I do not use any filesharing services, for any purpose, and certainly not for downloading (or uploading) copyright works. [I buy music.] I don’t have wireless Internet at home; I have wired-only broadband. I If I were to have wireless Internet, I’d lock it down securely. I have up-to-date security software (or use Linux). I changed the password on my router, which I switch off when I leave the flat. In other words, I considerably am more conscientious about these things than the average Internet user. I fear the DEB because even that might not be enough to prevent me being falsely accused of copyright infringement.

Yes, I do think an ISP can get it wrong multiple times, just as identity theft tends to come in multiple incidents. It is perfectly possible, for example, that a persistent error at the ISP end causes the same or similar false positives. In any case, the idea that receiving multiple allegations implies that at least some of them must be valid is contrary to natural justice, and is not how a normal court of law works. It is an incredibly sloppy approach to determing the truth of an allegation. Sure, someone can be convicted on the basis of ‘similar facts’, but even then there must be evidence in at least one case against the person that stands on its own. Guilt based solely on multiple accusations is no more acceptable than guilt based on a single accusation. Regardless of how you dress it up, you are supporting guilt upon accusation: you believe that copyright enforcement should be exempt from the usual standards of due process abnd the rule of law.

There are other points I could make (for example, you greatly over-estimate what is possible and practical in terms of user activity monitoring; and you appear to believe that it’s OK to scapegoat people when the actual downloader can’t be found; some ISPs are also content providers (Sky, Virgin) and so would not necessarily be wholly on the side of their customers) but I don’t have the time (I have a life). And like I said you’re so bigoted on this issue that there’s little point.

>IP addresses can be spoofed

This is why the legislation is targeted at ISPs, everything you say is correct, unless you’re the ISP. Previous flaws in prosecutions were because the IP addresses were obtained from the third person tapping into the connection at some point in transit (usually using the filesharing client network protocol, because they’re all pretty poor regarding security and they mostly work via other IPs connecting to an open port on your machine, which makes it really easy, but doesn’t deal with proxies), this proved amazingly inaccurate, this is why we’ve reached this point – the ISPs can’t be duped, because you’re using them to connect to servers to do the duping. You can obfuscate data at this point, but it will always be possible to reverse the data that was transferred to obfuscate/encrypt, without very much hassle/CPU/c++ at all. Hence the DEB’s focus on ISPs – it’s clearly the best evidence possible.

>ISPs can make mistakes in linking IP addresses to users

Sure, so people should be given multiple chances, over time. It’d be unreasonable to take technical measures against people on a one time occurrence that could of been a mistake. What if the neighbours were hijacking your connection? What if there’s a problem with your internet security? What if you’ve foolishly used the wireless security the ISPs provided for you? I agree – big problems. So you give them a second chance, and a third chance. You think that the ISP is going to get this wrong 4 times in a row? Or that you couldn’t control your home internet after 3 warnings? What is reasonable Alex?

I figure you’d want to know if there was anyone between you and your ISP, as that is the most sensitive connection for online security there can be. Maybe you’re not bothered, but it can be very hard to work these issues out without information from the ISP end. Personally, I’d want to know, maybe you like it how it is now.

>If we are going to have the warning system, it needs to be possible to contest the >warning, and if the user is found to be innocent, the warning struck off the record.

Sure, but again, you’re talking about the substance of the Industry Code, which hasn’t been written yet. Everything seems to be in place for what you’re talking about – surely, we all agree on this?! You’re talking about things they haven’t done yet.

>But even that is not much good if someone’s IP address is spoofed several times >in quick succession, so their Internet is cut off before they even know what’s >happened.

….exactly, which is why the code must specify time frames for these actions, and is obliged to for any of this bill to be enacted.

>it’s OK to cut people off the Internet based on UNPROVEN
>allegations of copyright infringement

You’ve made a whole heap of assumptions here on things you can’t possible know. You’ve decided which of the technical measures, you’ve decided there’s no proof and you’ve decided that suspension is equal to cutting people off the internet. You’re not in a position to assume any of these things, unless you really can see the future. The technical measures have been laid out, but not their terms of use, because that will be agreed firstly with the working committee and the ISPs, and then approved by parliament. Also, if you don’t like the terms, you have a whole YEAR to protest them.

