Suspected freetloaders to face piracy letters in 2014 Letters will be sent to suspected copyright infringers under the Digital Economy Act in 2014, a ministry of fun top wonk outlined yesterday. The Act was passed in 2010 after voluntary agreements with ISPs failed, and set out procedures to tackle unlicensed downloads. The legislation outlined a 12-month monitoring period in …
@JDX
"So if enough people want to do something, it should simply be legalised? Good way to reduce crime figures, at the cost of absolute idiocy."
It isn't idiocy, that's the way the world (should) work.
What we have is a group of special interests (small number of people) with lots of power telling other people (large number of people) what and who they can do, whilst ignoring the rules themselves - that's idiocy.
So there's no right or wrong, just majority rules?
If the majority of us decide homosexuality is wrong after all, we ban it again?
The law is supposed to be based on morality, not giving people what they want. Not a position that fits our 'enlightened' post-modern society, but still the right one IMHO.
The law isn't primarily about what people think is right and wrong. It's one part about how those powerful enough to influence it get their way, and the other part about what those picking up the tab (that's you and me taxpayers) decide through our representatives which laws are worth enforcing . Homosexuality wasn't legalised in the UK because a majority thought it was right (they didn't), it was legalised because MPs didn't like the consequences of using the law to enforce private behaviour between consenting adults.
Not necessarily.England has "common law", and I _think_ it's based on precedent, which has _nothing_ to do with either common sense or morality per se, more on the accumulated judgements of those making a specific judgment at a point in time, who we hope have a moral leaning, but that does depend on the cash pot of those prosecuting (or defending) their case when it's heard. And then the result goes into the pool of common law...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
"In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis)"
If enough people want it, the rules will morph over time, I'd have thought.
"So if enough people want to do something, it should simply be legalised?"
I believe that is rather the meaning of democracy, yes. For better or worse.
Although, here I think the point was that widespread piracy is at least partly due to the outdated business model of content providers. The refusal of the record companies to accept that we shouldn't have to re-buy all our music every time they bring out a new media format, for instance.
>>"Although, here I think the point was that widespread piracy is at least partly due to the outdated business model of content providers. The refusal of the record companies to accept that we shouldn't have to re-buy all our music every time they bring out a new media format, for instance."
Since I started buying CDs >25 years ago, no one seems to have been forcing me to re-buy anything.
Or even meaningfully trying to claim that I should.
"Since I started buying CDs >25 years ago, no one seems to have been forcing me to re-buy anything.
Or even meaningfully trying to claim that I should."
So all the songs you bought back then and have since wanted to listen on your MP3 player, you just went ahead and bought again?
Don't you remember when they started mucking about with copy protection (car stereo killing in some cases, rootkit installing in others) on CDs?
>>"So all the songs you bought back then and have since wanted to listen on your MP3 player, you just went ahead and bought again?"
No, since there was no meaningful threat that any individual doing that with things they'd already bought would face legal action, any more than there was previously any meaningful threat of legal action being taken against anyone taping their own CDs or LPs, placing doing such things in a distinctly different situation to people downloading copies of stuff they had never bought in *any* form, or sharing copies of stuff with an arbitrary number of other people.
Some people might want to pretend that there's no meaningful difference between people format-shifting stuff they have already paid for and people just copying and/or widely sharing stuff they haven't paid for, but that pretence simply isn't an honest one.
Morally speaking, there's a blindingly obvious difference, and legally speaking there's a clear practical difference resulting from the moral difference.
Whatever license terms drawn up long before MP3s were invented might say, it'd have seriously bad PR for someone to have been sued for format-shifting for personal use something they had already paid for, since the vast majority of observers would have looked at such a case from a moral standpoint rather than a strict legal one and whether people were doing it or not, they'd be likely to see little morally wrong with the activity.
On the other hand, people copying stuff they had never paid for are likely to be viewed massively less favourably by most people, and more so if they try and pretend they're somehow equivalent to a format-shifter.
That's one of the things with law - there's a huge difference between laws which are technically breached by a meaningful number of people in situations where there is a good moral defence ("I paid for it already"), and laws which are breached by a meaningful number of people where such a defence is lacking ("I have a right to get stuff for nothing").
>>"Don't you remember when they started mucking about with copy protection (car stereo killing in some cases, rootkit installing in others) on CDs?"
Not on any CDs I bought.
The fact that they gave up those attempts pretty quickly suggests a tacit acceptance that people demanded some freedom regarding things they had bought, freedom which the publishers decided it was necessary to provide.
Not really the actions of a huge powerful conspiracy.
"Morally speaking, there's a blindingly obvious difference, and legally speaking there's a clear practical difference resulting from the moral difference."
