copyright infringement?

Sociopaths wouldn't go that far, would they?

Ummmm..... Yes.

[magamud]

Whats next your genetics?

Human Genome Project
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresource.../patents.shtml

Gene patent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_patent

Genetic engineering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering

Genetic chickens get DNA copyright tag
Biotech firm plans to create strain with extra large breasts for more meat
Special report: the ethics of genetics
James Meek, science correspondent
The Guardian, Sunday 30 July 2000 20.26 EDT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ernationalnews

[Odah]

Sopa and pipa are getting shelved for now ..this being an election year and all..killing the web is bad for your re election prospects.

Honestly though being a gamer i heard about one game forgot which one but it had 1 million sales but 6 million pirated downloads..it does effect the market it is just a matter of figuring how to get people to pay for your work.

the main problem with these bills is the people who vote on them have no idea what is in the bill and what the real effects would be of the bills they pass. most in congress are trained in law ..so the bills are written in terrible legalees ..that no one can really understand after 20 minutes of reading a bill at a time..

so basically a lot of evil crap can be slipped in ..like you can claim someone who violates copy write law enough can be considered a domestic terrorist and be subject to arrest and indeffinate detention.

I believe the intent of the system is to make the laws complex enough that a person cannot live without breaking several laws ..for many it is already at that point

[Chicodoodoo]

Whats next your genetics?

That's a very good point. I can see them doing the same thing to humans that they've done to plants. They create a genetic modification that they place in humans, either openly or clandestinely via vectors like mosquitoes or viruses. Should that patented genetic marker show up anywhere else via "cross-contamination" (meaning reproduction), they will claim ownership of every individual carrying the marker.

The mark of the beast may not be as we've been taught.

[pillaroflight]

Whats next your genetics?

Texas sells babies? blood, Second lawsuit filed

vaccine.jpg

Parents are rightly outraged by this deliberate deception with more than 38,000 demanding the immediate destruction of samples.


Beginning in 2002, Texas began saving blood samples collected from infants tested for birth defects.

The Texas Civil Rights Project filed suit in 2009 over a claim blood samples were improperly collected and stored without parental consent and samples were used for scientific research. A settlement was reached later that year which led to the promised destruction of over 5 million blood samples.

An new suit has been filed which seeks to recover and destroy samples that were allegedly sold to pharmaceutical companies and/or used by Armed Forces for genetic research. Compensation of $1,000 per blood sample sold is also sought from Health Commissioner David Lakey. The lawsuit is filed on behalf of two parents who believe their child may have been a victim of the state sponsored blood theft.

Jim Harrington, Civil Rights Project director, estimates almost 9000 samples were improperly sold but cautions that may be a conservative number. Harrington also believes the revenue collected from the sales total more than $300, 000.


Parents are rightly outraged by this deliberate deception with more than 38,000 demanding the immediate destruction of samples. One parent asserted concerns over a national DNA database could be the endgame for this type of nefarious data collection effort.

http://www.infowars.com/texas-sells-...lawsuit-filed/

Health Council Warns Of Goverment Plan To Claim Ownership Of Every Newborn?s DNA

Pending Minnesota bill will strip citizens of genetic privacy and DNA ownership rights

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
April 4, 2008

A prominent Health Organization has warned that there is an ongoing semi-covert movement by state and federal governments to claim ownership of every newborn baby?s DNA for the purpose of genetic research without the consent of individual citizens.

A pending bill on the floor of the Minnesota House and Senate will strip citizens of genetic privacy and DNA ownership rights, The Citizens Council on Healthcare has warned.

"Today, a state genetic privacy law requires informed parent consent for government testing, ownership and research on the DNA of the newest Minnesota residents. The Minnesota Department of Health wants to eliminate the informed consent requirements. A bill to remove consent requirements for government ownership and genetic research will soon be voted on by the Minnesota House and Senate." The CCHC website explains.

"Thus far, the state of Minnesota has illegally collected and claims ownership to the DNA of 780,000 children (soon to be voting adults) and has provided the DNA of 42,210 children to genetic researchers without parent consent. Approximately, 73,000 children are born in Minnesota every year. About 4.2 million children are born across the nation. All of them are losing their genetic privacy and DNA ownership rights." the organization?s report continues.

The state treats the activity as an "opt out" program, whereby if the parents of the newborn infant do not specifically opt out of the process, the state presumes its has ?informed consent? and that the parents have opted in.

CCHC President Twila Brase has warned that the databases housing the DNA could form the basis for a new eugenics movement, the practice of "perfecting" the human race through genetic manipulation, previously endorsed by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, and toyed with by the likes of Adolf Hitler.

http://www.infowars.com/health-counc...-newborns-dna/

Twila Brase on DNA Warehouse and Ownership


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBu6T...layer_embedded

[Odah]

i was under the impression the Us government secretly had every ones Dna on file some ware.

The Dna copy write situation is kind of silly in the Us as every enzyme or gene or randiom thing can get copywrited.. even the tests to find stuff is copywrited..

so most of the bio techs spend a ton of money tracking down who owns what pattent..and pattenting genes that have always been there..eventually it will get to where no one can afford to develope new drugs or genetic stuff..

we are only some 10 years away from when someone can get the equipment to build viri in their basement