About illegally downloaded materials...

flogen

I just got thinking about the boards.ie and individual forum policies regarding the discussion of Warez/illegal downloads etc. after the closure of this thread by Karl.

Firstly, before I start anything I'd like to say that this is not a criticism of the moderation of any individual forum and certainly not the abilities of Karl Hungus; I appreciate that the discussion of illegal material is a tightrope in itself and no one can be blamed for being overly cautious rather than overly lax.

From a legal point of view boards.ie could, as is my understanding, get in a lot of trouble by allowing people to post links to p2p clients, torrent sites etc. that hosted illegal downloads of any nature, so obviously when someone asks where they can get a certain something they should be dealt with in a serious manner, just like anyone offering the same should also be dealt with... however there does seem to be inconsistencies across different forums and I was wondering if it would be a good idea to discuss the issue amongst ourselves and see if a set policy can be agreed upon on what is a pretty serious matter; on the same hand the different approaches may be for valid reasons and should be kept that way, but I think it would be good to make things as clear as possible so that people don't think they can do something when they cannot (even though they get away with it elsewhere).

OK; it seems to come down to this: asking for or offering illegal files is a no-no, and rightly so... so discussing where anyone can get illegal files is not allowed. Now, the difference of approach seems to lie in the following; some forums allow discussion based around material that was obviously obtained illegally while others do not. An example being the thread linked above, unless someone did and I missed it, no one linked to or asked where to get the Tool album, but people were all saying they'd heard it with many (including myself) making it obvious that they had not obtained it legally. The thread was locked and it was stated that there should only be a new one when it can be proven that those commenting on the release can only do so in a totally legal fashion ... at the same time in the TV forum(s) the discussion of programming that was quite obviously obtained illegally is allowed once no linkage/requests are made, in fact forums like Lost and PTC are based heavily around the discussion of shows "imported" from US websites.

Anyway, what do people think? In my opinion it is silly to try and ban people for discussing illegally obtained material because it just leads to the "my cousin" stuff swiftly followed by "I did get it legally" claims; now I know in some cases (like the tool one) it's different because the material in question is completely unavailable regardless of where you live, but it could just as easily turn into "my cousin works at their record label and gave me a listen" crap.
In the end, anyone who knows how to work a computer and has the internet can and will download something, and while boards.ie shouldn't help them it would be ignorant to assume it doesn't happen, I'm also finding it hard to see if there would be any legal avenue for boards.ie to be taken from by allowing the discussion of illegally copied material because they are not hosting or encouraging criminal behaviour they are just allowing the discussion after the fact... it would be a kin to banning any threads in AH that are like the "have you ever stolen anything from work" type.

If it's a case that each forum has its own specific rules on the issue for different purposes then perhaps the charters could be edited to reflect the varying degrees of moderation:

Rock/Metal Charter wrote:

Any discussion on the illegal download of copyrighted material is out of the question

Television Charter wrote:

Infact try to stay away from discussion of downloading altogether.

Basq

Don't know what you mean... i have actual cousins who send me this stuff! :rolleyes:

Discussion of downloads is pretty much unavoidable.. discussion of where to get it certainly is though and shouldn't be tolerated!

That's my philosophy.

Tar.Aldarion

basquille wrote:

Don't know what you mean... i have actual cousins who send me this stuff! :rolleyes:

Discussion of downloads is pretty much unavoidable.. discussion of where to get it certainly is though and shouldn't be tolerated!

That's my philosophy.

Right on you are Maynard james Keaton.

I am quite interested in this topic, I was thinking about it after Karl locked the thread.
Banning things will of course lead to things like what I said on that thread, as you said;
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51239318&postcount=152

If something is unavoidable should it be allowed to be discussed though, that is not really a reason...

I don't see how boards cpould get into any trouble for something that cannot be proven such as what you say but it is the admins views on whether thay want that here or not that is all that matters.

Talliesin

The forums are inconsistent about everything.

The forums should be inconsistent about most things.

For the reasons you mentioned directly engaging in warezing is against the policy of the site as a whole. It will be dealt with by c-mods, s-mods and admins when they see it as well as mods, and it may lead to you getting banned from the site.

On any matter where there is not an overall boards policy (and that is most things) forums will always be inconsistent.

Hagar

basquille wrote:

discussion of where to get it certainly is though and shouldn't be tolerated!