Legally speaking there is no difference, the legislation is quite clear and makes no distinction between format-shifting or copying for personal use and doing it in order to distribute copies. If you have ripped a CD you own in order to listen to it on your mp3 player or computer without obtaining the permission of the copyright owner, then you have already broken the law.
The *only* difference at the moment is that the copyright owners are not going after people doing this because they know what a huge backlash it would cause since almost everyone does it anyway; they've already see the backlash caused by going after children and OAPs (often incorrectly).
They pushed for this new law so that a) they don't have the same burden of proof, they can just accuse someone and b) put it below the press radar.
I switched from Apple iPhone to Motorola (Android), and I DID have to buy many apps again, Asphalt 6 for example.
I gave away to charity my VHS collection of Stargate, painstakingly (yes this was stupid) recorded from Sky Digital, with even the breaks removed (this is obviously legal), as sticking to a VCR when the TV size has gone from 20" to 60" meant that it was redundant, and even awkward to hook up. Then I've bought the seasons one by one, but second hand. Oh add all five seasons of Babylon 5, bought the VHS's for £1 a each in discounts stores, again given away and replaced with each season on DVD for about £7 each second hand. Blu-ray and Hi-def are pointless unless they are remastered. But if they did... then again I wouldn't be 'forced' an upgrade, as I virtually had been for VHS to DVD.
Apple killing power PC support to move complete their move to Intel chips, I bet that forced a few new software purchases.
CD's are the one exception. I have never bought a single track from iTunes. Most CD's can be bought on eBay for a few £, legally.
"So if enough people want to do something, it should simply be legalised? "
Um yes. It will be anyway once enough people vote to legalise it. The purpose of the criminal justice system in a democracy isn't to suit the interests or prejudices of a minority at the cost of criminalising the majority. Whenever that happens absolute idiocy results.
And it's not as if this is the first time such idiocy has been tried and failed, e.g. as with prohibition of alcohol in the US. For this reason it was eventually made legal to tape radio and TV programmes in the UK, and to have a radio without a license in more enlightened times than these. There's no law as bad as laws which everyone treats as too contemptible to care less about.
So Mandelson offered big media to promise to intimidate Net users at the Net's expense in exchange for Labour politicos being photographed next to rock stars, because that might help in their election campaining. And this obliges the current administration which noticed how unpopular SOPA/PIPA was how exactly ?
"the current administration which noticed how unpopular SOPA/PIPA"
Not just SOPA/PIPA, I contacted my MP in 2010 (Huntingdon, Djanogly - CON) asking for an explanation of how he had voted for DEA and why.
I got a form response back which was identical to the response other people in other constituencies received, they just had a different MPs name and address at the top of the letter.
So enough people had written to their MP to make it an issue noticed by their Head Office and I'm pretty sure nobody was writing to say what a wonderful Act it was.
45 people in the graphic... bet they're all on £100 000 + pa
And this stupid law? passed because media companies could'nt be arsed to embrace the new technology of the internet, and politicos wanted the money the media companies give them.
PS If any record company exec is reading this(very very unlikely) whats wrong with pricing music downloads at the artists cut + storage and infrastructure costs, theres no physical media to transport about, no shop distributers/warehouses to take a cut and with the internet you can deliver any media worldwide in the the time it takes to transmit it.
And this stupid law? passed because nazi media companies couldn’t be arsed to use existing laws to tackle copyright infringement because it involved too much effort and bother of providing proof, much easier to assume people are guilty, just kill them all and let $DEITY sort them out.
Why repeatedly pay a lawyer to use the law when you can pay a politician once (or have a "meeting" in Corfu) to change the law for you.
PS. you forgot... and sell you another copy when the format changes or you get a new device.
Well done, you made a pointless post to condemn the use of the word 'nazi' just to sound cool.
I do not use the nazi lightly, I it use it to describe a right wing Totalitarianism movement that spreads propaganda to suppress all opposition, to control the economic activity of people, and has promulgated a belief in it’s own supremacy and infallibility.
Come to think of it, that covers a lot of religions as well.
"Come to think of it, that covers a lot of religions as well."
Repeating someone's own words back at them is more the behaviour of an 8 year old, don't you think? And really - bringing religion up? Mission creep there, I think. Or just picking another Reg reader bugbear to show you're one of the gang?
I heard that Tony Blair was heard saying that it was the worst thing he ever did.
Apparently, this is seen as much worse than illegally invading somewhere, infuriating a few hundred million Moslems, sending people to be tortured by US Spooks and so on.
Makes you wonder what he thinks a good idea is then...
