UK: DEA Enforcement delayed until 2012

[MovieBird]

Clever HarryT, you removed the single sentence of my post that talked about physical harm not being present in the wrong act

I don't think any reasonable person would disagree that killing someone through an act of negligence still merits some punishment, however not the same punishment as the act of killing someone with the intent of killing someone. Or any other physically harmful act.

But this particular wrong act causes no physical harm, and that makes all the difference on how far bodies of overseeing should go in preventing it, in my opinion. And it's quite unfair, and prejudicial, to compare downloading something without permission from the creator, to killing.

The basic premise, as has been stated before, is that in a modern judicial system, the accuser must prove their claim. You are arguing that the accused must prove they are innocent. Innocent people will get caught by that kind of thinking, whether it's by ignorance of their responsibilities, willfully looking the other way, or simply not being able to generate a decent legal defense.

It is unconscionable that we would harm an unknown amount of innocents to pursue others, particularly when there is no physical harm done!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

Clever HarryT, you removed the single sentence of my post that talked about physical harm not being present in the wrong act

It's not clever; it's irrelevant, which is why I didn't quote it. Copyright infringement is certainly not a "victimless crime", even if it doesn't involve mugging someone in a dark alley.

I don't think any reasonable person would disagree that killing someone through an act of negligence still merits some punishment, however not the same punishment as the act of killing someone with the intent of killing someone. Or any other physically harmful act.

Precisely what I said: punishments should be proportionate to the act.

It is unconscionable that we would harm an unknown amount of innocents to pursue others, particularly when there is no physical harm done!

A scenario for you. I live alone. I am the sole user of the computers in my house. I have a highly secure wireless network, because I am a conscientious person. There would be no reasonable doubt that, should an illegal download be traced to my IP address, I was guilty.

Now, same scenario as above. I happen NOT to be the conscientious person that I am, and I leave my wireless network unsecured. Are you saying that by doing so I should escape prosecution for my illegal downloading?

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A scenario for you. I live alone. I am the sole user of the computers in my house. I have a highly secure wireless network, because I am a conscientious person. There would be no reasonable doubt that, should an illegal download be traced to my IP address, I was guilty.

Now, same scenario as above. I happen NOT to be the conscientious person that I am, and I leave my wireless network unsecured. Are you saying that by doing so I should escape prosecution for my illegal downloading?

Why do things have to be one way or the other? This is a misrepresentation of what I, and others, have been saying. All I am arguing for is that the accuser has to prove the act before punishment. In your scenario, you would not necessarily escape punishment for an unsecured wan; the accuser simply must prove that it was you that did the downloading.

But in the scenario that you are a technically adept pirate, and you pirate on your neighbor's wan, whether it be unsecured or secured with crappy security (WEP...), the accuser would have to prove that it is your neighbor that deserves punishment before punishing him. Otherwise he's an innocent caught in the crossfire.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

Why do things have to be one way or the other? This is a misrepresentation of what I, and others, have been saying. All I am arguing for is that the accuser has to prove the act before punishment. In your scenario, you would not necessarily escape punishment for an unsecured wan; the accuser simply must prove that it was you that did the downloading.

But in the scenario that you are a technically adept pirate, and you pirate on your neighbor's wan, whether it be unsecured or secured with crappy security (WEP...), the accuser would have to prove that it is your neighbor that deserves punishment before punishing him. Otherwise he's an innocent caught in the crossfire.

What troubles me in this, MovieBird, is the idea that people are, in essence, being "rewarded" for their carelessness, by being able to use it as a form of immunity from prosecution. You know as well as I do that, if I have an unsecured network in my house, it's impossible to prove who may or may not have used it. It troubles me deeply that something like this should be able to be used an an excuse to avoid prosecution. All that any pirate has to do is to make sure that he leaves his WiFi unsecured, and he's untouchable? I'm sorry, but that just seems wrong to me.

[mike_bike_kite]

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.

Software is already available to change your ip address while downloading. It will just become more common if this law comes into force. Harry, perhaps you could give us your IP address. Obviously by publishing your IP address you're consenting for others to use it going forwards. This would give you a golden opportunity to prove how fair this law is to innocent people

Originally Posted by HarryT

I was actually talking about genuinely UNSECURED networks, of which there are a scary number. I can see 6 WiFi networks from where I am at home at the moment; two of them are unsecured and completely open.

