UK: DEA Enforcement delayed until 2012

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

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?

Yes. To repeat the question I asked earlier, what do you do when someone who is as guilty as sin simply claims that somebody else must have downloaded it through their deliberately unsecured WiFi connection? Your response was that their computer should be seized and a forensic examination of it carried out to find out whether or not they are telling the truth. My viewpoint is that this is a ludicrously over-the-top action to take for a very minor offence, and one which is going to result in HUGE costs for the defendant if they are found guilty. Should someone be personally bankrupted, or lose their home, for downloading an eBook illegally? That's what could happen if what you're proposing were to happen.

So what is the answer? You're not happy with the idea that they should simply be sent a warning letter asking them to stop downloading. What would you like to see happening?

We seem to be in some looking-glass world here. I am arguing AGAINST the imposition of disproportionate punishment for trivial offences.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes. To repeat the question I asked earlier, what do you do when someone who is as guilty as sin simply claims that somebody else must have downloaded it through their deliberately unsecured WiFi connection? Your response was that their computer should be seized and a forensic examination of it carried out to find out whether or not they are telling the truth. My viewpoint is that this is a ludicrously over-the-top action to take for a very minor offence, and one which is going to result in HUGE costs for the defendant if they are found guilty. Should someone be personally bankrupted, or lose their home, for downloading an eBook illegally? That's what could happen if what you're proposing were to happen.

So what is the answer? You're not happy with the idea that they should simply be sent a warning letter asking them to stop downloading. What would you like to see happening?

We seem to be in some looking-glass world here. I am arguing AGAINST the imposition of disproportionate punishment for trivial offences.

Well the computer inspection would only happen if they denied downloading it. If they said "fair cop" and paid a small fine that would be the end of it. But by making the punishment so far out of proportion to the crime (and also punishing the rest of their family) you are much more likely to have people protest their innocence. It would be like having the death penalty for dropping litter. Even if you knew you dropped the litter you would deny it because you would have nothing to lose. If you admit dropping litter you're executed. If you deny dropping litter there's a small chance you might get to live.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Well the computer inspection would only happen if they denied downloading it. If they said "fair cop" and paid a small fine that would be the end of it. But by making the punishment so far out of proportion to the crime (and also punishing the rest of their family) you are much more likely to have people protest their innocence. It would be like having the death penalty for dropping litter. Even if you knew you dropped the litter you would deny it because you would have nothing to lose. If you admit dropping litter you're executed. If you deny dropping litter there's a small chance you might get to live.

The "punishment" under the DEA is that you're sent a letter. If you act on what it says, that's it - no further action. That doesn't sound terribly draconian to me.

[mike_bike_kite]

To me it seems foolish to pass laws if:

• the general public wouldn't approve
• it's too difficult and costly to police
• it's impossible to prove any given case
• it makes everyone below the age of 40 a criminal

Do you agree with every proposed law or just those that affect your pocket?

Mike

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mike_bike_kite

To me it seems foolish to pass laws if:

• the general public wouldn't approve
• it's too difficult and costly to police
• it's impossible to prove any given case
• it makes everyone below the age of 40 a criminal

Do you agree with every proposed law or just those that affect your pocket?

Mike

Neither. I agree with those laws that seem right and just. Do you think that I wouldn't like to be able to just take whatever I wanted without paying for it? Of course I would - who wouldn't? But, I believe that the right of content creators to get paid for their creations takes priority over my personal greed.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The "punishment" under the DEA is that you're sent a letter. If you act on what it says, that's it - no further action. That doesn't sound terribly draconian to me.

And if they ignore the letter because they either didn't do it or they don't scare easily?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Neither. I agree with those laws that seem right and just. Do you think that I wouldn't like to be able to just take whatever I wanted without paying for it? Of course I would - who wouldn't? But, I believe that the right of content creators to get paid for their creations takes priority over my personal greed.

But it shouldn't take priority over someone's right to a fair trial. Presumed guilt upon accusation is just plain wrong no matter what the crime.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by mike_bike_kite

To me it seems foolish to pass laws if:

• the general public wouldn't approve
• it's too difficult and costly to police
• it's impossible to prove any given case
• it makes everyone below the age of 40 a criminal

I don't know if you watched the discussion for this law or not (it will probaby be on Youtube if the government hasn't had it removed for copyright violation).

