• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.

Showing Location Of Pirate Movie Same As Hosting It

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
It looks like the Dutch court system has decided that a link to a pirate movie is the same as hosting it. :confused:

In this case the “making available” wasn’t hosting or storing the movie, nor was it offering torrent or NZB links to it either. FTD allows users to report (or ’spot’) the locations of files which exist on Usenet. It is the publication of this information which Eyeworks was seeking to stop, an activity it believes is tantamount to publishing the movie itself.
Click to expand...
 
Wouldn't that make any search engines (i.e. Google, etc) theoretically liable for indexing the links?

Sometimes I think these idiots should just give it up. There's a point where it's futile - even the Borg would give up at some point.
 
This would make me liable using the following example.

Bob: Hey man you know where I can score some smoke?

Johnny: yea I know a house

Bob: Can I have the address

Johnny: sure, it is 555 westview St.


In short this is very stupid, with the above example I would be held accountable for possession with the intent to distribute
 
Enigma said:
This would make me liable using the following example.

Bob: Hey man you know where I can score some smoke?

Johnny: yea I know a house

Bob: Can I have the address

Johnny: sure, it is 555 westview St.


In short this is very stupid, with the above example I would be held accountable for possession with the intent to distribute
Click to expand...

Go to jail you nasty drug dealer!
 
I'm sure the MPAA/RIIA M.A.F.I.A will soon be sueing Google for "accidental" links to torrents and fileshares?
Absolutley fucking retarded.
 
With the new copyright laws proposed in Canada, this would be illegal too.

"It is an infringement of copyright for a person to provide, by means of the Internet or another digital network, a service that the person knows or should have known is designed primarily to enable acts of copyright infringement if an actual infringement of copyright occurs by means of the Internet or another digital network as a result of the use of that service."

Google would be safe, as it is not "designed primarily" as a torrent search site.

source : http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/canadian-dmca-defends-drm-legalizes-dvrs.ars
 
I know where you can find movies. Go to any bit torrent sites and search for it and it will give you the ability to connect to servers or computers that hosts them.

OH SHIT! I told you guys the location of the movies! I'm so going to jail now.
 
This is about as ridiculous as putting the single line of code that can decrypt the CSS on retail DVDs on a t-shirt and then getting stopped at the border and threatened with legal action because by definition you'd be exporting munitions since encryption even in printed form or decryption tools for such purposes is classified as such - I know several people that had that crap happen many years ago.

Of course they purposely wore the t-shirts to piss off gubbamint officials but, even so... ;)
 
the lawyer of eyeworks is a freind of the judge , go figure
makes makes me proud to be dutch :mad:
 
Do Dutch courts use precedents for case law? If so, then, by this ruling, wouldn't reporting a crime now make you guilty of the same crime? If I see a person selling bootleg movies on the street and report it to police by telling them the location, wouldn't I now be liable for the crime itself? Now, perhaps a sensible person would say that the cops are not going to purchase anything, but how do I know that when I report the criminal's location? They could just as easily make a purchase, rather than an arrest. I have no control over what the cops do with the information I provide.
 
The Dutch courts bent over for Islam, the Dutch courts now bend over for the **AA mafias. What else is new?


Weaklings with no spine nor principles.
 
I'm glad they have at least come to a conclusion. I mean, it shouldn't be the same as pirating, but it should still be a crime.

I have a job where I can see a cell phone's position. If Rick calls and says someone stole his car and he needs to position of the phone, I cannot give it to him. Only a police officer with a warrant can have that information. If I give Rick that information and he tracks the thief down and murders him, I am an accessory to that crime.

It seems like the same kind of deal here. Providing this information to a person with the intention, beyond a reasonable doubt, to commit a crime (pirate a movie), seems criminal to me.

Now, while I believe piracy is wrong, the punishment (fine) on the perps is out of control! The fine should be no more than a speeding ticket. Fining a person thousands of dollars for stealing virtual goods worth five or ten dollars shouldn't come CLOSE to a thousand. Much less hundreds of thousands of dollars. If someone put me in the hole for hundreds of thousands of dollars and I couldn't declare bankruptcy (it doesn't exist anymore since Bush killed it), I'd gun down the RIAA and MPAA leadership, as well as the lawyers. It'd be one hell of a vendetta. You can't financially devastate a person for stealing virtual goods like music or movies.
 
The farthest I go is telling someone "it's on Usenet."

I figure that's equal to just telling someone "it's on the internet."

The day that's illegal, will be the day that someone asks me where to score drugs and I respond "I'm sure it's available somewhere on the Earth" and I'm at fault for telling them where they can score.

Telling someone it's available is just obvious. Telling someone directly where and when and how is also obvious that it's wrong.
 
I just got back from New York and when I was there I saw a guy on the street selling yet to be released movies on DVD for $5 outside a restaurant. I told my brother about it(including where I went to eat) when I got home. Guess I'm a criminal now?
 
There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch.
 
If someone posts the link in a forum, would the forum owner or the poster be liable? Or anywhere were a user can modify the content of the site? Either the site is liable for things it has no ability to police, or the law is unable to prosecute posters who can easily become annonymous through proxies and the like.
 
If they had their way about it, posting a link to Google (why someone would need one to Google itself would be beyond me but, I'm just saying) that can be using to locate copyrighted material for downloading...

See how insane it gets, and fast?

Mary: "I'm looking for a movie, can you recommend something to download?"

Bob: "Not really, Google it and I'm sure you'll find something."

Mary: "FREEZE, YOU'RE UNDER ARREST FOR LINKING ME TO A SITE WHICH LINKS TO COPYRIGHTED MATERIALS!!!"

Bob: <stares at the puddle growing beneath his shoes from the urine running down his leg...>

Crazy insane, indeed.
 
