New file sharing laws

[mattyfez]

Hi all.

Im sure most of you have seen or heard about the new proposed laws to cut off suspected file sharers from the internet, who can be victims of wi-fi hacks, unknowing friends/family members, admin errors and errors in data collection.

Please sign this official petition:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/dontdisconnectus/#detail

These things should be dealt with in the proper way, in a court of law. This guilty until proven innocent approach violates basic human rights.

 

[Berserker]

Do these petitions ever have any impact?

Not criticising, just asking.

 

[Paul11]

Do these petitions ever have any impact?

Not criticising, just asking.

good question, and i dont know if there is a way to prove they make any difference at all.

 

[Dolph]

I'm struggling to see why I should sign a petition against personal responsibility myself...

 

[SB118]

Ahh, i was expecting proposals along the lines of "You must seed to at least a 1.1 ratio" and "Hit and run users will be disconnected by their ISP".

Thread fails to deliver

 

[mattyfez]

I'm struggling to see why I should sign a petition against personal responsibility myself...

It goes beyond personal resposibility - you can still fall victim purely due to an admin error, there was a case where a middle aged couple were targeted for sharing a game that neither they nor thier equipment had downloaded - the case was eventually dropped but if these proposals are legislated, it will not be the case, people like them will simply be cut off, no questions asked.

Lets be clear, this is not about personal responsibility - its about seriously flawed legislation that will erode civil liberty yet further. Legislation from a desperate government trying to snatch votes any which way they can.

There is also the cost burden, which will be carried by all taxpayers and ISP subscribers.

 

[Dolph]

It goes beyond personal resposibility - you can still fall victim purely due to an admin error, there was a case where a middle aged couple were targeted for sharing a game that neither they nor thier equipment had downloaded - the case was eventually dropped but if these proposals are legislated, it will not be the case, people like them will simply be cut off, no questions asked.

Lets be clear, this is not about personal responsibility - its about seriously flawed legislation that will erode civil liberty yet further. Legislation from a desperate government trying to snatch votes any which way they can.

There is also the cost burden, which will be carried by all taxpayers and ISP subscribers.

Admin errors will be subject to an appeals process. 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.

It is not an erosion of civil liberties to match the 'right' to something with the responsibility for its use, and to remove the 'right' if the responsibilities are not met.

I have offered my alternative view in the past, Ban DRM (to benefit legitimate users), clearly state fair use rights (which will NOT include distribution to random individuals or downloading from random individuals on the net) and make copyright infringement a criminal offence for all. That way the only people caught will be the ones who are determined to abuse the rights of others to further their own ends.

 

[Tefal]

I'm struggling to see why I should sign a petition against personal responsibility myself...

It's going to cost you more as they want isp's to be doing the work iirc.


So everyone's bill is going to have to go up, or service quality come down to make it profitable again.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Those petitions are worthless. I've yet to see any evidence that they have any effect. They're there to give the illusion that the government cares.

If you want to do something useful, write to your mp about it.

 

[bam0]

Admin errors will be subject to an appeals process. 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.

It is not an erosion of civil liberties to match the 'right' to something with the responsibility for its use, and to remove the 'right' if the responsibilities are not met.

I have offered my alternative view in the past, Ban DRM (to benefit legitimate users), clearly state fair use rights (which will NOT include distribution to random individuals or downloading from random individuals on the net) and make copyright infringement a criminal offence for all. That way the only people caught will be the ones who are determined to abuse the rights of others to further their own ends.

Wow, you can be pretty authoritarian sometimes can't you, if I let someone use my internet connection why should I be responsible for what they do with it? If I lend you my car (legitimately) and you go off speeding and get a ticket I wouldn't get in trouble, why should this be any different?
The responsibility absolutely lies with the person commiting the action, no one else, the reason they want to introduce such laws is because they know it'll be virtually impossible to find out exactly who is responsible, that doesn't make it ok to penalise someome else.

 

[Meridian]

Hi all.

Im sure most of you have seen or heard about the new proposed laws to cut off suspected file sharers from the internet, who can be victims of wi-fi hacks, unknowing friends/family members, admin errors and errors in data collection.

Of course. Couldn't possibly be downloading a load of illegal stuff themselves.

