Ofcom has finally published a draft obligations code that specifies how the UK's largest ISPs should respond to copyright infringement notifications for a one-year monitoring period. The Code is part of proposals passed in 2010 as the Digital Economy Act. The DEA, however, has run into several difficulties since its passing, …
"...provided they are part of a system that changes incentives and encourages people to use the increasing number of lawful services which exist.
I can't think of any other part of the British legal system where this concept appears - that the supposed inconvenience of obeying the law is seen as a justification or excuse for breaking it.
and i can't think of too many parts of the legal system that retroactivly removes things from the public domain i.e changing of copyright lengths.
I think its perfectly fair to say if we provide you with a never-ending monopoly on something then you can't complain too much if people want an easy and reasonable way to access it.
They just need to settle for obscene profits rather than ludicrous.
who are the "we" and "you" in the second para?
assuming the "you" is the copyright holder / creator there's no question of denying the consumer easy and reasonable access (Amazon, iTunes, Netflix etc etc etc etc??) just so long as the "we" are prepared to pay.
the length of copyright is a red herring, the vast bulk of pirated media is brand new, not stuff that was published / recorded / filmed 30, 20 or even 10 years ago.
And if you think that record companies or book publishers make either ludicrous or obscene profits you clearly have never work for one and seen the balance sheets. I have, No other commercial operation would even begin to tolerate the sort of margins they exist on.
> After three snail mail letters within a period of 12 months, the customer's IP address
> may go on a register, or CIL and the rights-holder may obtain a court order to impel
> the ISP to reveal the customer's identity.
I'm certain that I've had more than one IP address (allocated by one of these ISPs) in the last twelve months. Is it a corollary of these regulations that ISPs must hold IPs static, and/or track their allocation over time periods measured in years? It'd be nice in a way to be able to rely on a static ip address; I wouldn't have to subscribe to a dynamic DNS service.
"the customer's IP address may go on a register"
Errr.. DHCP ?
Nightly router reboots, etc.
Hang the code and hang the rules
They're more like guidelines anyway.
Re: Hang the code and hang the rules
Boo, I'm not the only person who noticed "The Code" quite prominently.
Presumably one of the grounds of appeal is "I didn't download that, and since I'm running an open wifi point, sup to you to prove who did..." So what'll change, precisely?
The new appeal grounds are in Annex 2 of stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/internet/appeals-process.pdf
In short, if your wifi is insecure, you've got no grounds for appeal. You have to take "reasonable steps to prevent other persons infringing copyright by means of the internet access service" if you want to get away with it.
Perhaps a redirect to a simple page that asks your perspective freetard to commit to not infringing copyright on your open wifi when they first hit your access point is sufficiently "reasonable".
"use the increasing number of lawful services which exist..."
If only the lawful services were of a reasonable quality. That may change but the likes of Lovefilm and other online, instant access TV/film media services have extremely limited selection compared to the vast array of piratable torrents.
If you want to sit down on a Sunday afternoon and watch a random old movie or an old episode of a particular sitcom, you are out of luck. Legally that is......
Maybe by 2015 the legal online sites might be up to scratch. If so, I and many others might actually use them.
Innocent only if you pay
One element of this miserable scheme that you've overlooked is the cost of appealing against an accusation of copyright theft - set out in this BBC story:
Essentially, if you've been accused of being a freetard, you have to pony up £20 if you want to clear your name.
THIS is what I object to in the whole copyright protection malaise - the denial of natural justice. If IP theft is a crime just like any other, which I quite agree it should be, then it should be dealt with in the same way: collect evidence, prove somebody guilty in court, apply a suitable penalty if they're found guilty.
The problem with the DEA is its attempt to circumvent all that tedious "due process" stuff, and jump straight to punishment and invite you to prove yourself innocent afterwards (for a fee).
Re: Innocent only if you pay
The fee goes towards a bigger office for that cash-strapped regulator.
*Ofcom refused to allow The Register into this morning's DEA press briefing "for reasons of space"
Reasons of space?
Next it will be "oh we're washing our hair today". Next it's "Oh we've got a headache". Then "We never seem to make enough time for each other any more" and finally its "You know that other website that looks a bit like yours - well we got talking the other week and one thing led to another..."
Dudes, you're being dumped! Ofcom is breaking up with you!
