Distinction between legal and illegal downloads?

[CaptainPanic]

Today, downloading from an illegal source is illegal in the Netherlands. Up until today, downloading of material was tolerated, and was compensated to the producers (musicians, studios, etc) through a tax. The EU overruled this, and that created the current situation. Let's not discuss this change, and just accept it as a fact.

 

For me, and all other people living in the Netherlands with internet acces (that's nearly everybody), this is a huge change. Starting today, I can break the law by clicking on the wrong thing. Now, obviously, like in every other country where it already was illegal, it is nearly impossible for the government to catch and punish people violating the law. I don't want to learn how to avoid being caught. I want to be a good citizen, and not break the law.

 

The main question of the thread: What is a fool-proof distinction between legal and illegal content?

 

The obviously legal content:

Youtube, popular paid video streaming/downloading sites (netflix, itunes, etc).

 

The obviously illegal content:

Blockbusters which currently play in the cinema. Live streams of big sports events. Downloading these without payment is obviously illegal.

 

Some examples of the grey area in between:

- Short videos of sports (goal of the week, dunk of the day, hole in one by so-and-so) are sometimes legal, but sometimes these videos disappear as they become popular, which means they were only online because the owner of these rights hadn't found it yet.

- BBC documentaries: some are for sale on DVD (downloading probably illegal), and some are on youtube (downloading probably legal).

- Illegal youtube content. Sometimes videos disappear from youtube because they were illegal. But I can watch them until they are removed, but that violates the law, I think.

- Websites exist similar to Netflix which offer a big database of contents, and paid users get better access. Some are really dodgy though... But as the market for such things grows, how do I know if a newcomer is honest and legal, or illegal?

 

And please, let's not debunk every example I give (I know some may be wrong). I want to know a fool-proof method to make the distinction myself... A huge list of individual examples is not a workable situation for me.

 

Many of the SFN members live in countries where it has been illegal to download illegal content for a lot longer... How do you deal with this? I don't want to break the law, but I am confused what the law says... And I do not want to "be better safe than sorry", because that restricts me too much online

[swansont]

The obviously legal content:

Youtube, popular paid video streaming/downloading sites (netflix, itunes, etc).

I wouldn't say youtube is obviously legal content, because it is easy to upload material illegally to the site.

[Fuzzwood]

Or you could simply ignore it. The Dutch government failed to address and deal with uploaders for decades, now they are trying to minimize the number of downloaders. I wish them luck.

[CaptainPanic]

I wouldn't say youtube is obviously legal content, because it is easy to upload material illegally to the site.

 

Exactly. And our law now says that if I watch that illegal content, I break the law. So, how the hell do I know if I am about to break the law? That is the question.

 

(Again, let's not discuss the individual examples, because that will go on indefinitely, and we would avoid the actual question).

 

Please people, stick to the topic. I clearly outlined my actual question.

[alkis3]

Oh my God,these people still talk about freedom?

I am in Russia can download anything from anywhere and any number of times

if I wanted to,I can now download film " Captain America" or "Noah " and would have nothing for

now on my computer are the latest games and movies that came out at the moment

[CaptainPanic]

Great. So far, nobody actually answered the question which I conveniently put in bold.

 

Can we please get on topic? This is a very practical question.

 

swansont, as I said before in the OP, I do not want to discuss individual examples.

Fuzzwood, as I said before in the OP, I do not want to break the law (or find a way to avoid being caught).

alkis3, although not explicitely excluded, the situation in Russia is not relevant, because as you say there is no distinction between legal and illegal content.

[alkis3]

I now look what games you can download

 

Links deleted by mod

 

and many others

and it is absolutely free

 

and these people do something else talk about freedom...you live in fear..

Edited April 10, 2014 by imatfaal
removal of links

[studiot]

imatfaal is the guy to elaborate on what I will now say but the UK is an occasional member of the EU as well. However the Uk law stems from vastly different roots than the Napoleonic code.

 

In particular we have different civil and criminal codes.

To be against the criminal code an act must not only be performed it must be perfomed with the intention to commit a criminal act, or soemtimes in criminal negligance.

 

I do not think that inadvertantly clicking on something without realising a criminal content could be construed as criminal intent.

 

I look forward to inmatfaal's comments.

