UK: DEA Enforcement delayed until 2012

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

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.

As an interested party, they certainly offered their views of it, yes. As did I: I contacted my MP about it and expressed my views. I imagine many people did the same.

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

Where do you get that figure from? My understanding is that the 70% reduction in piracy will be measured in terms of the measured number of instances of copyright infringement, not by an increase in revenue. Not every instance of someone deciding not to download something illegally will result in that person buying the product instead.

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

No. I'm referring to the current ongoing inquiry into the DEA by the cross-party Parliamentary committee on Culture, Media, and Sport. Their remit is to investigate different methods of reducing copyright infringement, and report on what methods are likely to be most effective in achieving the goal of reducing it.

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by Logseman

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

Perhaps you don't know history very well. Lucky for you, we Americans wrote it down in nice, clear text:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html

As you will see by reading that document, well over two thirds of the specific complaints have to do with a lack of due process in the legislature, the passing of laws, and the justice system.

[Logseman]

Do not worry, I have read the Declaration of Independence. Yet I think it is easy to agree on the idea that people don't slaughter each other for fine differences in the due process of citizens, particularly when by "citizens" only a minority of the population was meant. I would daresay other more powerful interests were behind the war. We Spaniards know very well about misguided motives for wars with the US. Remember the Maine? ^^

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by Logseman

Do not worry, I have read the Declaration of Independence. Yet I think it is easy to agree on the idea that people don't slaughter each other for fine differences in the due process of citizens, particularly when by "citizens" only a minority of the population was meant. I would daresay other more powerful interests were behind the war. We Spaniards know very well about misguided motives for wars with the US. Remember the Maine? ^^

If you want to call the content of the Declaration of Independence "fine differences in the due process of citizens", all I shall say is thus:

[Logseman]

I will answer with the same joy if you want to tell me that "they went to war because they felt that they were treated unfairly by the justice system". Let us keep our fun and good moments for ourselves though. We'll spoil it all if we try to convince each other, it seems.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

Perhaps you don't know history very well. Lucky for you, we Americans wrote it down in nice, clear text:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html

This would be a better point if the US required any more due process than that set forth in this law. It doesn't; this law easily meets American due process standards for this kind of administrative procedure. Pre-deprivation hearings are only required in very few cases involving the life-endangering situations.

This is not one of them.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Where do you get that figure from? My understanding is that the 70% reduction in piracy will be measured in terms of the measured number of instances of copyright infringement, not by an increase in revenue. Not every instance of someone deciding not to download something illegally will result in that person buying the product instead.

Well, obviously none of them will result in that person buying the product instead. But why would the entertainment industry ask/pay for a law like this if they had no intention of increasing the number of copyright reports sent out? The law is to streamline the process and make it easier for them, so such reports will greatly increase.

Originally Posted by HarryT

No. I'm referring to the current ongoing inquiry into the DEA by the cross-party Parliamentary committee on Culture, Media, and Sport. Their remit is to investigate different methods of reducing copyright infringement, and report on what methods are likely to be most effective in achieving the goal of reducing it.

Has anyone told them what an IP address is yet, or do they still think it is a website where you can download pirate stuff?

Assuming they somehow stumble across the correct answer — remove restrictions and increase quality to at least the same standard as the pirate offerings, and give away decent sized free samples — would they have the power to force the entertainment industry to do those things?

[crich70]

Ditto here. lol.

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I was thinking the same thing.

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

This would be a better point if the US required any more due process than that set forth in this law. It doesn't; this law easily meets American due process standards for this kind of administrative procedure. Pre-deprivation hearings are only required in very few cases involving the life-endangering situations.

This is not one of them.

I don't know of any case where a private company is in charge of administering punishment for a law. With the possible exception of privately run prisons (but the inmates are sent there by the justice system).

Even with speeding tickets, you can have a day in court before you must pay.

About the worst that can happen is that you are held in jail for a few days, or evidence can be confiscated and held for a while.

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by Logseman

I will answer with the same joy if you want to tell me that "they went to war because they felt that they were treated unfairly by the justice system". Let us keep our fun and good moments for ourselves though. We'll spoil it all if we try to convince each other, it seems.

You can ignore history as much as you want, but that will not change it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

I don't know of any case where a private company is in charge of administering punishment for a law. With the possible exception of privately run prisons (but the inmates are sent there by the justice system).

Even with speeding tickets, you can have a day in court before you must pay.

About the worst that can happen is that you are held in jail for a few days, or evidence can be confiscated and held for a while.

Private companies are not "administering punishment" in this case, either.

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Private companies are not "administering punishment" in this case, either.

Is the ISP not a private (or public, I really mean to differentiate between companies and the government) company?

[HarryT]

ISPs are indeed private companies, but ISPs are not administering any punishment to anyone. If a rights-holder wishes anyone to be punished under the DEA they have to go through the courts.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Private companies are not "administering punishment" in this case, either.

They will be when whatever method they use to measure piracy doesn't drop by 70%.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

They will be when whatever method they use to measure piracy doesn't drop by 70%.

I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I don't believe this is correct. The law may indeed require an ISP to withdraw their service under specified conditions, but the ISP will again not be "administering punishment"; it's the law that will do that.

Again, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the details of any of this have not been decided, to the best of my knowledge, and it will require additional legislation to be passed before any of it could happen.

As I said above, if a rights-holder wishes anyone to be punished, the current situation is that they have to go through the courts.