Login Issue? Delete D-addicts cookie from your browser settings and login again.

J network service

Talk about the culture and entertainment from Nihon.
Post Reply
scybak
Posts: 1
Joined: May 17th, '09, 00:55

J network service

Post by scybak » May 17th, '09, 00:58

I use Jnet to watch japanese tv. However sometime this week, the site stopped working. Does anyone know why or know when it will be back up?

den4
Posts: 13
Joined: Jan 29th, '04, 07:33

Post by den4 » May 17th, '09, 20:44

LOL
I've been wondering the same thing....there's been no info and no access to the links....maybe they've been forced into the twilight zone....
strange....
I guess it's time to find another service?
Looks like they went down exactly a week ago....

User avatar
Ladymercury
Posts: 575
Joined: Mar 27th, '05, 06:04

Post by Ladymercury » May 20th, '09, 20:15

J Network Services is now dead because I got my refund for the services I paid for this month so I am going to safely say that they went bye bye.

User avatar
crocus
Posts: 222
Joined: Jul 17th, '08, 05:41
Location: Europe

Post by crocus » May 20th, '09, 21:59

i also already received my refund. no more j network service. :(

furansudoraemon
Posts: 9
Joined: Jul 11th, '06, 19:29
Location: France, Paris

Post by furansudoraemon » May 29th, '09, 14:47

on news on NHK site, it is said that the boss of jnetwork has been arrested...

User avatar
reverend
Posts: 86
Joined: Mar 15th, '04, 23:14
Location: London

Post by reverend » May 29th, '09, 14:58

furansudoraemon wrote:on news on NHK site, it is said that the boss of jnetwork has been arrested...
Can you provide a link please?

furansudoraemon
Posts: 9
Joined: Jul 11th, '06, 19:29
Location: France, Paris

Post by furansudoraemon » May 29th, '09, 15:25

I don't find it - I have seen this morning with my (japanese) wife on net. I think i have seen also yahoo news in japanese.

User avatar
yokey
Posts: 1
Joined: May 4th, '07, 22:36
Location: usa

j net work.

Post by yokey » May 29th, '09, 15:40

http://news.goo.ne.jp/article/sankei/na ... 29075.html (Japanese)

Is this?Its says "jei network"...
anyway,it was not so good news for the people who wants wacth japanese TV shows from oversea like me....sucks :-(

User avatar
Ladymercury
Posts: 575
Joined: Mar 27th, '05, 06:04

Post by Ladymercury » May 29th, '09, 16:14

Translation I did, I didn't bother with the part about servers (just that they have servers sitting in Osaka's Neyagawa and Chiba's Ichihara):

Intended for Japanese living abroad, the Police High Tech Criminal Counter Measure Center charged " J Network Service International " President (I'm bad with Japanese names, can't read this one) from Hiroshima Prefecture, Kumamoto and Nakakawa Haruka from Chiba Prefecture, Ichihara City with breaking Japanese copyright law by broadcasting domesticated Japanese programming without permission on May 29th.

The company charged " A basic rate of 5000 yen a month, with the option of download programs ". With nearly 5,000 subscribers, they made at least 20,000,000 yen a month.

According to the arrest charges, two were illegally broadcasting the FujiTV News Show, " Gokigen yo! " on February 18th and the 19th.

User avatar
toyotaku
Posts: 506
Joined: Nov 22nd, '05, 03:25
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by toyotaku » May 29th, '09, 17:19

Article in English from the Mainichi Daily News online...

J Network Service operator arrested for distributing Japanese TV shows abroad

User avatar
reverend
Posts: 86
Joined: Mar 15th, '04, 23:14
Location: London

Post by reverend » May 29th, '09, 17:27

Fascinating.