Most ISPs have already said they’re more interested in slowing down speeds than suspension. Since the industry code is penned with them, why exactly do you assume the worst possible scenario? It’s not in the ISPs interests to lose customers.

>then it’s OK to cut off a household’s electrical or water supply because someone
>in the household has been *accused* (NOT convicted) of shoplifting

OK, you’ve written a lot here about how you don’t understand the difference between internet and power/water supply. Firstly, water and power/heat are basic to survival – they got us through the best part of the last million years of evolution. Internet is not fundamental to survival (unless you’re socially inadequate) even for people that work online. Secondly, your analogy is clearly nonsensical, what is the connection between electricity and shoplifting that exemplifies the connection between the internet and filesharing? You can still shoplift without electricity, but nobody was p2p filesharing before the internet. You’ll need an analogy with an equivalent prerequisite for it to even start to make sense. I won’t pick holes in the rest of it, as you ask, because as you know that was even more mental, but the primitives of your argument are clearly poor representations.

So, come on Alex, what would you do? I hear a lot about what’s wrong, but how would you tackle these issues? We work for years on products, they get stolen in days and that trashes our sales, unless we protect ourself with American legislation. What is so wrong with the UK economy that we can’t provide protection for our workers, when other countries can? I don’t think for a second you have a plan for the future of the UK’s economy, you’re just another person that knows what they don’t want, but not what they do.

What you’ve written is just the fear deep inside you, and says more about your relationship with society than it does the Digital Economy Bill. After a while you’ll start to think disconnection and suspension are the same thing, and then that this is a dark government/industry conspiracy to undermine your human rights. This is a classic line of thought, and can be found littered throughout the last 2100 years or so of democratic progress; we all go through it at some point.

>“No disconnection without trial”

Fine, you’re saying we should take people to court for a fair trial? After the DEB comes in, a lot of rights holders will do just that (because we can use the bill to get evidence from the ISPs), and then we’ll see which method people think is fairest. You’re saying you’d rather be taken through the courts and potentially wind up in jail/have huge fines, than get a few letters and a slower internet connection? Once we have the ISP records, we can prosecute properly, those cases will be nearly unlosable for the rights holder and you guys get your fair trial you’ve been banging on about. Everyone’s a winner?! Had you people of stopped chasing fairies around the fields, you might of noticed this and protested about it, looked for reasonable limits. Instead, you’re just getting ignored by the adults because it appears as though you’re anti any form of protection of the digital economy. I’m sure that isn’t true for a lot of you, but it’s how it seems and it makes it very hard for anyone to take you seriously, see :

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/25/org_demo_photo_album/

Just looks foolish.

___________________________________________

Lee,

>other laws have shown that suspensions need to be given a time frame

THIS IS WHAT THE INDUSTRY CODE SETS OUT. I’m not sure why you don’t understand this, it’s in the documentation that accompanies the bill. The time frames are completely necessary to use the bill, and the bill can’t be enacted without them. So, why are you still banging on about it?

>Isn’t that just the synopsis of the whole argument though? Those of us looking to
>the future versus those of you trying to somehow shore up the past?

No. It’s those of us in the present versus you guys in the past – at the moment there is no future. Did you people miss UK hip hop, d&b, grime, dubstep, etc, etc?? Are you not keeping scores here? The end has already happened for most indie scenes in UK music, now it’s the turn of the rest of digital economy. The only people that are thriving in the current music climate are the media moguls, because they market to people that don’t fileshare, but do watch TV.

The only protection the UK digital industry has is the American DMCA act. You haven’t demonstrated how the digital economy is different from any other, everything needs some form of policing (you have a virus checker, right?) and that you clearly don’t have a radical plan for the future of intellectual property, which brought us the lifestyle that allowed us to draft legislation such as the UDHR, that you’re now trying to kill it with. I’m afraid it’s your end of the argument that’s stuck in the past, with people that still think IP addresses can be spoofed to their ISP and that we have no need of the sort of economic protections we’ve afforded to most industries, online. Show me the new way, that isn’t just paid for by corporate advertising and I’ll believe you but I’ve made hundreds of digital products, under every licence available and you sound like you don’t have a clue what you’re on about.

