The Movie Thread

[STEED]

Hitchcock for me this Saturday..

Strangers on a Train and North by North West. Nothing on TV so its going to be classic film night.

[MCM]

@Nippelspanner:
OMG these are very old movies. But there is always someone playing the sheriff right? In germany we also say "Spießer" or "Spielverderber"!

Originally Posted by MCM

@Nippelspanner:
OMG these are very old movies. But there is always someone playing the sheriff right? In germany we also say "Spießer" or "Spielverderber"!

@MCM
OMG there are still companies holding the COPYRIGHTS(!) to these movies. But there's always someone playing the "I'm above the law" card, right?
Sure you don't care - after all this page, and ultimately what happens here - falls into Neal's responsibility.

I don't think most people here are aware of the possible severity of this infringement. If you want to see movies illegally, there are platforms for it, go enjoy. But on Subsim?
Let's ask Neal when the first letters from lawyers chime in.

Kinda sad that I gotta remind a moderator about the rules he is meant to uphold, but no one did so far:

What is Subsim.com's stance in relation to torrents, warez, and piracy? SUBSIM Review has a longstanding policy against software piracy. We do NOT allow discussion or even mention of game piracy, warez, peer-to-peer game swapping, game cracks, illegal download sites, or illegal file-sharing. Nothing will get you banned faster than pointing people to illegal software distribution sites. Don't ask for serial numbers, manuals, or cracks. Any admission that you have in your possession illegal software can and usually will result in revocation of your Radio Room forum account and permanent ban. We do not care what you do on your computer in your home, but do not discuss it here.Support computer game programmers buy legally purchasing their work. They have to eat too, you know.
Discussion of torrents is also not allowed on this site. Please don't post links to torrents in our forum

So before some really not-smart person comes along and smarts-off about "muh tis no download, no torrent, iz fine!" I would like to hear how it is - legally - different from browsing/using/linking to file sharing pages, streaming portals or torrent sites?
The data lands on your system one way or another, and in the end you share, by providing links.
No one will care about you, or Jane Doe streaming some link - but the holder of this site is in for a huge amount of dung if the wrong person finds this thread. What's your stance on that, MCM?

Und ich weiß was man in Deutschland sagt.

[ValoWay]

but all those videos are youtube links, are you calling google a criminal organisation?

Originally Posted by ValoWay

but all those videos are youtube links

If I upload a movie, no matter which one, is that suddenly legal because I uploaded it on YT instead of [insertwhateverstreamingsitehere]?


So, since common sense obviously is not present at the moment, maybe this rings a bell:

YouTube's spokesperson ignored my actual questions, and instead told me that:

We prohibit users from uploading infringing material, and we cooperate with all copyright holders to identify and promptly remove infringing content as soon as we are officially notified.
As a company that respects the rights of copyright holders, we expect to continue to take the lead in providing state of the art DMCA tools and processes for all copyright holders.

https://www.cnet.com/news/legal-liab...utube-viewers/

[ValoWay]

You're brining up a nine your old article full of speculation.. You also seem to think that we are personally uploading those videos to youtube.. It is like you said indeed UT's job to get rid off such videos if a copyright holder files a complaint.. However, merely watching it or embedding it here doesn't make anyone here liable as long as we're not financially benefiting from it:

In large part, linking and framing are not held to be copyright infringement under US and German copyright law, even though the underlying Web pages (youtube) are protected under copyright law..

The European Court of Justice's binding ruling in 2014 was that embedding (posting a link on subsim) a work could not be a violation of copyright:

The embedding in a website of a protected work which is publicly accessible on another website (youtube) by means of a link using the framing technology … does not by itself constitute communication to the public within the meaning of [the EU Copyright directive] to the extent that the relevant work is neither communicated to a new public nor by using a specific technical means different from that used for the original communication

In September 2016, the European Court of Justice ruled that knowingly linking to an unauthorized posting of a copyrighted work for commercial gain constituted infringement of the exclusive right to communicate the work to the public

sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyri...ation_in_field

In Europe, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled that it is legal to create temporary or cached copies of works (copyrighted or otherwise) online.[1][2] The ruling relates to the British Meltwater case settled on 5 June 2014.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyri...y_by_nation.29

The cnet article keeps playing the '750$ boogeyman fee card' but never actually mentions any official sources which would support such a allegedly 'well-established' form of punishment which routinely condemns average citizens for being 'noobs' on the internet.. Instead, it keeps going on and on about what could or might happen 'when' which makes me wonder who Mr. Soghoian's 'bread givers' actually are..

more links:
http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/09...-online-bomba/ (2016)
http://uproxx.com/technology/good-ne...-infringement/ (2012)

> links to a torrent page where you can download a movie = banned.
> links to the movie directly on some video streaming portal = it's fine... because it is different while it isn't.

(Of course, the true reason is the admin-team not understanding the issue, but hey - I'm not the one happily posting links to copyrighted material, why do I care? Boo me!)

[ValoWay]

Nip, there is a difference in actually downloading a video onto your own hard drive and watching it within seconds on the internet.

The difference is there to protect you or your grandma' from going to jail, cause stumbling over a video on the internet happens all the time without the users' agreement..

If this would send you to a video whch immediately starts to play, well, according to your logic you're guilty now..

Originally Posted by ValoWay

Nip, there is a difference in actually downloading a video onto your own hard drive and watching it within seconds on the internet.

Except there absolutely is not.
Streaming = downloading.

[Dowly]

While the risk to Neal is extremely small, knowingly sharing infringing material and allowing it to stay on the site *might* fall under contributory infringement, but again the risk to Neal is extremely small. It simply is bad practice, imho.

What I find most peculiar is why is this allowed now? The rules on piracy have always been strict here, so why make an exception on this extremely murky matter? That the movie is on YouTube isn't a defense, as it shouldn't be there in the first place.

Boggles the mind.

[ValoWay]

LOAD “*”,8,1. lol, always pay for music, never illegally download

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by ValoWay

lol, always pay for music, never illegally download

What you do in the privacy of your home is irrelevant.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Dowly

What you do in the privacy of your home is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Dowly

Boggles the mind.

INDEED...

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

INDEED...

What's that supposed to mean?

PS. You left your CAPS LOCK on.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Dowly

What's that supposed to mean?

Thinking in *Adult mode* family friendly forum and all that....does more than simply boggling the mind.