3 ms·

The state of legal TV and film content in the UK is abysmal. I think it's really important that we consider that just because there's no legal way for me to wa

The state of legal TV and film content in the UK is abysmal. I think it's really important that we consider that just because there's no legal way for me to watch say "The Americans" season 5 legally in the UK[0], I'm not entitled to pirate it. That is the content distributors mistake. Saying that me downloading it doesn't hurt them doesn't track either because I'll be seeding a file to others who might have legal alternatives. I've had to adjust how important watching stuff can be to me. Is it really that important that I get to watch some TV? Worth breaking the law for? [0]https://www.justwatch.com/uk/tv-series/the-americans https://www.justwatch.com/uk/tv-series/the-americans

rhino369 9y ago
>I think it's really important that we consider that just because there's no legal way for me to watch say "The Americans" season 5 legally in the UK[0], I'm not entitled to pirate it. That is the content distributors mistake. I think that if media hasn't been released legally for a significant amount of time, it should be allowed to be shared. But a fews months or years? If you made that the law, it would really warp the negotiating powers of distributors and content creators. I don't having to wait a modest amount of to watch stuff is a good excuse for piracy. Especially in the age of netflix. How many dozens of great shows are there that you can watch instead?
kybernetikos 9y ago
> I'll be seeding a file to others who might have legal alternatives It doesn't seem fair to me to make the seeder responsible for the illegal usage of the leacher. If it's legal for some people to connect to a torrent, then any crime committed by someone who connects and downloads something they are not allowed to download should be on them, not on the seeder. The alternative is to insist that the seeder is responsible for checking that each of their peers have the rights to the content, which is impractical.
- phkahler 9y ago
  The seeder is the one distributing the content, thereby violating the copyright. Viewing is not illegal, making the copy is.
  - moopling 9y ago
    the kodi addons I've seen tend to connect to websites which host the content and display ads. Given that these don't involve seeding does that mean that the viewers aren't violating copyright, only the hosts?
    - bumblebeard 9y ago
      That's my understanding of how the law works in the US. In the UK though it sounds like you're breaking the law if you watch the stream as well.
      - hunta2097 9y ago
        That's how things used to be in the UK. UK copyright law was aimed at counterfeiters (seedy Joe who sells knock-off T-Shirts, CDs and tapes down the local pub). Now with the Digital Economy amendments, we have an extremely vague mention of "violating copyright". Are you violating copyright when consuming, or just when distributing? The act does not say. I expect there will be a few test cases to work this out but in the meantime, the press is having a field-day by promoting the worst case scenario for even minor infractions.
  - kybernetikos 9y ago
    The seeder should not be thought of as making a copy in my view, it's the downloader who makes the copy.
omginternets 9y ago
>Saying that me downloading it doesn't hurt them doesn't track either because I'll be seeding a file to others who might have legal alternatives. I don't follow. I feel quite strongly that those people are in the wrong, not the seeder.
lmm 9y ago
> I think it's really important that we consider that just because there's no legal way for me to watch say "The Americans" season 5 legally in the UK[0], I'm not entitled to pirate it. That is the content distributors mistake. Eh. I'm willing to support creators to a certain extent, but if they don't want my money they're welcome to not have it. > Saying that me downloading it doesn't hurt them doesn't track either because I'll be seeding a file to others who might have legal alternatives. You can seed to exactly 1.0 so that your presence makes no difference one way or another if this is what bothers you. > I've had to adjust how important watching stuff can be to me. Is it really that important that I get to watch some TV? Worth breaking the law for? Everyone has their lines in the sand. The law counts for something, particularly when passed democratically, but it's not everything, particularly when imposed via backroom international treaties.

rhino369 9y ago

>I think it's really important that we consider that just because there's no legal way for me to watch say "The Americans" season 5 legally in the UK[0], I'm not entitled to pirate it. That is the content distributors mistake. I think that if media hasn't been released legally for a significant amount of time, it should be allowed to be shared. But a fews months or years? If you made that the law, it would really warp the negotiating powers of distributors and content creators. I don't having to wait a modest amount of to watch stuff is a good excuse for piracy. Especially in the age of netflix. How many dozens of great shows are there that you can watch instead?

kybernetikos 9y ago

> I'll be seeding a file to others who might have legal alternatives It doesn't seem fair to me to make the seeder responsible for the illegal usage of the leacher. If it's legal for some people to connect to a torrent, then any crime committed by someone who connects and downloads something they are not allowed to download should be on them, not on the seeder. The alternative is to insist that the seeder is responsible for checking that each of their peers have the rights to the content, which is impractical.

phkahler 9y ago
The seeder is the one distributing the content, thereby violating the copyright. Viewing is not illegal, making the copy is.
- moopling 9y ago
  the kodi addons I've seen tend to connect to websites which host the content and display ads. Given that these don't involve seeding does that mean that the viewers aren't violating copyright, only the hosts?
  - bumblebeard 9y ago
    That's my understanding of how the law works in the US. In the UK though it sounds like you're breaking the law if you watch the stream as well.
    - hunta2097 9y ago
      That's how things used to be in the UK. UK copyright law was aimed at counterfeiters (seedy Joe who sells knock-off T-Shirts, CDs and tapes down the local pub). Now with the Digital Economy amendments, we have an extremely vague mention of "violating copyright". Are you violating copyright when consuming, or just when distributing? The act does not say. I expect there will be a few test cases to work this out but in the meantime, the press is having a field-day by promoting the worst case scenario for even minor infractions.
- kybernetikos 9y ago
  The seeder should not be thought of as making a copy in my view, it's the downloader who makes the copy.

omginternets 9y ago

>Saying that me downloading it doesn't hurt them doesn't track either because I'll be seeding a file to others who might have legal alternatives. I don't follow. I feel quite strongly that those people are in the wrong, not the seeder.

lmm 9y ago

> I think it's really important that we consider that just because there's no legal way for me to watch say "The Americans" season 5 legally in the UK[0], I'm not entitled to pirate it. That is the content distributors mistake. Eh. I'm willing to support creators to a certain extent, but if they don't want my money they're welcome to not have it. > Saying that me downloading it doesn't hurt them doesn't track either because I'll be seeding a file to others who might have legal alternatives. You can seed to exactly 1.0 so that your presence makes no difference one way or another if this is what bothers you. > I've had to adjust how important watching stuff can be to me. Is it really that important that I get to watch some TV? Worth breaking the law for? Everyone has their lines in the sand. The law counts for something, particularly when passed democratically, but it's not everything, particularly when imposed via backroom international treaties.