So it seems the law is a bit sketchy on the legality of rebroadcasting japanese tv over the internet, and as with much technology related law, will be defined by verdict in court. If he is found guilty, expect all the other pay tv services to disappear

User avatar
Ladymercury
Posts: 575
Joined: Mar 27th, '05, 06:04

Post by Ladymercury » May 29th, '09, 19:08

I don't think the law is sketchy at all. As in American law, it is illegal to rebroadcast television stations because you do not have the legal right or licensing authority to rebroadcast their shows. All stream services are illegal as they don't have the licensing authority. So basically J-Net broadcast the WBC without the licensing authority of the WBC Committee, which broadcast companies had to bid just to get the right to broadcast it from the WBC.

Anyway, it is illegal in one way because they had no permission to do it. But then again I'm basing my opinion off of the American legal system. God knows how the Japanese system works.

From the service, it was backed up by all those companies and came off as legal that I had thought they had worked out deals with the company to do it. But apparently they didn't and it was just a, in a way, scam.

User avatar
toyotaku
Posts: 506
Joined: Nov 22nd, '05, 03:25
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by toyotaku » May 29th, '09, 19:35

Ladymercury wrote:From the service, it was backed up by all those companies and came off as legal that I had thought they had worked out deals with the company to do it. But apparently they didn't and it was just a, in a way, scam.
Maybe it's my own naivete, but I think it's still pretty amazing that they refunded your month's fee. I realize it's to their benefit to show good intent to the court in the future trial by doing so, but there have been too many situations like this where users wouldn't have gotten unused fees back.

User avatar
Ladymercury
Posts: 575
Joined: Mar 27th, '05, 06:04

Post by Ladymercury » May 29th, '09, 19:38

You know, I am shocked too that I got my refund because I honestly thought they high-tailed it out there with all of our money.

But, yeah, I think they did it out of good faith to get the courts to realize their claim of the money only going to maintenance costs.

User avatar
reverend
Posts: 86
Joined: Mar 15th, '04, 23:14
Location: London

Post by reverend » May 29th, '09, 20:31

Ladymercury wrote:I don't think the law is sketchy at all. As in American law, it is illegal to rebroadcast television stations because you do not have the legal right or licensing authority to rebroadcast their shows.
I think that is what it will boil down to. I remember when I was a customer of watchjapanesetv.com they claimed that they were legal because the Japanese TV license entitled Japanese nationals to receive Japanese TV. Pretty flimsy when set against copyright law I know.

I've noticed that Fuji TV pursue copyright infringements involving their content relentlessly. They are always getting content removed from youtube for instance. A bit of a waste of time in my opinion considering that they have no substantive channel through which to market their content to the English speaking world. They are not exactly losing avertising revenue through their content being on youtube or nico nico.

User avatar
GATX303
Posts: 25
Joined: Dec 20th, '08, 05:48
Location: U.A.E - Abou Dhabi

Post by GATX303 » May 29th, '09, 21:08

Ladymercury wrote:You know, I am shocked too that I got my refund because I honestly thought they high-tailed it out there with all of our money.

But, yeah, I think they did it out of good faith to get the courts to realize their claim of the money only going to maintenance costs.
No Honey, simply because they are Japanese so they did that out of respect.
I don't know why are u people trying to explain and defend the actions of the government instead of trying to support these people. If there's no such service anymore it will be a big hit for the government of Japan because by doing so, they are making Japan, its culture and life style a mystery to the world and this definitely will affect their economy. The gov don't have any idea how much these broadcast helped people get to know Japan. i am one of those people. I used to have this Bruce Lee image about Japan but now I am totally caught in the Japanese Infestation and I love it.

User avatar
kuro570
Posts: 510
Joined: Feb 4th, '08, 23:50
Location: United States

Post by kuro570 » May 29th, '09, 21:21

GATX303 wrote:
Ladymercury wrote:You know, I am shocked too that I got my refund because I honestly thought they high-tailed it out there with all of our money.

But, yeah, I think they did it out of good faith to get the courts to realize their claim of the money only going to maintenance costs.
No Honey, simply because they are Japanese so they did that out of respect.
I don't know why are u people trying to explain and defend the actions of the government instead of trying to support these people. If there's no such service anymore it will be a big hit for the government of Japan because by doing so, they are making Japan, its culture and life style a mystery to the world and this definitely will affect their economy. The gov don't have any idea how much these broadcast helped people get to know Japan. i am one of those people. I used to have this Bruce Lee image about Japan but now I am totally caught in the Japanese Infestation and I love it.

