Latest UK Moves Against Copyright Breaches

[RVining]

FA, it's good that this discussion has come back to law, not morals

A life lived without morality and ethics is not a life at all.

To pretend that a commercial enterprise can be robbed with impunity because it suits an individual is the end of any reasonable society.

Copyright infringement is a CIVIL offense. You would need to engage in extremely different behavior than the average downloader to fit the CRIMINAL level of infringement. So before climbing up on that pedestal, please stop mixing apples and oranges. Other civil offenses include jaywalking and playing your music to loud. Do such actions make someone into a "criminal" ? They do not, so the use of the word is inaccurate.

Morals are relative to individuals and communities, it is extremely naive to expect the whole world or even just a whole country to follow a particular subset of morals just because you subscribe to them. This is why we have laws and government instead of a man at the local church telling us how we are supposed to live.

As far as blocking access to particular sites on the grounds of personal moral judgments, bad idea. I expect that this is illegal in the first place, and I would not expect many free thinking individuals would be happy with their ISP deciding what sites are OK to access, especially when there is significant opposition to a government initiated plan of a similar nature.

You guys do know your a carriage service don't you? Let the law take care of legal stuff, you guys aren't the courts.

[CoreyPlover]

RVining, I'm actually quite happy for the blokes with crooks and pointy hats to safeguard my morals - that's what they are for. I simply think that "intellectual property" law, as laid down by parliaments and developed by courts, verges on ludicrous, and has lost widespread community support. It has become like revenue-collecting speed cameras - most of us comply because of the risk of penalty. But you are mistaken about this being an entirely civil matter - do a Google search for NEW AUSTRALIAN COPYRIGHT LAWS FACT SHEET (Commonwealth Attorney General)

[Yoshi_900]

An interesting view.

Let me put it more bluntly.

Why shouldn't Exetel 'null route' a site such as Pirate Bay which exists solely to provide copyright protected material to thieves?

just going back a bit cause i just seen this thread. the only way to stop ppl from breaching copyright would be to block all P2P. but then u could use binary news groups which is not P2P but normal download. sooo yeah.

[Yoshi_900]

do u even get a criminal record or even a criminal conviction for a Civil offence ? if u dont then downloading the copyrighted material does not make u a criminal.

Definitions of criminal on the Web:

* condemnable: bringing or deserving severe rebuke or censure; "a criminal waste of talent"; "a deplorable act of violence"; "adultery is as ...
* guilty of crime or serious offense; "criminal in the sight of God and man"
* someone who has committed a crime or has been legally convicted of a crime
* involving or being or having the nature of a crime; "a criminal offense"; "criminal abuse"; "felonious intent"

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&c ... =&aq=f&oq=

[Dazzled]

Yoshi, read my reference - for many of the circumstances we are thinking of, criminal proceedings can occur under Commonwealth law.
There are some fact sheets at http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Pa ... Factsheets

[Yoshi_900]

yeah i realise that they can proceed with criminal actions. but isnt that only for ppl that charge or sell the copyrighted materials... like someone downloading a missed episode of "packed to the rafters" rarely "shouldnt" be charged criminally

[CoreyPlover]

yeah i realise that they can proceed with criminal actions. but isnt that only for ppl that charge or sell the copyrighted materials... like someone downloading a missed episode of "packed to the rafters" rarely "shouldnt" be charged criminally

Owning an infringing copy of material is a civil offence, distributing it in any way (while this may be appealed in court, P2P sharing *is* currently included as "distributing") is a criminal offence.

Plus, it is not the legality of users' actions that is in debate here. The debate is concerned with global developments (like in the UK). Regardless of what common sense would dictate (i.e. that it should not be Exetel's responsibility), Exetel could very easily find themselves in the same position that iiNet is in now: in court for failing to go to reasonable measures to prevent users from downloading copyrighted material. This is a risk that would result in bankruptcy of Exetel and legal liability falling to the directors of Exetel, the question is "what are some reasonable actions that Exetel can take to prevent this possibility from occurring"?