So we'll just ignore the link in your sig to the recent recording of copyrighted RTE material
AKA The Podge & Rodge Show.;)

RE*AC*TOR

I couldn't agree more with Flogen.

All this cousin nonsense in the lost forum is beyond silly. Its like some stupid schoolyard code. I remember getting banned from the games forum once for mentioning a game scene group (Deviance I think it was at the time). I didn't provide any links, in fact the game in discussion at the time wasn't even released at that stage. Its a mild form of hysteria surrounding this whole area.

The line should be drawn at providing links to downloadable material. Or for instance saying that a certain bittorrent website is carrying a torrent of it. This is what gets boards.ie in trouble. That's clear cut, and everyone knows where they stand.

However, if I listen to an album that hasn't been commercially released yet and want to discuss it, why do I get the burden of proof? That flys in the face of any decent notion of jurisprudence.

kaimera

Down with LOST!

flogen

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Right on you are Maynard james Keaton.

I am quite interested in this topic, I was thinking about it after Karl locked the thread.
Banning things will of course lead to things like what I said on that thread, as you said;
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51239318&postcount=152

If something is unavoidable should it be allowed to be discussed though, that is not really a reason...

I don't see how boards cpould get into any trouble for something that cannot be proven such as what you say but it is the admins views on whether thay want that here or not that is all that matters.

That's just it, in my opinion cutting down comments which are made in relation to material obtained illegally is impractical and leads to inconsistencies (just because material is available legally doesn't mean everyone who comments on it has it through these methods). Wouldn't it be better to bring the line back to the encouragement of the illegal act, disciplining someone for admitting to (but not encouraging or condoning) a form of theft can't change the fact that it happened, it just damages the actual genuine discussion that goes on as a result (which is not about illegal downloads)

WhiteWashMan

flogen wrote:

I just got thinking about the boards.ie and individual forum policies regarding the discussion of Warez/illegal downloads etc. after the closure of this thread by Karl.

Firstly, before I start anything I'd like to say that this is not a criticism of the moderation of any individual forum and certainly not the abilities of Karl Hungus; I appreciate that the discussion of illegal material is a tightrope in itself and no one can be blamed for being overly cautious rather than overly lax.

From a legal point of view boards.ie could, as is my understanding, get in a lot of trouble by allowing people to post links to p2p clients, torrent sites etc. that hosted illegal downloads of any nature, so obviously when someone asks where they can get a certain something they should be dealt with in a serious manner, just like anyone offering the same should also be dealt with... however there does seem to be inconsistencies across different forums and I was wondering if it would be a good idea to discuss the issue amongst ourselves and see if a set policy can be agreed upon on what is a pretty serious matter; on the same hand the different approaches may be for valid reasons and should be kept that way, but I think it would be good to make things as clear as possible so that people don't think they can do something when they cannot (even though they get away with it elsewhere).

OK; it seems to come down to this: asking for or offering illegal files is a no-no, and rightly so... so discussing where anyone can get illegal files is not allowed. Now, the difference of approach seems to lie in the following; some forums allow discussion based around material that was obviously obtained illegally while others do not. An example being the thread linked above, unless someone did and I missed it, no one linked to or asked where to get the Tool album, but people were all saying they'd heard it with many (including myself) making it obvious that they had not obtained it legally. The thread was locked and it was stated that there should only be a new one when it can be proven that those commenting on the release can only do so in a totally legal fashion ... at the same time in the TV forum(s) the discussion of programming that was quite obviously obtained illegally is allowed once no linkage/requests are made, in fact forums like Lost and PTC are based heavily around the discussion of shows "imported" from US websites.

Anyway, what do people think? In my opinion it is silly to try and ban people for discussing illegally obtained material because it just leads to the "my cousin" stuff swiftly followed by "I did get it legally" claims; now I know in some cases (like the tool one) it's different because the material in question is completely unavailable regardless of where you live, but it could just as easily turn into "my cousin works at their record label and gave me a listen" crap.
In the end, anyone who knows how to work a computer and has the internet can and will download something, and while boards.ie shouldn't help them it would be ignorant to assume it doesn't happen, I'm also finding it hard to see if there would be any legal avenue for boards.ie to be taken from by allowing the discussion of illegally copied material because they are not hosting or encouraging criminal behaviour they are just allowing the discussion after the fact... it would be a kin to banning any threads in AH that are like the "have you ever stolen anything from work" type.