Japanese Infestation? What the hell is that? >.>

User avatar
Ladymercury
Posts: 575
Joined: Mar 27th, '05, 06:04

Post by Ladymercury » May 29th, '09, 21:59

reverend wrote:
Ladymercury wrote:I don't think the law is sketchy at all. As in American law, it is illegal to rebroadcast television stations because you do not have the legal right or licensing authority to rebroadcast their shows.
I think that is what it will boil down to. I remember when I was a customer of watchjapanesetv.com they claimed that they were legal because the Japanese TV license entitled Japanese nationals to receive Japanese TV. Pretty flimsy when set against copyright law I know.
Hahaha, yeah. Basically, that's what JTV did too - Since people in Japan couldn't watch it it wasn't really illegal because it did not hurt their market.

Which I could understand, in one way, but still. XD They have no legal authority to do it.
I've noticed that Fuji TV pursue copyright infringements involving their content relentlessly. They are always getting content removed from youtube for instance. A bit of a waste of time in my opinion considering that they have no substantive channel through which to market their content to the English speaking world. They are not exactly losing avertising revenue through their content being on youtube or nico nico.
FujiTV is a corporation, so they're like -- Well, if no one is gonna pay us to use our shows then we're gonna take them down. That's all it boils down too. If they're losing money on licensing then they're gonna protect their image.

If you want it so bad, pay for it basically their mentality is.
GATX303 wrote:
Ladymercury wrote:You know, I am shocked too that I got my refund because I honestly thought they high-tailed it out there with all of our money.

But, yeah, I think they did it out of good faith to get the courts to realize their claim of the money only going to maintenance costs.
No Honey, simply because they are Japanese so they did that out of respect.
I don't know why are u people trying to explain and defend the actions of the government instead of trying to support these people. If there's no such service anymore it will be a big hit for the government of Japan because by doing so, they are making Japan, its culture and life style a mystery to the world and this definitely will affect their economy. The gov don't have any idea how much these broadcast helped people get to know Japan. i am one of those people. I used to have this Bruce Lee image about Japan but now I am totally caught in the Japanese Infestation and I love it.
So Japanese aren't capable of being scam artists too?

..... What the f***? :scratch:

I don't get the other half of your rant too.

User avatar
groink
Posts: 2016
Joined: Dec 8th, '03, 03:58
Location: Pearl City, Hawaii

Post by groink » May 29th, '09, 22:34

GATX303 wrote:I don't know why are u people trying to explain and defend the actions of the government instead of trying to support these people.
It is because many of us in other countries have our battles to fight with our own governments. And besides, several people DID support the defendant in this case. They gave the guy $50/month for his services. He admitted he knew what he was doing was illegal. Even O.J.'s lawyers can't get him out of jail. It is like admitting fault to a cop in a car collision.

Read up on HOBANKYO. That is the body in Japan that protects broadcast and pay-TV.

--- groink

User avatar
toyotaku
Posts: 506
Joined: Nov 22nd, '05, 03:25
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by toyotaku » May 29th, '09, 22:51

GATX303 wrote:No Honey, simply because they are Japanese so they did that out of respect.
If you truly believe that then you're still seeing Japan from a viewpoint of myth. I don't know what jdramas you've watched, but I've seen plenty of scams and scam artists of one type or another portrayed in all kinds of dramas. It's shown in a lot of films as well. Maybe you need to broaden your viewing to a wider variety. Even better, try balancing it out with some news from Japan. The government itself is constantly being exposed by politicians/political scams. NHK alone has had its share of people taking advantage. Whether historically or present-day, it's always been there... no way no how that every person lives up to behavior set up as an ideal. The two guys arrested in this case are now in need of doing everything they can to protect their defense and refunding money is the best way to do that.
I don't know why are u people trying to explain and defend the actions of the government instead of trying to support these people. If there's no such service anymore it will be a big hit for the government of Japan because by doing so, they are making Japan, its culture and life style a mystery to the world and this definitely will affect their economy.
Add some history reading, too. Japan's long history is one of isolationist attitudes that are still too strong. At any rate, the Japanese broadcasters aren't acting any differently than most other countries. It's not like I get to see programming from Europe or Africa or Australia or anywhere else in Asia. What little UK programming I get to see here in the US is highly selective. I've never seen anything from the UAE. I'd love to, but it's even less accessible to me than jdrama. I really doubt your broadcasters would let someone stream anymore than Japan's do.

