tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1104917833530391517..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: UK response to file-sharing is still in trouble -- but should it be?Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-20034439016353871932011-06-13T13:28:12.656+01:002011-06-13T13:28:12.656+01:00at the risk of pointing out the obvious, when did ...at the risk of pointing out the obvious, when did we stop including concepts of artistic expression under the rubric of "free expression"? And how is it that unlawful expressing trumps either?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-26212500463251343982011-06-13T10:47:44.628+01:002011-06-13T10:47:44.628+01:00Point of information: ISP's don't analyse ...Point of information: ISP's don't analyse content that passes through their networks (for all kinds of reasons...). The anti child indecency IWF works by supplying a list of offending sites. TalkTalk's clean feed "works" by checking out the target site itself (and is highly controversial, and "opt in").<br /><br />The advocate general didn't think much of the idea of imposing content monitoring in Scarlet Extended, we await what the court has to say.Francis Daveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10228026893626221724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-31358925284440906732011-06-13T10:38:10.347+01:002011-06-13T10:38:10.347+01:00@ Anonymous of Sunday 4:23:00
At airports, too, t...@ Anonymous of Sunday 4:23:00<br /><br />At airports, too, there are security checks against terrorism - but I think neither British Airport Security, nor the BAA nor BA or any other airline could or should be held responsible if I take a (security-wise perfectly harmless) copyright-infringing DVD with me ... if at all, it might be a matter for of HM Customs and Excise!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-62043066100315193132011-06-13T10:09:49.729+01:002011-06-13T10:09:49.729+01:00It does not look like you have read the Hargreaves...It does not look like you have read the Hargreaves Review on the Digital Economy Act or the alleged impact of filesharing on the economy.... yes, freedom of expression can be limited to protect the rights of others, but then it needs to be in law, not arbitrary, and necessary to achieve the stated aim. The aim of the Digital economy Act is not clear, reduce infringement, increase legal sales, act as deterrent.... the economic and human rights impact assessment done for the Act were ridiculous. The scheme is hugely expensive, and reduction in copyright infringement and increase in legal sales (which is not the same) can be achieved through other means, which does not involve the closing of WiFi networks and increasing the cost for public internet access intermediaries. At the very least Ofcom should do its own figures on the level of copyright infringement through p2p filesharing (that is the only type of infringement that can be pursued through the Digital Economy Act). Chances are that by now it is insignificant compared to other types of copyright infringement or legal sales of music.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-60440782145244726042011-06-13T05:13:28.265+01:002011-06-13T05:13:28.265+01:00While quoting paragraph 19 of the Universal Declar...While quoting paragraph 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights to support his argument that corporate intermediary liability is the linchpin of free expression, the Special Rapporteur ignores paragraph 27 of the Universal Declaration that protects the human rights of artists. Would it not be expected that both paragraphs would be taken into account in interpreting the application of a 1948 document to a 2011 problem?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-84536451386425809392011-06-12T16:23:15.589+01:002011-06-12T16:23:15.589+01:00ISPs do not act like post office or other physical...ISPs do not act like post office or other physical world intermediaries: they are constantly filtering and examining content passing through their services. For example, they install 'content recognition' software on their services that allows them to analyse and filter/block access to child pornography, terrorist and other websites through which illegal traffic frequently passes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-51679678294708527772011-06-12T15:22:12.898+01:002011-06-12T15:22:12.898+01:00Why should intermediaries be involved? Will in fu...Why should intermediaries be involved? Will in future BR or National Express Coaches be held responsible if I carry a copyright-infringing item in my briefcase while travelling?<br /><br />And what will happen if the Postoffice is asked to deliver a pirate copy of a DVD posted as is not unusual in a paper envelope?<br /><br />How would those carriers even know that an infringing item was being carried by them (or am I simply naive in believing that, e.g., post travels unopened from sender to receiver?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-44638512092102388152011-06-12T14:21:23.422+01:002011-06-12T14:21:23.422+01:00I take issue (as you might expect) with the follow...I take issue (as you might expect) with the following assertion made in the assessment: <br /><br />"(iii) the DEA only proposes to cut off a user’s Internet access as a last resort after that person has repeatedly flouted copyright law despite multiple warnings..." <br /><br />Internet connections are usually shared between multiple users. As I read the Act, it therefore actually proposes a collective punishment, where all users of a shared connection are cut off due to accusations of activities by just one user, violating the human rights of people who just happen to share the same house, university or coffee shop chain as the accused party. <br /><br />Given that the imposition of collective punishments is defined in the Geneva Convention as a war crime, and the DEA also rides roughshod over the fundamental principle that people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, I think imposing disconnection in what is after all just a civil case where no financial loss has been proven, will prove somewhat problematic.<br /><br />I could go on to pick many more holes in the Act (such as the potentially libelous nature of the list of unproven accusations, the huge loophole of exemption for smaller ISPs, the effectiveness of cutting off a connection when there are no measures to prevent reconnection or simply using a different existing connection and so on), but my guess as a layman is that one alone should be more than enough for the courts to scupper the whole Act.Andrew Robinsonhttp://www.pirateparty.org.uknoreply@blogger.com