UK: DEA Enforcement delayed until 2012

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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

Couldn't find any, but the level of piracy in France actually increased after the passing of Hadopi. P2P (easy to catch) decreased, but other methods (harder to catch) increased by 27% giving an overall increase of 3% over the pre-Hadopi levels.

That is pretty much what I expect will happen here. File collectors and freeloaders will just move underground and carry on as normal. It will only be people who use it as a way of judging what to buy that will be put off. Obviously if that happens they won't be able to buy anywhere near as much legitimate content as they are now.

http://www.numerama.com/magazine/152...-piratage.html

http://translate.google.co.uk/transl...-piratage.html

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Personally, I'm very much in favour of it.

I'm shocked!

[speakingtohe]

Why should they be forced to intervene? Because they are really the only ones in a position to do so.

Huh? "They" are a private enterprise, not a law enforcement agency. I doubt very much if they have the ability to do anything about it without a lot of expense. They can report their customers, friends, neighbours and family members etc. and make them change services etc. but what good will it do.

Law enforcement agencies can prosecute these people, but is that a good thing?

Do crimes like child abuse, murder, rape, theft, fraud etc. take second place to internet theft of intellectual property.

Theft of intellectual property is wrong, and I am and have been vocal on that subject.

The idea that the ISP's can and should stop it is even more wrong on so many levels.

• There is much mail fraud/abuse and the postal system is the only one in the position to stop it.
  
  There is much telephone fraud/abuse and the telephone providers are in the only position to stop this.
  
  Both telephone fraud and abuse have gone on for quite a while without the companies/government agencies been held accountable. so why make the ISP's the victim.
  
  It goes against the capitalist ideal of making money as opposed to going out of business
  
  If someone is accused of a crime they should have a right to legal process and most Isp's are not elected judge or jury.
  

I am sure the OP does not put this at the top of his list and volunteers at homeless shelters and redirects a major part of his income to good causes, hence the holier than though attitude, but even so I doubt his grip on reality.

The only way the Isp's can effectively control the use of their ystems is to assign people to monitor each user (at great cost) or go out of business and save themselves a few bucks

Helen

[HarryT]

Helen,

Telephone companies are required to keep records of all the calls that their customers make, for the purpose of assisting law-enforcement agencies when required to do so by the appropriate legal measures. As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), this law will require ISPs to do something pretty similar. It certainly won't be a case of the ISP "assigning people to monitor each user", any more than telephone companies do; what reason do you have to suppose that it will?

[8annika.yael]

Originally Posted by TallMomof2

In the US, DEA is the abbreviation for Drug Enforcement Agency and I was trying to figure out how the US DEA was involved with copyright infringement in the UK. Too early in the day for me.

that's what got ME, too. still an interesting read.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Helen,

Telephone companies are required to keep records of all the calls that their customers make, for the purpose of assisting law-enforcement agencies when required to do so by the appropriate legal measures. As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), this law will require ISPs to do something pretty similar. It certainly won't be a case of the ISP "assigning people to monitor each user", any more than telephone companies do; what reason do you have to suppose that it will?

Telephone companies don't have to track hundreds of calls per number per day. Most people don't make dozens of calls per day, much less hundreds. Those that do, tend to be businesses, on a different pay-system. If ISPs have to track every URL visited & every data-exchange by every account, that's a whole lot more data collection than telephone companies have to do.

It also brings up privacy questions. Phone companies don't hand over their records to, for example, stores that claim phones are being used to spread slander about them. They need specific evidence before getting permission to access a particular person's records. Monitoring individuals' internet traffic, with no reason to assume they're doing anything illegal other than "well, somebody is, and maybe this person is too," seems like a massive invasion of privacy and presumption of guilt.

[WallOfSound]

That's like objecting to speed cameras on the basis they monitor everyone's driving.

[EowynCarter]

It also brings up privacy questions. Phone companies don't hand over their records to, for example, stores that claim phones are being used to spread slander about them. They need specific evidence before getting permission to access a particular person's records. Monitoring individuals' internet traffic, with no reason to assume they're doing anything illegal other than "well, somebody is, and maybe this person is too," seems like a massive invasion of privacy and presumption of guilt.

Exactly !

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by WallOfSound

That's like objecting to speed cameras on the basis they monitor everyone's driving.

It's more like objecting to the government putting cameras in every home.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

It's more like objecting to the government putting cameras in every home.

every TV set.

[WallOfSound]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

It's more like objecting to the government putting cameras in every home.

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.

[mr ploppy]

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.

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.

[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.

[mr ploppy]

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.

You mean they have to allege someone might have downloaded something without authorisation.

But that was in response to someone's idea that the ISPs should monitor all traffic looking for people.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

You mean they have to allege someone might have downloaded something without authorisation.

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

But that was in response to someone's idea that the ISPs should monitor all traffic looking for people.

I'm sure that someone has postulated that. But it hasn't happened, so why worry about it? The point is that, contrary to your claim, ISPs are not "policing" anybody, and it's misleading to suggest that they are.