Looking for reliable country for warez linking.

[Putin]

Delboy is owning people >.>

delboy, is it possibile for me to get damages fees from DMCA notices that want me to block a search query?

 

[Nick]

dont go with / listen to vps ready person - they really don't know what they are doing - go with Russa or hong kong if you can afford it!

 

[tedjones]

Which one of those has lots of BW ? Estonia, Russia, Ukraine, Iran, HongKong, Malysia.

I need space and bandwidth, as my site for movies streaming but its not english.
It's in my native language.
Also if you know good hosting companies.

__________________
Added after 7 minutes:

@delboy
are you from Luxmberg?

You won't find cheap in russia, ukraine, iran, hong kong or malysia, they have some of the expensive bandwidth in the world, 1TB in Hong Kong can cost up to $400

Lol, you are wrong very wrong, i suggest you read things like the Copyright Design & Patent Act, and look at the only two uk court cases on this matter, and you will see that at this current time i am correct the uk is safe to facilitate, and even downloading is not overally serious, as uk copyright law specificically mentions you can only be forced to pay a single copy of the work.



I suggest you re-read my point, Yes they can get your infomation from the data center, domain registrar, no matter where you are, i never said they couldent i said, Cross Juristicion is more difficult, and that if the host does not co-operation, then it is again even more difficult, i never said improssible, lets take PRQ, they only have an email address on file i believe, so all they can hand over is the persons email, not infomation they dont have.

On your second point 1 million dollars per copyright violation fact is absolute crap, lets put linking aside and say you in fact hosted files directly from your server, and it could be provided that you athorised someone to download the files to your server, or downloaded them yourself or someone on your behalf did it, ALL YOU CAN BE FINED IN THE UK IS THE PRICE OF ONE SINGLE WORK so if you had MP3's which cost $1.99 each, you can only be charged $1.99 an mp3.

Secondly your point about "they always win, you can't defend against a billion dollar company" Again a load of bullshit, in the usa they may always win, In the UK where the laws are diffrent, the ONLY two court cases (Alan Elis Of Oink, and the Tv-Links.co.uk Owner who i cannot remember the name of atm) to reach court to date have been decided in the defendants favour, e.g. the "billion dollar company's" have currently LOST in 100% of the Uk court cases.

These "billion dollar company" have equally currently not attempted to take the owners to the small claims court, where the onus of proof to win is much lower, to try and claim the cost of one copy of the work, which frankly i believe they would loose anyway as the owner did not authorise the downloads to the work (e.g. mp3 or what ever) and they where not doing it on his behalf, again two things that the current UK Copyright law, says you need to even get granted the price of 1 copy of the work.

If you download an Mp3 from the pirate bay, your ip is harvested and it goes to court, then the court can grant the price of one of the mp3 (so lets keep with the $1.99 of erlier), so they take you to court, pay thousands to do so just to recover $1.99, this to me does not make business sence which is probably why, there has not been any actual court cases against downloaders (ACS Law thretened it, got put under preasure then sneakily tried to get default judgments, (e.g. they didnt challenge clients with legal representation) they challenged ones who had not replied, at the 11th hour when it was not going in their favour they tried to drop even these cases, the current outcome is the actual copyright owners have to join the cases, as only the actual owner or exclusive licencee can bring court proceedings, the likely hood is these cases will end up bring dropped in march).

I would also like to request that you refrain from personal insults, like fool and before you comment on a matter with such comments as "same laws as the united states." then i really do suggest you read the LAW of the country you are commenting on, UK Law, e.g. the current uk copyright law, namely the Copyright Design & Patent Act and the two court cases, you atleast do a google, as if you be bothered to do your research from information freely avaible, the CDAPA is even avaible from a goverment website, you would know that my comments are factually accurate, where as yource do not apply to the uk.

Thanks
Delboy

You really don't understand how it works, you think they are going after the $1.99 and you think you are going to only pay 1.99 HA, legal fees? They might eat them up front, but in the end you will pay every time of them, as per the copyright act, you can get charged up to $50,000 per violation, so that $1.99 mp3 is now going to cost you $50 grand, plus court fees, plus lawyer fees, and any other bull crap they want to add on to it.

In the end they will always make out, no matter if you didn't do it or did, if they got your ip, and they want you, your in there scope and they are ready to pull the trigger, and they don't miss, I can bet on that.

