Berr Consultation Document

[rancidpunk]

If only we could protect the innocent!

After a quick read through this document http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file52658.pdf or as I prefer to name it "What I did on my Holiday" by Peter Mandelson.

The following sentence just about sums up the attitude that is prevalent amongst our democratically chosen representatives.

"It would be important to ensure as far as possible that innocent people who may be affected by such technical measures would retain access to the Internet services they need, including online public services."

Does that mean a whole re-think on our country's attitude to the process of law, will we only ensure that people who are innocent of commiting a crime are protected from miscarriages of justice as far as possible.

Luckily that is always the way that Mandelson has seen the law being applied to himself, one of a small minority that has the resources to get himself found not guilty of any little transgressions.

If the law is to be taken as more of a guide than a set of rules am I at risk of being given a speeding ticket to fulfil government targets or am I just being argumentative and unreasonable when I assume that by not breaking the speed limit it will be impossible to get a ticket?

Apparently not, according to the argument they are using to justify a dictatorial attitude to pursuing filesharers. I mean come on, taxing all internet connections to pay for filesharing would at least be a more honest way of saying that the media industry wants more money from us and they are calling in all the favours they have bought from our politicians to get it.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that the law is only applied to those without a voice on the political stage, as we have seen when the Honorable Members were caught with their fingers in the till, "just pay it back old chap, we can't sack you after all."

[peterbrett]

Once I've calmed down enough to be polite, I'll write a supplement to my original response to the consultation, and post it on here.

[rancidpunk]

Once I've calmed down enough to be polite,

Sod being calm, here's my next rant;

"Timescale – the previous proposals, whilst robust, would take an unacceptable amount of time to complete in a situation that calls for urgent action." More urgent than child poverty, the economy, Afghanistan, etc?

My list of priorities is so different it's scary.

"Evidence – although we have no doubt Ofcom would have carried out their research under the original proposals in their usual thorough manner, measuring unlawful P2P activity across a range of networks and different content is extremely difficult. On reflection, using a precisely defined “trigger” as the basis for introducing technical measures would not be sufficiently flexible (for example it would not allow the wider health of the broadband or content markets to be taken into account), and under-estimated the inherent difficulties of measuring this unlawful activity with precision.. The key will be to base decisions on robust and transparent evidence of the general direction and pace of change. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State will have to carefully weigh the evidence available to him and make any order on the basis of defendable information based largely but not exclusively on the reports from Ofcom. But even so, the Secretary of State can do this much quicker than the process which the regulator would have to go through if acting alone."

I want the case to be heard by a judge,
I want the evidence to be subject to the PACE act,
I want it explained to me how that evidence was collected,
I want to know who approved the warrant for the surveilance required to collect that evidence and why,
I want equal legal status to those accused of murder,
I want immunity from commercial malevolence,
I want politicians of conviction (convicted? ),
I want justice applied equally for all who break the law,
I want our country as a whole to follow the Scots lead, bugger the USA, do what's right.

"We are minded to allocate costs so that essentially individual parties will have to bear the costs they incur as a result of these obligations apart from the operating costs of sending notifications, which will be split 50:50 between ISPs and rights holders."-

I want to be taken to court by my accuser,
I want my accuser to pay any costs incurred to back up their claims,
I want witnesses against me to give their evidence at no cost to them,

"We also recognise the impact the holiday season has on stakeholders and their ability to respond."
You really couldn't make it up, "we have to hurry up and do something to help the media industry, unless it would disturb their holidays" WTF?

[grunchtherunch]

I'm sick and fucking tired of the people who are supposed to be responsible and fair doing whatever they want whenever they want.
the BPI “The solution to the piracy problem must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive,”
this is not. you can't just disconnect people when you like, and you can't expect ISPs to carry out your dirty work for you!
does this mean that potentially the 3 strikes has been replaced with one chance?

[grunchtherunch]

I sent this to the email provided for the consultation - have we as the party responded to the consultation yet and do we plan to? i feel it is much more impacting if we respond as a party representing many than my solitary email.

In regards to the Consultation on Legislation to Address Illicit P2P File-Sharing

I will simply go over the summary as i think it contains the main points that need addressing, that form the very basis for the disconnection practice.

