Is it legal?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it legal?
I was wondering if someone could advise me on the legal aspect of using websites such as filmon (FILMON TV FREE LIVE TV MOVIES AND SOCIAL TELEVISION) for watching live streaming of TV.
I know that downloading copyrighted content is illegal, and that the actual process of transmitting the copyrighted material is also illegal, but I can't find anything about actually viewing.
If this is illegal in the UK, what piece of legislation would specifically cover this?
Many thanks
I know that downloading copyrighted content is illegal, and that the actual process of transmitting the copyrighted material is also illegal, but I can't find anything about actually viewing.
If this is illegal in the UK, what piece of legislation would specifically cover this?
Many thanks
Guest
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere between E17487 and F75775
Age: 80
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Film On Continues
JUNE 26
AEREO CLOSES
Following Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling, US-based streaming service Aereo announced it will cease its operations today.
In a related development, Fox has used the Aereo judgement to act against another streaming service, Dish, which uses a similar business model to Aereo.
For the moment, FilmOn carries on regardless. The free streaming service is used by thousands of expats in Spain and Portugal following the loss of BBC and ITV in February this year.
JUN 25
AEREO LOSES SUPREME COURT BATTLE, EXPECTED TO CLOSE
North American streaming service Aereo was ruled illegal in the US Supreme Court today in a landmark ruling which may have far-reaching implications for online TV services.
US broadcasters, including ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC and PBS, had sued Aereo, claiming breach of copyright. The start-up company, backed financially by billionaire Barry Diller, refused to pay the big networks the fees they had demanded for re-transmission of their signals over the internet.
One casualty may be another streaming service FilmOn, which has also been repeatedly sued for the same reasons. US Court action and fines of $20,000 a day against FilmOn have been suspended, pending the outcome of the Aereo case, allowing the company to continue live TV streaming around the world, including BBC and ITV channels in Europe.
AEREO CLOSES
Following Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling, US-based streaming service Aereo announced it will cease its operations today.
In a related development, Fox has used the Aereo judgement to act against another streaming service, Dish, which uses a similar business model to Aereo.
For the moment, FilmOn carries on regardless. The free streaming service is used by thousands of expats in Spain and Portugal following the loss of BBC and ITV in February this year.
JUN 25
AEREO LOSES SUPREME COURT BATTLE, EXPECTED TO CLOSE
North American streaming service Aereo was ruled illegal in the US Supreme Court today in a landmark ruling which may have far-reaching implications for online TV services.
US broadcasters, including ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC and PBS, had sued Aereo, claiming breach of copyright. The start-up company, backed financially by billionaire Barry Diller, refused to pay the big networks the fees they had demanded for re-transmission of their signals over the internet.
One casualty may be another streaming service FilmOn, which has also been repeatedly sued for the same reasons. US Court action and fines of $20,000 a day against FilmOn have been suspended, pending the outcome of the Aereo case, allowing the company to continue live TV streaming around the world, including BBC and ITV channels in Europe.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks OFSO,
I knew that the site itself was breaking the law in the US, but it's actually the legality of viewing (and not downloading and storing) in the UK that I was interested in.
Filmon is still going at the moment and I do use it when working abroad, but one of my workmates has queried whether or not actually viewing the programs is illegal. Personally, I don't think it is, but if I am wrong, I was just wondering what the specific offence would be as I don't store or copy the copyrighted material, which seems to be all that legislation such as the copyright act covers.
I knew that the site itself was breaking the law in the US, but it's actually the legality of viewing (and not downloading and storing) in the UK that I was interested in.
Filmon is still going at the moment and I do use it when working abroad, but one of my workmates has queried whether or not actually viewing the programs is illegal. Personally, I don't think it is, but if I am wrong, I was just wondering what the specific offence would be as I don't store or copy the copyrighted material, which seems to be all that legislation such as the copyright act covers.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 76
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If downloading it is illegal, then viewing it is illegal. You can't view something on line without it being downloaded. You may be confusing the common interpretation of downloading which people use to mean downloading and storing.
All the UK channels I saw on that site are free to air but no doubt contain copyright limitations which won't allow their broadcast outside of UK (BBC iPlayer for example)
All the UK channels I saw on that site are free to air but no doubt contain copyright limitations which won't allow their broadcast outside of UK (BBC iPlayer for example)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know that downloading copyrighted content is illegal, and that the actual process of transmitting the copyrighted material is also illegal, but I can't find anything about actually viewing.
If this is illegal in the UK, what piece of legislation would specifically cover this?
If this is illegal in the UK, what piece of legislation would specifically cover this?