This is an amazingly naive position for anyone out of their teens (when I was young, I thought it could all be free too – problem was that I couldn’t find a model that worked and provided the same quality of life, I lived for 3 years without money at all…sadly, it didn’t work out, maybe you can show me where we went wrong).

There’s nothing new in your argument, it’s 300-400 years old and the bottom line is you don’t have a better way of making the world work. I’ve tried it the other way, it didn’t work and I’m pretty sure you’ve never even lived valueless for any period of time (where your work doesn’t equate to your pay, and none of it is calculated using money/capital exchange). You should try it for a year or two, you’ll soon understand the deeper issues of having no-value in a society that’s still driven by capital. You just can’t have it both ways.

Rather than admit you don’t understand the lack of scrutiny that goes in to secondary legislation you get all huffy like a child? Nice touch in refering to me as a toddler, I’m sure you needed that to ascertain your own moral and intellectual superiority over me in an argument where you have, so far, not been able to hold your own on a factual basis.

Take for example your using of the dictionary definition of suspension. It’s sweet that you want to trust a dictionary definition however other laws have shown that suspensions need to be given a time frame, a timeframe that can (and does in other laws) include the timeframe of “indefinite”.

At the end of the day protections are already in place for the UK digital economy. We have the ability for copyright holders to bring action against copyright infringers, and we have the ability for copyright holders to put out injunctions for service providers providing copyrighted content.

And what’s curious is that you are happy to ignore this in favour of legislation that less clears up the ambiguities of copyright law in the digital age, and more pushes the illegal activity that occurs in to less visible areas while enraging those that should be supporting your industry but instead feel betrayed by you.

But whatever, we’ll have to see where it goes. You clearly prefer to write law that replaces existing law in a manner that gives copyright holders too many powers to inflict sanctions against potentially innocent people without the appropriate checks and balances, I prefer that we look at the law and see how we can improve it to make it relevant instead.

Isn’t that just the synopsis of the whole argument though? Those of us looking to the future versus those of you trying to somehow shore up the past?

BeeTee: What is your point here? That fast Internet only became available recently, and society functioned before its existence, and therefore it’s OK to cut people off the Internet based on UNPROVEN allegations of copyright infringement? This is a totally ridiculous argument. You might as well argue that because electricity and running water have only been universally available in the last 50-100 years (no I don’t know exactly when, and if I got it wrong please don’t pick up on that, because it isn’t the point) and society functioned fine without those things, then it’s OK to cut off a household’s electrical or water supply because someone in the household has been *accused* (NOT convicted) of shoplifting. Your argument that it’s OK cut off people’s Internet access at home because they can connect elsewhere is similarly specious. And while *you* might be able to work from, say, a cafe or a friend’s house if your home Internet was cut off, not all home-workers are similarly able to take their work wherever they wish. Many jobs, while they can be done from home, also need an office-like environment (for example, needing access to paperwork, printers or specialist equipment; privacy; assurance of a quiet environment where one can take phone calls without interruption); and many people prefer to work in that sort of environment regardless of whether it’s strictly necessary for their work.

Also you seem to think that a warning letter from an ISP means that they have conclusive proof that the recipient’s Internet connection was used to download the offending material. You are simply WRONG on this. As I noted in another post (directly in answer to your assertion) IP addresses can be spoofed (have you heard of the printer that was sent a warning notice for copyright-infringing downloading?), and ISPs can make mistakes in linking IP addresses to users (see this example http://www.aprigliano.org/2009/01/what-to-do-with-comcast-dmca-takedown.html). If we are going to have Internet disconnections as a penalty for anything (and I think it is disproportionate, especially for non-commercial copyright infringement), then the evidence that the person accused has actually committed the crime really does need to be something that should be tested in court BEFORE the penalty is applied. You mention fixed-penalty notices in an earlier post, but these are things that can be contested in a court of law before you have to pay a penny of the fine. Under the provisions of the DEB, it will only be when you find your Internet connection is cut off that you are able to appeal (if at all). By then, many perfectly innocent people will find it easier to just take the rap. If we are going to have the warning system, it needs to be possible to contest the warning, and if the user is found to be innocent, the warning struck off the record. But even that is not much good if someone’s IP address is spoofed several times in quick succession, so their Internet is cut off before they even know what’s happened.