I am responding as an individual - however do not underestimate the sheer number of people there are that do not support your views on file sharing especially in the younger population - as a result of them actually knowing what file sharing is and understanding how to use it.

1.1 Unlawful P2P file sharing was identified in Andrew Gowers’ Review of Intellectual
Property as causing significant damage to the UK’s creative industry. Gower’s
Recommendation 39 called upon Government to take action if no industry solution proved
possible. This was accepted by Government and recognised in the Creative Economy Strategy
Paper (February 2008). Despite industry efforts, culminating in the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) signed in July 2008, no voluntary solution was identified, although the
MOU process provided much valuable information and experience.


"commissioned by Gordon Brown to lead an independent review of Intellectual property rights in the UK"
This in my view is unacceptable, the evidence provided that P2P is detrimental to the entertainment industry, by you, is first of all insufficient; in that you have only one study cited in your consultation. and not only that but it is paid for by the government, I like many others believe there is a huge bias factor to this, because it is in the governments interests to keep large entertainment corporations satisfied, many are American and if our government did not tackle the problem as they would like pressure would be put on by the american administration.
I like many others would like to see reports collected arguing both sides of the case, and then for that to be weighed by an independent committee - (which i realize would likely have to be funded by the government) and the necessary experts brought in to educate the committee in the technology's usage (for the average P2P user) without instilling bias in them.
only then can they produce a reasonable conclusion as to whether P2P is damaging, and to determine how damaging if it is concluded to be so, so that punishments are not disproportionate as they have been so frequently in the past.

1.3 Action 13 sets out two obligations which will apply to ISPs. ISPs will be required to send
notifications to subscribers who have been identified in relation to alleged infringements of
copyright. The second obligation is for ISPs to maintain (anonymised) records of the number of
times an individual subscriber has been so identified and to maintain lists of those most
frequently identified. Both obligations would be underpinned by a code drawn up by industry
and approved (or imposed in the absence of agreement) by Ofcom. Following further
consideration we are now proposing a change to the way in which we construct these
obligations. This document sets out an approach whereby a duty will be placed on Ofcom to
take steps aimed at reducing online copyright infringement. Specifically they will be required to
impose the two obligations on ISPs set out in the Digital Britain Interim Report. Ofcom will also
have the power to impose by Statutory Instrument the additional obligations listed in the
legislation if they think it necessary. In addition they will be required to put in place a code to
support any obligations that are in place.


Second - the ISPs role - the ISPs continually argue that policing the internet is not their responsibility - and i repeat that to you now - it will cost the ISPs time and money which will further slow the development of the internet. The internet being the most free place to do anything (such as have these discussions) this is of utmost importance there have already been reports aired by the BBC about internet speeds being substandard in britain comparitivly to other countries and this is my opinion needs to be addressed - something enforced ISP law-keeping treatment will slow. Besides that, i believe you simply do not have the right to charge ISPs with this task.


Some research and empirical evidence suggests that most people will stop file-sharing if
they receive a notification (though other research is more provisional). In addition rights holders
will be able to take targeted legal action against those most frequently identified, both as a
deterrent and also because these individuals are the ones doing most harm. Rights holders will
continue to need a court order to require ISPs to release the personal data of the most
frequently identified infringers.

again you cannot simply cite research that supports your goals and then place a footnote 'but actually this research may not in reality be what we would like it to sound like'
you have to provide us with this research and evidence - from an external source

'most people will stop file-sharing if
they receive a notification'

http://torrentfreak.com/poll-how-would- ... ng-090329/

Torrentfreak is a news website aimed at bit torrent users and therefor the perfect audience to receive a poll like this. as you can see most people would not stop sharing.
Upon receiving a warning via my ISP I would...

* Obey the warning and stop sharing
1290 7% of all votes
* Ignore the warning and carry on sharing the same as before
2633 14% of all votes
* Ignore the warning but carry on with more caution
7282 38% of all votes
* Take steps to hide identity via VPN etc
7877 41% of all votes


Total Votes: 19082
Started: March 29, 2009
In summary i urge you once more to listen to the people not the money hungry companies

In addition - you have lost the faith of a lot of younger voters - this is an issue that young people want addressed and want file sharing to be legalized - if you want younger voters this is one way to get them. right now some people see a corrupt government working for oversea companies and not the people they are supposed to represent. many of our voices go unattended to, and are dismissed without a moments thought.