Standard copyright legislation applies.
And your statement about "download vs view" is utter nonsense.... do you think if someone "just views" kiddie porn they should get away with it, and only people who save the images to their computer should be locked up ? No ? Right, well the same applies to you and your bypassing of distribution mechanisms to view of TV programmes.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Filmon is still going at the moment
Hunting down and exterminating illegal distribution networks is a cat and mouse game, and the operators play tricks to slow down the extermination.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standard copyright legislation applies.
The "copyright, designs and patents act" states that the following practices are offences:
16 The acts restricted by copyright in a work..
(1)The owner of the copyright in a work has, in accordance with the following provisions of this Chapter, the exclusive right to do the following acts in the United Kingdom—.
(a)to copy the work (see section 17);.
(b)to issue copies of the work to the public (see section 18);.
[F1(ba)to rent or lend the work to the public (see section 18A);].
(c)to perform, show or play the work in public (see section 19);.
[F2(d)to communicate the work to the public (see section 20);].
(e)to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an adaptation (see section 21);.
and those acts are referred to in this Part as the “acts restricted by the copyright”.
(a)to copy the work (see section 17);.
(b)to issue copies of the work to the public (see section 18);.
[F1(ba)to rent or lend the work to the public (see section 18A);].
(c)to perform, show or play the work in public (see section 19);.
[F2(d)to communicate the work to the public (see section 20);].
(e)to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an adaptation (see section 21);.
and those acts are referred to in this Part as the “acts restricted by the copyright”.
22 Secondary infringement: importing infringing copy..
The copyright in a work is infringed by a person who, without the licence of the copyright owner, imports into the United Kingdom, otherwise than for his private and domestic use, an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of the work
The copyright in a work is infringed by a person who, without the licence of the copyright owner, imports into the United Kingdom, otherwise than for his private and domestic use, an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of the work
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
, it does appear that provided the viewing is for personal and private use,
You have to read and interpret it as a whole and in conjunction with other applicable legislation (as well as case law).... for example, you may wish to peruse the Digital Economy Act 2010, but there's no doubt many more apply too. Whilst you're at it, you might also wish to peruse all recent EU rulings, e.g. one example of many being this one which makes a point of differentiating private copies that originated from lawful and unlawful sources:
37 Consequently, national legislation which makes no distinction between private copies made from lawful sources and those made from counterfeited or pirated sources cannot be tolerated.
38 Furthermore, when it is applied, national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not draw a distinction according to whether the source from which a reproduction for private use is made is lawful or unlawful, may infringe certain conditions laid down by Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29.
39 First, to accept that such reproductions may be made from an unlawful source would encourage the circulation of counterfeited or pirated works, thus inevitably reducing the volume of sales or of other lawful transactions relating to the protected works, with the result that a normal exploitation of those works would be adversely affected.
40 Secondly, the application of such national legislation may, having regard to the finding made in paragraph 31 of the present judgment, unreasonably prejudice copyright holders.
41 It is apparent from the foregoing considerations that Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as not covering the case of private copies made from an unlawful source.
38 Furthermore, when it is applied, national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not draw a distinction according to whether the source from which a reproduction for private use is made is lawful or unlawful, may infringe certain conditions laid down by Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29.
39 First, to accept that such reproductions may be made from an unlawful source would encourage the circulation of counterfeited or pirated works, thus inevitably reducing the volume of sales or of other lawful transactions relating to the protected works, with the result that a normal exploitation of those works would be adversely affected.
40 Secondly, the application of such national legislation may, having regard to the finding made in paragraph 31 of the present judgment, unreasonably prejudice copyright holders.
41 It is apparent from the foregoing considerations that Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as not covering the case of private copies made from an unlawful source.
Last edited by mixture; 18th Jul 2014 at 16:36.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just about every one of the quotes backs up my opinion.
"Private copies made"
"Reproductions made"
"Copies made from an unauthorised source"
I don't make any copies, nor do I save, sell lend or otherwise distribute. I simply view the material.
"Private copies made"
"Reproductions made"
"Copies made from an unauthorised source"
I don't make any copies, nor do I save, sell lend or otherwise distribute. I simply view the material.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't make any copies, nor do I save, sell lend or otherwise distribute. I simply view the material.
As KelvinD told you earlier .....
If downloading it is illegal, then viewing it is illegal. You can't view something on line without it being downloaded. You may be confusing the common interpretation of downloading which people use to mean downloading and storing.
As much as I disagree with people watching pirated or other material that was made in contravention of copyright legislation, I have to agree with 419 that simply watching the films/programs is in itself, not in any way illegal.
