Going down? (ooerrr missus)

More to the point, there's never been any evidence beyond the apocryphal shriekings of Those Who Stand To Gain that piracy has ever been at the level its claimed to be or has the claimed negative effect on revenue.

Compared to, say, suing your customers or actually expecting people to buy templated shit because you're too feckless to make quality entertainment product.

Re: Shooting your own foot

If the jack boot is used too much, the whole notion of copyright is likely to be lost on the masses and then what?

What happens next is that Pirate Parties tell their supportes which candidates from other parties to vote for in a few marginal constituencies where Pirates are not standing directly. Useful for Pirates to stand in a few constituencies to help get the message across. Other parties learn rapidly how unpopular extreme copyright is, and learn that sucking up to big media interests wins them fewer votes than it loses them. Eventually we get copyright law reform to take non-commercial use outside of the system and to reduce copyright durations. Artists who have something genuine to contribute needn't worry - there's plenty of money to be made from live performances and commercial use of recordings. As to how popular the pirate message on this is, just count the numbers of up and downvotes here on this forum.

Re: What bothers me the most...

The only real answer is that "The Finnish people let it happen."

They must like this form of government or else they would put a foot in the ass of whoever sent people to the kids house in the first place. Somewhere a douche behind a desk said "Ok, go take the laptop" That person needs to be fired, and made an example, an example that shows the next desk douche they don't want to live under the law of a media company.

Re: The penalty for piracy should be...

How dare you be sensible, sir?

Re: The penalty for piracy should be...

the penalty for piracy should be the sinking of the ship with all hands.

Re: Couple of points

"I'd refuse to pay one penny, let it go to court and then request damages and costs and make sure that the press were given sufficient access to show these people up for exactly what they are."

So you would deprive your ten year old child of her laptop for several months and continue to have her and yourself at the centre of a media circus, causing no end of stress for the family, pay up-front for legal advice to the tune of a few grand, take numerous days off work in order to attend hearings and take legal advice, pay all the parking and petrol costs for all the sodding around, and generally put yourself and your family through the mangle... rather than pay 300 Euros to make it go away?

Personally, I'd rather not put my family through that and the associated expense just to make a point that frankly won't make an iota of difference in the scheme of things. 'The Man' isn't going to start crying you a river, and all you'd be doing is upsetting your own family.

I totally can't blame the guy for wanting to settle and to draw a line under it.

Re: Couple of points

"a 10 year old doesn't "need" a laptop"

Apparently her parent disagrees with you in this specific circumstance. And you don't know the circumstances, so I don't think that's a judgement that you should make. She probably does her school work on it.

"That is a valid point. I would agree that this might cause someone to consider paying off the heavies; but what if they come back next year for more? At what point would you say enough?"

If a legal settlement has been made, then they can't. Settlement agreements aren't *quite* the same as blackmail, and are the option that's usually taken. Most cases never even see court, because there is a mechanism to firmly resolve issues without recourse to it. Unless the kid does it again, of course. However, I feel the poor little mite has been terrorised enough not to ever want to!

"If you have done nothing wrong, why should you pay? The amount is irrelevant."

What a lovely white, crisp world to live in! If only the world really worked like that it'd be great!

Because paying 300 Euro is *far* cheaper than contesting, sad to say. Yes: It's not right. But most people and organisations agree to settle matters out of court these days.

"I disagree; if he had stood up to them, he would have set a precedent and that would then set the standard by which judges would rule in the future."

Umm... European justice system, so nope. Doesn't work that way, I'm afraid. OUR justice system of Common Law is based on precedent, theirs is not. It would have no legal bearing on future cases. Their justice system is dictated by statute given by the government, not by decisions made in courts themselves. What you are saying is simply not true for that nation.

"I'm sure that these guys might have wanted a quiet life, but they chose to stand up and be counted when it mattered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolpuddle_Martyrs"

I am not even going to DARE condemn a parent for taking the easy option. Nor should anyone else.

Re: Couple of points

The problem here is that whilst the settlement prohibits them taking future action on this one event, it doesn't stop them simply doing it for another 'non-copy' in the future. Bearing in mind she hadn't succeeded in taking a copy this time, what's to stop them accusing her (or the father) again in the future. Given the level of checking performed by the police on this occasion, I doubt they'd worry about checking the evidence in the future.

Then, the father is back in the same situation again.

Re: Hey microsoft!

They probably made a copy of the hard drive for evidence purposes.

That's copyright infringement right there!

Unfortunately there is probably some kind of "Fair use" term for law enforcement

Re: Hey microsoft!

"They probably made a copy of the hard drive for evidence purposes."

Err.. no.

They had the LAPTOP for evidence purposes. That was the reason it was seized. They don't need to copy it, and if they did the copy's value as evidence would be far less than the original item.

Re: Hey microsoft!

I'm afraid you're showing your ignorance of computer forensics. The first thing you do with any hard drive is copy it using a device that guarantees the source cannot be changed..........forces it hardware read only. Then, you inspect the copy. The second you turn the laptop on (or any computer) with the original laptop disk in it, it looses all worth as evidence. Therefore, in order to check it for anything, they should have done a copy. Of course, there is almost certainly an exception in the EULA for 'legal' matters.

The original item is only used once it gets to trial and even then, certified copies are normally used. You can't test a hard drive for tampering in the same way as paper based documents, so provided you have a certified copy, it's OK. It's called having an auditable evidential chain.

Re: Is El Reg big enough...

Downloading isnt normally illegal. Only distributing....

If this was a torrent then presumably her actions actually changed nothing as there would have been countless other users in the swarm to download from even if she hadnt been sharing anything....

