UK: DEA Enforcement delayed until 2012

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

The ISP will only know what went to that IP address, they would have no way of knowing if it was a drive-by downloader or a cloned modem or not.

But what happens when someone doesn't own up to a different crime? Do they prosecute the entire family or look for further evidence until they can prove which one it was?

Well, as I've said before, in the case of a speeding offence, the registered keeper of the vehicle will get fined. I have looked at the pictures taken on the two occasions when I've had speeding tickets, and in neither was the driver visible.

Guilt in a civil case is on the balance of probabilities. If evidence can be produced to show that a downloaded file was sent to a particular IP address, and the ISP shows that that IP address was assigned to Mr. Smith at the time that the time was downloaded, then a reasonable person would conclude that either Mr. Smith or someone in his household did indeed, on the balance of probabilities, download that file. I really do not see how this can be denied.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Guilt in a civil case is on the balance of probabilities. If evidence can be produced to show that a downloaded file was sent to a particular IP address, and the ISP shows that that IP address was assigned to Mr. Smith at the time that the time was downloaded, then a reasonable person would conclude that either Mr. Smith or someone in his household did indeed, on the balance of probabilities, download that file. I really do not see how this can be denied.

This is where we part company.
If this level of evidence was as reliable as a registration number in a speed camera photo, I think I might agree with you.
It just isn't.
And there is no real reason for the rightsholders (or the third parties they contract to) to take meticulous care over gathering the data, versus just sending out more letters. What is the cost to them if they send a letter to the wrong person?
And what ability does the (innocent) householder in that situation have to contest the evidence? There is no independent verification that the IP address did download anything, so no way for them to rebut the claim.
In this process the rightsholders would simply be asserting something to be true, with no way of it being verified.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Well, as I've said before, in the case of a speeding offence, the registered keeper of the vehicle will get fined. I have looked at the pictures taken on the two occasions when I've had speeding tickets, and in neither was the driver visible.

Guilt in a civil case is on the balance of probabilities. If evidence can be produced to show that a downloaded file was sent to a particular IP address, and the ISP shows that that IP address was assigned to Mr. Smith at the time that the time was downloaded, then a reasonable person would conclude that either Mr. Smith or someone in his household did indeed, on the balance of probabilities, download that file. I really do not see how this can be denied.

If you look at the links I provided yesterday you will see lots of people who denied it when accused by ACS with the same level of evidence. Are you suggesting they are all liars?

This is the standard of evidence provided (PDF).
http://torrentfreak.com.nyud.net:808...93506062-1.pdf

Did you know that Logistep, the company that provides this evidence is actually banned from operating within its own country?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

In this process the rightsholders would simply be asserting something to be true, with no way of it being verified.

That was the whole point of the law, to remove the need for any evidence. They already knew a screenshot showing an IP address didn't prove anything. If our MPs didn't think an IP address meant a website full of pirate software I'm sure they would have picked up on this small point during the discussion stage.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

That was the whole point of the law, to remove the need for any evidence. They already knew a screenshot showing an IP address didn't prove anything. If our MPs didn't think an IP address meant a website full of pirate software I'm sure they would have picked up on this small point during the discussion stage.

What would you accept as hard evidence, as a matter of interest?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What would you accept as hard evidence, as a matter of interest?

A file on a computer, or some trace of there being one at the time of the aleged crime. There would also be lots of CDR/DVDRs around their house.

With Jammie Thomas there was also evidence of the username she used on the filesharing network being used elsewhere and linked with her name and email address. On some you have to pay, so then there would be a Paypal trail to follow.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

A file on a computer, or some trace of there being one at the time of the aleged crime. There would also be lots of CDR/DVDRs around their house.

With Jammie Thomas there was also evidence of the username she used on the filesharing network being used elsewhere and linked with her name and email address. On some you have to pay, so then there would be a Paypal trail to follow.

So you're suggesting that if someone is suspected of copyright infringement, then, rather than sending them a warning letter politely requesting them to stop, there should be a raid on their home and seizure of all their computer equipment?

I hope you'll forgive me for saying that I regard the first approach as rather less "invasive".

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So you're suggesting that if someone is suspected of copyright infringement, then, rather than sending them a warning letter politely requesting them to stop, there should be a raid on their home and seizure of all their computer equipment?

I hope you'll forgive me for saying that I regard the first approach as rather less "invasive".

As you already know, they won't just send a letter. But methods of gathering evidence against suspected infringers is just one of the things that should have been discussed before passing the BPI's law.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So you're suggesting that if someone is suspected of copyright infringement, then, rather than sending them a warning letter politely requesting them to stop, there should be a raid on their home and seizure of all their computer equipment?

I hope you'll forgive me for saying that I regard the first approach as rather less "invasive".

I don't think that that is the step being complained of.
It is either when your internet access gets disabled or when you are sued, with the process being legitimised by the new legislation.

[HarryT]

BPI's law? What are you referring to?

[Elfwreck]

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.

Sure. They should be required to follow the instructions of any legal court order.

The ability to tag people "lawbreakers" should not be handed over to corporations.

(Will they be shutting down access to YouTube? To Google, which people use to find copyrighted materials to download?)

If there's copyright infringement going on (which I'm not questioning), there are venues to prosecute or sue about it. If those aren't sufficient to protect the victims, improve them. We don't grant assault victims the right to handcuff people who they think might assault them in the future--not even if they've assaulted that person in the past.

Shutting down someone's internet access should require a court order, which should require legally-submitted evidence at the level that's required for a search warrant. If the courts can't handle that level of activity--that says the "crime" has become so common that most people aren't interested in stopping it. When the majority of the public isn't interested in enforcement, it's time to reconsider the laws.

Doesn't mean throw them out. In the US, civil rights laws often go against the will of the majority. But it's definitely worth considering who and what the laws protect, considering how much money has to be spent enforcing them.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

BPI's law? What are you referring to?

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

http://boingboing.net/2010/03/12/lea...ecord-ind.html

http://boingboing.net/2010/03/11/lea...l#previouspost

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

But it's definitely worth considering who and what the laws protect, considering how much money has to be spent enforcing them.

I still don't see why the UK entertainment industry can't pay for enforcing this law out of the extra £12billion per year they will be making when unauthorised downloads are eliminated.

[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...

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, that was the point I was making. Should a person become immune from prosecution if they leave their WiFi unsecured? That is what some people appear to be suggesting, and I can't see the rational behind that.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, I am. If a crime is committed through an act of carelessness on your part, you are responsible for it. If you kill someone while driving, you are still punished even if there was no intent to harm anyone on your part.

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 its use?

Or should they just revoke your driver's license and insist that no car be registered at your household because of it? After all, that would teach you not to leave a car where someone could take it.