UK: DEA Enforcement delayed until 2012

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Why not... leaving your house unlocked may not be wise but it doesn't make someone walking in and stealing the contents less of a crime nor the houseowner the criminal...

I was talking about the situation where a person deliberately leaves their WiFi unsecured as a form of immunity from prosecution, should they be caught. This seems very wrong to me.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

If you leave your keys in your car, and somebody borrows it and kills someone, are you still guilty of murder? Of manslaughter? Should the police arrest & prosecute you, and ignore trying to find who did the crime, because they're certain it was done with your car, and since it was registered to you, you're responsible for it's use?

If you are caught speeding by a speed camera, that's exactly what happens - the registered owner of the vehicle will be prosecuted unless THEY can show that someone else was driving the vehicle at the time. I see no reason that This principle could not be equally applied to downloading.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If you are caught speeding by a speed camera, that's exactly what happens - the registered owner of the vehicle will be prosecuted unless THEY can show that someone else was driving the vehicle at the time. I see no reason that This principle could not be equally applied to downloading.

Because there is no way to prove that you didn't download something.
If you can show you were somewhere else at the time the speed camera picture was taken, that is evidence that it wasn't you driving.
How do you prove you didn't download something?
It isn't on your computer? You must have deleted it.
There isn't any P2P software on your computer? You must have deleted that to.
You don't know how to download it? You are lying.
What evidence could an innocent person offer to disprove the allegation?

[mike_bike_kite]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This seems very wrong to me ...

So to sum up:

• This law has been drafted by the corporations most likely to profit from it
• It's impossible to prove anyone's guilt using the method they've suggested
• Those most likely to suffer wrongful imprisonment are the computer illiterate
• Most of the population don't even see downloading as a crime
• You currently have 20 people disagreeing with you and only 1 person agreeing
• And even that person didn't think this should become a law

Why don't we just agree to disagree or is there some profit to you endlessly repeating your point of view to an audience that doesn't agree with you?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I was talking about the situation where a person deliberately leaves their WiFi unsecured as a form of immunity from prosecution, should they be caught. This seems very wrong to me.

There are very good reasons to have unsecured WiFi. It is much more convenient for your friends to use it. So it is a deliberate act with a known side effect of possible immunity from prosecution. Do you mean that you should not be able to conveinently give your guests WiFi network?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I was talking about the situation where a person deliberately leaves their WiFi unsecured as a form of immunity from prosecution, should they be caught. This seems very wrong to me.

A downloader would want all of their bandwidth for themselves, they wouldn't want to share it with their neighbours. That defence wouldn't work anyway if there was any requirement for evidence and not just the assumption of guilt upon accusation.

Why weren't these sort of things brought up at the discussion stage, do you suppose?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If you are caught speeding by a speed camera, that's exactly what happens - the registered owner of the vehicle will be prosecuted unless THEY can show that someone else was driving the vehicle at the time. I see no reason that This principle could not be equally applied to downloading.

That would only work if every computer had a webcam and the entertainment industry had some way of switching it on at the time of download. That would cost a lot more to implement than my idea of having computer inspectors who go out to people who deny the accusation. There would also be concerns about remote operated webcams being forced onto childrens' computers.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Because there is no way to prove that you didn't download something.
If you can show you were somewhere else at the time the speed camera picture was taken, that is evidence that it wasn't you driving.
How do you prove you didn't download something?
It isn't on your computer? You must have deleted it.
There isn't any P2P software on your computer? You must have deleted that to.
You don't know how to download it? You are lying.
What evidence could an innocent person offer to disprove the allegation?

A few laser printers have been accused of filesharing. I don't think any of them were prosecuted for it, so presumably being an inanimate object is enough to prove your innocence.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/06...vailable-crime

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mike_bike_kite

So to sum up:

• This law has been drafted by the corporations most likely to profit from it
• It's impossible to prove anyone's guilt using the method they've suggested
• Those most likely to suffer wrongful imprisonment are the computer illiterate
• Most of the population don't even see downloading as a crime
• You currently have 20 people disagreeing with you and only 1 person agreeing
• And even that person didn't think this should become a law

Why don't we just agree to disagree or is there some profit to you endlessly repeating your point of view to an audience that doesn't agree with you?

Wrongful imprisonment? To the best of my knowledge, imprisonment - wrongly or otherwise - is not mandated as a punishment for illegal downloading the the DEA. What are you referring to?

I also very much dispute your contention that "most of the population" doesn't see illegal downloading as a crime. Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I also very much dispute your contention that "most of the population" doesn't see illegal downloading as a crime. Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?

I only know of research in Denmark, but I would be surprised if the results would be vastly different in any other country.

http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-socia...ptable-110228/

There's a link to the research findings on there, they cover other laws that people don't really care about too. It's in Danish but Google will translate it reasonably well.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I only know of research in Denmark, but I would be surprised if the results would be vastly different in any other country.

http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-socia...ptable-110228/

There's a link to the research findings on there, they cover other laws that people don't really care about too. It's in Danish but Google will translate it reasonably well.

This may be true and if so is very much a red-flag indicating a failure of society.

[GeoffC]

Since when has 70% been "most of the population"?

[snipenekkid]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Since when has 70% been "most of the population"?

probably since the discovery of cardinal numbers and counting. Maybe you would prefer 51% to define "most".

my last post on MR. you all win...it is no fun anymore.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Since when has 70% been "most of the population"?

"Most" simply means "more than half".

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by HarryT

"Most" simply means "more than half".

Maybe, but it can be overused.