 

[delboy]

as per the copyright act, you can get charged up to $50,000 per violation, so that $1.99 mp3 is now going to cost you $50 grand, plus court fees, plus lawyer fees, and any other bull crap they want to add on to it.

NO WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND, UK COPYRIGHT LAW (THE COPYRIGHT DESIGN & PATENT ACT) SAYS THAT YOU CAN ONLY BE CHARGED THE RETAIL PRICE OF ONE COPY, so for a $1.99 mp3 they only get awared $1.99, NOT this $50,000 per violation bullshit you keep quoting, and even to be awarded $1.99 they need to prove you authorised someone to download it, you did it youself, etc (which unless you admit guilt they cannot do becuase dun dun duh the Ip address links to subscriber, and you dont know who Was siting in front of the pc at the time, and only the ACTUAL infringer E.G. The person infront of the pc can be charged the retail cost for the filed, unless the account holder authorised someone to do it only then can they be charged the price of the work.

PLEASE READ THE COPYRIGHT DESIGN & PATENT ACT BEFORE COMMING BACK TO ME, BECAUSE YOUR BULLSHIT IS RIDICULOUS AND A WASTE OF MY TIME, KEEP REPEATING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER BECUASE YOU CANNOT BE BOTHERED TO DO SOME RESEARCH OR READ THE DAM ACT.

delboy, is it possibile for me to get damages fees from DMCA notices that want me to block a search query?

(i think i misread your post, so here is the two variants)

Is it possible for me to be charged damages if i do not block the query:
Well, if you where in the United States, i would say if they took you to court then yes they could get an injunction for you to block the query, and their may be costs associated with that, but as you are in the UK then on the basis dmca only applies to the usa, and you dont live or host in the usa and instead live in the uk where faciliation is legal then no.

You may want to change it from a dmca page to a page which references uk law only, (something along the lines of the legal and about pages i have on fullmoviehq . c o m maybe ?) as you dont have a registered agent in the usa you are not covered under dmca safe harbour previsions anyway.

Is it possibile for me to be awared fees from the people who send dmca notices?
Potentually yes, if they keep sending them even after you told them to stop, they phone you, follow you to diffrent forums etc then potentually you could complain about they are cyber stalking/harrassing you, i know its diffrent but only a few days ago a guy was awared money becuase cold callers kept knocking on his door even after asking them to stop, e.g. harrasment.

If they keep emailing you even after you told them to stop then they are potentually harrassing you, so potentually yes, but its probably not a route you want to go down due to the costs involved, on the other hand you could threaten it and it might get them to stop.

Delboy

 

[lexishost]

cdlnt linder

I heard that canada don't care much about file sharing.

 

[Nick]

hahaha silly noobs....

 

[okone]

Delboy, you not exactly correct. Having read the case involving TV-Links, you should know there are exceptions to the provisions of the European Ecomerce Directive, which mean you can be held liable in the UK.

These are when you: initiate the transmission, select the receiver or modify the transmission.

So for example, say your links contain the URL of your website. You are now technically liable because in inserting the URL, you have modified the transmission. Also, the fact that there have been only two major cases in the UK is not a good thing. A court could easily differentiate between cases based on a large list of facts.

 

[delboy]

Having read the case involving TV-Links, you should know there are exceptions to the provisions of the European Ecomerce Directive, which mean you can be held liable in the UK. Also, the fact that there have been only two major cases in the UK is not a good thing.

Yes you are correct there are a couple of exceptions to Section 17 of the European Ecomerce Directive, which was used in the TV-Links case, (which i forgot to mention erlier, so thanks for bring those up ) and i do agree only having two cases is both a good and a bad thing, e.g. More cases sets a more stable president, however less cases means they are not bring cases to court, but i agree from a legal standpoint a larger sample of cases would obviously be ideal, however these two cases are still president cases.

These are when you: initiate the transmission, select the receiver or modify the transmission.

Correct but the act of purely linking does not do this, however for his site specifically you are correct by adding url to the files name, he is modifying the transmission, which no longer offers him additional protection under European Ecomerce Directive, this does not change the fact that facilitation as a crime does not exist under UK Copyright law (CDAPA) hence the reason why in the case of oink the cps choose the charge of "Conspiracy to Defraud" in a hope to gain a conviction under fraud law.

