UK: DEA Enforcement delayed until 2012

[WallOfSound]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

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

Again you've just posted a link without actually saying anything which is pretty unhelpful as I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make. This time you've just linked to the act itself so I guess you want me to back up that post you quoted right?

Originally Posted by Digital Economy Act 2010

124A

Obligation to notify subscribers of copyright infringement reports.
(1)This section applies if it appears to a copyright owner that—.
(a)a subscriber to an internet access service has infringed the owner's copyright by means of the service; or.
(b)a subscriber to an internet access service has allowed another person to use the service, and that other person has infringed the owner's copyright by means of the service..

(2)The owner may make a copyright infringement report to the internet service provider who provided the internet access service if a code in force under section 124C or 124D (an “initial obligations code”) allows the owner to do so..

(3)A “copyright infringement report” is a report that—.
(a)states that there appears to have been an infringement of the owner's copyright;.
(b)includes a description of the apparent infringement;.
(c)includes evidence of the apparent infringement that shows the subscriber's IP address and the time at which the evidence was gathered;.
(d)is sent to the internet service provider within the period of 1 month beginning with the day on which the evidence was gathered; and.
(e)complies with any other requirement of the initial obligations code..

There. Now please explain how the legal requirement for a copyright owner to file a report which specifically includes evidence before the ISPs are required to do anything on their behalf doesn't make a mockery of your post:

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.

[WallOfSound]

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

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.

Public vs. Private is not the issue, to prevent illegal activity the authorities have a right to monitor private spaces. It is entirely a matter of extent, which is why the suggestion of this being comparable to recording cameras in every home is clearly nonsense.

I've read Orwell. He would be pretty depressed if he saw people invoking 1984 at the suggestion companies should take some responsibility for trying to prevent illegal activity occuring through their channels.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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.

Only until piracy fails to drop by 70%. Which it obviously won't do.

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by WallOfSound

Public vs. Private is not the issue, to prevent illegal activity the authorities have a right to monitor private spaces. It is entirely a matter of extent, which is why the suggestion of this being comparable to recording cameras in every home is clearly nonsense.

I've read Orwell. He would be pretty depressed if he saw people invoking 1984 at the suggestion companies should take some responsibility for trying to prevent illegal activity occuring through their channels.

Public vs. Private is precisely the issue. Of course, I am perhaps confusing American ideals of due process with British ideals doing whatever you want to your subjects. There was a reason why we stopped letting you in on our business.

[HarryT]

There is "due process", as has been said over and over again. Nobody is spying on you, and no punishment will be imposed upon anyone without evidence being presented to a court. Can you explain what it is about this that you are objecting to?

[Logseman]

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

Public vs. Private is precisely the issue. Of course, I am perhaps confusing American ideals of due process with British ideals doing whatever you want to your subjects. There was a reason why we stopped letting you in on our business.

Which wasn't precisely differences about the due process concept if I recall correctly.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

There is "due process", as has been said over and over again. Nobody is spying on you, and no punishment will be imposed upon anyone without evidence being presented to a court. Can you explain what it is about this that you are objecting to?

Do you mean the appeals process? That comes after the punishment, not before. And with Legal Aid being slashed it's unlikely many people will be able to afford to appeal anyway.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Do you mean the appeals process? That comes after the punishment, not before. And with Legal Aid being slashed it's unlikely many people will be able to afford to appeal anyway.

I'm sorry, I'm not with you. I'm talking about the fact that IF the right-holder wishes action to be taken against the alleged offender, they have to take legal action against them in court, and present evidence, as in any other case. That's the only route for "punishing" anyone. There is no other.

[Richey79]

Three things will mean that this legislation will never actually affect more than a very token few scape-goat individuals:

- It's a long time 'til it comes into force. The tech community work far, far faster than the law-makers, who have so far shown a very outdated understanding of the technology involved.

- Some of the larger, more powerful ISPs will fight the legislation. These are the ones who will gain customers in the future at a rapid rate. They can afford the very best lawyers, who will be instructed to play the system for all it's worth ( 'it's a practical impossibility to record all that data for every one of our customers, don't you know guvvnor' ).

- All the cases alleging infringement that have actually reached court so far have been so successful, despite the fact that they've taken years to reach judgement and cost the right holders far more than they ever have a chance of recouping.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm sorry, I'm not with you. I'm talking about the fact that IF the right-holder wishes action to be taken against the alleged offender, they have to take legal action against them in court, and present evidence, as in any other case. That's the only route for "punishing" anyone. There is no other.

You are talking about what will happen if unauthorised downloading in the UK falls by 70%. I am talking about what will happen when it doesn't.

That is when people accused of unauthorised downloading will have their entire family kicked off the internet without the need for any evidence whatsoever. At that point, assuming they can afford to do so, they can appeal against this action.

[mr ploppy]

People who think an IP address is absolute proof of guilt might be interested in this recent study:

http://www.thinq.co.uk/2011/3/16/ico...security-woes/

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

You are talking about what will happen if unauthorised downloading in the UK falls by 70%. I am talking about what will happen when it doesn't.

That is when people accused of unauthorised downloading will have their entire family kicked off the internet without the need for any evidence whatsoever. At that point, assuming they can afford to do so, they can appeal against this action.

No, I'm talking about the law as it actually is at the present time. You are speculating about what might happen under additional legislation which may come into force in the future.

France does not appear to have suffered mass internet disconnections as a result of its anti-piracy laws; can you elaborate as to why you believe that this is likely to occur in the UK?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, I'm talking about the law as it actually is at the present time. You are speculating about what might happen under additional legislation which may come into force in the future.

France does not appear to have suffered mass internet disconnections as a result of its anti-piracy laws; can you elaborate as to why you believe that this is likely to occur in the UK?

Because that was always the plan, right from the beginning. Everything else was (and still is) already possible under existing laws.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8328820.stm

Future plans are detailed here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/24/section/9

Saying none of those plans will be implemented because piracy is going to drop by 70% is wishful thinking at best.

7 million downloaders are causing £12billion of lost revenue per year. If revenue from those 7 million downloaders doesn't reach at least £8.4billion in the first year, that means the 70% reduction in downloading hasn't been achieved.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Because that was always the plan, right from the beginning. Everything else was (and still is) already possible under existing laws.

Precisely. Everything else was possible under existing laws. That's exactly what I keep saying: that the DEA, as it currently stands, does not impose any additional "punishment" over what was already possible.

Future plans are detailed here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/24/section/9

Saying none of those plans will be implemented because piracy is going to drop by 70% is wishful thinking at best.

Thanks for the reference, but I'm very well aware of what the possible future steps are. But what I'm saying is that they are simply a possibility. We've had a change of government, and there's a Parliamentary enquiry currently under way into the DEA. Let's wait and see what happens before we start predicting the downfall of civilisation.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Precisely. Everything else was possible under existing laws. That's exactly what I keep saying: that the DEA, as it currently stands, does not impose any additional "punishment" over what was already possible.

It wasn't the punishment the entertainment industry lobbyists had problems with, it was the need to gather evidence. That was why they pushed for this law, and why the BPI wanted a hand in writing it.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Thanks for the reference, but I'm very well aware of what the possible future steps are. But what I'm saying is that they are simply a possibility.

Do you think it is likely that entertainment industry revenue will increase by £8.4billion this year?

Originally Posted by HarryT

We've had a change of government, and there's a Parliamentary enquiry currently under way into the DEA. Let's wait and see what happens before we start predicting the downfall of civilisation.

Do you mean the high court review that started last week because of BT and Talktalk?