New file sharing laws

I disagree that information can properly be property, I agree it needs protecting but the onus for protecting it is on those who release it hence DRM that is a far more capitalist approach than imposing laws.

But DRM is very unpopular, and indeed frequently used as an excuse for illegal downloading by those who think they have an entitlement for content. The market for DRM doesn't work because instead of not having the content if they disagree with the approach (which would result in market driven improvements in DRM) people instead go and just take the content anyway, which breaks the market dynamic due to showing that demand is high, but there is an alternative supply route, hence the desire to cut off the alternative supply route, again good capitalist thinking.

Also when you say the person who owns the connection that was abused, why is that at the consumer level, why not the ISP, the backbone carrier, who really "owns" that connection anyway.

because the router at the end of the line controls the connection traffic, and that is the responsibility of the user?

And to counter your last point I'm sure you're well aware that if you legitimately cannot know who was driving your car you will not get the fine/points, as would be the case with many file sharing incidents.

The situations where you legitimately do not know who was driving are few and far between, the vast majority of people do know who was driving the car at a particular point, and this is shown by the law. You have to be able to prove you cannot identify the driver by any means for the exemption to apply, and it is quite a hard thing to prove. It also wouldn't apply to the vast majority of file sharing incidents, just as it does not apply to the vast majority of speeding incidents. (source)
 
Last edited:
But DRM is very unpopular, and indeed frequently used as an excuse for illegal downloading by those who think they have an entitlement for content. The market for DRM doesn't work because instead of not having the content if they disagree with the approach (which would result in market driven improvements in DRM) people instead go and just take the content anyway, which breaks the market dynamic due to showing that demand is high, but there is an alternative supply route, hence the desire to cut off the alternative supply route, again good capitalist thinking.
So someone should build a better mousetrap, you argue against yourself here because surely if there was better DRM there would be no way to take the content, you would have only have the choice to buy or not. Regulation to restrict alternative markets only ever benefits producers, grey import laws, tariffs, non open markets, i still fail to be convinced this is a good idea.

because the router at the end of the line controls the connection traffic, and that is the responsibility of the user?
My point was that actually this distinction is quite arbitrary, take the example of a wifi service in a coffee shop, that's the router at the end of the line, I would find it hard to believe that the shop would be held responsible if someone abused that service. If you are provided a legal service, the provider should not be responsible for how you use that service. Again the only reason these laws are being considered is because it is too hard for companies to identify those truly responsible.

The situations where you legitimately do not know who was driving are few and far between, the vast majority of people do know who was driving the car at a particular point, and this is shown by the law. You have to be able to prove you cannot identify the driver by any means for the exemption to apply, and it is quite a hard thing to prove. It also wouldn't apply to the vast majority of file sharing incidents, just as it does not apply to the vast majority of speeding incidents.
Just because you state it does not mean it is true, in a family house with multiple computers, in the situation where someone runs an open network as a public service, I can think of many many more cases where the owner of the network will legitimately not know who might be responsible for any particular use.
 
So someone should build a better mousetrap, you argue against yourself here because surely if there was better DRM there would be no way to take the content, you would have only have the choice to buy or not. Regulation to restrict alternative markets only ever benefits producers, grey import laws, tariffs, non open markets, i still fail to be convinced this is a good idea.

What about my alternative suggestion, ban DRM, clearly enumerate fair use and make copyright infringement a criminal matter? Would that be better?

My point was that actually this distinction is quite arbitrary, take the example of a wifi service in a coffee shop, that's the router at the end of the line, I would find it hard to believe that the shop would be held responsible if someone abused that service. If you are provided a legal service, the provider should not be responsible for how you use that service. Again the only reason these laws are being considered is because it is too hard for companies to identify those truly responsible.

There are ways to prevent a service being abused, that could only be bypassed in breach of the computer misuse act. It is down to the connection owner to either ensure the patrons are trustable, or to take steps to prevent his service being used for illegal activities (just as it is the patrons responsibility for preventing their premises being used for illegal activities on a regular basis... These responsibilities are not new, just have not been applied correctly to the internet connection yet).

Just because you state it does not mean it is true, in a family house with multiple computers, in the situation where someone runs an open network as a public service, I can think of many many more cases where the owner of the network will legitimately not know who might be responsible for any particular use.

In a family house, the responsibility lies with the parents surely? Running an open network as a public service does not prevent you from controlling certain types of traffic, and so on. You're making it out like these problems are insurmountable, when the solutions already exist and are in use.
 
Dolph the contrarian. Makes me laugh every time.

I'll stick with my policy of 'Anything that has anything to do with Peter Mandelson is riddled with corruption and evil'. So far a faultless track record.
 
Release an all you can eat service, where you actually get to keep the files (for playback on portable devices (iPod, Zune, Archos PMP's), squeezebox, Popcorn hours etc.) with a variety of qualities (For music: MP3, flac/lossless, 24bit lossless (vinyl rips?) TV and movies: DivX, X264, ISO etc) with a realistic price tag (i.e. compete with Sky and VM TV services). I want to use the programs and equipment that I like to play these back.

Once this alternative is out there, make piracy illegal and put severe punishment on it. At the moment it is filling a void where the consumer demands media and the rights holders are not collaborating to make a service to compete.

If the government tries to restrict piracy before hand people will just buy a VPN service to a country where it is legal.
 
The Liberal Democrats have hit out against it

Commenting on Mandelson’s attempt to fast-track proposals to amend the 1988 Copyright Act, and adding fuel to the fire this morning are the Liberal Democrats.

“This is an outrageous attempt to slip through sweeping changes with the minimum of scrutiny,” said Don Foster the Shadow Culture, Media and Sport Secretary.