From a general linking perspective an uploader posting links with your site url, for example is not modifying the transmission, so you would have extra protection under the European Ecomerce Directive. (the service provider shall not be liable for damages or for any other pecuniary remedy or for any criminal sanction as a result of that transmission)

 

[okone]

I was not disagreeing with you delboy. But I don't want people to go around with the wrong impression about the UK. It is certainly not a safe haven for Warez.

Edit: I will add that while you say the cases set important precedents, these aren't particularly strong ones. Too my knowledge both took place at Crown Court level, which means that if a case involved a claim of over £25,000 it could make its way to High Court. In which case, those two previous examples would not be binding and could only be seen as persuasive.

You still walk a very fine line in the UK, as in most European countries.

 

[delboy]

I will add that while you say the cases set important precedents, these aren't particularly strong ones. Too my knowledge both took place at Crown Court level, which means that if a case involved a claim of over £25,000 it could make its way to High Court. In which case, those two previous examples would not be binding and could only be seen as persuasive.

Yes if i remember correctly they where Crown Court level, but it in some respects is not important becuase courts do not invent laws,as facilitation is not a crime under the UK Copyright law (CDAPA) (hence oink was charged under "Conspiracy to Defraud" in a hope to gain a conviction under fraud legislation.) then it still is not a crime no matter what court.

The Judges Summary on the R v Gold & Schifreen case provides a nice summary which in part applies here. (especially in the oink case, where they tried to use fraud legislation becuase they couldent use the CDAPA)

"We have accordingly come to the conclusion that the language of the Act was not intended to apply to the situation which was shown to exist in this case. The submissions at the close of the prosecution case should have succeeded. It is a conclusion which we reach without regret. The Procrustean attempt to force these facts into the language of an Act not designed to fit them produced grave difficulties for both judge and jury which we would not wish to see repeated. The appellants' conduct amounted in essence, as already stated, to dishonestly gaining access to the relevant Prestel data bank by a trick. That is not a criminal offence. If it is thought desirable to make it so, that is a matter for the legislature rather than the courts."

The reason i specificially highlighted these last two lines, is becuase they are particularly relevent here, facilitation is not a crime under the UK Copyright law (CDAPA) until such time as the moddify the law (CDAPA or bring in new legislation) it will remain not a crime, just like downloading will remain as the damages only be 1 copy of the work, if they can prove you authorised infringment, or did it yourself.

 

[Putin]

delboy, both ways you read the question was wrong, but you answered a question at the back of my mind so thanks I'll change my DMCA notice then :D you sure it's safe for me to tell them that I ain't disabling the search query?

now back to my question, I ment to ask... if I blocked "Bob Marley" from my search query, does that mean I can charge the people sending the DMCA notice for 'damages' to my server speed. I am asking this as I've read reponses from TPB.org notices, they get entitled for $15 or something.

*edit* can i just copycat http://www.fullmoviehq.com/legal/ ? :P or do i have to write my own version :O

 

[delboy]

you sure it's safe for me to tell them that I ain't disabling the search query?

Yes Im pretty sure (based on all the stuff mentioned before) and the fact you cannot copyright the english language, and that blocking of a query might stop legitimatate query's let say you block the word sex, that then blocks essex and plenty of legitimate uses of the word sex.

I ment to ask... if I blocked "Bob Marley" from my search query, does that mean I can charge the people sending the DMCA notice for 'damages' to my server speed. I am asking this as I've read reponses from TPB.org notices, they get entitled for $15 or something.

Well, you could attempt to charge them any number of fees
1) bandwidth fees,
2) Blocking fees, e.g. to block the query becuase it costs time (and therefore theoretically money) to do so, a little like some uk isps where charging acs law money to provide the subscribers info from the ip addresses.

This does not mean they will pay and even if they did, i wouldent recommend it as a method of revenue generation.

With Regard To TPB im pretty sure they just threatened it, and never actually tried to charge anyone but you never know with them.

*edit* can i just copycat http://www.fullmoviehq.com/legal/ ? :P or do i have to write my own version :O

Ah you can have that page but if you try to copy the about page, im going to send you a dmca notice asking for $100,000 in damages plus the transfer of your website to me ), seriously though yes you can have that page but if you want the about page, please re-write it

 

[QuickSand]

hongkong

 

[rahuldas14]

Well I feel the laws are justified to some extent. Nobody of us will like it that our work get illegally copied or sold.
But the point is that it should be allowed to some extent. Small things should be allowed and ignored. And the whole world should come up with uniform laws.