It's easy to state that it is illegal, but if this is indeed the case, why can't or won't anyone provide a link showing specific laws that are being broken?
"Just stop digging" doesn't mean anything without something to back it up.
It is illegal to manufacture or sell out such material, but simple ownership is not illegal so surely if so eone is convinced that the viewing of this is illegal, it shouldn't be hard for them to show what law is being broken.
It's easy to state that it is illegal, but if this is indeed the case, why can't or won't anyone provide a link showing specific laws that are being broken?
"Just stop digging" doesn't mean anything without something to back it up.
It is illegal to manufacture or sell out such material, but simple ownership is not illegal so surely if so eone is convinced that the viewing of this is illegal, it shouldn't be hard for them to show what law is being broken.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that simply watching the films/programs is in itself, not in any way illegal.
There is no such thing as "just viewing" ... if you are viewing, you are downloading !
I suspect you will also find that the whole idea behind more recent national legislation and EU directives such as Directive 2001/29 from above is to spell this whole nonsense out to people like yourself who think they can do what they like because they are "just viewing".
Infact if we look at 5(2)(b) from 2001/29 which the ruling above told us "must be interpreted as not covering the case of private copies made from an unlawful source" :
in respect of reproductions on any medium made by a
natural person for private use and for ends that are neither
directly nor indirectly commercial, on condition that the
rightholders receive fair compensation which takes account
of the application or non-application of technological
measures referred to in Article 6 to the work or subject matter concerned.
natural person for private use and for ends that are neither
directly nor indirectly commercial, on condition that the
rightholders receive fair compensation which takes account
of the application or non-application of technological
measures referred to in Article 6 to the work or subject matter concerned.
direct or indirect, temporary or permanent reproduction by any means and in any form
Finally, just show some damn respect for the content rightsholders and their right to earn a living. Therefore view your content through authorised sources because as the ruling above says, you are merely "encourage the circulation of counterfeited or pirated works, thus inevitably reducing the volume of sales or of other lawful transactions relating to the protected works, with the result that a normal exploitation of those works would be adversely affected."
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strange then that some EU governments totally disagree with your opinion mixture (and that is all you have posted, opinions with no links to actual legislation showing that viewing streamed content is illegal.)
Viewing Pirated Streams is Not Illegal, German Government Says » infojustice
Prosecutors examine legality of online streaming - Radio Sweden | Sveriges Radio
So I will ask again.
Can you please link to this legislation showing that viewing copyrighted material from an unauthorised source is illegal.
It is the legal aspect I'm interested in, not the moral one.
With the controversy storming on the question was posed to the German Government and the Ministry of Justice has just delivered its opinion. The Ministry concludes that the mere viewing of a copyrighted stream without permission is not in itself an act of copyright infringement.
"The simple answer is to stream out is illegal but receiving the streaming video is likely legal," district prosecutor Hakan Rasmusson told Swedish Radio News.
I suspect you will also find that the whole idea behind more recent national legislation and EU directives such as Directive 2001/29 from above is to spell this whole nonsense out to people like yourself who think they can do what they like because they are "just viewing".
Can you please link to this legislation showing that viewing copyrighted material from an unauthorised source is illegal.
It is the legal aspect I'm interested in, not the moral one.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
419,
I'm not going to waste further time on your cause. Its readily apparent you've decided your interpretation is the only interpretation you'll accept despite the presence of hard facts to the contrary.
The two links you published refer to two journalist articles published prior to (amongst other things), the EU Judgement I referred to above dated 10 April 2014 .
Seeing as case law (amongst other things) trumps what some journalist writes on their website, my point still stands.
As mad_jock said :
The only thing I would add to that is that the goal of the EU directives and rulings is to harmonise things EU-Wide, thus your friends in Germany and Sweden will no doubt soon be making amendments to their interpretation (if they have not done so already).
I'm not going to waste further time on your cause. Its readily apparent you've decided your interpretation is the only interpretation you'll accept despite the presence of hard facts to the contrary.
The two links you published refer to two journalist articles published prior to (amongst other things), the EU Judgement I referred to above dated 10 April 2014 .
Seeing as case law (amongst other things) trumps what some journalist writes on their website, my point still stands.
As mad_jock said :
In the UK it is as mixture says. Other country's you might be legal.
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
This thread is going nowhere, with barrack-room lawyers going round in circles.
If you want a legal opinion, consult a lawyer qualified to offer one.
SD
If you want a legal opinion, consult a lawyer qualified to offer one.
SD
