UK Considers Fees For Appealing Accusations of Piracy

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

Bad Conservatives, get off the sofa!

This is absurd. There's a whole lot of other things I could say about it but frankly I'm beyond the point of being shocked at anything the Conservatives do.

 

[AnarchistFish]

I expect shit like this from the U.S. government but not the U.K. Expectations have been lowered.

^^

But then again, Conservatives.. Doubt it will go through though.

 

[surg3n]

Creative Industries Minister Ed Vaizey is supporting the idea, saying "We must ensure our creative industries can protect their investment. They have the right to charge people to access their content if they wish, whether in the physical world or on the internet."

So, that's nice Mr Vaizey, but that's not really the point is it! - it's about people having to pay to clear their name.

IMO, if you pay your £20 and are in the clear - you should get that money back, it should cost them that money if you are proven not to be a pirate. Just like most other lawsuits, if your in the clear, you tend to get your costs refunded. If your in the clear, there should be a time period where they aren't allowed to issue these letters to you - say a year before they can harass you again.

There are legitimate reasons why a customer would use pirate versions of software, justifiably in the eyes of anyone with half a clue. So many laptops these days have no DVD drive - but you can download pirate versions that don't need the DVD - who does it harm to download a no-cd version so you can actually enjoy the game. DVD's get scratched, it costs publishers money to replace DVD's - same again, nobody is loosing out if the customer gets a pirate version. Sometimes I can't be bothered switching DVD's, if I own the game then nobody is harmed if I use a no-cd patch. All customers experience issues like this, and it's possible for PC users to fix the issue for themselves without bothering the publisher or retailer.

Frankly, the customer is always right, and I spend a lot on this stuff, so it's best if publishers just leave me alone to get on with it. Maybe they should concentrate on making their games worth owning in the first place.

 

[mooncalf]

It might not be perfect but because it's suggesting a way that pirates can pay a sum more like a parking ticket than a couple year's wages in fines I think it could be a step in the right direction.

 

[wrightguy0]

this just seems like it's punishing the people who aren't guilty of piracy, but have been accused, sort of like squirting lemon juice into an open wound...

 

[RicoADF]

Creative Industries Minister Ed Vaizey is supporting the idea, saying "We must ensure our creative industries can protect their investment. They have the right to charge people to access their content if they wish, whether in the physical world or on the internet."

So, that's nice Mr Vaizey, but that's not really the point is it! - it's about people having to pay to clear their name.

IMO, if you pay your £20 and are in the clear - you should get that money back, it should cost them that money if you are proven not to be a pirate. Just like most other lawsuits, if your in the clear, you tend to get your costs refunded. If your in the clear, there should be a time period where they aren't allowed to issue these letters to you - say a year before they can harass you again.

There are legitimate reasons why a customer would use pirate versions of software, justifiably in the eyes of anyone with half a clue. So many laptops these days have no DVD drive - but you can download pirate versions that don't need the DVD - who does it harm to download a no-cd version so you can actually enjoy the game. DVD's get scratched, it costs publishers money to replace DVD's - same again, nobody is loosing out if the customer gets a pirate version. Sometimes I can't be bothered switching DVD's, if I own the game then nobody is harmed if I use a no-cd patch. All customers experience issues like this, and it's possible for PC users to fix the issue for themselves without bothering the publisher or retailer.

Frankly, the customer is always right, and I spend a lot on this stuff, so it's best if publishers just leave me alone to get on with it. Maybe they should concentrate on making their games worth owning in the first place.

If you read a few posts up someone has already linked to the article and confirmed that the money is refunded if your proven innocent.

 

[LostAlone]

Jesus tap dancing christ people. Shut the hell up and read the actual facts as expressed perfectly by this post:

Yawn, people on the escapist jumping on misleading headline check.


http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/three-strikes-plan-shifts-financial-burden-to-rightsholders/

"The letter will also include the number of copyright infringement reports connected to the customer's account. Customers can appeal the decisions?it costs £20 ($31.22), but you'll get that cash back if your appeal is successful. Ofcom will appoint an independent appeals body for this task."


"The regulator has also detailed who will pay for the policing, appeals, and letters. Essentially, rightsholders will pay the most?they'll bear all the costs incurred by Ofcom, the majority of the costs from the appeals body, and 75 percent of the money spent by the ISP.

Rightsholders will get a discount for reporting in bulk, though. If a copyright holder sends 70,000 reports a month they'll pay £17 ($26.50) for each report. If they send 175,000, the reports will only cost £7.20 ($11.24) each."

The point here is that yes, appealing will cost you £20, BUT if you successfully appeal, you will be refunded. That means that it is in fact better than appealing almost anything else. The fee is to ensure that not everyone just appeals for the hell of it, to prevent them being weighed down by people who are blatantly pirating and figure they may as well take the chance on the evidence not being great. No-where else in the legal system can you appeal a judgement for so little, and expect it back if you win. And the rights holders will be expected to pay almost all the costs involved here, so the chances are that for everything but the most widely pirated stuff, they just won't bother.