EDIT: Off this discussion, Japan Today has posted a brief article about the J Network arrest, too... 2 nabbed for Internet delivery of TV programs to overseas Japanese

User avatar
groink
Posts: 2016
Joined: Dec 8th, '03, 03:58
Location: Pearl City, Hawaii

Post by groink » May 29th, '09, 23:20

Looking through the D-Addicts archives, I found a topic from 2005 where I talk a lot about the legalities behind transmitting video content out of Japan through the Internet:

http://www.d-addicts.com/forum/viewtopic_21028.htm

--- groink

User avatar
reverend
Posts: 86
Joined: Mar 15th, '04, 23:14
Location: London

Post by reverend » May 30th, '09, 07:31

Thanks for the info Groink. I've read this:

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

and also the old thread. If I can keep my daughter occupied with Miffy cartoons I might get through this:

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

Article 30 would seem to make it clear that all of the streaming services running Japanese TV are illegal from the start, even if all their members are Japanese citizens. Fascinating also that the Article 30 of Japanese copyright law seems to make it illegal for a Japanese citizen to run a slingbox at their home to be accessed whilst outside of Japan.

I do agree with some of the comments here(although not as strongly as some of the posters there) though that sometimes, pursuing copyright infringements such as videos posted on youtube is a bit of a waste of resources for the broadcasters. I also feel that the Fair User doctrine should be applied in the case of Japanese nationals (or any nationals for that matter) who pay their TV license or relevant taxes and want to use a slingbox or other device to consume their domestic broadcasts whilst outside of the country.

Fair comment Ladymercury, that as a commercial entitiy, Fuji is more likely to "protect" its assets even if there is little to be gained in doing so. Not all broadcasters follow this line, but most of the commercial ones do I guess. (Sky in the UK for instance are just as enthusiastic about pursuing infringements even if no advertising revenue is being lost)

It still amazes me that NHK, as the national broadcaster, have invested virtually nothing in streaming technology. Compare their streaming offering to that of the BBCs iPlayer. I have heard that the reason for this is not for fear of breaking copyright law but because of objections from regional broadcasters. I haven't been able to substantiate or verify this though. Anyone know more?

User avatar
groink
Posts: 2016
Joined: Dec 8th, '03, 03:58
Location: Pearl City, Hawaii

Post by groink » May 30th, '09, 08:30

Not that I'm supporting the broadcasters, but purely on a legal basis, it is essential that they vigorously attempt to shut down copyright infringement. In the United States, it is required as part of one's copyright agreement with the government. If you receive copyright protection for your work, you've got to enforce it. If you don't, you lose your right to use it in future litigation.

One of my writer friends went through this process, which is why I'm familiar with this. In her situation, universities and colleges were copying her books, and then giving copies away to their students, rather then requiring the students to purchase the books. And we're talking about a wide range - from community colleges to Ivy League schools. She had to sue every single one of them - and she won in every case. I asked her attorney one night, for the sake of saving time and money, why she couldn't just sue the bigger schools, and leave the smaller schools alone. He said that if the courts ever found out that you as the copyright owner knew of infringement at one school, and then let the offender slide, you can in a nutshell lose the copyright protection for the work, which basically means the book would then almost become public domain, seeing you can no longer sue anyone.

