UK: DEA Enforcement delayed until 2012

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

If you had downloaded it there would be other evidence. Traces of a file on a computer, evidence of interest in the file (looking at it on retail sites, for example), logs of Google searches, internet history, common usernames/email addresses/passwords on pirate sites, all sorts of things like that. That is the sort of evidence that would be required to convince a court/jury.

It strikes me that seizure of computer equipment and its subsequent forensic analysis is way over the top for a simple case of casual copyright infringement, and is going to result in massive costs for the person being prosecuted if they lose the case.

Isn't there good reason to put in place a low-cost, low-penalty system to deal with such offences, along the lines of fixed-penalties for minor traffic offences? We ARE only talking about very minor offences here, by and large.

[mike_bike_kite]

For a civil case, the burden of proof is "on the balance of probabilities", rather than "beyond reasonable doubt".

All the proof you speak about (the IP address and the MAC address of your computer) is just data passing over a network. Those values can be altered. Would guilt still be beyond reasonable doubt?

Originally Posted by HarryT

Should I be able to get away with my illegal activities simply by leaving my WiFi unsecured?

But even if you secure your wifi then it still only takes less than 10 minutes to break (assuming you're using WEP). Then your neighbour (or his kids) can download anything over your network.

Should you still be held responsible then?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mike_bike_kite

[INDENT]All the proof you speak about (the IP address and the MAC address of your computer) is just data passing over a network. Those values can be altered. Would guilt still be beyond reasonable doubt?

Depends what that proof was. If my ISP could produce evidence that those data packets really did pass through their network and into my router then yes, I'd call that pretty reasonable evidence.

But even if you secure your wifi then it still only takes less than 10 minutes to break (assuming you're using WEP). Then your neighbour (or his kids) can download anything over your network.

Should you still be held responsible then?

I think we're looking at it from a slightly different perspective. You're looking at an innocent person wrongly being convicted; I'm looking at the situation where a guilty person deliberately uses an unsecured WiFi network as an excuse to avoid punishment.

(And no, I wouldn't be silly enough to "secure" my WiFi with WEP )

[mike_bike_kite]

Originally Posted by HarryT

And no, I wouldn't be silly enough to "secure" my WiFi with WEP

Most WPA passwords can be broken in under 30 mins but longer passwords using words that aren't in the dictionary could take much longer.

[HarryT]

Is there any evidence that this is actually occurring on a significant scale among people who download illegal material? It's certainly something I haven't come across.

(I use WPA-PSK security on my router, with a completely random string of upper and lower-case letters, numbers, and symbols as the key)

[mike_bike_kite]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Is there any evidence that this is actually occurring on a significant scale among people who download illegal material? It's certainly something I haven't come across.

I guess if someone wanted to use software to get hold of free media rather than pay for it then they'd be just as open to using software to get free bandwidth. An extra benefit is that they wouldn't get caught as it's "beyond reasonable doubt" that the network owner is guilty

Originally Posted by HarryT

(I use WPA-PSK security on my router, with a completely random string of upper and lower-case letters, numbers, and symbols as the key)

That's certainly the most secure method of securing a WiFi network at present - your password would probably take days, if not weeks, to crack. I assume you don't have teenage geeks living next door with a lot of time on their hands

[HarryT]

Mike - I actually have no objection to what anyone may choose to do or not to do when it comes to illegal downloads; it's very much a personal choice. What I do object to is when people try to "get out of it" when their guilt comes to light. It's like getting caught speeding. Own up to it, take your punishment, and move on. Let's make it like speeding - 60 quid fine, 3 "points", and that's it. Tot up 12 points, and you're banned from using the internet for 6 months. Sounds fair to me.

[GlennD]

Harry, I don't disagree with your scenario - you're a technically competent computer user. But what about the users that aren't? It's incredibly easy to set up a wireless network nowadays. Heck, ISPs hand out wireless routers during initial setup. Go into any middle-class apartment building with a laptop and you'll find dozens of access points - most of them owned by people who honestly don't have a clue about security. To continue your analogy, should they be ticketed because someone else hot-wired their car and took it out joyriding?

[mike_bike_kite]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sounds fair to me.

fair enough ... assuming that guilt is proven.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by GlennD

Harry, I don't disagree with your scenario - you're a technically competent computer user. But what about the users that aren't? It's incredibly easy to set up a wireless network nowadays. Heck, ISPs hand out wireless routers during initial setup. Go into any middle-class apartment building with a laptop and you'll find dozens of access points - most of them owned by people who honestly don't have a clue about security. To continue your analogy, should they be ticketed because someone else hot-wired their car and took it out joyriding?

Glenn, I completely understand what you're saying. Please see my other posts for clarification: what I object to is people who are as guilty as sin using these ambiguities as a way of getting out of being punished for things they know damned well they are guilty of. If anyone can suggest a good way of handling that, I'd love to hear it.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

For a civil case, the burden of proof is "on the balance of probabilities", rather than "beyond reasonable doubt".

Either way, in the recent ACS Law case a judge who specialises in copyright cases ruled that an IP address alone isn't enough evidence of guilt (or even probable guilt). And since an IP address is the only "evidence" required by this new law, it seems obvious to me what the intention of the BPI was when they helped to write it.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It strikes me that seizure of computer equipment and its subsequent forensic analysis is way over the top for a simple case of casual copyright infringement, and is going to result in massive costs for the person being prosecuted if they lose the case.

Isn't there good reason to put in place a low-cost, low-penalty system to deal with such offences, along the lines of fixed-penalties for minor traffic offences? We ARE only talking about very minor offences here, by and large.

The internet has become as essential to people's lives as electricity. Denying an entire family access to the internet because of the actions of one family member (even if they are actually guilty) is not a punishment that is proportionate to the crime.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

The internet has become as essential to people's lives as electricity. Denying an entire family access to the internet because of the actions of one family member (even if they are actually guilty) is not a punishment that is proportionate to the crime.

I agree with you. That's why I was surprised by your suggestion that investigation should involve the dramatic steps you were talking about - seizure of computer, forensic examination, etc. Do you really think that should be done in every case where an accusation of copyright infringement has been made? It would be hugely expensive and time consuming, and would probably result in the accused person losing their computer for months.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Glenn, I completely understand what you're saying. Please see my other posts for clarification: what I object to is people who are as guilty as sin using these ambiguities as a way of getting out of being punished for things they know damned well they are guilty of. If anyone can suggest a good way of handling that, I'd love to hear it.

Here's a radical idea — make it so that the copyright owner has to prove beyond reasonable doubt (or on the balance of probabilities if you prefer) that they actually downloaded whatever they are accused of downloading. Then punish the person who did it without punishing the rest of their family.

Was there really anything seriously wrong with that way of handling it?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I agree with you. That's why I was surprised by your suggestion that investigation should involve the dramatic steps you were talking about - seizure of computer, forensic examination, etc. Do you really think that should be done in every case where an accusation of copyright infringement has been made? It would be hugely expensive and time consuming, and would probably result in the accused person losing their computer for months.

I'm sure it could be streamlined and done on-premises within an hour or so. They could have some computer program that checks internet logs or whatever, and have an army of inspectors trained up to do it like they did when everyone's video recorder needed retuning for Channel 5 (I was one of the retuners).

Anyone who objects to that would then have their computer removed for official inspection and be without it for 6 months. Most people would go for the former, especially if they were innocent.

As for it being expensive, the entertaiment industry could pay for it out of the extra £12billion per year they will be making due to the reduction in piracy.