About 6 MPs attended, none of them brought up any of the many flaws regarding detection or the over the top punishments. One of them thought that an IP address was the location of a website that contained intellectual property. That's probably where the idea that an IP address proves guilt comes from. Then after about half an hour all the other MPs piled in and voted in favour of it.

If you add to that the BPI writing part of it themselves, the whole thing stinks of corruption to me. I was amazed that the news media (other than the Guardian) didn't pick up on any of this. But I guess that just shows how naive I am.

[mike_bike_kite]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I agree with those laws that seem right and just.

I think that's true for any of us - it's just our view of "right and just" that's different. I even suspect the majority in this country aren't happy with this law but I still don't see it going.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you think that I wouldn't like to be able to just take whatever I wanted without paying for it?

Did you ever keep a TV recording for longer than 28 days? As a youth did you ever make a copy of a friends album? Would it be right that you're criminalised for these crimes?

Originally Posted by HarryT

I believe that the right of content creators to get paid for their creations takes priority over my personal greed.

It's definitely not your personal greed - it's only fair that you're paid for your work and I totally agree with your point. I actually buy the items I really enjoy after having watched/read/listened to them. I also tend to delete a high percentage of stuff as drivel to. Sadly in the real world I'd of had to pay for all the drivel as well as the occasional piece of magnificence. These days I only purchase exactly what suits me.

We're sold products using over hyped advertising and packaged in shrink wrapping. If we get home and find the product wanting then we can't get our money back because we opened the product. I'll admit Amazon's 1st chapter download is quite a good solution for books.

Publishers quote ludicrous figures for lost sales because they treat every download as a lost sale - I'd guess that most people probably only read/watch/listen to a small percentage of the media they download. Most of what they get is "experimental" because there's no cost involved in trying out new artists. It's an ideal opportunity for that writer/director/musician to make an impact and create a new fan. If all the downloader does is delete the file and wonder quietly why the artist bothered then actually no sales are being lost.

I read that the criminals you talk about are those that purchase more media than any other segment of society. I just think the world has changed and the media corporations are completely out of touch with what's happened.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by mike_bike_kite

Did you ever keep a TV recording for longer than 28 days?

There is no 28 day restriction on time-shifting recordings.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The "punishment" under the DEA is that you're sent a letter. If you act on what it says, that's it - no further action. That doesn't sound terribly draconian to me.

This is what ACS:Law were doing, and were ripped apart by the judge for it.

[mike_bike_kite]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

There is no 28 day restriction on time-shifting recordings.

The period was 28 days in the UK though the current draught isn't so explicit. If it came to court then the judge would have to decide what is a reasonable period to keep the recording in order that you could watch it at a more convenient time. If no period is now specified then it's up to the judge to decide but if the old law stated 28 days then you "should" be safe for that period. Obviously if you have watched the recording already (and most PVRs will indicate whether a recording has been watched) then you're committing a crime in keeping the recording. If you have any old VHS tapes containing TV programs (and surely they're all old now) then you're committing a crime.

I found the following on UK copyright law that it was legal to keep ...
Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as "time shifting"

I'm not a lawyer and there's lots of conflicting information around so please feel free to correct me if you know better.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

This is what ACS:Law were doing, and were ripped apart by the judge for it.

Were they? I thought that they were offering out-of-court settlements to people to avoid prosecution?

The DEA provision is utterly different. Just a warning letter essentially saying "You've been reported for copyright infringement. Stop it."

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Were they? I thought that they were offering out-of-court settlements to people to avoid prosecution?

The DEA provision is utterly different. Just a warning letter essentially saying "You've been reported for copyright infringement. Stop it."

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/24/section/10

You might want to look at this one as well:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/24/section/17

[HarryT]

Yes, I'm aware of that. But that's the very final step in the process; the ultimate sanction if repeated warnings have been ignored. Like banning someone from driving if they keep on piling up speeding tickets.