Edited April 10, 2014 by studiot

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Alkis3

1. Do not include links like that in posts - especially when they are clearly illicit.

 

2. Stick to the topic or posts will be moved to the trash

 

do not respond to this moderation

 

 

[imatfaal]

As a member as I had already typed the below

 

Just a clarification Captain - I do not think it will be a criminal offence it will be an action that leaves you open to being sued for some form of intellectual property infringement. Not quite the same thing. I am trying to trace the Dutch Law to check - but the comments of the Ministry of Justice make me think it will be civil not criminal. Re the mental element (aka mens rea) I would have to have a really long look at a good translation of the law in question.

[Danijel Gorupec]

...I want to be a good citizen, and not break the law.

 

But even if you accidentally download some unwanted material, you are still a good citizen. You are a victim... Don't you feel so? Anyone accusing you will have the burden of proof that you are not a victim, that is how I see it.

[CaptainPanic]

As a member as I had already typed the below

 

Just a clarification Captain - I do not think it will be a criminal offence it will be an action that leaves you open to being sued for some form of intellectual property infringement. Not quite the same thing. I am trying to trace the Dutch Law to check - but the comments of the Ministry of Justice make me think it will be civil not criminal. Re the mental element (aka mens rea) I would have to have a really long look at a good translation of the law in question.

 

This is true. It would be a civil case... At least, the newspaper say that the government will not hunt for downloaders. But as in many other countries, there are well-organized institutions that have the sole purpose to hunt for people breaking the law. (As of yet, they claim to only hunt for the providers of illegal content: the download sites).

 

Still, none of that changes the fact that I may sometimes break the law, without knowing it. And I am trying to find out if there is any way at all to know this before. But seeing how everyone avoids the actual question, there may not be one.

 

 

But even if you accidentally download some unwanted material, you are still a good citizen. You are a victim... Don't you feel so? Anyone accusing you will have the burden of proof that you are not a victim, that is how I see it.

 

Yes, I see your point. But that just means that there may be a way out if someone sues me. I want to avoid being sued in the first place.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

The OP was pretty clear what question was being asked - lets try and stick to it (I am as guilty as anyone of missing the target)

 

The main question of the thread: What is a fool-proof distinction between legal and illegal content?

 

 

[swansont]

That it's easy to mistake youtube as being 100% legitimate shows that it's well-nigh impossible to know what is 100% legit.

 

There was an anti-piracy site recently that got some bad press because it turns out they (wait for it) stole the picture they were using on their site. People upload pictures to this site that are probably copyright protected and used without permission. Just because the image comes up on a Google search without a copyright notification doesn't mean the image is in the public domain.

 

To be sure, you have to have a sort of chain of custody for the copyrighted material all the way back to the source, with permission to use it. Since you can't do that in any practical fashion, there are no guarantees.

[Danijel Gorupec]

Yes, I see your point. But that just means that there may be a way out if someone sues me. I want to avoid being sued in the first place.

 

To answer you question first: there is no fool-proof way to make the distinction. (but you don't even need know the way to make the fool-proof distinction - because all you have to do is to make sure that nobody else can prove that you didn't act in a good faith)

 

You cannot avoid being sued! This is one of the most common things in a democracy. However you can ask the court to compensate for your time/pain if it is found that you are not guilty.

[studiot]

 

there is no fool-proof way to make the distinction.

 

Agreed.

 

But there is much more to this since even after a law is passed it and its effects are not certain until substantial case law has been established.

There is always room for another side to argue a case and sometimes they prevail.

 

What for instance if you click on a link, that has been maliciously altered, believing it to be one thing, only to find you have downloaded soemthing entirely different?

 

In the UK I know of no cases where someone has inadvertantly clicked on a single link and downloaded one thing and gone no further.

 

Al the reported cases are about individuals who have systematically downloaded large numbers of files and then proceeded to sell them for profit.

 

But there are still caveats.

 

It has also been held that if you are in an East London pub one dark night and some stranger offers you a £2000 Rolex watch for £20 you should be suspicious.

Edited April 10, 2014 by studiot

[Sensei]

 

Exactly. And our law now says that if I watch that illegal content, I break the law. So, how the hell do I know if I am about to break the law? That is the question.

 

It's pretext to introduce Internet censorship. Government will tell you which websites are 'right' and which are 'wrong'.

 

As a result all people will have to encode all their traffic and use services such as Tor to hide everything what they do on the net.

