Amazon Announces Cloud Player and Cloud Drive

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, that's not the case. All the current legislation provides for is the process that I outlined about. ie:

1. Accuser makes allegation of copyright infringement to ISP.
2. ISP issues warning.
3. Periodically, rights holder can request anonymised list of subscribers who have exceeded a specified number of infringement allegations in a given period.
4. Rights holder presents evidence of wrongdoing to court.
5. Court issues order for ISP to disclose personal information.
6. Rights holder takes copyright infringement action against alleged infringer through the courts.

That's the limit of the law as it currently stands. In steps 4 and 6, evidence has to be presented to a court, just as it did under previous legislation. There's no change in the burden of guilt: it's still "innocent until proven guilty". Really the only change that the DEA makes is steps 1-3. A rights-holder accusing someone of copyright infringement has to provide exactly the same evidence to a court as they would have done previously.

4 to 6 are about the copyright holder's ability to persue a civil case against infringers, something they already had the power to do. There is still no requirement for any evidence for any stage up to and including an entire family being denied access to the internet.

But you still haven't explained how people are supposed to prove their innocence, especially without any Legal Aid. The entertainment industry will have very expensive lawyers, and not all judges will know that an IP address isn't the location of a website where you can download illegal files (which is what one of the MPs who passed this law thought).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

4 to 6 are about the copyright holder's ability to persue a civil case against infringers, something they already had the power to do. There is still no requirement for any evidence for any stage up to and including an entire family being denied access to the internet.

As you very well know, there is no provision for anyone being "denied access to the internet" in the current law. That would require secondary legislation. There is currently an investigation being conducted by the Parliamentary Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, into the Act. Perhaps we should wait and hear the outcome of their report before we jump to conclusions about what may or may not happen? Given that there's been a change of government since the original law was passed, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Act were to be changed.

But you still haven't explained how people are supposed to prove their innocence, especially without any Legal Aid.

There is no requirement to prove innocence. The burden of responsibility is, as always, on the accuser to prove guilt. This law does absolutely nothing to change the level of evidence required for a conviction; I'm not sure why you think that it does? You say that courts have ruled that an IP address does not constitute proof of illegal activities. If that's the case, then people have nothing to worry about.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

As you very well know, there is no provision for anyone being "denied access to the internet" in the current law. That would require secondary legislation.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...55#post1469455

"will ONLY come into force if the initial measures permitted by the act fail to result in a stipulated reduction in the amount of piracy"

We all know that is a foregone conclusion since it will not have any affect on piracy levels at all, and certainly won't reduce it by the 70% they expect. In fact if the UK populations acts the same way as the French population did when they had a similar law passed, piracy will actually increase.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

My response would be, if it were a groundless accusation "accuse away". Because you're rather missing the point: this is the first stage in the process and has no effect on the consumer.

I think some people might take offense to being accused of breaking the law, and now having it officially recorded on their account that they have done so.

The next stage in the process is that the rights-holder can request an "anonymised" list from the ISP of all customers who have exceeded a certain level of complaints in a given time period (that period to be defined by OfCom regulations). They then have to go to court, present their evidence to the court, and get a court order for the ISP to release subscriber information.

Very little evidence is required to get a Norwich Pharmacal order, and you would not be a party to the case, or even be notified that it was happening.

Nevertheless there is a potential difficulty with the Norwich Pharmacal process which is put into focus by the cases before me. The respondent to the Norwich Pharmacal application for disclosure - while obviously wishing to ensure that an order is not made when it would be inappropriate to do so – has no direct interest in the underlying cause of action relied on. The respondent is not going to be sued. A Norwich Pharmacal application is not and cannot be the place in which to try the cause of action. That happens when the person's identity is revealed and then usually proceedings are commenced. Even if proceedings are not commenced – in a situation like Ashworth where a single name is being sought in order to discipline the person – no doubt that person would be able to take whatever steps to defend themselves they wished to and if necessary the matter could come to an appropriate court or tribunal.

Chief Master Winegarten made Norwich Pharmacal orders in the present case. The respondents were internet service providers (ISPs) whose records can identify the names and addresses of their subscribers based on IP addresses at a given date and time. Amongst other things Media CAT presented Chief Master Winegarten with statements from technical experts to support their case. The Norwich Pharmacal orders were made and as a result the ISP provided the names and addresses of subscribers which the ISP stated represented the various IP addresses identified by Media CAT . Tens of thousands of names and addresses have been produced to Media CAT as a result of the 3 or 4 relevant Norwich Pharmacal orders, the earliest of which was in November 2009. There have been other similar Norwich Pharmacal orders in recent years, before November 2009, which although not sought by Media CAT have been based on the same general approach. It is remarkable therefore that the underlying causes of action on which all these cases are based has not been tested at trial.