> surely the ISPs will negotiate the most liberal [enforcement] policy possible
A fair and equitable legal framework should NOT depend on corporate goodwill, and nor should it depend on it happening to be in the interest of a particular business player. “No disconnection without trial” is something that should be enshrined in law because it is good for society as a whole.

>Unfortunately I don’t think you realise how statutory instruments work

I see what sort of liberty you’re fighting for here, you won’t discuss a subject properly you just resort to playground insults like a little boy. A great demonstration of your repeated immaturity on this topic; I will happily get down on the floor and try to play at your level, just like I have to with my toddler.

>By limiting your internet or cutting it off they’re not just “stopping your radio”
>they are stopping a significant portion of your life and your interaction with the
>modern world.

LOL!! Get out much? I hear real people are nearly as good as internets now. How did we survive before broadband?! Maybe if it wasn’t your “interaction with the modern world” you’d have a broader view on this subject.

So, you’ve stolen a bunch of things, you get a letter, the last one says you’ll get disconnected if you don’t sort it out. You’re suspending yourself really if you’re that dumb, you mights as well cut the wire yourself. If it’s a “significant proportion of your life” then you’ll need to be careful about it; like, don’t drink and drive if you need your car for your job. Duh!

You think this is going to be a problem for you?

I work online, and even to me, this makes no sense at all. It’s OK to take the work of other people, it’s not OK to temporarily suspend my internets!! Great sense of liberty, I wonder how you’d feel if your logic was applied to your life and the product of your work (if you do any). As my mother used to say, “there are people starving in the world”, yet here you are spending your time defending peoples right to rip off our country and deprive it of tax revenue, during a recession. You’re cursing the ground you stand on.

…incidentally…I’d just go and work at a friend or families place, or Starbucks. Suspension would not prevent me getting online, just make it harder for a bit, but that’s fair play if I (or my family) have been robbing peoples work. The bill does not prevent access to the internet, it might suspend your home internet or slow it down. Since most people have internet access somewhere other than home, I think you’re piling on the dramatics here, and other seventies soul bands.

>there is no wording the pre-ordains that the suspension couldn’t ever be permanent.

Apart from the dictionary, which defines the word suspension as :
“3. temporary abrogation or withholding, as of a law, privilege, decision, belief, etc.”

Usually, the common lexicon defines the shared vocabulary. You’re suggesting that parliament could redefine the word suspension?

>your ability to read the actual wording of the bill…is very poor.

Like your understanding of the UK economy and how people make money in the 21st century,including a bunch of Lib Dem PPC’s, peers and MPs, who support the bill.

>There is nowhere in the bill that it is defined there should be 3 warnings.

As you may know it’s not in the bill because it’s intended to be part of the industry code that gets drawn up later and referred to in the bill, but this is before any of the bill is enforceable (12 months after ascent). So, it’s not there because the code is a separate issue, this was always intended to be the case, see the notes :

http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/digitalbritain/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/DE-Bill-Online-Infringement-Outline-Code1.DOC

…and that’s not an issue because the bill can’t be enforced without it. Unless you think Talk Talk are going to argue for tougher measures, I can’t see your problem – surely the ISPs will negotiate the most liberal policy possible, for financial reasons?

>But legally the law would allow them to put you under house arrest.
>Why are you trying to move away from what the actual wording of the
>law would allow? Deflecting much?

I don’t understand any of what you’ve written here. Where does it say in the draft of the Digital Economy Bill that they’re going to put people under house arrest? What are you talking about?

>Please don’t belittle the effect of technical sanctions on your net just because
>you want an overly easy and heavy handed route to be available for the music
>industry.

The UK music industry is the least of our worries, my concerns are for our fledgling film companies, programmers, media workers, electronics firms, etc. I’m talking about the future of the UK economy, and the lack of any protections for those industries, some of which are in serious decline. Perhaps people would take you a little more seriously if you gave some sort of plan to tackle our economic problems when attacking our economic development. This is how we lost all our economic advantages in the eighties, Thatcher made the market more liberal, prevented people from protecting UK interests, I can’t see why you’d want that for the UK digital economy.

We’re in a recession, you’re attacking legislation designed to protect our economy; you’re hacking away at your own ankles. What do you propose? Because everything you’re arguing for here will lead to higher taxation on normal people, at the expense of thieves…great plan!