Basically... chill the fuck out. I hate the Tories too, but this isn't a bad law, nor is it trampling on your liberties. It is a very moderate piece of legislation that is if anything better for consumers (and even for pirates) than in any comparable law. You need to get caught three times inside 12 months, and looking back on the history of these things (ie how frequently rights holders take the time and effort to assert their rights), that is pretty unlikely unless you torrent all day, every day. Assuming that copyright is going to be enforced at all, ever, and it pretty much HAS to be at some point because we live in the first world, then you could do a whole lot worse than this law.

Essentially everyone here who has been screaming doom is point blank retarded. You are no better than the Daily Mail screaming about immigrants and chavs. If you don't know the law, then shut the hell up about it. Seriously. This stuff is important, and you NEED to do like the tiniest bit of research before getting outraged. The press loves to whip up anger and hatred and will happily lie to you to do that. That hatred sell papers, but does not achieve anything. You just get to be angry AND get a law you don't want. So...

The best thing you can do is to conduct reasoned debate with people who are involved in creating the law. Write you MP, or just go to the constituency surgery and talk to them (they are nice people by and large), and say you don't agree with it and have good reasons. If they support it, ask them why. If they don't, ask them to lobby for you.

Get involved in the process, and start by educating yourself the tiniest sliver on the issues, please.

 

[Stripes]

People need to calm down about this. This is not law, it wont be for another year and a half. Therefore there is plenty of time for this to be assessed and fixed, this is how legislation works in this country. It is not a justification to start spouting off that the UK is a fascist state, or that this is a representation of the country or its government. This will be opposed and changed, bills always look dodgy before they go through the system and the very raising of complaints as seen by the source articles show the system working as it should.

This is clearly an attempt to pay for the cost of seeing all of these cases in a time of limited budgets, not a guilty till proven innocent approach. Please dont bad mouth my country, especially when you dont know how law is made here.

Think of the sheer volume of work this will create? Can you really blame them for wanting some money for each one to pay for the extra cost and the time limit is set so that they will be able to actually handle the amount, if someone is proved innocent then they will be refunded and this money will be the cost of the provider. If your innocent you will have your costs refunded, you cant charge a provider the whole cost since then everybody, guilty or not, will appeal. I cant suggest how it should work but I believe the fact that it gives several warnings before action is taken is good evidence that it is infact not guilty till proven innocent. Its a fair way of tackling a problem just handled poorly.

 

[Xanthious]

Just another reason for people to find a good secure VPN provider. What a person reads, downloads, and/or watches online is their business and anyone who wants to go sticking their nose into it can kindly go bugger themselves. Sadly though, the internet is becoming less free and less open with every passing day. Thankfully there are measures in place for people who still value their online privacy and I can't urge people enough to start making good use of those measures.

 

[Sis]

"Okay, time to start randomly handing out those letters and see which idiot sticks and actually gives us 20 bucks! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

 

[rvdm88]

so pirates who dont spend a dime have to pony up 20 pounds to prove their innocence
but people who have spend all their cash on games might not have 20 pounds to spare


logic is missing....

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Isn't that a little "Guilty until proven innocent"? It's got to be against some sort of bill of rights in the UK

We have a sort of unwritten constitution. But, as I've always said, the trouble with an unwritten constitution is that, well, it's not in writing. It's only there so long as everyone agrees it's there.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Is it just me or is this starting to feel like a witch hunt?

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Jesus tap dancing christ people. Shut the hell up and read the actual facts as expressed perfectly by this post:

Yawn, people on the escapist jumping on misleading headline check.


http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/three-strikes-plan-shifts-financial-burden-to-rightsholders/

"The letter will also include the number of copyright infringement reports connected to the customer's account. Customers can appeal the decisions?it costs £20 ($31.22), but you'll get that cash back if your appeal is successful. Ofcom will appoint an independent appeals body for this task."


"The regulator has also detailed who will pay for the policing, appeals, and letters. Essentially, rightsholders will pay the most?they'll bear all the costs incurred by Ofcom, the majority of the costs from the appeals body, and 75 percent of the money spent by the ISP.

Rightsholders will get a discount for reporting in bulk, though. If a copyright holder sends 70,000 reports a month they'll pay £17 ($26.50) for each report. If they send 175,000, the reports will only cost £7.20 ($11.24) each."

The point here is that yes, appealing will cost you £20, BUT if you successfully appeal, you will be refunded. That means that it is in fact better than appealing almost anything else. The fee is to ensure that not everyone just appeals for the hell of it, to prevent them being weighed down by people who are blatantly pirating and figure they may as well take the chance on the evidence not being great. No-where else in the legal system can you appeal a judgement for so little, and expect it back if you win. And the rights holders will be expected to pay almost all the costs involved here, so the chances are that for everything but the most widely pirated stuff, they just won't bother.