If it's a case that each forum has its own specific rules on the issue for different purposes then perhaps the charters could be edited to reflect the varying degrees of moderation:

im not entirely sure i see your point here.

i have a problem with links to copyrighted material, or people asking how to get copyrighted material, or people giving info on how to get copyrighted material.


i have no problem with people discussing it, becuase quite frankly, its not my business on how people get things. i am not a nanny.

i do not think its the place of anyone on boards to second guess where or how people get hold of material.

it is however the place i think of moderators to ensure that boards.ie is not liable to the best of their ability, for copyrighted material to be seen as being distributed illegally through the medium of this web site.

i may be wrong, i may be right, but thats how i see.

this is actually pretty black and white for me.

discussion fine.
actual sharing, bad.

flogen

Well that's my point WWM; it seemed to me that the thread in Rock/Metal was shut down because people were discussing material they had obtained illegally, but there was never a mention of where they got it, how they got it or requests on said information... so I was wondering if people agreed with me that the discussion of illegal material should be acceptable as long as illegal information (where/how to get it) is not published/requested?

Blowfish

Didn't Tar's quoted post above quote somebody who said they downloaded the whole thing on Limewire? I think that is why it was locked.

Tar.Aldarion

Blowfish wrote:

Didn't Tar's quoted post above quote somebody who said they downloaded the whole thing on Limewire? I think that is why it was locked.

That was a fake...apparently.
I don't see why that would mean a locking of a thread. Poeple can get banned you know. Well, so I hear.

flogen

Blowfish wrote:

Didn't Tar's quoted post above quote somebody who said they downloaded the whole thing on Limewire? I think that is why it was locked.

Yes, and naming a p2p client that is probably offering the item (even if the one the poster got was a fake) is enough in my book to end in a ban, or edit at the very least, but it seems to me that as there was no direct mention of that to the poster in question or the locking post the whole thing was locked for the general discussion rather than one incident.

Karl Hungus

flogen wrote:

it seemed to me that the thread in Rock/Metal was shut down because people were discussing material they had obtained illegally, but there was never a mention of where they got it, how they got it or requests on said information...

Actually, there were links that I removed from that thread.

In fairness though Flogen, I do see what you're getting at here, but you have to admit that there is a world of difference between what was going on in that thread, and what's going on in the Lost forum.

First of all, Lost is a TV show that's being broadcast in the US ahead of Ireland. We've also got quite a number of users who are from the US, so it's perfectly reasonable to assume that there's a number of people who are discussing the latest episodes of Lost are from the states, and saw that episode as it was broadcast on TV.

The Tool album is not available legally anywhere in the world yet, so there's absolutely no ambiguety there, it's a clear-cut case of downloading things illegally, and it's completely obvious.

Second of all, there is no TV equivelant of the RIAA. Websites risk being shut down, and people risk being seriously fined. Please read this. It's a whole different kettle of fish really, and boards is indeed liable for this sort of thing. Many users on the thread in question are just blurting out that they downloaded it, with absolutely no tact at all.

Thirdly, yes it's unavoidable that people will be downloading things illegally, reguardless of what boards does, but does that mean we should allow it to be advertised? Certainly not. I have the interests of boards at heart, and I'd certainly not like to see the admins slapped with a nice big court case over the content of this here site, and I also have the interests of the user base in mind aswell. You'll thank me when you don't get fined.

Conclusion. What goes on in other boards is none of my concern, and it won't affect how I moderate the boards that I mod.

flogen

Karl Hungus wrote:

Actually, there were links that I removed from that thread.

In fairness though Flogen, I do see what you're getting at here, but you have to admit that there is a world of difference between what was going on in that thread, and what's going on in the Lost forum.

First of all, Lost is a TV show that's being broadcast in the US ahead of Ireland. We've also got quite a number of users who are from the US, so it's perfectly reasonable to assume that there's a number of people who are discussing the latest episodes of Lost are from the states, and saw that episode as it was broadcast on TV.

The Tool album is not available legally anywhere in the world yet, so there's absolutely no ambiguety there, it's a clear-cut case of downloading things illegally, and it's completely obvious.

Second of all, there is no TV equivelant of the RIAA. Websites risk being shut down, and people risk being seriously fined. Please read this. It's a whole different kettle of fish really, and boards is indeed liable for this sort of thing. Many users on the thread in question are just blurting out that they downloaded it, with absolutely no tact at all.