Anyway, about those insults…

Unfortunately I don’t think you realise how statutory instruments work, nor how many MPs are usually present to vote on them. The reality is that a handful (maybe just two or three dozen) MPs are present for SI votes and they’re whipped to high heavens. Secondary legislation is not a safeguard, it is the illusion of a safeguard. There is no debate, there is barely any warning, it is just there, it happens and then it is done.

Also, I repeat, the legislation doesn’t say temporary. Go look again, you’ll see that it only says suspension and there is no wording the pre-ordains that the suspension couldn’t ever be permanent.

““…take it to a tribunal (where they won’t have to bear costs if they can show they didn’t do it or took reasonable steps to prevent it).””

Well that’s a non-point then, as it’s the same way the courts work.

“I’m not sure you’re adding in the 3 warnings you get for these comparable speeding tickets that say, “you’ve been caught speeding, doing this 3 times will mean we have to slow the car down”….your speeding analogy is very poor.”

your ability to read the actual wording of the bill rather than what ministers are saying is very poor. There is nowhere in the bill that it is defined there should be 3 warnings. It is entirely within the scope of this law that technical sanctions could be brought as soon as the first letter is delivered to you, or 0 warnings.

“it’s like getting a letter sent for home taping, and then another, and then another. If you don’t stop after 3 letters, they stop your radio for a bit or limit the amount of channels you can get.”

But legally the law would allow them to put you under house arrest. Why are you trying to move away from what the actual wording of the law would allow? Deflecting much?

And then you completely miss the point that the internet is used (and will be used for more in the future) as a means to find out about democratic rights, to communicate with people, to find knowledge, to learn, to play games, to work, etc, etc….By limiting your internet or cutting it off they’re not just “stopping your radio” they are stopping a significant portion of your life and your interaction with the modern world. Please don’t belittle the effect of technical sanctions on your net just because you want an overly easy and heavy handed route to be available for the music industry.

Also, how pathetic is it that you seem to think that limiting the amount of radio you could hear because of home taping would be “ok”?!

HOW do they “know”? From IP addresses, but these can be spoofed, so they are NOT sufficient evidence even that the computer that the IP was linked to at the time was actually USED for the allegedly unlawful downloading. And let’s not forget that ISPs’ records might not be correct. In other words, it is possible to be accused of unlawful downloading at a time when your router and computer were switched off.

Wouldn’t the word disconnection be more appropriate then? I’d like this defined too, and I’ve written to my MP regarding the term lengths of both sanctions; that I’d like to see these defined. That said, the bill as it stands states :

“No order is to be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.”

So, the terms of suspension or slowing down of access has to be defined and approved by parliament before it can be implemented. I think that’s a pretty good safeguard against indefinite suspensions, unless you think all politicians incapable of knowing what temporary means, especially as there is clear precedence in these procedures (at the ISP end).

Regarding tribunal costs, I should of qualified my sentence :

“…take it to a tribunal (where they won’t have to bear costs if they can show they didn’t do it or took reasonable steps to prevent it).”

>the problem is that the tribunal comes AFTER sanctions.

Yet you haven’t called for that to be corrected, for the appeals to be applicable to the letters stage. I agree, you should be able to appeal regarding the letters, to wipe your slate clean by proving that it couldn’t of been you.

“the proposed legislation would more or less make it such that anyone could accuse you of having been seen speeding and based on that accusation alone your car is then taken away. In the real world, you need to actually be caught using a speed detector – proof not accusation is the key.”

I’m not sure you’re adding in the 3 warnings you get for these comparable speeding tickets that say, “you’ve been caught speeding, doing this 3 times will mean we have to slow the car down”….your speeding analogy is very poor. Also, they’re accusing you of something they know you’ve done – they know that you’ve allowed illegal material to be downloaded via your connection, because you’re using their machines to do it with. So, you’re not driving your car – you’re driving theirs and they’re in the seat next to you. You can’t claim it never happened, only that it wasn’t your fault. After the first letter, you might want to think about better security if you didn’t do it. I’d want to know if someone had hacked my internet connection.

If you can show that you took “reasonable steps” to prevent other people downloading on your machine, the tribunal has to find in favour of you. Try applying that to your speeding tickets analogy.

