UK Considers Fees For Appealing Accusations of Piracy
- Thread starter Fanghawk
- Start date
I think the reason for this is that they are not proposing criminal charges being brought against the suspected pirate here, while there are legal issues around this, the "accused" will not have to face a fine or any other kind of court mandated sentence. If they do want to chase an individual the copyright holder still has to get a court order and then proceed with the prosecution through the courts, just like they do now.Blood Brain Barrier said:
These proposed "accusations" are not legal charges being brought against someone, it is the equivalent of a witness (ISP) telling a victim of a crime (copyright holder) that they think they saw who did it (the accused). After this the copyright holder would be able to bring a case as per normal under UK law once they have got a court order to identify the alleged perpetrator. It is basically trying to get ISPs to identify people they think are pirates, the letters of accusation are just to let you know you've been accused.
That said, what does worry me is the idea that ISPs may be forced to limit bandwidth or suspend accounts. However the BBC website says:
No details of how it would be dealt with but I would hope at least a court order would be required, I'm sure ISPs would be loath to do things like that to customers unless they were forced to. One to watch certainly, but I wouldn't go predicting the apocalypse just yet.
No, the fact that it's merely contentious and not all the facts have been reported here prevent it from being completely retarded, however that wasn't what I meant. The implication of "OMFG UK U SO RETARDED!!!" is that it is the whole of the UK government rather than a small department shows either a lack of thought (on the internet?!?! who would have guessed?) or massive ignorance of how our government works. Especially when their judgement is based on an article that misses out a few key facts.DressedInRags said:
VPN to Sweden is 45 euro a year. So at the current pound exchange rate that is the cost of 2 piracy defenses.
The content monopolists can't win, this is just the death throes of dinosaurs going extinct, taking as many as they can with them on the way out.
The content monopolists can't win, this is just the death throes of dinosaurs going extinct, taking as many as they can with them on the way out.
This is fucking ludicrous. I have the sinking feeling that the minister supporting is a Tory MP as well. And a quick Google confirms my thoughts.
I may as well emigrate to Nigeria to see my long lost Nigerian relative, I'm sure that's less ludicrous.
I may as well emigrate to Nigeria to see my long lost Nigerian relative, I'm sure that's less ludicrous.
I don't think Britain legally has Habeas Corpus. The problem is, Britain doesn't have a constitution that limits the powers of government, in theory the powers of parliament are unlimited. As far as I am aware, their isn't any body that can override parliament besides parliament itself. Many other legal concepts exist as well. Laws can be applied retroactively, so people have been arrested for actions when they were perfectly legal.Tanis said:
It originated in England and still exists:Not G. Ivingname said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus#Origins_in_England
There is also the House of Lords and the Queen (although the queens power is pretty much theoretical), not to mention the Supreme court and European courts that can rule against government decisions.
So..... Basicly hand over £20 and MAYBE you wont face destitution. Isn't that like "your Money and Maybe we'll let you live"? sounds like something a pirate would say.
There are some implied limitations and courts can declare legislation invalid. But it's a very loose system over there.Not G. Ivingname said:
This actually happened to me, 3 years ago i got a letter from my isp(supanet dont use them), telling me that i had downloaded an illeagal copy of the pc game The witcher, where as i had only downloaded the patch. It even said so in the file name in the letter. I got back to them and they replyed that the third party agency made a mistake. So there already trying this crap on, and now they're thinking of charging for the privalige.1337mokro said:
The one thing I do like is them having to pay to get the data from the ISPs and thus a paper trail is made. No blind filling no hidden IP snipers.
You know, you should be happy they plan to make it like that. I'd love for that to happen in my country. Since UK is part of EU just wait patiently to be charged and then take it to EU Court of Justice and sue the hell out of them. You will get way more than 20 pounds.
Someone Downloads a Game update.
STOP! You violated the law. Pay the court a fine or serve your sentence.
STOP! You violated the law. Pay the court a fine or serve your sentence.
I'm suddenly more concerned about this bit:
"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."
So they've got 175,000 carefully investigated and well thought out and researched accusations of piracy to mail out...a month?
Or are they just harvesting IP addresses and spamming their shit in every direction in the hope some of it sticks. Let's face it, if they don't catch a single pirate, they can get headlines of '175,000 people were fined last month for copyright infringement'. Who needs to bring guilt or innocence into a good headline eh?
Hell, I've got a beard, maybe I should have a fine issued for terrorism, then I can go to court to prove I've not blown anything up.
I've just a got a serious issue with money getting involved with justice.
Even now they're trying to push thru a new rule on the benefits appeals process. Having seen that a huge number of very sick people are having their benefit withdrawals overturned by appeal, instead of looking into the company that they're paying hundred of millions to keep failing us, they're looking into stopping all money to anyone who tries to appeal against a decision. 'Think we're being unfair? Then go starve in a ditch, pauper'.
There will be people who have to choose between paying that £20 and food or heating for the week. That's plainly wrong, when they're not guilty of anything until it's been proven.
Also, we're quiet a cynical country over here, how many people recieving these letters is just gonna go 'well, this is obviously some kind of scam' and drop it in the shredder? If I hadn't heard about it and someone writes to me out of the blue demanding money, I'm not just going to believe they're right. Especially when the one who deals with the mail, probably isn't the one abusing the internet.
"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."
So they've got 175,000 carefully investigated and well thought out and researched accusations of piracy to mail out...a month?
Or are they just harvesting IP addresses and spamming their shit in every direction in the hope some of it sticks. Let's face it, if they don't catch a single pirate, they can get headlines of '175,000 people were fined last month for copyright infringement'. Who needs to bring guilt or innocence into a good headline eh?
Hell, I've got a beard, maybe I should have a fine issued for terrorism, then I can go to court to prove I've not blown anything up.
I've just a got a serious issue with money getting involved with justice.
Even now they're trying to push thru a new rule on the benefits appeals process. Having seen that a huge number of very sick people are having their benefit withdrawals overturned by appeal, instead of looking into the company that they're paying hundred of millions to keep failing us, they're looking into stopping all money to anyone who tries to appeal against a decision. 'Think we're being unfair? Then go starve in a ditch, pauper'.
There will be people who have to choose between paying that £20 and food or heating for the week. That's plainly wrong, when they're not guilty of anything until it's been proven.
Also, we're quiet a cynical country over here, how many people recieving these letters is just gonna go 'well, this is obviously some kind of scam' and drop it in the shredder? If I hadn't heard about it and someone writes to me out of the blue demanding money, I'm not just going to believe they're right. Especially when the one who deals with the mail, probably isn't the one abusing the internet.