So suspected freetards will face piracy letters in 2014? Does that situation remind anyone else of that scene in Polymorph where they're all discussing what to do with the big ugly monster and Rimmer, who looks strangely like Rolf Harris, comes out with this:
"The time for talking is over. Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign"
ACS were criticized by the courts for sending letters and threatening court fines for suspicion of unauthorised copying based on their IP address alone. So the threat is different in this case (cut off vs fine) but the whole process will be the same - innocent people being targetted based on 'infallable' IP address evidence. Either the media companies need to get REAL proof before getting these letters sent out or the ISPs will find themselves in the dock ala ACS - something the ISPs are keen to avoid, and to be honest I expect them to put as many hurdles in the way as possible before sending a 'strike one' letter.
In a way this is even worse in one respect - that you may have to pay (£20?) just to appeal - at least you could tell ACS to p**s off for free!
"(6)The code must provide that, where a ground mentioned in subsection (3) is relied on, the appeal must be determined in favour of the subscriber if the subscriber shows that—
(a)the act constituting the apparent infringement to which the report relates was not done by the subscriber, and
(b)the subscriber took reasonable steps to prevent other persons infringing copyright by means of the internet access service."
So your appeal would simply say:
"I am the subscriber but was not present at the property when the alleged copyright infringement occurred. Few reasonable steps can be reasonably taken as the wi-fi key is printed on the bottom of the router and access cannot be restricted. A poster has been placed on the fridge reminding other householders not to infringe copyright."
So what's the difference between the Head of Projects, the Head of Major Projects, and the Head of Major Projects and Change other than £30,000 a year, bigger projects and the possibility that a project may change. Still at least the bubble has pointed out to us that there is a highly paid and probably unnecessary job that is vacant and up for grabs..... any takers.
But nowhere can I find a Head of Deliverance
Wireless networks can be hacked fairly easily with the right tools...
MAC addresses can be spoofed with a single command...
So there IS no way to prove who was doing the downloading...
And the Freetards who do this all the time, will just use a pre-paid CC/Paypal to use a VPN that doesn't keep logs...
All this will do is those who do it occasionally will either stop OR start using alternate methods to hide their identity.
That is precisely what I plan to do (the latter option only though).
I wouldn't hack someone's wifi because I don't want anyone else to be blamed for what I do, but running all my bittorrent traffic over a VPN is fairly cheap so I shall do that in the highly unlikely event that anyone correctly identifies my IP address.
Of course, I would actually be guilty of flouting the rights of the content owners, so they will almost certainly target 10 year old girls and 80 year old grannies rather than me.
Here in Holland, we pay a fee for every empty CD, DVD or other medium, to compensate artists for their work. As a result, In Holland it's legal to download audio and videofiles, regardless wether they're protected by copyright.
Now copyright protectors are hunting down sites that offer audio and video, as that's still illegal.
So get this, i pay for music and films through buying empty CDs, DVDs, USB sticks, or whatever other medium you can think of, so i can download them for free, but it's illegal to offer free downloads.
So i'll soon be forced to pay for music twice? once when i buy the MP3 and once when i want to slap it on disk?
Does this seem fair to you?
when i claim i have a right to free music and films, people usually chuckle, but can someone tell me what's wrong with my demand? am i being unfair, or am i treated unfairly?
you tell me, i lost track.
Here in Canada we pay a fee on blank CDs (about 20p/disc) - although strangely not on blank DVDs - but it's still illegal to do just about anything
The levy doesn't quite raise enough money to pay for the administration, so none has actually gone to the major artists. But it does apply to indie musicians - they have to pay the levy on the discs they try and sell at gigs !
I'm actually surprised that of all the viruses that have done the rounds so far - to my knowledge - none have been designed to create a tunnel endpoint on the victims machine - I would of thought that would be fantastic business - a couple of hundred thousand machines with a tunnel endpoint which the virus creators could then sell access to - a VPN that terminates to pretty much any location you want. With the added benefit that any illegal activity that occurs will as far as the ISP is concerned have originated from the victims machine.
I can't wait to see this half-arsed idea fall apart.
Not only could someone illegally use your connection, but what happens when you do legally share it? Plenty of house shares about, what happens if nobody admits to it? I used to have a work contract which specified an internet connection for when I was on support. Lose the connection, lose my job, and it could have been anyone else in the house!
That is assuming the media corps actually manage to send the warnings via the ISP to the correct account in the first place... It's not like they've ever got it wrong in the past is it...
It's guilty until proven innocent. If their proof really was reliable then they could have got the account holder information from the ISP via a court order with the existing laws, but for some reason that avenue is just not good enough for them. Are they too lazy or just too incompetent?
A blind man could reverse a truck through the loopholes and cocks up... Now we just have to wait for a letter to arrive on the doormat of someone with a lawyer on speed dial.