Tolyngee said:
What site has absolutely zero capability to ever police itself?
Click to expand...

I didn't say 'absolutely zero capability to ever', now did I? I could have explicitly stated 'no practical ability to', I suppose. Didn't think anyone would just jump to the most extreme assumption possible. My bad.

But if you catch 99% of the links, you're still liable for one out of every hundred links. YouTube has specialized software and people from different companies on the lookout, and it's still full of copyrighted material. Sure , it's constantly being pulled down, but at any given moment you know you can find there whatever you're looking for, with decent reliability.
 
Simple solution. When they ask for their money, send them a picture of the cash. Thats tantamount to giving them the money right?
 
Kynnath said:
I didn't say 'absolutely zero capability to ever', now did I? I could have explicitly stated 'no practical ability to', I suppose. Didn't think anyone would just jump to the most extreme assumption possible. My bad.
Click to expand...

no = zero. No ability to remove the link.


Kynnath said:
But if you catch 99% of the links, you're still liable for one out of every hundred links. YouTube has specialized software and people from different companies on the lookout, and it's still full of copyrighted material. Sure , it's constantly being pulled down, but at any given moment you know you can find there whatever you're looking for, with decent reliability.
Click to expand...

Youtube pulls down stuff as it becomes aware and is told to pull it down.

The parallel would be if Youtube was actively promoting with links to copyrighted material on its site that it was told to remove.

It's showing where to find something that's known to be illegal to the person promoting it at the time they promote it. Youtube's not doing that.
 
this situation would be fucking hilarious if it wasnt so pathetic. the people who enforce any law need to understand what they're ruling for or against. seems like most today dont even understand how to utilize logical precedent, much less take into account absurd precedents that they are setting themselves.
 
I think some of you either need to

1. Go back to school so you can learn to read, cause you clearly failed
2. Stop being so dam lazy and read the thread

designed primarily to enable acts of copyright infringement if an actual infringement of copyright occurs by means of the Internet or another digital network as a result of the use of that service."
Click to expand...

[H] is not primarily a torrent site or other illegal content site
Google is not primarily a torrent site or other illegal content site
Yahoo is not primarily a torrent site or other illegal content site
 
sephiroth99 said:
With the new copyright laws proposed in Canada, this would be illegal too.

"It is an infringement of copyright for a person to provide, by means of the Internet or another digital network, a service that the person knows or should have known is designed primarily to enable acts of copyright infringement if an actual infringement of copyright occurs by means of the Internet or another digital network as a result of the use of that service."

Google would be safe, as it is not "designed primarily" as a torrent search site.

source : http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/canadian-dmca-defends-drm-legalizes-dvrs.ars
Click to expand...

The problem with this definition is that it assumes all torrents are created for nothing other than copyright infringement. Put simply a torrent search engine is no more guilty than any other search engine such as Bing or Google. Logically there is no way this judgement should have passed unless either the judges are ignorant of technology or they got bought.

A very simple way to fix all of this is for someone to just sue Google and Microsoft for the same thing. When the case is decided in their favor it'd set the precedent and then all these other torrent sites could cite the precedent in their defense as they're absolutely no different except they limit the search results to just torrents.
 
MrGuvernment said:
I think some of you either need to

1. Go back to school so you can learn to read, cause you clearly failed
2. Stop being so dam lazy and read the thread



[H] is not primarily a torrent site or other illegal content site
Google is not primarily a torrent site or other illegal content site
Yahoo is not primarily a torrent site or other illegal content site
Click to expand...

A torrent is not primarily an illegal content. ;)
 
entropy13 said:
A torrent is not primarily an illegal content. ;)
Click to expand...

Really, cause most all torrents i have seen are for illegal content, that is like trying to claim limewire is mainly used for legal downloading of purchased music..........
 
MrGuvernment said:
Really, cause most all torrents i have seen are for illegal content, that is like trying to claim limewire is mainly used for legal downloading of purchased music..........
Click to expand...

Really? Because WoW uses torrents to update it's self. In fact most MMOs are updateable from torrents. Not only that, but almost all updates for any game is downloadable from a torrent. Furthermore, people actually do download linux distributions from torrents. Just because you only use them for pirating things doesn't mean the rest of us do.
 
MrGuvernment said:
Really, cause most all torrents i have seen are for illegal content, that is like trying to claim limewire is mainly used for legal downloading of purchased music..........
Click to expand...

Most DivX / xvid / mkv videos are probably illegal also. Does that mean that xvid videos are thus a seperate category of law? How about FLAC and mp3? Used mainly for piracy!!

:rolleyes:
 
MrGuvernment said:
I think some of you either need to

1. Go back to school so you can learn to read, cause you clearly failed
2. Stop being so dam lazy and read the thread



[H] is not primarily a torrent site or other illegal content site
Google is not primarily a torrent site or other illegal content site
Yahoo is not primarily a torrent site or other illegal content site
Click to expand...

And you know what, if the law had any sort of common sense I would agree with you. If a site is designed to help people locate pirated material through link sharing, then having them shut down makes sense. Unfortunately, this precedent in the hands of the (mostly) retarded lawyers out there would give them the opportunity to attack anything that could even possibly be used to pirate anything.
 
IRSmurf said:
I'm glad they have at least come to a conclusion. I mean, it shouldn't be the same as pirating, but it should still be a crime. ... If I give Rick that information and he tracks the thief down and murders him, I am an accessory to that crime.
Click to expand...

In case you're wondering why you got no responses... it's because you equated copyright infringement and doing a google search to Murder. Torrent sites are not in a position of trust as you would be to protect customer data via cellphone location. You expect us to accept your comparison and can see a parallel in where a site telling someone where to grab a torrent is going to result in their getting killed and being on the hook for it?

In short, and I say this in the nicest way possible... your argument is idiotic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top