Basically... chill the fuck out. I hate the Tories too, but this isn't a bad law, nor is it trampling on your liberties. It is a very moderate piece of legislation that is if anything better for consumers (and even for pirates) than in any comparable law. You need to get caught three times inside 12 months, and looking back on the history of these things (ie how frequently rights holders take the time and effort to assert their rights), that is pretty unlikely unless you torrent all day, every day. Assuming that copyright is going to be enforced at all, ever, and it pretty much HAS to be at some point because we live in the first world, then you could do a whole lot worse than this law.

Essentially everyone here who has been screaming doom is point blank retarded. You are no better than the Daily Mail screaming about immigrants and chavs. If you don't know the law, then shut the hell up about it. Seriously. This stuff is important, and you NEED to do like the tiniest bit of research before getting outraged. The press loves to whip up anger and hatred and will happily lie to you to do that. That hatred sell papers, but does not achieve anything. You just get to be angry AND get a law you don't want. So...

The best thing you can do is to conduct reasoned debate with people who are involved in creating the law. Write you MP, or just go to the constituency surgery and talk to them (they are nice people by and large), and say you don't agree with it and have good reasons. If they support it, ask them why. If they don't, ask them to lobby for you.

Get involved in the process, and start by educating yourself the tiniest sliver on the issues, please.

It's not just the money issue.

First problem: this isn't a situation where the accuser has proof that you're in the wrong, as is the case with say a speeding ticket or a parking fine. The ISP has "reason to suspect" you've been pirating.

No-where else in the legal system can you appeal a judgement for so little, and expect it back if you win.

Is there anywhere else in the legal system the burden of proof is on the accused? If you get a speeding ticket the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Second problem: It requires ISPs to monitor clients. Not only is this bad for ISP business (because who would want to sign up to a phone company who listens to your calls?) but it's terrible for consumers privacy.

 

[DirtyJunkieScum]

Yawn, people on the escapist jumping on misleading headline check.


http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/three-strikes-plan-shifts-financial-burden-to-rightsholders/

"The letter will also include the number of copyright infringement reports connected to the customer's account. Customers can appeal the decisions?it costs £20 ($31.22), but you'll get that cash back if your appeal is successful. Ofcom will appoint an independent appeals body for this task."


"The regulator has also detailed who will pay for the policing, appeals, and letters. Essentially, rightsholders will pay the most?they'll bear all the costs incurred by Ofcom, the majority of the costs from the appeals body, and 75 percent of the money spent by the ISP.

Rightsholders will get a discount for reporting in bulk, though. If a copyright holder sends 70,000 reports a month they'll pay £17 ($26.50) for each report. If they send 175,000, the reports will only cost £7.20 ($11.24) each."

To be fair, the headline is technically correct (much like the best misleading headlines are), they at least included the word "considers" it's a step up from the usual "UK is now a fascist dictatorship" headlines you see. They at least mentioned that this is a proposed piece of legislation and may well be revised before it is implemented. It's a step in the right direction compared to the usual state of reporting. The problem is more that the body of the article misses out some information that puts things in a more reasonable light. Given their sources maybe they just didn't know.

Still, it didn't stop the usual "OMFG UK U SO RETARDED!!!" comments from people who seem to think that a piece of legislation is law the second it is proposed or presented to parliament without any kind of consultation or review and amendment process or any opposition from say...the opposition or any other MP's who might disagree with it.

 

[1337mokro]

Whilst it isn't as bad as some posters make it out to be it is still a horrible law to even be considered. The burden of proof is laid with the accused. This hasn't been done since the fucking 1800's. You also have to pay UPFRONT before the appeal is even heard. Which is an unprecedented case, there are always fees attached to an appeal HOWEVER. Those fees are ONLY charged if the appeal FAILS.

You cannot expected to cover the costs of an appeal before the appeal has been heard for several logical reasons. By charging a fee you effectively make a selection before appealing a process. You might say it's ONLY 20 pounds and everyone can cough up a 20. But what if it's a 1000 pound appeal fee in the future. What about more serious offences where appeal fees could rise in the millions. You are creating a barrier for people not wealthy enough to afford the law.

Other than that you can be sent this letter when there is "suspicion" of illegal downloading. This means that your ISP must know the exact contents of what you download otherwise all of these messages will be sent out when you download a freaking game update. It also means that allot of these letters don't have to be based on proof and actual registration of the download with file name, content and source as proof. They can just send it out if you sort of visit download sites allot. That's enough to raise "suspicion".

On top of all that. Who has to prove I am guilty? It's the prosecution right? Not according to this law. According to this law I have to prove that I am NOT guilty. I have to argue against a "suspicion" even if that "suspicion" is based on no provable evidence. There is no guarantee the judge will acquit me if I am indeed innocent.

In fact you might run into a judge that wants to be "tough on crime" who decides to convict you because he wants to "set an example" like that Judge that sentenced an honour student who skipped school to earn enough money to support her siblings to jail, because she skipped school.

The justice system is not invaluable. So we have to make sure our laws are not freely interpretable or easily abused.

 

[Toilet]

Protip: ISPs love pirates.

Pirates are the best customers when it comes to internet usage, they buy the best plans with unlimited downloads and ISPs hate losing customers.

If you get a letter just call your ISP and threaten to change providers, they will buckle fast.