“We do not live in an autocracy, where major rules can be introduced on the whim of an unelected politician.”

Foster notes that his party does wish to address illegal file-sharing, but rightly adds that a workable solution is only possible through co-operation.

Although there will be many who support a crackdown on rampant piracy, many supporters of democracy on both sides are very concerned at Mandelson’s moves.

“For Lord Mandelson to attempt to create new offenses without proper assessment by the Commons is utterly shameless,” concludes Foster.


(Not sure whether or not I can quote the source here - but its a well know torrent news site)

Whilst I agree that something needs to be done about the 'entitlement' culture that exists around IP rights I think that the idea of giving the Secretary of State powers to make up new laws and punishments (apparently including jail time) bypassing the traditional role of the House of Commons is ridiculous.

What amazes me is the hypocrisy being demonstrated here, unless the law has been changed there is no 'fair use' consideration in UK copyright law, ripping a CD to put it on your iPod contravenes UK law. I know Lord Triesman's report in 2008 suggested changing that but I don't know whether or not that has been acted upon.
 
Sorry but you have crooks on both sides of the fence... the only difference this time is neither side has to get shafted... and neither side can "win" without resorting to morally and ethically wrong practises.

IMO copyright laws, etc. should be educated at a young age - very few people under about 30 these days appear to have any idea even of the basic concept.

The media industry MUST strive to get their product to the market in a timely, convenient and less regionally constrained fashion with fair prices for both sides.

People need to stop being so cheap - but at the end of the day its business - the media industry should be looking at more innovative ways to engage potential customers.

Personally I have no problem with freeloaders going to jail - but - I wouldn't have got to listen to half the tunes I have, seen half the movies I've experienced without piracy... I wouldn't have spent half as much money on buying music, renting movies online, etc. without it either as it exposed me to directors, actors, musicians, etc. I never knew existed before.

As for the more recent moves to curb piracy... it will only result in many many many innocent people being chased, possibly even lives ruined, people spending less on media as other costs increase, people exposed to far less music, etc. decreasing spending... DRM is not the answer as generally its the legit customers who suffer and the pirates just work around it - in the long term driving away the honest people. ISP records have never been accurate enough to launch ANY kind of civil or criminal action without an unacceptable high chance of false positives.
 
So what are the new laws, well possible new laws?

Deleting uTorrent and subscribing to RS.......

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/20/filesharing-crackdown

Basicly 'persistent illegal file sharers' will be cut off.

The big issue though, is the potential for abuse, mistakes and less privacy for all.
If you face an accusation, I imagine it will work in a simmilar fasion to the way in which 'rougue car clamp operators' work at present, in that yes, you can appeal, but you will simply be met with a 'our data says otherwise, tough luck' stance. Appeals will be quashed as they wont have to be forced through proper legal process such as county court where the arguments for both sides will be put before an impartial judge.

The judge in this case would effectivley be the accusing party... hardly impartial, and no reason to ever accept any appeal.
 
It's totally unfeasable in anything but a communist country and isn't going to happen.

Counter arguments like "oh but their wi-fi might have been hacked" are equally as ridiculous and are completely missing the point.
 
I was under the impression that this proposal was based on a "three strikes and you're out" approach :confused:

It seems to me that if some muppet ignores two clear warnings, they really don't deserve an Internet connection.
 
I was under the impression that this proposal was based on a "three strikes and you're out" approach :confused:

It seems to me that if some muppet ignores two clear warnings, they really don't deserve an Internet connection.

You are correct, but when the '3 strikes' are based on questionable evidence, and there is no way to have them overturned...
 
If downloading pirated films became impractical, suddenly pirated dvds would be worth something again. Not sure putting money into the hands of pirates is an improvement over torrents.

How on earth do you determine if someone is using the internet for a legitimate purpose or not? I have a suspicion that the politicians suggesting this policy have no idea how to implement it. I also have a strong suspicion that it will be possible to bypass whatever measures are put in place, and that instructions for how to do so will turn up on torrent sites as and when required. Hell, they'll probably be available through Google.
 
It's already subsiding, due to music and film companies slowly catching up with online media. A lot of people have stopped copying cds and are now buying on Itunes or similar. Same with films with the introduction of things like love film. As these companies grow and develop heir internet use pirating will continue to decrease.

This is a silly idea, but this government will not listen to anyone and it is pointless signing.
 
All the other aspects (hackers, family members etc) are all the personal responsibility of the individual running the internet connection, either to secure it or manage the traffic through it.

So, taking an extension of that argument, hackers are also the personal responsibility of the individual with a bank account, either to secure it or to better manage it?

Er, no, I don't think so. For one very good reason - you can't possibly be in control of your bank account at all times, and neither can you be in control of your internet connection at all times.

If I happened upon your IP address, I could very easily inject it into various well-monitored torrent sites. Injection of random IP addresses happens all the time to try and throw the authorities off the scent, so your IP address could turn up just by blind bad luck. In fact, that's probably how a significant number of the DL cases happened (not all, granted).

If the industry had their way (and they are having it to some extent), people would be guilty until proven innocent. I'm on the internet most days, and I'm perfectly capable of downloading illegal material. How on earth would I prove my innocence?

And therein lies the problem. I don't have a problem with disconnection as a sanction, but in applying it, one has to assume innocence, not guilt. I don't know the ins and outs of the proposed legislation, but as things stand, the only competent authority to make such judgements is a court of law, purely because the issues are so complex.

Of course, if the ISP happens to have in irrefutable smoking gun, then case closed and find for the prosecution.
 
Back
Top Bottom