"digitally raped"

They carefully managed to get "copyright infringement" turned into "stealing", "theft" and "pirating".

So I say we turn it up to 11, lets all start calling it "bonus genocide" or maybe "digitally raped", or how about "profit terrorist".

Those poor, poor, recording execs....Oh, the humanity.. Their profits... Why don't they think of the children, and arrest them? //sarcasm

Re: Below the age of criminal responsibility

"So, how do they get some money? If they can't do anything to her, how come they can take her laptop?"

Because it was her parent's laptop in the eyes of the law.

Otherwise... what... is it ok for me to have a nicked TV and if the old bill turn up to say "You can't charge me, it belongs to my kids"?

"So, if they had no intention of charging her, the only avenue they have available is to charge him, and they didn't even bother with that. Simpler to get the stormtroopers to force their way in (arguably tresspass as they don't seem to have any legitimate reason to be there) and steal the laptop (as they seem to have no legiitimate reason to take it)."

Speculation there.

And they'd be entitled to take the lap-top in order to check his excuse anyway.

Re: Below the age of criminal responsibility

You seem to be acting as some sort of excuse mechanism for these scum. If the father claims the laptop is his daughters, they can check the browsing history and see what sorts of sites have been accessed. If they're all childrens, looks like case proven unless they claim he's mentally subnormal and enjoys using kiddie websites.

You seem to be suggesting children can't own goods, which is interesting and totally contrary to the law, at least in the UK, don't know about Finland. Strangely enough, if you put money into your childs account (as gift), you can't simply take it back. It's theirs. Your TV example is simply pathetic. Clearly, no 10 year old child is going to successfully steal and telly and install it in their house. That's just plain silly and a pathetic attempt to justify these stormtroopers actions.

They are only entitled to take the laptop if they have reasonable cause and that is not proven here. Not only has the media company accepted that the download did not succeed (is attempted copyright theft an offence in Finland?) and probably knew this at the time, therefore they have no evidence of an offence. So, what's the reasonable cause. Your 'example' suggests the police should be able to enter anyones house and check for anything they want without you being able to do anything. Effectively, go on a fishing expedition. That's one of the first signs of a totalitarian state.

Re: Below the age of criminal responsibility

"You seem to be acting as some sort of excuse mechanism for these scum."

Exploring the other side of the argument doesn't make me an excuse mechanism; it makes me rational.

Or whenever someone is put in the frame for an offence is it ok to point a finger elsewhere and for everyone to say "well, that's ok then. I totally believe your side of the story and we've no need to check it out".

"If the father claims the laptop is his daughters, they can check the browsing history and see what sorts of sites have been accessed. If they're all childrens, looks like case proven unless they claim he's mentally subnormal and enjoys using kiddie websites."

Except you just berated me for not knowing that they take it away and make a COPY which is then checked, else the evidence won't stand in court. Make your damned mind up! So they couldn't just sit there and check it straight away, could they? By your own admission they'd have to take it and examine it. Which would take a while, with said laptop stuck in a plastic bag in the meantime and no immediate resolution. So in the meantime - logically - either:

1) The parent didn't want to wait and drag his family through all the fuss, so just settled to get the laptop back.

2) The father knew he was actually at fault and had been responsible so settled.

"Your TV example is simply pathetic."

Wow I'm sorry for having an example sufficiently valid that you have to debunk it by name-calling. Unfortunately doing so doesn't make the fact less true. And why don't you think a 10 year old could plug in a TV? I was taking them apart at that age!

"a pathetic attempt to justify these stormtroopers actions."

You appear to have confused the entire concept of working through the potential reasoning of the other 'side' in any situation than your own in order to understand it as repugnant in some way. Clearly I should just believe everything the media spoons to me and accept it at first read, then verbally attack anyone who considers the other viewpoint, instead.

"They are only entitled to take the laptop if they have reasonable cause and that is not proven here."

We don't really know, because we are basing what we know on a short media report, which misses out about 80% of the facts. I suspect that there is more to it than we know and that either some new policing guidelines are very quickly being drafted, or the parent is a lot more guilty than he's claiming to be (qv Sgt. Nightingale), or there are some other factors in play. As much as trusting the authorities and courts might seem alien to you, Finland ain't a bad country to live in, and is a long way up the human rights ladder.

"Your 'example' suggests the police should be able to enter anyones house and check for anything they want without you being able to do anything. Effectively, go on a fishing expedition."

No it doesn't.

"That's one of the first signs of a totalitarian state."

Which Finland isn't. Which means there's more to it than that, or -as stated earlier- some arses are currently being kicked and enquiries and guidelines being written. The parent didn't need to make some expensive stand against injustice at his daughter's expense in order to help ensure future safeguards... OR is guilty as sin and took his best 'out'.

Re: I don't get the uproar.

A couple of minor problems Lee. Firstly the case states that there wasn't actually any infringement just an ATTEMPT at downloading from a torrent, which failed as the required software for downloading wasn't installed.

Regarding them settling, this doesn't actually mean they admit carrying out the "offence", just that the cost in both financial and emotional terms would be a damn sight more even if they won, than the settlement cost. Unlikely the family had enough money to employ legal representation to fight this, it would likely drag on for years, and his child's Christmas would have been spoiled. Meanwhile there's vast amounts of unwanted publicity, time taken off work & stress to allow for. So he probably decided that a few hundred Euro to make it all go away so they could get on with their lives was worth it.

Re: Over reaction as usual

which is why they want to make copyright infringement a criminal offence... then the police have to get involved... and us taxpayers have to cover the costs of the police doing the copyright owners dirty work.