M

 

[Xenoxide]

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 what we have then is a bunch of older people getting accused of downloading music and games, when someone has accessed their wifi or something.

The vast majority of computer users (Not people like us) still dont have a clue about security, and are too scared to touch it. How about instead of villifying them for not knowing better, we make a better attempt to educate them.

This topic makes me angry...

 

[Begbie]

So what are the new laws, well possible new laws?

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

 

[Dolph]

Wow, you can be pretty authoritarian sometimes can't you, if I let someone use my internet connection why should I be responsible for what they do with it? If I lend you my car (legitimately) and you go off speeding and get a ticket I wouldn't get in trouble, why should this be any different?
The responsibility absolutely lies with the person commiting the action, no one else, the reason they want to introduce such laws is because they know it'll be virtually impossible to find out exactly who is responsible, that doesn't make it ok to penalise someome else.

It is only authoritarian if you consider property (including intellectual property) rights to be meaningless. They are a cornerstone of any market driven economy, and as such all property rights deserve protection from abuse. Property rights are base level rights, the 'right' to an internet connection is no such thing, you have no right to an internet connection, you do have a right to have your property and it's value protected.

Given that those doing illegal file sharing are taking rights from others, I don't see how the prevention of that is authoritarian, protection of rights is one of the few roles governments should be doing directly.

The way to do that, without imposing severe restrictions on logging internet use (which would be authoritarian) is to put the responsibility on the person who owns the connection that was used to abuse the rights of others, unless that person is willing to name the infringing party (which is, incidentally, exactly how the speeding laws work, if you can't or won't identify the driver, unless your car has been stolen and reported, you will be liable for the ticket)

 

[Xenoxide]

Property rights are base level rights, the 'right' to an internet connection is no such thing, you have no right to an internet connection, you do have a right to have your property and it's value protected.

I can't agree with that either. An internet connection is essential in todays world for many different reasons, including education, commericalism, even communication. The fact that computer/internet use is taught in schools is proof in my eyes of this.

I could be wrong about this (Cant remember properly), but didnt the EU recently rule that an internet connection was a basic human right?

 

[Dolph]

I can't agree with that either. An internet connection is essential in todays world for many different reasons, including education, commericalism, even communication. The fact that computer/internet use is taught in schools is proof in my eyes of this.

I could be wrong about this (Cant remember properly), but didnt the EU recently rule that an internet connection was a basic human right?

Even basic human rights can be overridden if misused (otherwise we couldn't imprison people or levy fines). It is all about balancing rights, and when two fundamental rights come into conflict, deciding which one should prevail. In the case of taking someone's property without consent, precedent is clearly there to show that the rights of the victim override the rights of the perpetrator.

And the EU did start down that path, but then backed away from it (source)

 

[orderoftheflame]

I'm struggling to see why I should sign a petition against personal responsibility myself...

This. I think illegal file sharers should be cut off, I'm not going to sign a petition that means that they can jump through a loophole and say it was someone else on their unsecured connection.

If people can't secure their own connection, tough luck.

 

[Tefal]

So you're perfectly happy to foot the extra costs then dolph?

 

[bam0]

It is only authoritarian if you consider property (including intellectual property) rights to be meaningless. They are a cornerstone of any market driven economy, and as such all property rights deserve protection from abuse. Property rights are base level rights, the 'right' to an internet connection is no such thing, you have no right to an internet connection, you do have a right to have your property and it's value protected.

Given that those doing illegal file sharing are taking rights from others, I don't see how the prevention of that is authoritarian, protection of rights is one of the few roles governments should be doing directly.

The way to do that, without imposing severe restrictions on logging internet use (which would be authoritarian) is to put the responsibility on the person who owns the connection that was used to abuse the rights of others, unless that person is willing to name the infringing party (which is, incidentally, exactly how the speeding laws work, if you can't or won't identify the driver, unless your car has been stolen and reported, you will be liable for the ticket)

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.
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.
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.

 

[Dolph]

So you're perfectly happy to foot the extra costs then dolph?

I'd prefer if the extra costs were levied against file sharers, but to protect property rights (including my own), I'm happy with the extra costs. Going through the ISP's is likely to be much more efficient than the government taking the extra in tax and trying to administer it due to competitive pressure.