The DEA provisions are a way to force the ISPs to participate in practices which seem very close to extortion, and where the cost of defending yourself would be greater than just paying the protection money.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

As you very well know, there is no provision for anyone being "denied access to the internet" in the current law. There is currently an investigation being conducted by the Parliamentary Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, into the Act. Perhaps we should wait and hear the outcome of their report before we jump to conclusions about what may or may not happen? Given that there's been a change of government since the original law was passed, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Act were to be changed.

But it is clearly envisioned that exactly that will happen:

9 Obligations to limit internet access: assessment and preparation

After section 124F of the Communications Act 2003 insert—
“124GObligations to limit internet access: assessment and preparation

(1)The Secretary of State may direct OFCOM to—

(a)assess whether one or more technical obligations should be imposed on internet service providers;

(b)take steps to prepare for the obligations;

(c)provide a report on the assessment or steps to the Secretary of State.

(2)A “technical obligation”, in relation to an internet service provider, is an obligation for the provider to take a technical measure against some or all relevant subscribers to its service for the purpose of preventing or reducing infringement of copyright by means of the internet.

(3)A “technical measure” is a measure that—

(a)limits the speed or other capacity of the service provided to a subscriber;

(b)prevents a subscriber from using the service to gain access to particular material, or limits such use;

(c)suspends the service provided to a subscriber; or

(d)limits the service provided to a subscriber in another way.

(4)A subscriber to an internet access service is “relevant” if the subscriber is a relevant subscriber, within the meaning of section 124B(3), in relation to the provider of the service and one or more copyright owners.

(5)The assessment and steps that the Secretary of State may direct OFCOM to carry out or take under subsection (1) include, in particular—

(a)consultation of copyright owners, internet service providers, subscribers or any other person;

(b)an assessment of the likely efficacy of a technical measure in relation to a particular type of internet access service; and

(c)steps to prepare a proposed technical obligations code.

(6)Internet service providers and copyright owners must give OFCOM any assistance that OFCOM reasonably require for the purposes of complying with any direction under this section.

(7)The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament any direction under this section.

(8)OFCOM must publish every report under this section—

(a)as soon as practicable after they send it to the Secretary of State, and

(b)in such manner as they consider appropriate for bringing it to the attention of persons who, in their opinion, are likely to have an interest in it.

(9)OFCOM may exclude information from a report when it is published under subsection (8) if they consider that it is information that they could refuse to disclose in response to a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.”

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's the limit of the law as it currently stands. In steps 4 and 6, evidence has to be presented to a court, just as it did under previous legislation. There's no change in the burden of guilt: it's still "innocent until proven guilty". Really the only change that the DEA makes is steps 1-3. A rights-holder accusing someone of copyright infringement has to provide exactly the same evidence to a court as they would have done previously.

The intention is not to take people to court individually, that is far too time consuming and costly. The intention (as we have already seen), is to threaten to take people to court unless they pay up. This introduces an official way of getting the ISP to tell a subscriber that they have broken the law.

Perhaps many, maybe more of the recipients of these letters have been squarely infringing the copyright of Sheptonhurst on a major scale and know that they have been doing exactly that. They may think £495 is a small price to pay and settled immediately. That is a matter for them. However it is easy for seasoned lawyers to under-estimate the effect a letter of this kind could have on ordinary members of the public. This court's office has had telephone calls from people in tears having received correspondence from ACS:Law on behalf of Media CAT . Clearly a recipient of a letter like this needs to take urgent and specialist legal advice. Obviously many people do not and find it very difficult to do so. Some people will be tempted to pay, regardless of whether they think they have actually done anything, simply because of the desire to avoid embarrassment and publicity given that the allegation is about pornography. Others may take the view that it all looks and sounds very official and rather than conduct a legal fight they cannot afford, they will pay £495. After all the letter refers to an order of the High Court which identified them in the first place. Lay members of the public will not know the intricacies of the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction. They will not appreciate that the court order is not based on a finding of infringement at all.

