http://www.computerandvideogames.com/ar ... ?id=231953

If only we'd give some violent offenders 12 months, eh?

ELSPA, now there's an organisation I despise.

Copyright? Intellectual Property? Crime Unit?

Copyright infringement is NOT A F**KING CRIME, ELSPA bastards trying to demonise downloading, just lower the price of stuff.

I've been an inveterate downloader for years and have just recently started buying MP3s and DVDs because they're so cheap it's easier and quicker than waiting days for stuff on bittorrent. Mind you Sony, BMG and Adobe can get f**ked until they drop prices and produce decent music/films/software.

Incidentally an R4 card allows the playing of "copyright infringing" (but not illegal) downloaded Nintendo DS games.

I don't know where you get your definition of illegal from, but anything that infringes copyright is against the law.



Jus' sayin'.

For the time being … British Journal of Photography link

Mark

I'm rather hoping we don't end up going with the US model.

Apparently, to claim copyright on your work in the US you have to register it with the government. Imagine having to register every single piece of original art, writing, photograph, music before you can legally claim it's yours.

Here, at the moment, you are gifted copyright as the creator.

Wow. How long does it take to register a single image (for example) and be awarded the copyright for it, do you know?

Mark

I don't, actually. I have heard it discussed many times on various US-based photography podcasts I listen to. I understand the system is about to become electronic, so you can imagine how long it must take when you have to submit a paper form and copy of your images to the relevant office.

For those interested...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Copyright_Office
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_copyright_law

I don't quite know how far the "global" default copyright extends to US law, but it seems if you want to enforce your rights over anything in the US of A, it has to be registered to have the force of law.

My understanding is that copyright is a civil not criminal law hence the distinction "copyright law", it only becomes criminal and therefore illegal if it's done on a large scale and/or for profit.

Use of the terms "illegal downloading" and "vioaltion" (rape) are attempts to demonise a practice that whilst (arguably) morally wrong is not strictly speaking criminal.

Illegal is illegal, only difference between criminal/civil law will be who takes you to court and the punishment. I think over 26,000 units for the purposes of playing material you do not own copyright or rights to is a large scale and for profit. Same for the hosting sites of these materials.

Civil matter you would be taken to the cleaners by the copyright owner... Nintendo have a lot more money than you and will probably win.

Criminal matter the CPS take you to jail. Simples.

It's not arguably morally wrong. It is wrong, it is gaining profit by dishonest methods and is as bad as fraud or theft. It's not a victimless crime by any means and the criminals then make it worse for the real customers and the companies selling the service.

Just sell the R4/R4i as a backup system/file holder for MP3, photo's movies etc.... (I've proobably over looked something as it appears to simple )

It's only the firmware allowing it to convert the ROMs.

The incident in point (especially as reported) was not criminal because R4's are legal, so the guy must have been convicted of something illegal like tax evasion, not copyright infringement because that's civil and doesn't result in a criminal record (yet), although it could lead to a criminal prosecution.

Copyright infringement is not a black and white area, so yes it is arguable, the recent Oink case has proved that, ask 50 Cent or Billy Brag, they see it as good marketing and promotion. It's part and parcel of the industry now, in some cases I'll pay for music if the money goes directly to the artist/producer but if it goes to record companies/film studios that really are immoral and criminal I'm happy for them to be the victims (especially as I'm not doing it on a large scale or to make a profit). Make no mistake, these companies are intrinsically dishonest I know this from personal experience as a result of an ongoing wrangle over publishing rights to my own material. If their business practices were the same as the small labels I subscribe to and buy material from then I wouldn't do it. They are the playground bullies, and they don't like being punched back so f**k them.

Alright smart arse.

Fact sheet P-01: UK Copyright Law
http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyr ... yright_law