This is a part of copyright law that no one ever talks about or understands. Why are the MPAA and RIAA obsessed with suing people? THIS is why - they must under U.S. law. You don't defend your copyrights - you don't deserve to keep them.

--- groink

User avatar
GATX303
Posts: 25
Joined: Dec 20th, '08, 05:48
Location: U.A.E - Abou Dhabi

Post by GATX303 » May 30th, '09, 10:40

kuro570 wrote:Japanese Infestation? What the hell is that? >.>
I call it infestation, not all infestations are negative ^_^ actually it's a positive one. I call it infestation because it spread through my everyday life. And changed my interests dramatically. Since 2002, I don't care anymore for American movies, Series, Music, Life Style (with all do respect to the Americans here on this forum), It all shifted to Japan in 48 hours. Well I think I owe this to my first three anime series: "Saikano", "Kimi ga Nozomu Eien" & "Gundam SEED" and it seems that I cannot go back to what it was before 2002. ^_^ that is the reason I call it the Japanese Infestation.

About the others who commented on my post, I will reply to you as soon as I have time. Because there are some issues that maybe weren't clarified in my post to convey what I really meant.

user3
Posts: 1
Joined: May 30th, '09, 13:04

Post by user3 » May 30th, '09, 13:16

:scratch:
Last edited by user3 on May 31st, '09, 07:04, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
kuro570
Posts: 510
Joined: Feb 4th, '08, 23:50
Location: United States

Post by kuro570 » May 30th, '09, 13:50

GATX303 wrote:
kuro570 wrote:Japanese Infestation? What the hell is that? >.>
I call it infestation, not all infestations are negative ^_^ actually it's a positive one. I call it infestation because it spread through my everyday life. And changed my interests dramatically. Since 2002, I don't care anymore for American movies, Series, Music, Life Style (with all do respect to the Americans here on this forum), It all shifted to Japan in 48 hours. Well I think I owe this to my first three anime series: "Saikano", "Kimi ga Nozomu Eien" & "Gundam SEED" and it seems that I cannot go back to what it was before 2002. ^_^ that is the reason I call it the Japanese Infestation.

About the others who commented on my post, I will reply to you as soon as I have time. Because there are some issues that maybe weren't clarified in my post to convey what I really meant.
I see lol.

User avatar
reverend
Posts: 86
Joined: Mar 15th, '04, 23:14
Location: London

Post by reverend » May 31st, '09, 10:03

groink wrote:... If you receive copyright protection for your work, you've got to enforce it. If you don't, you lose your right to use it in future litigation....
that's a good point

User avatar
GATX303
Posts: 25
Joined: Dec 20th, '08, 05:48
Location: U.A.E - Abou Dhabi

Post by GATX303 » May 31st, '09, 12:24

reverend wrote:
groink wrote:... If you receive copyright protection for your work, you've got to enforce it. If you don't, you lose your right to use it in future litigation....
that's a good point
Yeah Right and that way we won't be able to see any fansubs, especially that Japanese TV shows if made on DVD do not include subtitles and one more thing, from what I understand the people from J-Network are broadcasting shows outside of Japan so what does it have to do with copyrights, if the released DVDs of these shows don't contain english subtitles. :w00t:

User avatar
groink
Posts: 2016
Joined: Dec 8th, '03, 03:58
Location: Pearl City, Hawaii

Post by groink » May 31st, '09, 12:27

GATX303 wrote:
reverend wrote:
groink wrote:... If you receive copyright protection for your work, you've got to enforce it. If you don't, you lose your right to use it in future litigation....
that's a good point
Yeah Right and that way we won't be able to see any fansubs, especially that Japanese TV shows if made on DVD do not include subtitles and one more thing, from what I understand the people from J-Network are broadcasting shows outside of Japan so what does it have to do with copyrights, if the released DVDs of these shows don't contain english subtitles. :w00t:
Two words: Berne Convention

Japan and the United States are both members.

