Hi Guys For anyone thinking of running Warez related websites, here is a court ruling from The Hague confirming that linking to copyright protected files is the same concept as hosting it. http://www.eworldpost.com/linking-to-location-of-pirated-movies-the-same-as-hosting-it-217.html Be careful.
Very interesting indeed. It makes telephone directories illegal, of course. After all, if 'making available' the information as to where something is located is now as bad as actually providing that something... Terrible for newspapers too. They'll have to be very careful what they report on in case they 'provide information that helps people acquire something illegal'. Expect to see this overturned pronto, I'd say.
There have been laws about contributory infringement in the US and other countries for years. Napster was shut down way back in 2001 and they didn't host files.
this whole theing will go to E.U court , this court ruling was highly biased as all know the judge is on dutch copyright groups board plus the the lawyer representing Eyeworks and the judge who ruled on this give workshops together on the theme of intellectual property! lol !! http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2010/06/rechter_in_zaak_ftd_vriendje_v.html MJ we all know who makes copy right laws in states
Like it or not, the tide is changing and the net is no longer going to be the wild west where copyright infringing material can be shared freely. It will never be completely stopped (nothing can) but the IP rights side has far more money and they are making it financially impossible for the "free access" side to prevail. Recent rulings against the likes of RapidShare, where management is being held accountable under a court order of jail time and million dollar fines are only the beginning. It's time for people to start rethinking their business model, as making a buck off of other peoples content it isn't going to be a profitable one in the near future. The side that losses always claims it was a biased decision. Those are the facts.
And it appears Limewire may be facing the same judgment - http://www.eworldpost.com/riaa-requests-court-to-shut-down-limewire-223.html
behind times here, the cases against rapidshare have gone on their favor, in both Germany and u.sa [ surprised over this one] , where the judgment held was that rapishare is not responsible for what users upload to it . yeah money and buying up laws is the way to go , like threating Sweden with WTO restrictions in case of TPB where MPAA and RIAA have blown billions buying laws, judges, politicians against one site which is still up and running . file sharing will and can never be stopped it is time for media companies to realize this infact and not force 1980 down our throats in 2010. the nature of Internet makes it uncountable , more you try to control the more technology develops and more the sites and ways come up , it is like trying to kill a hydra expect there a million heads here!! and as always am talking about file sharing and NOT making money off it, which is infact what rapidshare does !! and they had they money power and won the cases !!
lol, take one down. Another 100 pop up ready to take it's place. No way to ever stop this or even slow it down. No one wants to pay for anything now a days especially when it's free. People will do anything to make a quick buck making this an impossible tide to turn. I mean look at Youtube they are crushing the music industry and what they are doing is technically illegal. Hackers and crackers will always fine a way around anything. Googles motto "don't be evil" and I love it. Google is linked to everything and they own Youtube. Music and Video industries better accept change or they will fail. Many of them already have started to accept it and they are being smart about that. 10 hr's of video are uploaded to youtube ever minute? I heard that somewhere and it sounds about right with 1 billion users across the board. I'm sure most of it is not hand made. That's just one site while 100s are still popping up and growing. It depends on if your lucky or not when it comes to getting taken down.
Youtube is being sued for over a billion dollars. One difference is that they are spending millions in legal fees and have billions of dollars. 3 of 4 of the major record labels have cut deals with to allow their videos to be shown in a revenue sharing deal - with the 4th rumored to be closed to signing. Yes, things are changing. Google will be the one legally displaying the vast majority of this type of content and then it will be everyone else who is sued. When enough people start getting major fines (which can follow you for life) or thrown in jail (copyright infringement can be a criminal charge) even the lowlifes will start thinking twice - but even an even bigger threat is google. With superior video quality and bandwidth, there will be no reason the VAST majority of these video sites to exist and they won't have anyone needing to visit them.