"what does it mean to be human if we don't have a shared culture? and what does a shared culture mean if you can't share it? - Creative Commons - 'A Shared Culture'"

[grunchtherunch]

I simply cannot believe this.

this is the pathetic ass reply i got.

where am i supposed to send this shit now?!

Hi there

I'm out of the office until 2 Sept and the only blackberry I shall be accessing before then is the type which is found in hedgerows (or Tescos for the townies).

For matters P2P Mr Brazier is your man and usually can be found on 020 7215 1295

Your e-mail has not been forwarded.


The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2007/11/0032.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

could we possibly get this put in a more prominent section of the forum or something? i think this is a major issue

[peterbrett]

I simply cannot believe this.

this is the pathetic ass reply i got.

where am i supposed to send this shit now?!

Hi there

I'm out of the office until 2 Sept and the only blackberry I shall be accessing before then is the type which is found in hedgerows (or Tescos for the townies).

For matters P2P Mr Brazier is your man and usually can be found on 020 7215 1295

Your e-mail has not been forwarded.

Chill out, dude. There will be plenty of time for him to deal with it when he gets back! Even government bureaucrats are allowed to have holidays, you know.

[grunchtherunch]

I simply cannot believe this.

this is the pathetic ass reply i got.

where am i supposed to send this shit now?!

Hi there

I'm out of the office until 2 Sept and the only blackberry I shall be accessing before then is the type which is found in hedgerows (or Tescos for the townies).

For matters P2P Mr Brazier is your man and usually can be found on 020 7215 1295

Your e-mail has not been forwarded.

Chill out, dude. There will be plenty of time for him to deal with it when he gets back! Even government bureaucrats are allowed to have holidays, you know.

bahhh it wasn't so much the holiday it was the 'your email has not been forwarded'

[samgower]

I want to be taken to court by my accuser,
I want my accuser to pay any costs incurred to back up their claims,
I want witnesses against me to give their evidence at no cost to them

Unless I misread the consultation document, I think that the point is that if supposed infringers ignore the notifications given to them by their ISP, then rights-holders will be given the evidence under some kind of court order, so that they can then litigate against individuals. Which of course is pretty ridiculous -- there's an estimated 6 million copyright infringers in the UK. The cost of litigating against all of them would be enormous, and having only a few lawsuits is useless, as the RIAA learned.

It seems to me the industry is pushing this as a gateway law for tougher legislation down the line, since the stuff in this one is so deeply flawed. I'm going to be sending an email to Klym/Brazier pointing out the flaws I see in it, and I'll forward it to my MP too (although I won't mention PPUK so as not to risk arsing-up the official party line). I don't know how sympathetic he is to our cause, but I'm sure he'll be able to see the huge faults in this proposal and hopefully lobby against it.

[theimaginator]

I sent an email reply to this consultation document to the following people;

mike.klym@bis.gsi.gov.uk
adrian.brazier@bis.gsi.gov.uk

Their email addresses were on the consultation paper. One of them had an autoreply saying that he was on holiday, the other replied by saying thanks and that no decision has been made yet (the consultation still being open till 29th September 2009).

The email I sent them was this;

Hi

There are a number of points I will raise before I really get stuck in;

1) This consultation is relevant to everybody in the UK, as all consulation papers should be anyway and since everybody and their dog seems to use the internet in one way or another these days

2) You cannot make decisions based on this consultation before it is closed and expect that any decisions made will have any credibility

3) The British government has been the lap dog of various industries, corporations, conglomerates and even foreign governments over the last few decades; and I sincerely dislike and disagree with Lords, Ministers and MP's being told what to do, what to spend money on and in what ways to undermine the lives of millions of Britons every year. Such practice is wrong whichever way you look at it and it must stop somewhere. Now would be good.

Now I'll get stuck in.

First, the name behind FACT - Federation Against Copyright Theft - is stupid.

To steal copyright, a person would have to steal a paper deed or certificate of ownership of an idea, and claim they came up with the idea and that it belongs to them.

Theft is when a person is deprived wholly of something and no longer has the use of it, it is no longer in their possession.

Copying without permission is a breach of distribution rights, which are bought by the record/movie/games labels which buy the rights not to call the products their own, but to distribute them as they see fit.