--- groink

User avatar
GATX303
Posts: 25
Joined: Dec 20th, '08, 05:48
Location: U.A.E - Abou Dhabi

Post by GATX303 » May 31st, '09, 13:14

groink wrote:
GATX303 wrote:
reverend wrote:
that's a good point
Yeah Right and that way we won't be able to see any fansubs, especially that Japanese TV shows if made on DVD do not include subtitles and one more thing, from what I understand the people from J-Network are broadcasting shows outside of Japan so what does it have to do with copyrights, if the released DVDs of these shows don't contain english subtitles. :w00t:
Two words: Berne Convention

Japan and the United States are both members.

--- groink
I don't care about conventions, it isn't like something sent by GOD. The world is filled with disasters and the UN is not able to bring justice even to the smallest of problems nowadays. I believe in the freedom of information and because of these Anime series and J-doramas broadcasts more people are visiting Japan and get to know its culture even buy many of the products considered only for Japanese market. Rules Rules and more Rules , it is frustrating, that's dictatorship. Everything is for sell nowadays.

User avatar
Ladymercury
Posts: 575
Joined: Mar 27th, '05, 06:04

Post by Ladymercury » Jun 1st, '09, 07:21

GATX303 wrote:Rules Rules and more Rules , it is frustrating, that's dictatorship. Everything is for sell nowadays.
Welcome to the real world.

dballred
Posts: 3
Joined: Feb 29th, '08, 00:40

Post by dballred » Jun 1st, '09, 08:39

I liked JNET's model and service. It's too bad Fuji brought charges, but it IS their right to do so. It's interesting that JNET offered the NHK channels as separate options. NHK makes people pay for the service (whether they actually use it or not) by sending goon squads around the country to every home that has a television antenna to collect "donations." That extra charge made them look like a legitimate company with legitimate rebroadcast arrangements.

I think there's an excellent market for one medium to high-quality Japanese service--illegal or not. The only service I know of, which you can get through satellite TV, has high quality, but it picks and chooses the shows with only a few live feeds. Fuji has had some blockbuster shows, but I could easily live without it--in case somebody in the business wants to avoid being called out. Mostly, I watch NTV, Asahi, NHK-G, and TV Tokyo.

flinx
Posts: 18
Joined: Apr 30th, '08, 21:36

Post by flinx » Jun 4th, '09, 01:35

groink wrote:In the United States, it is required as part of one's copyright agreement with the government. If you receive copyright protection for your work, you've got to enforce it. If you don't, you lose your right to use it in future litigation.
This is wrong. You're confusing trademarks vs copyright. Nothing can take your copyright away from you, beyond it expiring over time (70 years after your death, or however long it is nowadays), or you selling it to someone (most people just sell licenses however, not complete exhaustive rights).

wmcnair370
Posts: 385
Joined: Mar 17th, '09, 00:52
Location: Chicago

Post by wmcnair370 » Jun 4th, '09, 01:53

groink wrote:Not that I'm supporting the broadcasters, but purely on a legal basis, it is essential that they vigorously attempt to shut down copyright infringement. In the United States, it is required as part of one's copyright agreement with the government. If you receive copyright protection for your work, you've got to enforce it. If you don't, you lose your right to use it in future litigation.
Yeah groink, you are confusing copyright and trademark. The mouse is copyrighted, and Disney doesn't have to do a thing. If you use the mouse you are in violation of the copyright and you will have to pay. In fact the reason copyright lasts so long now is because of the mouse, otherwise Disney would have lost the copyright on Steamboat Willie and probably Mickey Mouse as well.

On the other hand trademark's lhave to be defended or you can lose it. So, if I go and print a bunch of Grateful Dead tee-shirts and sell them the Dead has to go out and stop it, otherwise they can lose their trademark.