Thirdly, yes it's unavoidable that people will be downloading things illegally, reguardless of what boards does, but does that mean we should allow it to be advertised? Certainly not. I have the interests of boards at heart, and I'd certainly not like to see the admins slapped with a nice big court case over the content of this here site, and I also have the interests of the user base in mind aswell. You'll thank me when you don't get fined.

Conclusion. What goes on in other boards is none of my concern, and it won't affect how I moderate the boards that I mod.

I know you have the interests of the site at heart, if I thought you were just going on a powertrip or something stupid like that I wouldn't have done the whole "I'll start a thread complaining in feedback" buzz; I probably would have just PM'd you voicing my opinion...

I know there's a big difference between the two examples, but at the same time it's difficult to enforce a rule that 9 times out of 10 can't be proven; yes the album is unavailable commercially but that doesn't mean it's only obtainable illegally, after all, someone uploaded the whole thing and I doubt that someone was a member of the band, their record label, management etc, it was most likely someone who got a pre-release copy legally (from a friend of a friend who works somewhere)... my point is that people saying "A friend of mine works in their label and let me hear it" is most likely a lie, but it's no easier to prove than the "my cousin taped it for me" crap we get in the TV forums.
As for links that were removed, that's fair enough, I didn't see them (except the limewire reference) and I agree that they should have been removed along with a warning to the offender; obviously one moment of lax moderating could cause hours of stress for the Admin if IRMA wander by the site.
In the thread you mentioned that you were surprised at some people for discussing the issue (or maybe you were talking about people making links, I'm not sure?) but in fairness to them/us, it generally is the case that discussions on illegal material are allowed once links/requests are not posted... that includes within the Rock/Metal forum.

Doctor J

Regardless of who uploaded it or why, downloading copyright protected music is illegal. Downloading copyright protected music before it has even been released is the type of thing that gets forums like this shut down (see Gun N Roses a couple of months ago). If anything, the "album has been leaked" ****e would have done nothing other than to send people scurrying to their torrent programs of choice and, by the looks of it, introduced some new users to the murky wolrd of illegal torrent downloads. As far as I'm concerned, that thread had gone beyond what is acceptable. If you want to talk about illegal downloads, Rock/Metal isn't the place to do it as the practice is not in the interests of the musicians or real fans of roack and metal bands.

I fully support KH's decision to lock the thread.

RE*AC*TOR

Doctor J wrote:

downloading copyright protected music is illegal.

Is it?

Are songs from itunes copyright protected? I would say they are - and I would also say you agree to the T&C of fair use as governed by itunes when you buy songs.

As for downloading from P2P... well you don't enter into any contract there - the uploader may be infringing on copyright, but I don't think the downloader is.

Doctor J

Yes. Copying copyright protected music without permission is illegal. Copyright. The right to copy. Buying them is a licence, the right to copy. Copying without the permission of the copyright owner is illegal. Very straightforward, actually.

RE*AC*TOR

It actually refers to the right of the artist or publisher to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of the work.

By that definition the uploader is infringing on copyright, not the downloader.

If I download, I am not publishing, producing, selling or distributing.

Doctor J

You're making an unauthorised copy, not the uploader. You are making the copy without permission, a replica in violation of the law, like photocpoying a book. Unless you have purchased a copy or the copyright owner has given you permission to own a copy, you don't have the right to possess a copy. Simple as that.

It is illegal to download copyrighted materials (including MP3 and other music and video files) from the Internet without permission of the person owning the copyright. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) instituted in 1998, the copyright owner may bring an action in court that may result in civil liability or even criminal prosecution.

Google down, eh?

RE*AC*TOR

Doctor J wrote:

You're making an unauthorised copy, not the uploader. You are making the copy without permission, a replica in violation of the law, like photocpoying a book. Unless you have purchased a copy or the copyright owner has given you permission to own a copy, you don't have the right to possess a copy. Simple as that.


Google down, eh?

The DMCA is an america law.

Doctor J

Yep, and the band are American, their pubishers are an American company, their record label is American and I'll wager most of the torrents are coming from the States too, so do we continue to split hairs about the legal jurisdictions of the matter or perhaps you could give IRMA a call to see what they say?

RE*AC*TOR

IRMA aren't a legislative body either. But if we're going to talk about IRMA - in the few cases IRMA have undertaken in Ireland - uploaders have been the target.

Also - in France - who are closer to us than the US (Geographically and legislatively) - a court recently ruled that P2P is legal as long as its not for commercial use.