There, now that is out of the way...how many of you copied CD's from friends? How many of you, in your youth, copied songs from tapes owned by your friends?

How many of you remember the advertisements and messages(since the 1970's), funded by the record labels, proclaiming that videotapes and cassette tapes would be the end of the music industry and that it fuelled terrorism etc?

This is no different.

What this is, is record labels telling our governments to invent new laws to make sure they control when and where we obtain music.

They'll give birth to kittens when more and more artists release under their own label or websites and cut out the middle men.

As for our government, it should not be blackmailed or coerced by any corporation, conglomerate or foreign country.

Our Lords, ministers and MP's should not be bought so easily whilst on holiday or on their lunch break.

Whilst it is easy to argue as well, that the artists/film makers are being deprived of POTENTIAL profit (not quantifiable and actual profit), the reality is that the artists and film makers do not get a lot of the money that is made from the purchase of music/film/games etc.

Some of them really do not like being part of the fight the record/movie/games companies have engaged in with their fans.

So in summary then, we should tell these corporations, countries and conglomerates where to go - back to the drawing board to find out what their new business model is, not suing after spilt milk.

[rancidpunk]

I want to be taken to court by my accuser,
I want my accuser to pay any costs incurred to back up their claims,
I want witnesses against me to give their evidence at no cost to them

Unless I misread the consultation document, I think that the point is that if supposed infringers ignore the notifications given to them by their ISP, then rights-holders will be given the evidence under some kind of court order, so that they can then litigate against individuals. Which of course is pretty ridiculous -- there's an estimated 6 million copyright infringers in the UK. The cost of litigating against all of them would be enormous, and having only a few lawsuits is useless, as the RIAA learned.

It seems to me the industry is pushing this as a gateway law for tougher legislation down the line, since the stuff in this one is so deeply flawed. I'm going to be sending an email to Klym/Brazier pointing out the flaws I see in it, and I'll forward it to my MP too (although I won't mention PPUK so as not to risk arsing-up the official party line). I don't know how sympathetic he is to our cause, but I'm sure he'll be able to see the huge faults in this proposal and hopefully lobby against it.

This is how it works atm.
The ISP's will be forced by court order to hand over customers details linked to IP addresses.
The court order is issued through the use of a Norwich Pharmacal order, which can be ordered by the court against third parties (ISP's) innocently involved in wrongdoing. It's a method used, usually in exceptional circumstances, to allow people to know who to prosecute in a case where the crime has been identified but the criminals details are unobtainable through normal ivestigative methods.
The individuals will then be notified by the rights holder that they have infringed upon copyright and their ISP will notify their customer of the punishment. Both parties doing the notifying will meet the costs of doing so.

I have sat through endless debates on whether an IP address is proof enough to identify someone in the UK. The rights holders would love that because at the moment if they want to spy on accused individuals further they would need to supply enough evidence to get a warrant to conduct intrusive monitoring. As this a civil matter, and the warrant to monitor people is only usually granted to officers investigating a serious crime or to prevent terrorism, it is unlikely to be granted.

This leaves the media industry in the position of getting Mandy and his cronies to decide that looking for UK IP addresses in a torrent swarm and taking a snapshot of them is enough to prove guilt, or they could get the law changed to allow methods of monitoring, already discredited widely across Europe, to be used without the need to stick to those pesky UK laws that protect us from just anyone deciding to monitor us.

Oh, and the warrant to monitor applies to all forms of electronic communication so even though they don't need to they can legally monitor your email, mobile, home phone etc.

Although it would be easiest for them to allow an IP address to prove guilt this has already proved impossible due to European Court rulings on the subject, and it hasn't been tested in UK courts to date.

People in the UK are already being pursued using the methods described above. Although tellingly the theory has yet to be contested in a UK court. Although the plaintiff in the cases may well have enough evidence to prove individual guilt they cannot produce such evidence as it has been gathered illegaly without a warrant using sub contracted IP harvesting companies.

Don't be taken in by this being described as a crackdown on filesharing, it's a method of allowing intrusive monitoring. It's not even going to be specifically allowed for pursuing filesharers, your boss could quite legally do it to see if you are playing on your computer when you are off sick, or listen in on your mobile, scary.