Boris the Cockroach said,
"If any record company exec is reading this(very very unlikely) whats wrong with pricing music downloads at the artists cut + storage and infrastructure costs, theres no physical media to transport about, no shop distributers/warehouses to take a cut and with the internet you can deliver any media worldwide in the the time it takes to transmit it."
I am not a record company exec, but I have worked with more than 3000 labels in promotions. The problem I saw (and also why I quit) is nobody really knows what the law is. Each band's material has to be individually looked up. In "some cases", a music DVD you buy off the shelf which has the FBI warning on it can also be aired on a public access show. Some bands are their own label. Some bands are on big labels like UMG which are extremely restrictive, and yet some sub-labels under UMG still distribute their videos. But nobody really knows what the license is. You can say ASCAP or BMI and bluff your way through, but there's always risk.
The other dynamic here is lawyers vs artists. They're both different skillsets. While the artists just want to make music, they may not fully understand the fine print's ramifications with their label's contract upon signing.
Then the government has been added into the mix. With copyright law basically being discussed like talking about classified nukes in secret. The public is left in the dark, while a plethora of bad laws trickle out which only anger the public more. Everything being secret until the last moment. Then BOOM. Surprise more bad laws.
And yet there are some labels who are "not evil" for example Megatune. But what muscle will such bands ever get? Certainly Megatune doesn't have the muscle of EMI to make a bad ass music video. Considering 70% of the time I buy an album only after watching the bands video, this maybe troublesome.
I am working with a band right now and their label, ONLY MAKES the discs. They have no copyright to the bands music, other than to promote it a little. They don't get booked, they make their own music videos, which will never be up to par with say a video with EMI muscle behind them.
I basically quit. With the Passing of NDAA, my message is restore the Constitution, and make the copyright laws static (so we know what we are getting into) and I will be happy to come back. But the way things are now, I won't take the risk.
There's really not much to being a record exec, with all the EGO set aside, basically you produce and promote discs and you get bands to sign up. I could do it if I had more money.
.... So they can send you threatening letters because they think you might have done something wrong? Charming.... so much for presumed innocent - this seems to be "guilty because we think you might possibly be, but we've no real proof at all"
If you haven't done anything wrong can you then sue them for deformation of character?
Since the "proof" is ontained by illegallyy monitoring computers (home invasion) it is not valid to start with, the ones getting the proof(s) cannot be thruste. (MPAA/RIAA (and local branches) are guilty, in court, of so many crimes, that no serious court whould accept any proof they summit.
What is more easly faked then a log with a bunch of random IP address?
it is the job of the POLICE to investigate crimes. not the MPAA/RIAA who are the criminals in the first placed.
sueing your own customers IS NOT A BUSINESS MODEL.
>>"Since the "proof" is ontained by illegallyy monitoring computers (home invasion) "
It's not illegal if it's made legal, whatever opinion any barrack-room lawyer might have of it.
And looking at some level at communications (likely being automated and not involving people before the point where something shows up as fairly likely dodgy activity) is hardly 'home invasion'.
My ISP sent me a nice email 2 days ago saying that they received a complaint for illegal use of my Internet connection. Apparently, unauthorised distribution of an animated show on eDonkey networks. A show I didn't know existed (I wish it was still the case: it is Avatar: The Last Airbender, and from what I gathered from imdb.com it's even lamer than the movie was. I feel unclean just for knowing that it exists).
Oh, I am accused of sharing a Chinese version of it, too. Because obviously I have nothing better to do with my storage and bandwidth than hosting and distributing material in a language that I don't comprehend.
I believe these 2014 letters will be sent following the same guidelines:
1) pick a random copyrighted work in hat A
2) pick a random adress in hat B
3) ???
4) profit
I believe some substancial money could be saved by just hiring a couple hobos and tasking them with exactly that. The result will probably be better, too.
By the by, my ISP assures me they won't take action or send my info but I will be liable if the plaintif does take action. I wonder if I should send a strongly-worded letter to the holders of the Avatar: TLA right holder. And then another one to complain about their abusive report.
I am getting a bit angry at the use of the word tard. It seems that 'tard' means someone who is doing/saying something that you don't like. For instance the word freetard. Here is some good combinations.
Lawbreakertard - FBI who knowingly takes down Megaupload illegally.
greedytard - The recording industry, smart phone manufacturers, and the politicians that they
own, trying to own it all by the use of copyrights and patents for stupid things
moraltard - Someone who is trying to tell me I am breaking the law when I copy a DVD movie
or CD that I own, to my computer's hard drive or MP3 player or tablet.
Finally the word
Retard - Anyone who takes life too seriously
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