(C) should last 1 year MAX. Movie ticker should be topped @ 5$, Movie Theater Food price should not be higher then street restaurants. DVD/Blueray MAX 5$, Music CD 5$, Games 10$ (new release). REFUND (by law). Shutdown the MPAA/RIAA (and all local brench arround the world) and jail for life anyone who ever worked/been a member.
Here you go piracy problem SOLVED.
Rent-seeking monsters making monstrosities
The rules: designed by Ofcom. For Ofcom.
they'll never learn
put aside the freetard arguments a moment, the pro's and con's of torrent distro for genuine data etc
the simple fact is you will not stop the combined computing power of a nations geeks. If they want to share they will and for every lock there is a key.
The only way to reduce (you will never stop) piracy is to make users want to use legal services, make it culturally and practically more enticing to use legal alternatives.
"reasonable steps to prevent"
From the Telegraph:
They will have 20 days to appeal against accusations, to a panel appointed by Ofcom, at a cost of £20 and only on grounds specified in the Digital Economy Act, such as if someone else used their Wifi network despite "reasonable steps to prevent" unauthorised access. A general right to appeal on "any reasonable grounds" was removed from the initial obligations code on Government orders.
What do they consider "reasonable steps to prevent"? Would that be at least WEP instead of WPA?
Would a totally open access point with no encryption be seen as an admission of guilt?
i.e. Nobody leaves their wireless open these days do they? Must be guilty then.
What about doddery old folks like my parents who had it open for a year or two (the tech that set it up did not bother to do this) - I didn't visit them for this period. They were oblivious.
Will it become 'illegal' to NOT secure your wireless with at least WEP if not WPA?
Would you also have to use passwords with at least 20 characters?
Would you have to change this password every week?
One man's "reasonable steps to prevent", is another's "major PITA".
I must admit I don't get the last bit of the quote. Are they actually saying that you have no grounds for appeal if it is reasonable? What about 'unreasonable'?
<in a danny the drug dealer from withnail and i voice>
"Would that be okay then, your, honour?"
<\in a danny the drug dealer from withnail and i voice>
Re: "reasonable steps to prevent"
So what happens to the Free wandering WiFi access that many people subscribe to
This is a service that shares a part of your WiFi to other Fon users....
Apparently disconnection (6.9)....even if you the hotspot owner did nothing wrong...
"Ofcom refused to allow The Register into this morning's DEA press briefing "for reasons of space". We believe them."
..."for reasons of space"?
A bit lame really. With El Reg readers like me and thousands of other troublemakers, you'd reckon Ofcom's PR would prefer to look better by being truthful rather than nice.
It's about time
I support locking up all copyright pirates. If you're dumb enough to pirate, you're dumb enough to go to prison.
Re: It's about time @AC 22:08 26/06
errrm, you're not really getting the gist of this story, are you...? It's actually about those who might be wrongly accused. You know, innocent people?
AC eh!? Schill much . . . ?
Ofcom refused to allow The Register
..into this morning's DEA press briefing "for reasons of space"
OFCOM official statement or on the spot decision by some jumped up little PR bod who thinks it's their job to say NO to journalists despite being paid (by us the tax payer) to say yes ?
The PR and communications business is, ironically, chock full of people like that :(
Re: Ofcom refused to allow The Register
I've asked, so we should know.
It's a bit silly of Ofcom to pick a fight it can't win.
space for press conferences
One could ask the other journos how crowded it was in there. I'm sure some took photos of the room.
Re: space for press conferences
There were plenty of empty seats.
So the next time some piece of thieving scum nicks one of my photos and butchers it with some bloody awful manipulations and posts it as their own work, I can complain to OFCOM and the ISPs about the copyright theft and expect proper response to have the the party dealt with appropriately?
Oh I see it's only if you're some flipping enormous media conglomerate with members of the UK parliament in your pay, you can expect some action! If you're on your jack, tough luck you have to waste hours of your own time trying to chase up the owner of some shitty website to even get and response let alone a take down!
- Put down that Oracle database patch: It could cost $23,000 per CPU
- The END of the FONDLESLAB KINGS? Apple and Samsung have reason to FEAR
- DAYS from end of life as we know it: Boffins tell of solar storm near-miss
- Pics It's Google HQ - the British one: Reg man snaps covert shots INSIDE London offices
- Bose decides today IS F*** With Dre Day: Beats sued in patent spat