Elc
Rebel of Babylon
Joined: 24 May 2004
Post Count: 5757
Location: Blight's Bay
1133304 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:35 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
While it sucks that TV Links went down, since there was stuff I could only find at that site, I do agree with the copyright infringement issue which has been brought up. However... the owners of the copyrights could take a cue from that site and actually release the material on DVD as I, for one, would be more than happy to buy programs I enjoy. Hell, I watched a few episodes of the Rurouni Kenshin animé and ended up buying the DVDs and I plan to buy the DVDs for other shows I saw on that site, those which actually have DVDs available, that is.
So, basically, such a service could be used as a "sampler" of sorts for stuff which people can purchase. I know that consumers will be more inclined to actually buy something if they can be assured that the quality of the product isn't going to utter tripe. Giving them a free sampler and then making it available for purchase would really go a long way. Not like that crap business model of releasing animé DVDs and then taking them out of print a year or two later. What the hell kind of logic is that?
_________________
"You make me smash the clock and feel, I'd rather die behind the wheel.
Time was never on my side, So on I wait my whole lifetime." |
|
eXistence of Fly
Pointy Sticks & Ponies!
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Post Count: 4194
Location: Obel
1156566 Potch
7700 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hawk Thanatos wrote: |
| Here's where my lack of knowledge of copyright law plays against me. Obviously if I bought a copyrighted DVD it would be illegal for me to copy said DVD, but would it be illegal for me or others to watch the copied DVD? Because TV-Links, and similar sites, aren't facilitating the copying of TV shows and movies, they're facilitating the watching of that copied material. |
It is not illegal for you to copy said dvd, it is illegal for you to copy the DVD with the intent to facilitate demand in the market and thus incur the wrath of the actual developers. If you don't wish to use your version because you want to keep it in crisp condition than you are allowed to back up the data should anything happen to the disc in its immediate future for your own use. Public screenings for profit or non profit + facilitation of any reproductions is prohibited.
| Kikito wrote: |
I just wanted to point out one major difference between YouTube and TV-Links that makes the whole analogy not work in this situation, at least in my opinion. In the Terms of Use, and more specifially in the following section(right under "6.Your User Submissions and Conduct):
| Quote: |
B. You shall be solely responsible for your own User Submissions and the consequences of posting or publishing them. In connection with User Submissions, you affirm, represent, and/or warrant that: you own or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to use and authorize YouTube to use all patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights in and to any and all User Submissions to enable inclusion and use of the User Submissions in the manner contemplated by the Website and these Terms of Service.
|
In other words, if someone does not have the authorization to post a video or any material, they are not allowed to upload them. Sure, it's a bit too hard to enforce this rule due to YouTube's size, but the rule is still there.
So, YouTube strictly prohibits uploading copyrighted material, while TV-Links organizes links to Copyrighted material with the express purpose of supplying illegaly uploaded material. This clearly demonstrates the huge difference between YouTube and TV-Links, and also may provide a reason to why such harsh actions have been taken against TV-Links and its owner.
Heh, I can't believe I did all that homework for this! |
It's not as cut and dry as that actually as websites can put up disclaimers that "no illegal content is hosted here and users who upload such items will be banned on site and reported to the authorities" and yet that website can still he held accountable for the distribution of the medium despite absolving themselves of the guilt in their terms and placing it on the user. The article cites showed that no warning was given to the owner of the website that he was in violation of such a law, if this is the case than it was the simple act that it had happened which got him arrested, and in that case regardless of policy on websites if sites like Youtube at one point get busted with copyright material on it's website then it too would face the same prosecution under the same law. This would be the case because if it was then given the chance to remove the offending material than why was this person not? And it would open a can of worms in the judicial inquiries in the matter.
If TV links was told beforehand and given ample time to remove infringing content and change the way it did things to suit the laws then I see no problem with the arrest, if they were not given such opportunities and sites like youtibe who simply get away a semi enforced Terms list (personally I've seen material on there last months before being removed for being in breach of the terms) than this is a bullshit case meant to make an example rather than to change a culture.
This train of thought reminds of the burglar who broke a window, cut himself and injured himself in an attempted robbery who turned around sued the owners of the house for the damages. In this sense the website is the house and the uploaders (since they are the general populace) the burglar. FACT are the police and judicial system who are then wondering how best to sue. Ridiculous when you consider only 1 person is being charge when if he's convicted there were however many thousand accomplices.
BTW I never did use the site, really didn;t see the point in it. :P
_________________
 |
|