Null routing Pirate Bay, etc would go some way towards countering future legal action against Exetel. But the comments on this thread have indicated that this needs to be weighed against the immense negative publicity that would arise from such a policy.

So I think people need to ignore the arguments of legality. Because the reality is that legal interpretation is tested in the courts all the time and regardless of the outcome, it can still cost immense amounts of money to fight such allegations. The issue here is what can be done to minimise the probability of the allegation being raised in the first place.

[NetworkAdmin]

But the comments on this thread have indicated that this needs to be weighed against the immense negative publicity that would arise from such a policy.

I don't know what impression everyone has formed of the Directors of Exetel over the last 5 1/2 years. But I can tell you that 'negative publicity' has never been a consideration, and never will be, in any policy we form.

If something is wrong, it is wrong. Theft of intellectual property is theft none the less. And last time I looked, that was a criminal offense.

All those bleeding hearts that moan about 'the fat rich people in Hollywood' who are apparently 'ripping off' everyone with their 'massive profits' should just take a good hard look at their own work ethic. Do they expect to be paid for the work they do? Do they expect to have control over the property they own? If a bunch of teenage louts set up camp on their front lawn on the basis that 'as a property owner, you don't have any right to stop us using your property for free', just how would they react to that?

Those journalists who bang on about the 'evil' agents who represent the artists. Well now. Beneath every journalist is an aspiring novelist. So I bet they will be happy to publish whatever novel they think they have in them on the Internet, for free. Wont they.

[rseydler]

Owning an infringing copy of material is a civil offence, distributing it in any way (while this may be appealed in court, P2P sharing *is* currently included as "distributing") is a criminal offence.

Does that mean that my internet explorer cache is actually in violation of civil and criminal copyright law? Every web site has a copyright, every image, text, layout etc is copyright.

I don't legally own any of the websites I visit, nor any of the images/scripts they may load on my machine. Does digital data travelling over a router provide exetel with the "ownership" of everything I surf? Maybe I need to get Exetel to sign a disclaimer that any of my content that travels over the service will be removed permanently, with no trace, as I have some pretty confidential work stuff travelling back an forth.

Wanna stop piracy.. take it to the distribution source whoever that may be. From my understanding piratebay isn't the source they are only the linking mechanism right?.

My head hurts.

Ron

[NetworkAdmin]

Wanna stop piracy.. take it to the distribution source whoever that may be. From my understanding piratebay isn't the source they are only the linking mechanism right?.

'Hey mate, know any houses that are vacant tonight that I can rob?'

'Sure bro, here is a list'

It's called 'aiding and abetting' in any other sphere.

[Dazzled]

More like "Hey wizard, can we borrow your wand, we want to furnish our house like the one next door!"

So for the benefit of furniture sellers, wizards get their collars felt.

[rseydler]

Wanna stop piracy.. take it to the distribution source whoever that may be. From my understanding piratebay isn't the source they are only the linking mechanism right?.

'Hey mate, know any houses that are vacant tonight that I can rob?'

'Sure bro, here is a list'

It's called 'aiding and abetting' in any other sphere.

Shoot. So just talking about the site that shall not be named makes me a criminal. Damn and here I thought I was on the up and up.

Ron

[NetworkAdmin]

Willful misinterpretation is the poorest argument possible. Unfortunately, it also seems to be the not only the most common used, but also the one that is most embraced by others.

[Munka]

You can only discourage them from doing so by providing different severity disincentives, penalties and repercussions.

(.. or far more attractive alternatives).

Now that i consider a forward looking attitude, and I would like to hear what JasonM has in mind.

[rseydler]

Ok so pirating is illegal. I believe that is a given.

I am wilfully misinterpreting things to stir up you lot but it's not up to me to decide what is right and wrong. I can only obey what is law and common sense.

In view of the current court case shouldn't Exetel now take the stance of banning all P2P? Based on some of the comments made in the itnews followings and also in some personel blogs (which I enjoy reading) it seems like the only avenue.

So out of interests sake how about a quick trial? Block all P2P for a week and let's see what that does to the network

btw does anyone know why they targetted iiNet? Is it because Optus and Bigpond where just too big or because iiNet had the most infringers?

Ron