User avatar
groink
Posts: 2016
Joined: Dec 8th, '03, 03:58
Location: Pearl City, Hawaii

Post by groink » Jun 4th, '09, 04:13

flinx wrote:
groink wrote:In the United States, it is required as part of one's copyright agreement with the government. If you receive copyright protection for your work, you've got to enforce it. If you don't, you lose your right to use it in future litigation.
This is wrong. You're confusing trademarks vs copyright. Nothing can take your copyright away from you, beyond it expiring over time (70 years after your death, or however long it is nowadays), or you selling it to someone (most people just sell licenses however, not complete exhaustive rights).
I didn't say you lose the copyright. I'm saying you will lose your lawsuit if the court finds that you allowed other parties to infringe on the copyright. That's almost as if you didnt' have the copyright to begin with. BTW, it isn't a trademark - you don't trademark a book - you copyright a book.

--- groink

flinx
Posts: 18
Joined: Apr 30th, '08, 21:36

Post by flinx » Jun 4th, '09, 04:45

groink wrote: I didn't say you lose the copyright. I'm saying you will lose your lawsuit if the court finds that you allowed other parties to infringe on the copyright. That's almost as if you didnt' have the copyright to begin with.
Uhh, no you won't lose the lawsuit. That's not how it works. I actually used to work for a company that's in the content licensing and production industry, and have talked to the legal guys there about the issues involved. How many lawsuits, how often, how long you let someone keep going before you send a C&D etc. have nothing to do whether you retain copyright or not, and also have nothing to do with your ability to win a lawsuit against someone infringing said copyright. In addition, violation of copyright is against the law - it's not a breach of contract. That means that they don't even HAVE to sue you, as all they need to do is file a charge with cops/feds. There's a statute of limitations that applies, but that's limited to single cases (not in general), and it also doesn't restrict a company from suing for damages (usually in addition).
BTW, it isn't a trademark - you don't trademark a book - you copyright a book.
Right - the problem is that this whole notion of losing rights if you don't sue, stems from trademark law, not copyright. Unfortunately people have confused the two and you thus have this ingrained belief on the internet that the problem with trademark law applies to copyright law as well.

User avatar
groink
Posts: 2016
Joined: Dec 8th, '03, 03:58
Location: Pearl City, Hawaii

Post by groink » Jun 4th, '09, 04:54

Okay, let's put this into practice. You're ABC Publishing, and you're suing Harvard University for distributing hundreds of copies of your book without paying for it. In court, the judge asks you, "Why didn't you sue Leeward Community College or Boston University for copyright infringement? Why did you let those people off, but not Harvard? Is it because Harvard is a bigger target?"

What would be your answer to the judge?

As for copyright infringement breaking the law... In short, I don't see the Justice Department going after the law breakers on the account of the MPAA or RIAA. The movie and music industries have their own lawyers on the case. They're not suing for trademark infringement - they're suing for copyright infringement. The likes of Viacom are not using the feds - they're suing the likes of Google/YouTube on their own. In other words, these are all civil lawsuits, and not criminal suits. The government doesn't get involved in civil suits. The civil suits is to collect the losses because of the copyright infringements - not to send the offenders to jail. And, you cannot be selective on who you want to sue. That demonstrate prejudice on the part of the plaintiff, and it shows that the plaintiff doesn't have full interest in enforcing the copyright. Most judges would see through that.

flinx
Posts: 18
Joined: Apr 30th, '08, 21:36

Post by flinx » Jun 4th, '09, 12:27

A judge wouldn't be stupid enough to ask that question because 1. it's irrelevant to the merits of your lawsuit against Harvard and 2. you can sue them at any point in time later, if you so choose.
And, you cannot be selective on who you want to sue.
Of course you can.

See my point about suing for damages otherwise.

dballred
Posts: 3
Joined: Feb 29th, '08, 00:40

Post by dballred » Jun 9th, '09, 23:34

groink wrote:Okay, let's put this into practice. You're ABC Publishing, and you're suing Harvard University for distributing hundreds of copies of your book without paying for it. In court, the judge asks you, "Why didn't you sue Leeward Community College or Boston University for copyright infringement? Why did you let those people off, but not Harvard? Is it because Harvard is a bigger target?"

What would be your answer to the judge?