 

You can show what you think about such politics in the next elections.

[CaptainPanic]

 

It's pretext to introduce Internet censorship. Government will tell you which websites are 'right' and which are 'wrong'.

 

As a result all people will have to encode all their traffic and use services such as Tor to hide everything what they do on the net.

 

You can show what you think about such politics in the next elections.

 

I disagree with your comment.

 

Last week, the EU ruled in favor of net neutrality, which means all traffic on the internet is treated equally. The Netherlands has had such net neutrality for a while already. Also, with the new rules in the Netherlands, the government said it is up the copyrights holders to get violators to court. The government will take a passive role, and will not close anything. In fact, the Pirate bay (which is a torrent search engine, I believe) was closed for a while, after a lawsuit was won by one of the copyrights holders (i.e. music and film industry), but was recently opened again after the court ruled differently in a second court case.

 

Also, one of the two parties in the government coalition is against the current developments, and want to reverse it, and make downloading legal again. I can only find a reference for that in Dutch though.

[swansont]

I think some of these laws are a result of the top levels of elected government not understanding modern technology (the internet is a series of tubes!) or how it's being used, so they don't understand the ramifications of the laws that are proposed.

[Roamer]

Or you could simply ignore it. The Dutch government failed to address and deal with uploaders for decades, now they are trying to minimize the number of downloaders. I wish them luck.

 

The Dutch government has taxed hardware needed for copying and put that into a funds for artists for a while now,

a win-win situation in my opinion, but now the EU is interfering, and our old policy is deemed "illegal" by some even though the EU is not legal according to our laws.

[Roamer]

Sorry for my previous off-topic post.

 

The main question of the thread: What is a fool-proof distinction between legal and illegal content?

 

You can block all images and videos from the internet, you 'll only read (legal) texts and will miss on all the legal videos and pictures as well though.

(theoretically you could still illegally read a copyrighted book, but i believe(?) that is only illegal when using the whole book, so get suspicious after a few pages)

[fiveworlds]

Allow me to provide an example.

Many people who "illegally download" have little to no money. It is about 90% of what they do with their time. The better question would be why governments aren't providing for them. If these people have nothing to do what else would they do other than fight you? Also with respect to older movie content many of the original copies are now only exclusively available as an illegal copy. There is no other copy because the originals have been destroyed. I know we should pay them all as critics because they are doing the work for nothing.

Edited August 6, 2014 by fiveworlds

[Sensei]

 

The Dutch government has taxed hardware needed for copying and put that into a funds for artists for a while now,

a win-win situation in my opinion,

 

Nonsensical, completely irrational, and IMHO illegal tax.

Against the main rule of justice: "there is no crime, if there is no victims" (which is violated in just modern centuries XX-XXI on mass scale).

Even worse: paid before any hypothetical violation really had place.

 

Like you would have tax for cars, added to its price in the shop, just in case it'll be used in accident and perhaps blindside pedestrian...

 

ps. We have such here also..

 

List of countries, and tax amount (not complete AFAICS)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy

 

tax 36 euros for digital video recorder?!

tax 18 euros for hard disk?!

[fiveworlds]

The Dutch government has taxed hardware needed for copying and put that into a funds for artists for a while now.

 

Hell no. Which artists are they going to. I have a website contract for a girl who is an amazing singer and she never gets a penny it would only ever be already established artist who get anything at all. Buskers would get nothing only people with rich daddy. All they did is make it more expensive for buskers to promote themselves to force them into recording contracts where they get feck all. Most of the time here the people who complain are corporations like Sony. All they want is to be the only people who are able to afford to record. They dont care about small businesses. Edited August 7, 2014 by fiveworlds

[CaptainPanic]

I am guessing that those who heavily oppose the 'tax on hardware' as explained above are Americans? It's funny that this tax was quite popular in the Netherlands. You pay tax. Artists got money. And we got to download everything we wanted. It was a bargain, and I would still pay the tax if it doubled or tripled.

 

Like you would have tax for cars, added to its price in the shop, just in case it'll be used in accident and perhaps blindside pedestrian...

 

That is your car insurance, and it is a mandatory expense (you're not allowed to drive your car on the Dutch road without an insurance). If the insurance was government owned, you could call it a tax. As it happens, it's a corporation. But you still pay. And it is a very good idea.