Ofcom publishes its DEA proposals

[mr ploppy]

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/con...notice/summary

The main news for anyone wrongly accused is they will need to pay £20 if they want to attempt to prove their innocence. But then there is a cryptic line at the end that says "On the instruction of Government we have removed the ability for subscribers to appeal on any other ground on which they choose to rely."

Secondary news is that warning letters are going to be sent normal post, not registered post. Anyone who uses the post a lot will know how many letters Royal Mail lose every year.

[tubemonkey]

Your title threw me. Here in the US, DEA stands for Drug Enforcement Agency; and for a moment, I was one confused monkey.

[mr ploppy]

Ah okay. Someone might want to change the title then.

[JoeD]

Applaud the reason for the changes, but I really don't like the way they've implemented this. Having to pay £20 just to contest a charge against you is <insert lots of colourful language> stupid. I won't dredge up the old arguments but anyone interested in them just has to read the "IP does not identify a person" thread.

This is going to sound like a broken record, but the pirates are yet again getting the better deal. Think about it. I get a letter accusing me of downloading movies, I haven't', but I have to pay £20 to contest it. I'm either out of pocket, or branded a pirate because I didn't defend myself and risking further sanctions as the letters pile up.

Pirate downloads movies, gets a letter, no need to contest since he/she knows they're guilty, no need to pay £20 and no need to stop as it's just a letter. They'll wait until 3 or more have arrived and more sanctions before even considering stopping, or they'll switch how they download to avoid IP logging.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

The main news for anyone wrongly accused is they will need to pay £20 if they want to attempt to prove their innocence.

Yes, but the fee would be refundable if the attempt succeeds (see para 38(2)).

Mike

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Yes, but the fee would be refundable if the attempt succeeds (see para 38(2)).

Mike

But how do you prove you didn't do something?

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

But how do you prove you didn't do something?

True. But then again, you don't have to prove anything in order to get the fee refunded. You get it back if the appeal succeeds. That could mean that the plaintiffs fail to demonstrate their case.

But you've raised a good point. It's not clear why there has to be a fee in the first place. The DMCA in the US doesn't require a fee in those circumstances, as far as I know.

Mike

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

[url]
The main news for anyone wrongly accused is they will need to pay £20 if they want to attempt to prove their innocence.

Prove their innocence.

Does anyone else find that phrase really frightening?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Mike L

It's not clear why there has to be a fee in the first place.

To discourage people from disputing the accusations?

[Edward M. Grant]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Prove their innocence.

Does anyone else find that phrase really frightening?

Britain dropped 'innocent until proven guilty' years ago. Since the early 90s governments seem to have come to regard 1984 as a training manual, not a warning.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Prove their innocence.

Does anyone else find that phrase really frightening?

As I said earlier, it's not a question of proving your innocence. This isn't a criminal trial, and there's no question of "guilty beyond all reasonable doubt".

I'm not in favour of having the fee. In fact, the whole mechanism is unnecessarily compllicated. But there's really nothing "frightening" about it.

Mike