UK: DEA Enforcement delayed until 2012

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

I have to say UK, you give US Neo Cons a run for their money. Handing over law enforcement duties to private corporations? Genius!

It's worse than that. The British equivalent of your RIAA actually helped write the law in question.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ment-lobbyists

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This law was actually introduced by the last labour government, and received broad cross-party support. Personally, I'm very much in favour of it.

It was rushed through in the wash up with no real discussion and very few MPs attending, so most of the ones voting in favour of it would have no idea what they are voting for. My own MP certainly didn't have any idea what the ramifications were when I asked him about it when he came doorstepping at the last election.

I am against it because it removes the assumption of innocence and puts the burden of proof on the accused rather than the accuser. It also punishes an entiire family for the (alleged) actions of one family member.

And that's beside the fact that it puts the future of sites like this at risk.

[Logseman]

My own MP certainly didn't have any idea what the ramifications were when I asked him about it when he came doorstepping at the last election.

At least you could ask him about the issue because his seat was in the stakes. In Spain, the law mandates that votes go to parties, not to people, so MP's are mainly chosen for party allegiance. And when a similar law was passed in Spain, the whole political spectrum voted for it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I am against it because it removes the assumption of innocence and puts the burden of proof on the accused rather than the accuser. It also punishes an entiire family for the (alleged) actions of one family member.

I really see no issue with holding the legal owner of a computer responsible for its use. It's no different to fining the legal owner of a car if it's caught speeding by a speed camera: if you were not driving the car at the time, it's up to you to prove the fact. If you own something, you are responsible for its use.

And that's beside the fact that it puts the future of sites like this at risk.

In what way?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I really see no issue with holding the legal owner of a computer responsible for its use. It's no different to fining the legal owner of a car if it's caught speeding by a speed camera: if you were not driving the car at the time, it's up to you to prove the fact. If you own something, you are responsible for its use.

The difference is you just get a fine, you and your entire family don't get banned from the roads until you can prove your car was cloned and it had nothing to do with you.

How would you prove you didn't download something? If someone says you downloaded the Dragon Tattoo book what evidence would you provide for your innocence? You could hand over all your computers for inspection, but there would be nothing to stop you from keeping your downloading computer back. I can't think of anything that would prove 100% that you didn't download it.

Originally Posted by HarryT

In what way?

It hosts material that is covered by copright in the UK. The act gives copyright owners the ability to have sites that host their material closed down (or blocked to UK users).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

How would you prove you didn't download something? If someone says you downloaded the Dragon Tattoo book what evidence would you provide for your innocence? You could hand over all your computers for inspection, but there would be nothing to stop you from keeping your downloading computer back. I can't think of anything that would prove 100% that you didn't download it.

How do you 100% prove that you didn't commit any crime? Could you prove that you didn't rob a bank on a particular date? It's a matter of evidence, as with any other crime. If there is evidence to show that a particular illegally-downloaded file was sent to an IP address assigned to your computer, you're probably going to have difficulty in explaining that fact away.

It hosts material that is covered by copright in the UK. The act gives copyright owners the ability to have sites that host their material closed down (or blocked to UK users).

I really don't think there's any intention to block sites like PG or MR to UK users. Let's not start getting paranoid . No such thing has happened in countries which which have passed similar legislation.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You're right, they don't agree with me. I believe that are wrong, but that's just my personal opinion, of course. Why should they be forced to intervene? Because they are really the only ones in a position to do so.

If you mean that people should be free to break the law with impunity, then I'm afraid I don't agree with you. Copyright infringement is an issue that needs to be tackled, and I hope that this law will go some of the way to do that. Time will tell.

That's what the courts are for. This is pure laziness on the part of government. If someone is violating copyright law, then prosecute them. ISP's aren't responsible for illegal activity done on their service.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I really don't think there's any intention to block sites like PG or MR to UK users. Let's not start getting paranoid . No such thing has happened in countries which which have passed similar legislation.

Yet...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

That's what the courts are for. This is pure laziness on the part of government. If someone is violating copyright law, then prosecute them. ISP's aren't responsible for illegal activity done on their service.

ISP's certainly aren't responsible for people who break the law using their service, but I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with them assisting to uphold the law.

We obviously don't agree about this; it's probably best if we just agree to differ. I'm the one that's going to be affected by this, after all .

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

ISP's certainly aren't responsible for people who break the law using their service, but I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with them assisting to uphold the law.

We obviously don't agree about this; it's probably best if we just agree to differ. I'm the one that's going to be affected by this, after all .

Assisting? They're being forced. Big difference.

But success in other countries leads others to try the same thing in their countries.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

How do you 100% prove that you didn't commit any crime? Could you prove that you didn't rob a bank on a particular date? It's a matter of evidence, as with any other crime. If there is evidence to show that a particular illegally-downloaded file was sent to an IP address assigned to your computer, you're probably going to have difficulty in explaining that fact away.

Exactly. And that is the problem. Modems can be cloned, IP addresses can be spoofed, Wireless routers can be hacked, ISPs can get the wrong computer owner if the evidence provided has the wrong timestamp. All of these have happened to innocent people, which is why a UK judge specialising in copyright has questioned the validity of such evidence.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...rs-know-it.ars

Ask yourself this: What was wrong with the existing laws that already gave copyright owners powers to go after people who violated those copyrights?

1. They needed to provide evidence and they have no way of doing that.
2. It cost them money to do it.

The new law takes away both of those minor inconveniences for copyright owners, but the social cost is way too high. The only other crime that carries an assumption of guilt upon accusation is terrorism. Maybe that was the reason for all those adverts a few years ago telling everyone that buying a pirate DVD at a car boot sale was funding terrorism?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Ask yourself this: What was wrong with the existing laws that already gave copyright owners powers to go after people who violated those copyrights?

Internet copyright infringement is rife; the existing laws plainly are not working. Technology is currently favouring the person who breaks the law; it's time that technology was equally used to assist the rights-holders.

I know that this is not a popular viewpoint around these parts, but I genuinely do believe that these are necessary measures.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Internet copyright infringement is rife; the existing laws plainly are not working. Technology is currently favouring the person who breaks the law; it's time that technology was equally used to assist the rights-holders.

I know that this is not a popular viewpoint around these parts, but I genuinely do believe that these are necessary measures.

If the rights holders have evidence, why don't they pursue it in a court of law?

[mr ploppy]

According to entertainment industry figures, there is 7 million people in the UK who download unauthorised files, and this is costing the UK economy £12 billion per year.

If you divide 12 billion by 7 million that would give you the average loss caused by each one of those downloaders. The average UK salary is £25,000. Housing and food expenses would account for about 40% of that, vehicle or public transport costs another 10% or so.

But one last question: When 7 million families (say 21 million people in total) are denied access to the internet, what happens when this missing £12 billion per year that those people are responsible for doesn't appear in the economy? What happens to all the money that the innocent 14 million people were previously spending on online entertainment products?

That's still a massive loss of income for the entertainment industry, even if you ignore the fact that people who download unauthorised copies are their biggest paying customers.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

But one last question: When 7 million families (say 21 million people in total) are denied access to the internet, what happens when this missing £12 billion per year that those people are responsible for doesn't appear in the economy?

You're assuming that nobody is going to take heed of warnings not to download illegally? I strongly suspect that the overwhelming majority of people will be scared off their illegal activities by such a warning. Suspension of internet access is the (proposed) very last step in the process, not the initial one.