>How many people would support that, do you think?

None…but as I’m sure you know, your analogy is completely senseless. There’s no house arrest here, it’s like getting a letter sent for home taping, and then another, and then another. If you don’t stop after 3 letters, they stop your radio for a bit or limit the amount of channels you can get. That’s the analogy to taping, not house arrest – you’ve added that in for extra fear, I can’t see how these continual distortions help the debate.

That’s a much better analogy than any in the article or that I could come up with!

The idea of instituting punishment on accusation (rather than proof) for internet-based offences is obviously by far the most nefarious idea here – although having blogs subject to OFCOM regulation is almost as bad, given what that will probably entail.

Surely it’s obvious that this law will just result in very large numbers of people who didn’t even commit any offence needing to go to court (at their own expense) to get their internet connection back.

As for BeeTee’s argument that to do otherwise will destroy the ‘Digital Economy’ – this is very narrow minded. Sure, copyright holders might make a little more money than before.

But the fact is that this legislation will make providing internet access (ISPs, internet cafes) or internet services (websites, especially things with user-sourced content like blogs, forums, comment pages) so incredibly legally hazardous that each will have to employ an army of people to vet content, and fight any resulting legal cases – raising the cost of online services enormously and causing many to close entirely. It would be catastrophic for most of the ‘Digital Economy’.

These are all things that must be proven before punishment is issued. In the case of a speeding ticket, the proposed legislation would more or less make it such that anyone could accuse you of having been seen speeding and based on that accusation alone your car is then taken away. In the real world, you need to actually be caught using a speed detector – proof not accusation is the key.

Point out where there is any protection from indefinite suspensions in the bill. There is none, and that is a problem. There is a problem, full stop, with suspension of internet service regardless of how temporary or not it is.

But the bill doesn’t define length, so the law as it’s written could for all intents and purposes allow disconnection without a known date of reconnection.

“This doesn’t override the rest of UK law, an alleged filesharer is still entitled to a trial if they choose to legally contest”

Not if they aren’t taken to court for copyright infringement in the first place.

“or to take it to a tribunal (where they won’t have to bear costs)”

that there are adequate arrangements under the code for the
costs incurred by that person in determining subscriber appeals
to be met by internet service providers, copyright owners and
the subscriber concerned.

I still can’t believe that you’re trying to say that it is I (and the rest of those that have gone through this bill) that don’t understand it!

There is no problem, in itself, with there being a tribunal…the problem is that the tribunal comes AFTER sanctions. It is guilt put before proof, and it is not the way in which the law in this country was built, for good reason.

“Speeding tickets? Fines for dog litter? Parking ticket? There are plenty of minor social penalties in the “real word” already, which, just like this one, you can contest legally. ”

Nothing on this scale, but thanks for deflecting. There is no comparable punishment in law right now for the suspension, however long in duration, for offences offline. The nearest thing would be, as I’ve described, house arrest for accusations of taping music off of the radio without a trial having taken place to enact that punishment. How many people would support that, do you think?

Temporary as opposed to permanent. You’ve made it quite clear here that the meaning of words meanings nothing to you, which is clearly why you’ve misunderstood this subject.

>WITHOUT due process?

Again, another misconception. This doesn’t override the rest of UK law, an alleged filesharer is still entitled to a trial if they choose to legally contest, or to take it to a tribunal (where they won’t have to bear costs). So their options have increased, with a “milder” path to take in addition to the current ones, but you don’t like that, as you say…

>Fuck being far nicer

I see.

>Trying to present the lack of the right to a fair trial, collective punishment, and >guilty until proven innocent as a “liberal” measure.

It doesn’t do that – you can still have a trial if you’d like. I suspect you already know this.

>try and pull that shit on a population in the physical world

Speeding tickets? Fines for dog litter? Parking ticket? There are plenty of minor social penalties in the “real word” already, which, just like this one, you can contest legally. You seem to be a proponent of full jury trials for dog poo, and then you say…

>so stop scaremongering.

You don’t care about the meaning of words, you don’t care about the substance of the bill, you’re not that bothered about making a more liberal alternative to copyright litigation, you’d rather people were taken to court and you think I’m scaremongering. Interesting.

I hear that “home sewing is killing fashion”, that sums this article up perfectly.