UK: DEA Enforcement delayed until 2012

[TGS]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Maybe, but it can be overused.

But not by most people

[mike_bike_kite]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Wrongful imprisonment? To the best of my knowledge, imprisonment - wrongly or otherwise - is not mandated as a punishment for illegal downloading the the DEA. What are you referring to?

I assumed this would happen if you don't pay the fines - do they just shrug then and go and hound someone else?

Originally Posted by HarryT

I also very much dispute your contention that "most of the population" doesn't see illegal downloading as a crime. Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?

You've been harping on about this for 6 days and haven't found one person who agrees that this law is a good one. Extrapolating out from the feedback in this thread it would imply that 95% people don't agree with this law. More concrete figures are difficult to find so I can only provide indicators.

The first torrent site I found, Minnova, stated that it has supplied 12 billion torrents but obviously there are lots of different torrent sites available. Checking on CNET I found a single torrent finding tool had been downloaded 20 million times but obviously there are hundreds of these tools and hundreds of sites to download them from.

Originally Posted by kennyc

This may be true and if so is very much a red-flag indicating a failure of society.

to me it just indicates a simple response to the overpricing of media these days.

Originally Posted by snipenekkid

probably since the discovery of cardinal numbers and counting.

LOL

[elcreative]

I have lost count of the times people with wi-fi routers just give a blank look when asked if it's secure... a rather larger percentage of the population here actually know about such things than the general population at large.

Still, doesn't matter, because they are technical novices then they deserve to be threatened, browbeaten, lose net access, be fined and possibly have their property seized because their IP has been used for downloads.

Ain't justice grand... guilty until proved innocent at your own expense...

Originally Posted by HarryT

I was talking about the situation where a person deliberately leaves their WiFi unsecured as a form of immunity from prosecution, should they be caught. This seems very wrong to me.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mike_bike_kite

[INDENT]I assumed this would happen if you don't pay the fines - do they just shrug then and go and hound someone else?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that imprisonment will result from the inability to pay a fine. I may however be wrong about that, never having been in that position.

You've been harping on about this for 6 days and haven't found one person who agrees that this law is a good one. Extrapolating out from the feedback in this thread it would imply that 95% people don't agree with this law. More concrete figures are difficult to find so I can only provide indicators.

Now that's something entirely different. Most people may well disagree with this law - I agree about that - but that's very different to saying that most people don't regard illegal downloading as a crime. I would argue that the overwhelming majority of people DO regard it as a crime (and, of course, it IS one). But I am equally unable to provide any evidence to support that .

The first torrent site I found, Minnova, stated that it has supplied 12 billion torrents but obviously there are lots of different torrent sites available.

What does that have to do with the price of fish? Sure, lots of people download stuff. That's blatantly obviously. That doesn't mean that they are unaware that it's illegal to do so.

[GeoffC]

The existence of torrents in itself is no proof of legality in what they provide.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by mike_bike_kite

[INDENT]You've been harping on about this for 6 days and haven't found one person who agrees that this law is a good one. Extrapolating out from the feedback in this thread it would imply that 95% people don't agree with this law. More concrete figures are difficult to find so I can only provide indicators.

Surely you don't think MobileRead readers are anything close to the general public when it comes to issues like this. And personally, I don't find HarryT to be harping on the issue any more than others have

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If you are caught speeding by a speed camera, that's exactly what happens - the registered owner of the vehicle will be prosecuted unless THEY can show that someone else was driving the vehicle at the time. I see no reason that This principle could not be equally applied to downloading.

If you're caught speeding on camera, you can provide evidence that you were elsewhere at the time. If your ISP records your IP address downloading/uploading something, they should have specific enough records that you might be able to say "I was at work/on vacation/shopping at that time." Or the less-direct, "we always watch [favorite sitcom] at that time; the whole family was glued to the TV set that hour; check with our friends & they'll tell you that we don't even answer the phone then."

Which, if the case went to court, the person accused of downloading would have the opportunity to do. As I understand the current law, there's no opportunity to say, "I have evidence that that wasn't me;" the internet access is cut off on the basis of the accusation, not any kind of proof.

[EowynCarter]

I appreciate the motives, but current technology doesn't allow this to be a safe law, imo. It breaks the presumption of innocence.

Exactly.
That kind of thing is not technically viable. IP can be spoofed. It won't work. Will just push pirates to use crypted VPM, unwatched means of sharing, spoof IP, hack into other's wi-fi, all that...

Nah, the only way to fight piracy is to make sure the legal offer is up to the task.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

If you're caught speeding on camera, you can provide evidence that you were elsewhere at the time. If your ISP records your IP address downloading/uploading something, they should have specific enough records that you might be able to say "I was at work/on vacation/shopping at that time." Or the less-direct, "we always watch [favorite sitcom] at that time; the whole family was glued to the TV set that hour; check with our friends & they'll tell you that we don't even answer the phone then."

Which, if the case went to court, the person accused of downloading would have the opportunity to do. As I understand the current law, there's no opportunity to say, "I have evidence that that wasn't me;" the internet access is cut off on the basis of the accusation, not any kind of proof.

My understanding is that the final stage of the process - the temporary suspension of internet access - would involve some sort of appeals tribunal. But, given that the law does not yet exist, nobody yet knows. Perhaps we should wait and see what the law actually turns out to be before imagining the worst?

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by HarryT

My understanding is that the final stage of the process - the temporary suspension of internet access - would involve some sort of appeals tribunal. But, given that the law does not yet exist, nobody yet knows. Perhaps we should wait and see what the law actually turns out to be before imagining the worst?

They wanted to cut Internet access without tribunal in France. Luckily the conseil constitutionel said "no way!"

Worse is, it's our tax money financing the haoppi.. Our tax money being spent in vain.
They could use that money where it actually useful. (Like education, hospitals, health insurance...)

I don't approve of piracy. But I don't approve of this kind of law either. I don't believe it will have effect result in fighting piracy.

[HarryT]

How many people have lost their internet access in France as the result of your law?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

This may be true and if so is very much a red-flag indicating a failure of society.

Maybe, but it looks more to me like they don't really care about big businesses at the expense of "normal" people. "Society" by definition includes everyone, not just large corporations. It doesn't really surprise me that they would favour things that benefit society as a whole over things that would only benefit a small minority.

Looking at the other crimes, mostly I would rate them as fairly "moral" in their ratings. Benefit fraud is a bit of a surprise, but I personally would agree that tax evasion is a lot worse than benefit fraud.

Tax evasion = bad
Piracy for commercial use = bad
Insurance fraud = bad
Child labour = bad
Individual benefit fraud = neutral
Piracy for own use = good

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by snipenekkid

my last post on MR. you all win...it is no fun anymore.

How come?

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by HarryT

How many people have lost their internet access in France as the result of your law?

Nobody. As I said, it's a useless waste of money.
Because of the conseil constitutionel, it goes to the tribunal. So they have to prove the Damm! What's the english word for that ! Well, person who use the internet, have indeed downloaded illegal stuff. Rather than the accuse having to give proof of innocence.
And imho, the IP is hardly any proof.

They have sent some mails, not sure they had any effect.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Which, if the case went to court, the person accused of downloading would have the opportunity to do. As I understand the current law, there's no opportunity to say, "I have evidence that that wasn't me;" the internet access is cut off on the basis of the accusation, not any kind of proof.

That is what I object to. They cut your family's internet off upon accusation and you won't get it back until you can prove you are innocent. They are also cutting Legal Aid for the poor, so it won't be cheap to do that either.