As for copyright infringement breaking the law... In short, I don't see the Justice Department going after the law breakers on the account of the MPAA or RIAA. The movie and music industries have their own lawyers on the case. They're not suing for trademark infringement - they're suing for copyright infringement. The likes of Viacom are not using the feds - they're suing the likes of Google/YouTube on their own. In other words, these are all civil lawsuits, and not criminal suits. The government doesn't get involved in civil suits. The civil suits is to collect the losses because of the copyright infringements - not to send the offenders to jail. And, you cannot be selective on who you want to sue. That demonstrate prejudice on the part of the plaintiff, and it shows that the plaintiff doesn't have full interest in enforcing the copyright. Most judges would see through that.
Wow. I don't know where you learned copyright law, but that's not how it works in the US--or any other country I know of.

1. You needn't go after every violator to keep your rights. You needn't go after any. Two giant cases in recent years should put your urban legend to rest. In case you don't remember, It's a Wonderful Life played nearly every day on every television channel before Christmas because everybody--incorrectly--thought the film was public domain. The copyright owner finally stepped in and now it plays once on network TV. Another case involved Star Trek: the Next Generation. They incorrectly thought Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes character was public domain. They were forced to give up several interesting story lines.

2. Copyright infringement can, in certain cases, be a criminal offense--and knowingly doing it for monetary gain is one of those cases. While the FBI has its hands full with more pressing things at the moment, those FBI warnings on video products are no joke. Also, it is against Federal law to import counterfeit items into the United States--including intellectual (read: copyrighted) property. Those customs and border protection guys don't have to ask the copyright owners what they think before hauling you off to prison.

3. As for your rhetorical question if you were asked if Harvard had bigger pockets, you can freely say "yes" and still win your case. It is the copyright owner's perogative to take action against anyone he chooses. Normally, one would take action against the offenders who cause damages enough to warrant legal action, but it's not the law.

downloadx
Posts: 3
Joined: Jul 8th, '08, 07:51

Post by downloadx » Jun 22nd, '09, 04:41

dballred wrote:Wow. I don't know where you learned copyright law, but that's not how it works in the US--or any other country I know of.

1. You needn't go after every violator to keep your rights. You needn't go after any. Two giant cases in recent years should put your urban legend to rest. In case you don't remember, It's a Wonderful Life played nearly every day on every television channel before Christmas because everybody--incorrectly--thought the film was public domain. The copyright owner finally stepped in and now it plays once on network TV. Another case involved Star Trek: the Next Generation. They incorrectly thought Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes character was public domain. They were forced to give up several interesting story lines.

2. Copyright infringement can, in certain cases, be a criminal offense--and knowingly doing it for monetary gain is one of those cases. While the FBI has its hands full with more pressing things at the moment, those FBI warnings on video products are no joke. Also, it is against Federal law to import counterfeit items into the United States--including intellectual (read: copyrighted) property. Those customs and border protection guys don't have to ask the copyright owners what they think before hauling you off to prison.

3. As for your rhetorical question if you were asked if Harvard had bigger pockets, you can freely say "yes" and still win your case. It is the copyright owner's perogative to take action against anyone he chooses. Normally, one would take action against the offenders who cause damages enough to warrant legal action, but it's not the law.
You are correct on all three counts. The mainstream media has led to widespread ignorance on actual copyright law, even among some lawyers.

The copyright holder doesn't have to go after minor or inconsequential violations. In fact, it doesn't have to go after any. The notion of a ranking system of whom you must go after is pure fantasy and is backwards to the logic of implied consent being invoked. That said, if it can be shown as knowingly ignoring flagrant offenders for a sufficient period of time, that is when you *might* be able to argue implied consent. This is not an unconditional argument. Ignorance favors the copyright holder, by definition of "implied consent". This rule does not mean you are allowed to break any copyrights, it means you honestly believed the copyright holder was okay with your use of their copyright. Thus you are enjoying the copyright for free, and even if successfully argued unlike with a trademark this entitlement may be ended at any time. This is also why it is a weak argument if you in any way attempted to conceal your violation.

Of course, sensationalized and cherry picked news articles can easily be used to contradict every theory about law.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests