UK: DEA Enforcement delayed until 2012 - Page 7

spellbanisher · 03-26-2011, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

You find it scary to discover that other people have opinions which differ from your own? Putting people on "ignore" really isn't the answer; if you block out all the views that differ from yours, aren't you kidding yourself that everyone thinks the same as you do?

It is terrifying to think that others may have differing viewpoints. It would be almost as bad as if I woke up one morning and discovered that the world no longer revolved around me.

James_Wilde · 03-26-2011, 05:43 PM

Quote:

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.

Edit note: Oh, screw it, I didn't notice this thread was already seven pages long. Someone else has hopefully already said what I wanted to, but you'll have to read it again. I can't take this message away. Sorry.

Message begins:

I agree with you, Harry. But I think the Post Office has been around a lot longer than the ISPs. Why not start with them? Get them to open every letter and parcel and stop illicitly copied cd's and dvd's, not to say all the porn videos, drugs, smuggled alcohol and other things that people send to one another.

Come to think of it, the roads have been around even longer than the post office. Let's make the road authorities responsible for everything people carry in their bags and under their arms in cars, trucks and buses.

Then, when we've got that lot under control, we can turn to the newer technologies.

There was a great quote in "Jurassic Park" by the mathematician guy played so well by Jeff Goldblum, something along the lines of "They were so blinded by the fact that they could, they forgot to ask whether they should."

Crime or not, an IP4 packet is as sealed to the carrier as the envelope in which I send my sister pirated dvd's.

Conor · 03-26-2011, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike_bike_kite

If you have any old VHS tapes containing TV programs (and surely they're all old now) then you're committing a crime.

I have one, long since copied to DVD and hard disk. Of my three appearances on Fifteen To One. It isn't as I I can pop into HMV and buy a copy, is it?
Technically an offence, but a victimless one. My conscience is clear.

mike_bike_kite · 03-26-2011, 08:51 PM

Out of interest I did a quick re-read of this thread to count those in favour of the new law and those against. So far you only have one person partially agreeing with you and 12 people firmly against. That's quite a high percentage against Harry!

The proposed law is deeply flawed by identifying people via their IP address and what's worse is the media companies are targeting their biggest customers at the end of the day. It all just seems a bit foolish to me.

HarryT · 03-27-2011, 02:09 AM

I'm not trying to win a popularity contest

.

Are you saying, Mike, that anyone who buys media should be permitted to illegally download it with impunity?

mike_bike_kite · 03-27-2011, 06:13 AM

I see no point in criminalising a large percentage of society, especially when it's those people who keep your industry going. When the method of identifying "criminals" by IP address is deeply flawed and when the law itself is only supported by a small percentage (in this thread under 15%). I don't even feel morally wrong because now I just get to buy the items I actually enjoy.

Xoanon · 03-27-2011, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike_bike_kite

I don't even feel morally wrong because now I just get to buy the items I actually enjoy.

I think this is what it all boils down to. Customers are now in the position where they can dictate terms to the media companies - and they don't like it up 'em

In the case of E-books, you can't charge your customers exorbitant prices for your products and then start crying when they refuse to pay.

HarryT · 03-27-2011, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike_bike_kite

I see no point in criminalising a large percentage of society, especially when it's those people who keep your industry going. When the method of identifying "criminals" by IP address is deeply flawed and when the law itself is only supported by a small percentage (in this thread under 15%). I don't even feel morally wrong because now I just get to buy the items I actually enjoy.

If you ask people whether they'd like to be able to take whatever they want free of charge, or if they want to pay for it, my suspicion is that the majority of people are going to say that they'd prefer to get it free. But that's a very short-sighted attitude: it will only work if honest people buy the content to make it worth while producing so that the illegal downloaders CAN get it for free.

Nobody is "criminalising a large percentage of society" except those people themselves. You know damned well that you're breaking the law, and you choose to do so. Please don't say that someone else is making you a criminal - you're doing it yourself.

murraypaul · 03-27-2011, 09:18 AM

Quote:

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."

...and if you don't we will prosecute you?
Otherwise where is the stick?

mr ploppy · 03-27-2011, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Except without the need for any evidence that would stand up in court. And you're still back to punishing an entire family for the (aleged) actions of just one person. So not really much like speeding at all. More like terrorism than speeding. So far that is the only other crime that doesn't require any evidence.

HarryT · 03-27-2011, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by murraypaul

...and if you don't we will prosecute you?
Otherwise where is the stick?

Certainly that's the stick. At least it gives the evil-doer a chance to repent and return to the path of righteousness

.

mr ploppy · 03-27-2011, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

If you ask people whether they'd like to be able to take whatever they want free of charge, or if they want to pay for it, my suspicion is that the majority of people are going to say that they'd prefer to get it free. But that's a very short-sighted attitude: it will only work if honest people buy the content to make it worth while producing so that the illegal downloaders CAN get it for free.

That is how it has always worked in the past, what makes you think it won't in the future? There has always been people getting some or all of their media for free. The only thing the internet brought to the party was the ability to monitor how many times something is copied.

Remember home taping is killing the music industry? Or how VCRs were going to destroy the film industry? Guess what ...

mr ploppy · 03-27-2011, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

Certainly that's the stick. At least it gives the evil-doer a chance to repent and return to the path of righteousness

.

Assuming they were actually evil and not just the victim of a cloned modem or a drive-by downloader.

HarryT · 03-27-2011, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

That is how it has always worked in the past, what makes you think it won't in the future?

I'm not naive enough to think it won't. But at least, when you taped your mate's LP, you didn't then go and share it with 10,000 of your closest friends, as routinely happens with torrent uploads. That's the difference.

HarryT · 03-27-2011, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Assuming they were actually evil and not just the victim of a cloned modem or a drive-by downloader.

Oh, come off it. Just how prevalent do you honestly believe that is?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
AMSTERDAM 2012 - Political Thriller, $2.99	fedora	Self-Promotions by Authors and Publishers	37	01-27-2015 10:22 AM
end of the world 2012 type books?	sanja8888	Reading Recommendations	11	05-27-2011 01:41 PM
Coppyright: Brazil's Approach on Anti-Circumvention: Penalties For Hindering Fair Dea	Iphinome	News	29	07-12-2010 01:12 PM
Ebook device seen in 2012 Movie	imaredr	Lounge	1	11-14-2009 12:55 PM

03-26-2011, 08:51 PM	#94
mike_bike_kite Digitally confused Posts: 500 Karma: 1500000 Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: London, UK Device: KPW, K2i, Nexus 7 32gb, Kobo Mini	Out of interest I did a quick re-read of this thread to count those in favour of the new law and those against. So far you only have one person partially agreeing with you and 12 people firmly against. That's quite a high percentage against Harry! The proposed law is deeply flawed by identifying people via their IP address and what's worse is the media companies are targeting their biggest customers at the end of the day. It all just seems a bit foolish to me.

03-27-2011, 02:09 AM	#95
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,544 Karma: 93383099 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	I'm not trying to win a popularity contest . Are you saying, Mike, that anyone who buys media should be permitted to illegally download it with impunity?

03-27-2011, 06:13 AM	#96
mike_bike_kite Digitally confused Posts: 500 Karma: 1500000 Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: London, UK Device: KPW, K2i, Nexus 7 32gb, Kobo Mini	I see no point in criminalising a large percentage of society, especially when it's those people who keep your industry going. When the method of identifying "criminals" by IP address is deeply flawed and when the law itself is only supported by a small percentage (in this thread under 15%). I don't even feel morally wrong because now I just get to buy the items I actually enjoy.