Ruling: IP address does not identify person

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

It could not be applied to this because not all users of the wireless internet point can be proven to have the intention of piracy. If a group of individuals all come to blows with a person, there is demonstrable intent. They're different cases.

There doesn't have to be an intention to commit a particular crime in order to use common endeavour; there simply has to be demonstrable lack of any action to prevent a crime which you are aware is being committed.

In the case of a shared family computer which "someone" is using to download illegal material onto, it seems very likely that the other family members are aware of the downloading even if they are not actively participating in it (eg if they are all watching the downloaded movies). That seems like a reasonable candidate for a common endeavour prosecution to me.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

Am I the only one feeling uncomfortable that murder is equated with IP theft?

I'm not equating them; I'm just using murder as a commonly-prosecuted example of common endeavour, but it's used in all sorts of crimes. Fraud is another common one - when one of the directors of a business is "cooking the books", you can't show who it is specifically, but you can show that all the directors were aware of it.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by HarryT

There doesn't have to be an intention to commit a particular crime in order to use common endeavour; there simply has to be demonstrable lack of any action to prevent a crime which you are aware is being committed.

In the case of a shared family computer which "someone" is using to download illegal material onto, it seems very likely that the other family members are aware of the downloading even if they are not actively participating in it (eg if they are all watching the downloaded movies). That seems like a reasonable candidate for a common endeavour prosecution to me.

You really think the legal system should encourage family members to turn on each other in order to avoid prosecution for IP theft?
In my mind, and perhaps I'm alone, downloading pirated material is at most a misdemeanor, uploading and making it available, on the other hand, is a felony.

When I was a kid some of us would record some new Beatles or Rolling Stones album on cassette tape and spread it among our closest friends, the unspoken rule was that when the next album appeared someone else had to buy it and record it for the others. That way we would all have access to more music than we could afford. Pirating? Most likely, from a strict legal view point. However, the authorities soon realized that they didn't want to overcrowd juvenile delinquent centers with music crazed teenagers, nor would they like the police to go searching homes for tapes (who knew what was recorded by whom). The solution was an added tax on music tapes, the proceed going to STIM (music copyright license distribution) that would distribute that income according to album sales.

Obviously, right now there is a problem doing the same thing with digital content since there is no product to tax. USB memories are used for other things than distributing copyrighted material.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

You really think the legal system should encourage family members to turn on each other in order to avoid prosecution for IP theft?

What would you suggest as an alternative? That's a serious question.

In my mind, and perhaps I'm alone, downloading pirated material is at most a misdemeanor, uploading and making it available, on the other hand, is a felony.

No, I totally agree with you, and have said several times in the thread that I think the current level of fines is ludicrous. Make the punishment fit the crime - at present, it's totally disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. I've already suggested that perhaps you could perhaps fine someone 10x the price of the DVD for downloading a copyrighted movie - enough to make someone think twice about doing it again, but not enough to financially cripple someone.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

You really think the legal system should encourage family members to turn on each other in order to avoid prosecution for IP theft?
In my mind, and perhaps I'm alone, downloading pirated material is at most a misdemeanor, uploading and making it available, on the other hand, is a felony.

When I was a kid some of us would record some new Beatles or Rolling Stones album on cassette tape and spread it among our closest friends, the unspoken rule was that when the next album appeared someone else had to buy it and record it for the others. That way we would all have access to more music than we could afford. Pirating? Most likely, from a strict legal view point. However, the authorities soon realized that they didn't want to overcrowd juvenile delinquent centers with music crazed teenagers, nor would they like the police to go searching homes for tapes (who knew what was recorded by whom). The solution was an added tax on music tapes, the proceed going to STIM (music copyright license distribution) that would distribute that income according to album sales.

Obviously, right now there is a problem doing the same thing with digital content since there is no product to tax. USB memories are used for other things than distributing copyrighted material.

If someone in the family buys stuff and then makes copies to distribute to family members, of course you shouldn't turn them in. But if someone in your family habitually downloads illegal materials? Obviously you should try to get the person to stop on his or her own. If that doesn't work, a small run in with the law and an appropriate fine may just be the wake up call that person needs before he or she progresses to do even worse things.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

If someone in the family buys stuff and then makes copies to distribute to family members, of course you shouldn't turn them in. But if someone in your family habitually downloads illegal materials? Obviously you should try to get the person to stop on his or her own. If that doesn't work, a small run in with the law and an appropriate fine may just be the wake up call that person needs before he or she progresses to do even worse things.

