Most of us know by now that downloading (and uploading) copyrighted movies and music without the permission of rights owners is illegal in most jurisdictions. I am a former offender, who started buying good quality pirate CDs while living in Asia. Back in the UK, without a reliable source, I discovered the joys of P2P downloading. But I am now a reformed character and no longer have a single pirate CD or DVD in the house.
Because streaming is the way to go, innit! Anyone with a reasonably fast broadband connection can now take advantage of the multitude of sites springing up and offering to deliver the latest films straight to their PC or laptop. There are many advantages - no outlay on blank DVDs, no hours of computer time tied up burning the dratted things and no evidence of criminal proclivities cluttering up the living room. There is even a YouTube tutorial. This wench is clearly still behaving badly but is she actionable?
Here is what my favourite site says in their disclaimer:
‘Watch-Movies.net is absolutely legal and contain only links to other sites on the Internet : ( rapidshare.com, megaupload.com, megashare(s), mega, dailymotion.com, myspace.com, ouou.com, stage6.com, tudou.com, veoh.com, youku.com, youtube.com and others.. ) We do not host or upload any video, films, media files ( avi, mov, flv, mpg, mpeg, divx, dvd rip, mp3, mp4, torrent, ipod, psp ), watch-movies.net is not responsible for the accuracy, compliance, copyright, legality, decency, or any other aspect of the content of other linked sites. If you have any legal issues please contact appropriate media file owners /hosters.’
Is this disingenuous, though? The Federation Against Copyright Theft is studiously ignoring streaming, but Mike Wever says categorically that: ‘if the video being streamed is copyrighted and the individual streaming that video does not have the permission of the copyright holder to do so, then streaming the video is engaging in piracy’. There is a sense, from others discussing this topic in web-forums, that sites like Watch-Movies might also be liable even if all they are doing is providing links to uploaders and streamers. They make their money on the deal from advertising revenue (probably in cahoots with ‘innovative’ but unscrupulous marketing companies like the Drivenwide crew we met last week) – so questions might also be asked about the culpability of advertisers who provide at least some of the motivation.
The position for watchers like me, however, is extremely murky.
Some of us might be streaming away, happily under the illusion that what we are doing is akin to rafting gently down-river.
Not so, it's more like pulling your boat through a swamp. As BottleAbuser from South Korea points out, every time a file is viewed, copies are temporarily made: ‘in your network stack, in your video/audio cards, in your ram, in your CPU cache, in your hard drive (Windows Temp folder)’. Others make the comment that, while a movie or music file is not stored permanently on a disc or hard-drive (once the temporary files have been conscientiously cleaned up), it might be possible to prove that an individual has been engaging in illegal streaming by tracing IP addresses logged at sites like Watch-Movies when they eventually get raided. Watch-Movies is proudly boasting over a million users; what a court-case that would be! I wouldn’t mind being caught, just to be part of it.But one of the most intriguing comments of all was: ‘you're also creating a mental copy of it in your head. That's the one that matters, but the one no one can prove (yet)!’ Thank-you for that, BottleAbuser – my naughty bone loves you.
a Wench
3 comments:
Wench
Ah ...there is always a new technology enabled niche to exploit in the evolution of offending and delinquency.
The never ending game of catch-up continues.
Do think the Federation Against Copyright Theft is keeping silent on this issue for fear of promoting it? This does sound like it will be a bigger problem than P2P file sharing and burning.
Hi Robin,
Nah, that would be too sensible wouldn't it, and FACT aren't distinguished by the intelligence of their approach. What I think is that they're confused - they were quite quiet about the P2P revolution too.
If you look at FACT's 'news' page, they're still banging on about 'Large Pirate DVD Factory found in Manchester' and 'Islington Police Raid DVD House', even though individual downloading and streaming must by now be responsible for the vast majority of copyright violations.
After all, the DVD factories are staffed by 'real' criminals - so what FACT and the authorities are engaged in is a fight against real crime (which the cynical might claim saves the film and music industry from having to address their outmoded and exploitative business models for just that little while longer).
Have you ever seen those muddy trails worn into the grass, where people have insisted on taking short-cuts. I've always thought that the sensible crime-reduction option would be to take the bloody hint and lay a proper pathway.
I suspect, from the French Deezer case, that the music industry may be coming round to this view. Deezer (formerly BlogMusik) have reached a deal with Warner and Universal (amongst others) to pay streaming fees from its advertising income to support its free service to users.
Hmmm "Paving the path of least resistance" - should that be policy in other areas?
An architect named Colin Ward edited a book called "Vandalism" where he made that same point about the muddy paths across grass verges that cut off corners. Occasionally you do se them actually paved - but it's rare.
Digital cinema was always going to cause a major explosion in copyright theft.
Post a Comment