BlackAdder

Alternate thread here:

http://sgcafe.com/current-affairs/63487-pirate-bay-has-been-bought.html#post5679419

~

Had to post this because.... well, it's interesting.

http://kotaku.com/5308386/my-pirate-my-friend

http://kotaku.com/5304376/the-pirate-bay-purchased

http://kotaku.com/5285729/ea-re+thin...r-gaming-money

Now this is interesting. Of course, this is on the games side of things, but it would be interesting it this could translate to TV shows, and, of course, anime.

Then again, the business model is somewhat different: we're talking about a huge market well-rooted in the West as opposed to a somewhat niche market from the East (and yes, anime is somewhat niche. I gauge that more people play EA sports than watch Gundam or even Naruto)

__________________

Duraham

well, eventually the main idea would be this:

people buy a copy of the game.

future patches or expansions can be torrented "legally"

game demos (or heck, stupid games like those movie tie-ins) can be offered for free via torrent

English Nazi

Torrenting in itself was never illegal.

JungleJim

I think you are some how wrong there.
Torrenting is never wrong, but the content itself makes it illegal.

If you are torrenting freeware/shareware or even your own personal stuff created by you, etc... it is legal.

But nowadays most content (*licensed softwares/games, movies, animes, drama, etc...*) distributed by torrent are illegal.

English Nazi

Your post proves my point completely. Torrenting in itself is not an illegal act; it is the content that is being torrented that determines whether the act is illegal. A poor analogy would be that smoking itself is not an illegal act, except when one is smoking in an area that is designated as non-smoking by law.

Turning the argument on another viewpoint, consider a FTP transfer. If the content being transferred is freeware, there is nothing wrong with that act. However, if you are transferring pirated content, then the act would be illegal. Does this mean that FTP transfers are illegal? This could be applied to other protocols as well. Eventually, by your logic, connecting to the Internet would be illegal. Because illegal content can be downloaded from the Internet.

LTAnanoha

wwww

JungleJim

Yes by right it could have mean surfing the internet is illegal haha

According to the IPOS copyrights law they posted on their website, it is ok to own a transient copy of any electronic material via network(internet) When you surf the web, you will get some images, swf, webpages, etc... from some website downloaded onto your computer so those will not infringe any copyrights. So connecting to the internet and surfing the web is not illegal.

"User caching
193E.Copyright in any material is not infringed by the making of a transient and incidental electronic copy of the material from an electronic copy of the material made available on a network, if the making of the first-mentioned copy is required for the viewing, listening or utilisation of the material by a user of this or another network."

You can see more information of copyrights and many other legal stuff from http://www.ipos.gov.sg/topNav/leg/
I took the above from Copyright Act, Pg 181 if you need reference.

Ah forgot to say, if you actually save any files, images, etc.... not own by you and you did not get the owner's (*the person who creates/owns the images, files, etc.... not the person who host the images, files, etc...*) permission, you have infringe the copyrights already Surfing web is ok but saving files from a website is not unless the owner of the sites gave permission for you to do that. I guess not many people cares anyway since the chance of getting caught when you save anything from a website is not high anyway haha.

Kyururu

What if my browser happens to not being able to load a website, and I use a download accelerator to download the webpages along with the images into my hdd, does that infringe copyright?

It's still considered 1st copy since my browser did not cache anything from the website and my purpose is still for viewing, listening or utilisation.

JungleJim

"transient and incidental electronic copy of the material from an electronic copy of the material"

When you use a download accelerator to download the website, I don't think it's classify as an "incidental" thing, as for surfing the web, not all images on the website you surf will go into your cache and during caching, older images and webpages that you don't visit for some time will automatically get cache out of your computer, so I guess your explaination above doesn't meet the "incidental" condition and when you download you can actually keep as long as you like unlike the caching when surfing the web.

Kyururu

But what if my intention was to just download the webpage and download accelerator automatically download the images from the webpage? Doesn't it still consider incidental?

Actually surfing with browser is also the same thing. If you're aware of the images that were cached into the temporary internet files folder, you can just move those images out to another folder. By moving the files instead of copying it doesn't it still considered the 1st copy?

JungleJim

Keyword is call "User caching" and the term caching means it's temporary stored on your computer, when you download and put it onto your computer, it's no longer called caching, it's called downloading, if you download without permission from the owner to the material, you infringe their copyrights
Moving your so call 1st copy of the material is the same, because the thing is not cache instead it's moved for permanent keeping, that's no longer caching.

I think we should stop this pointless talking. Just think what you like and do what you like. If you feel you are right, then you are right. Just how people/police/judge look at you when you are caught for things you think you are right that's all.

Kyururu

Trying to look for a loophole in this. I still think it's debatable though lol.

Just in case next time if get caught at least I still got a case to fight.