hmm i don't get this logic, google indexes links just like what TPB does now or usenet does , so how come google can index it and not others, yeah the change will come when some one dumb enough will take on google head on over this !! RIAA andf MPAA are tools and go after weaker targets as this lime wire thing which just shows what kind of retards they are , lime wire is a application or a tool which runs on gunetalla network which HAS NO center , so how the hell does it make sense to shut down limiwire, , so what what now software devs can't dev softwares too , plus there are a dozen app like like limewire like frostwire all under open source GPL the only way to shut it down is to shut down the net which is the primary target now , or hang on why don't we ask MS to stop msn i can send files over it stop IRC the oldest way or sharing along with FTP , you mean to say now net protocols will be shut down too . lolz and software devs can't dev software to share files !! 2nd example of double standards you talk media not being freely available and in different formats not DRM filled crap , then why do companies same companies like sony make products to run them !!! like xvid dvd players or mp3 players when there are no legal xvid files or mvk files available from media companies legally !!!! they just want money and control and are not willing to change with times and plurrzee excuse me the big numbers MJ you throw out has any one ever paid it !! expect some slimey lawyers sending threating letters to a mother 4 kids who can't even turn on her computer and she pays for what her 12 yr old son downloaded or her neighbor downloaded using her wifi !! and you cannot find such excellent lawyers to work for them they also sue dead people too !! and whose copy rights are we protecting , not the artist , they don't get any money , a bunch of them of have sued RIAA for 6 billion for using their works without their permission , and you know how how much did lady gaga got form spotify last year 3.75 usd am sure that helped her lot !! the money just goes to studios owners and label owners and their lawyers to fill their coffers !! errrr this whole boils me up and this just coming from one nation whose national pass time is to sue each other and they want the same thing to apply to net cause the new breed of ambulance chasers needed more money to stuff them selves !!
Actually that was over turned a couple weeks ago by an appeals court, in the country they operate the appeals court ruled that they were not liable for the actions of their users. Source
Low lifes, so if you had a 12 year old son downloading music or videos or w/e. You'd consider him a low life? Many of the people doing it are very young from ages 11-15 and the internet is young somewhat different to them. It's hard for them to put limitations around something when people get scammed online all the time and these businesses look legit especially youtube. Record companies need to be smart about this. They don't have much longer to live and I wouldn't steal their shitty music when I can get better music that is truly free made my start up kids who want you to taste their music. Also you say they have a ton of money to fight this? They are already losing money trying to battle it. 50k of their paid workers at most vs. millions of free developers.
The people who are operating the commercial sites making money off of property owned by someone else, yes, low life's. No one has a problem with someone boycotting the music industry because they don't want to pay for something. Trust me, the companies who collectively own the copyrighted material have billions of dollars and are organized. The people who are operating these shitty sites don't have money, and aren't organized and turn a blind eye when they are asked to help fund a legal defense. The industry wants more criminal prosecution - and as soon as a few start going to prison for what is already a criminal act, they will fold like a cheap house of card. As I said, the vast majority of these commercial sites are going to go away very soon. It's a bad business model and sites like vevo and hulu are going to put many out of business anyway. Since you don't appear to have a problem with taking copyrighted material owned by someone else, I would assume you have no problem with anyone on DP making mirror copies of the sites in your signature without asking or paying you anything?
and another court ruling from spain makes it all legal, wondering if that is the only sane place left to live now http://torrentfreak.com/judges-liken-p2p-to-the-ancient-practice-of-lending-books-100608/
Wtf, don't these noobs realise that the two things are entirely separate. Of course it's probably taken as something like "as seen by the law" but still. My family has had other problems with the Hague convention, an entirely different situation, but it's building resentment for this place, lol
My content is free... I fail to see your point there. Only time I'd care is duplicate content since SE can punish you. I'd only care at that point other wise people can download my content and use it as they wish.
Gee, so it's NOT OK to steal a copy of your site/work because it would have a financial impact to YOU, but it's ok to steal from others even though it has a financial impact on them. Talk about a double standard. Another person who thinks it's ok to steal as long as it isn't going to harm them. That's funny.
financial impact? I never said that. I said I wanted the rights to the articles to be able to post them and not get punished. Share my THOUGHTS for non profit and if I pay a couple bills along the way cool if not that's great to, but I'd rather share than be greedy. I live by Googles motto "don't be evil". Do you use any of these file sharing sites yourself?