Really, so we can't put someone in prison (taking away their right to freedom)?
UK government to get tough on file-sharers
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
Really, so we can't put someone in prison (taking away their right to freedom)?
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
But how will they know what that data is? Just seeing the source and destination is not proof of anything illegal.
In fact the whole thing stinks. Where is the proof beyond reasonable doubt by a court? Record companies or movie cartels pointing their finger and saying "He's a pirate!!!oneone!one"
If it discourages casual piracy then it's a good thing. Sure, there will always be people who are determined to get something for nothing and will find ways around it but there's only so much you can do to legislate against that behaviour. Robbing a bank carries heavy penalties but some still find a way to do it.
People need to understand it's not "OK" to rip off someone else's work with impunity. The laws on copyright and companies revenue structure need updating to take into account the availability of "stuff" on the internet. However in the mean time the growing "I wouldn't have bought it anyway, I'm not depriving the real creators of the "stuff" just corrupt mega corps, the world owes me stuff for free" culture needs to be addressed.
If this goes ahead, without doubt some will use more "secure" methods to pirate content. Of course if you go to those lengths of using SSL encryption, secure VPNs, whatever, then you can't really claim to only mistakenly or casually download something to try from time to time. If you get caught hopefully courts/copyright owners have a much better chance of making a case against you.
Not a popular thing to say around here I know, but as Dolph says, the idea that someone's Intellectual Property and assets are fair game because they aren't physical objects needs to addressed.
People need to understand it's not "OK" to rip off someone else's work with impunity. The laws on copyright and companies revenue structure need updating to take into account the availability of "stuff" on the internet. However in the mean time the growing "I wouldn't have bought it anyway, I'm not depriving the real creators of the "stuff" just corrupt mega corps, the world owes me stuff for free" culture needs to be addressed.
If this goes ahead, without doubt some will use more "secure" methods to pirate content. Of course if you go to those lengths of using SSL encryption, secure VPNs, whatever, then you can't really claim to only mistakenly or casually download something to try from time to time. If you get caught hopefully courts/copyright owners have a much better chance of making a case against you.
Not a popular thing to say around here I know, but as Dolph says, the idea that someone's Intellectual Property and assets are fair game because they aren't physical objects needs to addressed.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,564
- Location
- Warwickshire
Athanor I agree with your sentiments about piracy; it's stealing, simple as that. However, how can the law be enforced when there are so many variables. Surely to prosecute, you'd have to prove that the person willingly downloaded used and shared copyrighted material, rather than 'omg he didn't protect his wireless network and may or may not have torrented a Britney Spears MP3'.
Daz - you are right but how does that constitute proof of willful illegal file sharing?
Daz - you are right but how does that constitute proof of willful illegal file sharing?
Well im no network security expert, ill admit hahs... but!!!
Once they know who and where you are, depending on how far this law went, having your front door broken down at 6am by a " hard drive investigation team" would pretty much show you are a "download offender" then it would only be a matter of prosecution and then a state execution of your choice.
Which realistically is a complete waste of police resource.
I'd rather see gangs of muggers get jailed than Johnny-MP3 down the road, but the latter is a much easier target.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 433
- Location
- NI
LOL
Its funny to here that the security services are AGAINST this
The say that it will encourage people to use more encrypted methods to transfer
data , thus making their job harder to keep an eye on everyone
Its funny to here that the security services are AGAINST this
The say that it will encourage people to use more encrypted methods to transfer
data , thus making their job harder to keep an eye on everyone
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 28,140
- Location
- Liverpool
Isn't throwing bait like that illegal?
I got off at Brixton tube station, so I MUST have bought some drugs. LOL!
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 15,788
- Location
- Outside in the bushes
Yes Entrapment is illigal
was going to say the same thing
they hardly have enough resrouces to catch criminals in drug trafficing, people smugling and kiddy porn
Piracy is forcing the entertainment industry to embrace the internet and free/cheap on demand content. Shut down internet piracy and you can go back to paying £15 for an album (average price of an album nowadays seems to be >£9) and £20 for a barebones DVD (average price seems to be closer to £10).
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 28,140
- Location
- Liverpool
Aye, I thought so.
Also, well, I've noticed your spelling is terrible. I'm starting to think your username isn't deliberate!
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 13,298
- Location
- The Orion Spur
Agreed, but even then surely they would have to prove it in a court of law that it was actually the account holder that was doing the downloading ?, in a house with a family a child is downloading illegally from a P2P network, who do you prosecute, the child or the parent ?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,564
- Location
- Warwickshire
The owner of the account as they are responsible for it.
Probably illegal but difficult to prove. The media companies just want to increase the apparent risk of being caught [to ordinary people]. Once they have increased the apparent risk, most average users will stop file sharing - at least I think that's what they think from their perspective.
It's like those trains that never have an inspector, and yet when the train is absolutely rammed with no seats you'll rarely see someone decide to go and sit in the mainly empty 1st class section.
Isn't it also that case that the actual downloading of copyrighted material isn't illegal, it's the sharing of it that is?
This is why torrents are an issue, as everyone downloading is uploading as well, whereas Rapidshare or Newsgroups make only the original uploader culpable?
This is why torrents are an issue, as everyone downloading is uploading as well, whereas Rapidshare or Newsgroups make only the original uploader culpable?
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 15,788
- Location
- Outside in the bushes
My spelling is terrible but that isn't the point being discussed at this moment in time Darth Mandelson and his daft ideas is!
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
That's entrapment. Blows that in the UK it doesn't automatically negate the prosecution case.
I agree, of course there needs to be a whole bunch of work done to support any case. Is downloading a MP3 a problem if you don't use it, for example.
On the flip side there's the old faithfull "reasonable doubt", If you download 2TB of films, music and software every month but claim never to have watched or listened to any of it a court would have to make a judgement on how realistic a claim that was I guess..
Not securing your Wireless router is not a defence and ISP t&cs already make you responsible for anything that goes over your connection, even if you open your wireless router up to all your neighbours.