UK: DEA Enforcement delayed until 2012

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Copyright holders will be doing their own policing. The ISPs aren't going to tell the copyright holder when someone's illegally downloaded a file; the copyright holder has to tell the ISP.

How will they know? Will every copyright holder have the right to demand every ISP's records?

Of course not. "Every copyright holder" is "every literate or art-capable person in Europe." So they're going to provide *some* copyright holders access to information that other copyright holders, whose interests aren't considered as important, are not allowed.

[HarryT]

No, the law applies to everybody. If you're an author, and you find your book on a torrent site, you can download it, make a note of the IP addresses of the UK hosts who are offering that file, and request that the ISP issue warnings to those users. There are no "privileged" rights-holders in that respect. The important point is, though, that the onus is still on the rights-holder to discover copyright violations; contrary to what some have claimed, the ISPs won't do it for them.

[WallOfSound]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

What happens when everyone encrypts their traffic to avoid detection? With an extra 7 million people encrypting everything they send and receive that will cause massive problems in detecting crimes that are a lot more serious than people reading a book for free.

What is so wrong with expecting copyright holders to do their own policing? They are the ones that will be getting an extra £12billion per year in income after all.

Your first point is scaremongering again. You don't know that seven million people are going to start using VPNs because they want to continue pirating data and nobody can say what impact, if any, this would have on existing surveillance. Even supposing there was an impact which couldn't be dealt with via increased resources or a technical solution then the act could always be repealed.

HarryT has answered your second point. You are being disingenuous by claiming the ISPs will be policing people, it's more like they are no longer being allowed to turn a blind eye to their network being used for illegal activity.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by WallOfSound

You are being disingenuous by claiming the ISPs will be policing people, it's more like they are no longer being allowed to turn a blind eye to their network being used for illegal activity.

If the eye is blind, what does it matter if it is turned?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Correct. But they've always been able to allege that; this law doesn't change anything in that regard.

The law changes one important aspect of it — they no longer need any evidence. The accusation alone is enough to start the punishment process.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by WallOfSound

Your first point is scaremongering again. You don't know that seven million people are going to start using VPNs because they want to continue pirating data and nobody can say what impact, if any, this would have on existing surveillance. Even supposing there was an impact which couldn't be dealt with via increased resources or a technical solution then the act could always be repealed.

October 2007:
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...cle2592637.ece

November 2007:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11...ion_explosion/

[WallOfSound]

Neither of those two links address my post in any way save the section is the register article talking about the increase in encryption. I didn't deny that this will happen, I said your "seven million" figure was not factual and neither was the idea that this would cripple existing surveillance.

I have no idea why you posted the first article.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by WallOfSound

Neither of those two links address my post in any way save the section is the register article talking about the increase in encryption. I didn't deny that this will happen, I said your "seven million" figure was not factual and neither was the idea that this would cripple existing surveillance.

I have no idea why you posted the first article.

7 million is the number of people living in the UK that the entertainment industry says downloads unauthorised files.

[WallOfSound]

And it's a fact that 100% of current downloaders would have both the will and the way to implement secure data encryption is it?

This is an unimportant side issue anyway. Your argument seems to boil down to saying that because people will try and hide their illegal activity then we shouldn't attempt to catch them.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by WallOfSound

And it's a fact that 100% of current downloaders would have both the will and the way to implement secure data encryption is it?

This is an unimportant side issue anyway. Your argument seems to boil down to saying that because people will try and hide their illegal activity then we shouldn't attempt to catch them.

I suggest you read my comments again.

[WallOfSound]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

The law changes one important aspect of it — they no longer need any evidence. The accusation alone is enough to start the punishment process.

This is not true and doesn't even make sense.

[WallOfSound]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I suggest you read my comments again.

Once was enough thanks. An awful lot of scaremongering and a lack of knowledge about the proposed laws.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by WallOfSound

This is not true and doesn't even make sense.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/24/contents

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by WallOfSound

No it isn't. Speed cameras monitoring the road network and ISP software monitoring the telecommunications network have a clear purpose and are limited by this purpose. Equating either of those things with some sort of Orwellian Big Brother watching our every move is hysterical scare-mongering.

Apparently you are unaware that roads are a public space and computer networks in the vast majority of cases a private space.

It is also apparent that you haven't read Orwell's works.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

The law changes one important aspect of it — they no longer need any evidence. The accusation alone is enough to start the punishment process.

An IP address is prima facie evidence. Not perhaps definitive proof, but evidence, none the less. And it's exactly the same evidence that, under previous legislation, a rights-holder could have gone to court with to request a court order for the ISP to release personal information about the account holder. Indeed, that's still what has to happen if the rights-holder wishes to instigate legal procedings against the alleged offender.

Despite your protestations, nothing has changed here, in terms of the standard of proof. There is still an assumption of innocence, and a rights-holder still has to go to court, and present evidence of wrong-doing to that court, before any "punishment" will take place.