One odd thing is that if tens of thousands of letters have been sent threatening legal action, where are all the legal actions? The Patents County Court is clearly an appropriate court to bring a claim against an individual for copyright infringement and yet there are only 27 cases pending. Surely out of 10,000 letters it cannot be that only 27 recipients refused to pay.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

But it is clearly envisioned that exactly that will happen:

True. But we now have a different government in power, one of whose coalition partners (the Lib Dems) actively opposes this measure. I strongly suspect that this will all get quietly swept under the carpet.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Is it an "utterly ridiculous argument"? American TV is paid for by advertising, isn't it? If nobody watched the ads, there would be no advertising, and hence no shows. Isn't it part of the "deal" that if you watch the show, you watch the ads? If you want ad-free programming, perhaps a model like the BBC licence fee in the UK should be charged?

This plainly ISN'T copyright infringement, but it would be commercially unsustainable if everyone were to skip the advertising.

Most american TV producers realize that people watching ads is getting very low and have looked for other way to finance TV. The biggest way it is being done now is product placement... the brands used on shows are clearly shown... this placement is paid for similar to advertising.

Oh, and frankly the networks don't care if people watch the ads... they only care that people watch the shows which is how the price the ads and get advertisers. I think Nielson rates the viewership of the show, not of the ads.

The other option is paid shows/TV. That is basically what you have with HBO and Showtime that produce some shows like The Soprano's and True Blood.

Frankly, I wouldn't mind paying $.99 an episode for quality shows... although I may be in the minority. I wonder how much ad revenue is when broken out per viewer for a show. Is that info out there anywhere?

BOb

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by HarryT

True. But we now have a different government in power, one of whose coalition partners (the Lib Dems) actively opposes this measure. I strongly suspect that this will all get quietly swept under the carpet.

Like they actively opposed the increase in university tuition fees?

I wouldn't be pinning any hopes on the Lib Dems sticking to their word.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

True. But we now have a different government in power, one of whose coalition partners (the Lib Dems) actively opposes this measure. I strongly suspect that this will all get quietly swept under the carpet.

The liberals promised to repeal that act if they got into power, I suspect that promise had a lot to do with all the extra votes that put them into joint power. (That and a few of the other things they lied about to get votes).

But like the saying goes, power corrupts. I doubt the BPI would allow them to repeal it anyway.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you have any links from a news site, Kenny?

Hey hey hey, not funny, pinko!

[Barty]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Without the ads on commercial websites, there are no commercial websites.
So what would your response be to a threat to disconnect your internet service for using ad-blocking software?
And no, I see no ethical obligation whatsoever to watch adverts.

They're not trying to disconnect your service. They just don't want companies to profit from making ad blocking software. Theres a difference.

I don't know if I'd go so far as Harry in saying not watching commercials is ethically wrong. But I do think using ad skipping DVRs have external costs that undermine the whole commercial TV structure. You may say that's great, but what do you plan on replacing it with? Are your cable bills not high enough for you?

Maybe if it's different in the UK where the BBC is tax supported. In the US, even the tiny funding for public broadcasting is intolerable to conservatives.

[elcreative]

Actually the BBC is supported by a license fee... and if you don't have broadcast reception facilities then you don't have to pay unlike a tax which would be totally universal...

Originally Posted by Barty

They're not trying to disconnect your service. They just don't want companies to profit from making ad blocking software. Theres a difference.

I don't know if I'd go so far as Harry in saying not watching commercials is ethically wrong. But I do think using ad skipping DVRs have external costs that undermine the whole commercial TV structure. You may say that's great, but what do you plan on replacing it with? Are your cable bills not high enough for you?

Maybe if it's different in the UK where the BBC is tax supported. In the US, even the tiny funding for public broadcasting is intolerable to conservatives.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Actually the BBC is supported by a license fee... and if you don't have broadcast reception facilities then you don't have to pay unlike a tax which would be totally universal...

You don't pay sales tax (or VAT) if you don't buy the thing, it's still a tax.

If you're point is that money comes from (supposed) users of the service, unlike PBS here, then fine. But even PBS supporters wouldn't go for that model here.

ApK

[elcreative]

So I noticed... and now the US model is infecting over here and I'm giving up on more and more TV because of this... used to have limited adverts but now they're getting extended to the US model of grossly intrusive... means either forget it or no longer watch anything live so that it's possible to fast forward through them... personally I'd rather pay a fixed license fee and have no damn ads... each to his/her own...

Originally Posted by ApK

You don't pay sales tax (or VAT) if you don't buy the thing, it's still a tax.

If you're point is that money comes from (supposed) users of the service, unlike PBS here, then fine. But even PBS supporters wouldn't go for that model here.

ApK