... and at the end of the day, the only way to stop piracy is education - making it socially unacceptable to download copyrighted material without paying for it. An analogy would perhaps be drink driving - 30 years ago in the UK it was of course illegal, but vast numbers of people did it. Today, after a generation of public education, people who are convicted of drink driving are "social pariahs", treated with contempt by all.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What would you suggest as an alternative? That's a serious question.

Right now I'm reading "Kim Jon-Il's Chef" by Kenji Fujimoto (my translation of the title) a unique behind the scenes view of North Korea's First Family. There are some really disturbing incidents in which people within the ruling Workers' Party where thought to stage a coup d'etàt against Mr. Kim. Those involved, their closest co-workers, family (parent's and children) were summarily executed, no trial, no appeal.

Now, I know that you are not suggesting anything along that line. But it is a start, a scary start. If you can't enforce a rule without snitching, then don't enforce it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

Now, I know that you are not suggesting anything along that line. But it is a start, a scary start. If you can't enforce a rule without snitching, then don't enforce it.

But we already do. As I've said before, if your car is photographed by a speed camera then the registered keeper of the vehicle is required by law to disclose the identity of the driver at the time of the offence. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

Right now I'm reading "Kim Jon-Il's Chef" by Kenji Fujimoto (my translation of the title) a unique behind the scenes view of North Korea's First Family. There are some really disturbing incidents in which people within the ruling Workers' Party where thought to stage a coup d'etàt against Mr. Kim. Those involved, their closest co-workers, family (parent's and children) were summarily executed, no trial, no appeal.

Now, I know that you are not suggesting anything along that line. But it is a start, a scary start. If you can't enforce a rule without snitching, then don't enforce it.

I don't see how you can even think of comparing the two. You could actually make a much better case that the widespread disregard for the law that is evidenced in ignoring other people's rights (including copyright) is the first step towards such a system. It is a sad state when other people's rights mean nothing as long as one can be reasonable certain that one will not get caught. Just as the elite in North Korea. Those that they take advantage of don't matter to the elite, because they think they will never be brought to justice. They just take what they want, just like illegal downloaders.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But we already do. As I've said before, if your car is photographed by a speed camera then the registered keeper of the vehicle is required by law to disclose the identity of the driver at the time of the offence. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.

I don't know why you keep harping back to that analogy. It doesn't hold. Speeding kills, and it is in society's interests to deter people from doing so. Internet piracy is not comparable.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

I don't know why you keep harping back to that analogy. It doesn't hold. Speeding kills, and it is in society's interests to deter people from doing so. Internet piracy is not comparable.

It's also in society's interests to deter people from software piracy, so I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I do think that the analogy is apt.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's also in society's interests to deter people from software piracy, so I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I do think that the analogy is apt.

Of course deterrence of any illegal act is in society's interests. But I think we're all wise enough to realise that not all illegal acts are equal, and not all need to be, or can be, dealt with in the same manner.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I don't see how you can even think of comparing the two. You could actually make a much better case that the widespread disregard for the law that is evidenced in ignoring other people's rights (including copyright) is the first step towards such a system. It is a sad state when other people's rights mean nothing as long as one can be reasonable certain that one will not get caught. Just as the elite in North Korea. Those that they take advantage of don't matter to the elite, because they think they will never be brought to justice. They just take what they want, just like illegal downloaders.

I certainly do not encourage violating any one's copyright. I do recognize that as a young teenager you aren't really aware of the harm you are imparting. I certainly wasn't. As an adult I would never condone it. But I would hate to see a society that would punish parents for not reporting their children's illegal downloading.
The reason I brought up example from the book, is simply that it is very vivid in my mind at the present. And I fear that once you start to accept snitching to come to terms with IP theft, it can all too easily spread into other sectors of law enforcement. I don't believe it would reach North Korean proportions, that wouldn't happen in a democracy. It would however spread distrust, sooner or later leading to mistrust.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

I certainly do not encourage violating any one's copyright. I do recognize that as a young teenager you aren't really aware of the harm you are imparting. I certainly wasn't. As an adult I would never condone it. But I would hate to see a society that would punish parents for not reporting their children's illegal downloading.

If parents do not have the sense of social responsibility to prevent their children from committing crimes if they see them doing so, perhaps some outside intervention is required?

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's also in society's interests to deter people from software piracy, so I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I do think that the analogy is apt.

Originally Posted by howyoudoin
I don't know why you keep harping back to that analogy. It doesn't hold. Speeding kills, and it is in society's interests to deter people from doing so. Internet piracy is not comparable.

It seems to me that HarryT sees IP theft as a much more severe offense than some others, at least me.
I believe in taking a screwdriver to a problem that needs some screws to be tightened, not a sledgehammer.