Doctor J

and under Irish law, a copyright infringement is classified as

a copy of a work which is, and which he or she knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of the work, shall be guilty of an offence.

RE*AC*TOR

Doctor J wrote:

and under Irish law, a copyright infringement is classified as

Well that's not a full sentence. Is that possesion or creation or distribution?

Also it states under the Copyright and Related Acts 2000, Section 19 that:-

"Copyright shall not subsist in a sound recording until the first fixation of the sound recording is made."

That would seem to include this album and specifically this scenario - where the album has not yet been released.

RE*AC*TOR

Actually I found where that piece you got was - and it seems to me you did some very selective quoting - here's the full section:

45.—A person infringes the copyright in a work where he or she without the licence of the copyright owner—

(a) sells, rents or lends, or offers or exposes for sale, rental or loan,

(b) imports into the State, otherwise than for his or her private and domestic use,

(c) in the course of a business, trade or profession, has in his or her possession, custody or control, or makes available to the public, or

(d) otherwise than in the course of a business, trade or profession, makes available to the public to such an extent as to prejudice the interests of the owner of the copyright,

a copy of the work which is, and which he or she knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of the work.

None of those areas covers a downloader.

Part (A) - covers selling renting and loaning.
Part (B) - could cover downloading - but for personal use is exempt
Part (C) - refers to business, but would cover uploading
Part (D) - covers uploading

Sparky

Ahhhh, nice to see 24 was'nt mentioned. I must be doing a great job.

WizZard

Best to be overly cautious in this regard, especially when this kind of thing can happen.

WhiteWashMan

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Actually I found where that piece you got was - and it seems to me you did some very selective quoting - here's the full section:



None of those areas covers a downloader.

Part (A) - covers selling renting and loaning.
Part (B) - could cover downloading - but for personal use is exempt
Part (C) - refers to business, but would cover uploading
Part (D) - covers uploading

of course, if you cover the section on uploading, then of course dowloading isnt going to be mention.
and you talk about selective quoting!

the fact is , its illegal for you to obtain music in any format without licence.

downloading music is not licenced (unless done through a licenced method, such as itunes etc) and hence, is illegal.

argue the toss all you want, but the fact remains, owning music that you have no right to, is illegal.

RE*AC*TOR

WhiteWashMan wrote:

of course, if you cover the section on uploading, then of course dowloading isnt going to be mention.
and you talk about selective quoting!

eh what? I was merely expanding the section that Doctor J already posted. I posted that section in full. I was keeping in context with his previous comment. Also that section is not solely applicable to uploading - it covers many types of copyright infringement.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

the fact is , its illegal for you to obtain music in any format without licence.

Ok lets quote some more legislation, the same act - this time section 37, Acts Restricted by Copyright Work:

37.—(1) Subject to the exceptions specified in Chapter 6 and to any provisions relating to licensing in this Part, the owner of the copyright in a work has the exclusive right to undertake or authorise others to undertake all or any of the following acts, namely:

(a) to copy the work;

(b) to make available to the public the work;

(c) to make an adaptation of the work or to undertake either of the acts referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) in relation to an adaptation,

and those acts shall be known and in this Act referred to as "acts restricted by copyright".

(2) The copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner undertakes, or authorises another to undertake, any of the acts restricted by copyright.

(3) References to the undertaking of an act restricted by the copyright in a work shall relate to the work as a whole or to any substantial part of the work and to whether the act is undertaken directly or indirectly.

In summary the acts that are prohibitted are copying, distributing and adapting. You say that it is illegal to obtain music in any form without licence. This is not evident from the above section. If I don't make or distribute the copy - I don't commit a prohibited act.

argue the toss all you want, but the fact remains, owning music that you have no right to, is illegal.

very grey area.

Doctor J

OK, I'm no legal law guy, so I asked IRMA, their response is

Under Irish copyright law it is an offence to make a copy of a sound
recording without the copyright owner's permission. Therefore uploading
and downloading copyrighted music files (and any other copyrighted media
for that matter) from unauthorized P2P sites is illegal and actionable.
The confusion may have arisen because in recent times IRMA has initiated
prosecutions against uploaders. This does not mean downloaders are not
doing anything wrong, just that taking out the uploaders is a higher
priority right now.

I hope this helps.

Regards

Sean Murtagh
Head of Anti-Piracy Ops
IRMA

So I guess that clears things up?