Even the secured networks you could see aren't that secure. Modern software allows WEP security to be broken in under 10 minutes. Assuming you use WEP security at home then someone could sit outside your house with a laptop, spend a few minutes cracking your security, and then start downloading torrents or even child pornography. I guess it would be difficult to prove your innocence especially under the laws you're proposing.

Originally Posted by HarryT

That article says that 4% of people pirating music are deterred by it. You say that 7 million households are pirating stuff in the UK, so 4% of that is 280,000 people. Don't you think that preventing 280,000 people from breaking the law is a worthwhile aim?

Just because people download a file doesn't mean they'll then buy it if it's no longer available. It just means that now no-one will even look at it. You should treat the torrents as free advertising and aim to market the "real" product as something the potential customer can aspire to. I've bought thousands of books in my time and approximately 20% turned out to be utter crap. I now read all my books electronically and, if I like them, I buy a pbook for my personal library. The nice thing is I don't make bad purchases any more.

Originally Posted by HarryT

You find it scary to discover that other people have opinions which differ from your own?

The law is generally there to protect the common man. Your views are obviously different to everyone else's (in this thread). Do you think it right that your views should become the law? Personally I find that quite scary

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mike_bike_kite

The law is generally there to protect the common man. Your views are obviously different to everyone else's (in this thread). Do you think it right that your views should become the law? Personally I find that quite scary [/INDENT]

Hmmm. Personally I find your view that it's OK to take whatever you want without paying for it a lot more scary. That way lies the death of the industry.

[mike_bike_kite]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Hmmm. Personally I find your view that it's OK to take whatever you want without paying for it a lot more scary. That way lies the death of the industry.

I understand your viewpoint but sadly the industry as it stands is dying anyway. If it doesn't adapt then yes it will die. Passing laws to preserve the past sadly won't help.

It should be seen as a golden opportunity to adapt to new markets - I've read approx 50 ebooks in the last 6 months and bought approx 30 pbooks (some new, some used) as a result of those "free" reads. It's a system that works well for me and I spend more on books as a result. YMMV.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

In the words of Mr Micawber, if that's the law, then the law is an ass.

The only way to tackle copyright infringement is to hold people accountable for what their internet account is used for. To say "but my WiFi network is unsecured, so anybody could have used it" is, IMHO, a pretty feeble excuse - it's your responsibility to ensure that your property IS appropriately secured.

Isn't that like saying if someone breaks into your house and steals your knives (or guns for americans) you are responsible for all the people that get killed with them?

It's fair enough saying people who download unauthorised content should be prosecuted, but it is important to have due process. The presumption of guilt on such flimsy evidence as an IP address is disgusting. There was nothing wrong with the existing laws to protect copyright. (Other than the need to provide evidence, of course).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

It's fair enough saying people who download unauthorised content should be prosecuted, but it is important to have due process. The presumption of guilt on such flimsy evidence as an IP address is disgusting. There was nothing wrong with the existing laws to protect copyright. (Other than the need to provide evidence, of course).

I repeat my previous scenario, Mr Ploppy:

I live alone. I have a properly secured wireless network. Result - I (quite rightly) get prosecuted if it can be proven that my IP address downloaded illegal material.

Same scenario, but I deliberately choose to leave my WiFi network unsecured. Result: nobody can "prove" that it was me who did the downloading, and I'm untouchable?

Fair? I don't think so.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The punishment should fit the crime.

I'd go along with that. If someone is caught reading a book without paying for it someone should take their diaries away and read them. But only after sufficient evidence was presented that proved without any doubt that they were guilty.

What I wouldn't go along with is poking their eyes out along with the eyes of the rest of their family, without providing any evidence whatsoever. An accusation of a crime is not evidence.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A scenario for you. I live alone. I am the sole user of the computers in my house. I have a highly secure wireless network, because I am a conscientious person. There would be no reasonable doubt that, should an illegal download be traced to my IP address, I was guilty.

Look up cable modem sniffer and tell me if you still believe that. Maybe not likely, but certainly possible.

[HarryT]

No, I'm telling you that I am guilty. Should I be able to get away with my illegal activities simply by leaving my WiFi unsecured?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Same scenario, but I deliberately choose to leave my WiFi network unsecured. Result: nobody can "prove" that it was me who did the downloading, and I'm untouchable?

Fair? I don't think so.

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.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, I'm telling you that I am guilty. Should I be able to get away with my illegal activities simply by leaving my WiFi unsecured?

Isn't the purpose of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt? I see nothing wrong with that model of justice.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Isn't the purpose of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt? I see nothing wrong with that model of justice.

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