Insult To Injury: Mandelson Wants Those Wrongly Kicked Off The Internet To Pay To Appeal
from the guilty-by-association dept
As if Peter Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill proposal wasn't bad enough, Dave sends in yet another problem with it. While it does include a process for appealing if you are cut off for accusations (not convictions) of unauthorized file distribution or reproduction, you will have to pay up to appeal. So even if you are innocent, it will cost you money to make your case for why you shouldn't have been cut off in the first place.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: appeals, digital economy bill, peter mandelson, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sue for expenses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't sound like due process to me
Warning - car analogy:
If I get a speeding ticket and appear in court to contest it, I only pay court costs if I lose. I do not have to pay for the privilege of the appeal. That's the way it works here, ymmv.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doesn't sound like due process to me
Unfortunately in the UK it doesn't always work that way now - even in the case you quote.
See
http://driversalliance.org.uk/press/view/368
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/publications/guidance/statutoryinstruments/index.htm
Perha ps you might want to get better informed, rather than just swallowing a story from a website whole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, and this is VERY important, the internet connection is going to be cut "due to a baseless accusation", it's a 3 strikes law, not a "one and done" deal. A user would have to be the most unlucky person on the planet to have three seperate and unique complaints over time that were all baseless. I mentioned some points in that other thread, things like open wireless, stay over visitors, other users of the computer, etc. Often "innocent" people aren't as innocent as they claim, and they would be very unlucky indeed if they were "innocent" three times in a row.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If the three strikes genuinely had to be independent I would agree with you but it is unlikely that genuine statistical independence will be a requirement. It is quite plausible that 3 strikes could come from a common cause.
As the people over at freedom to tinker will testify if you run certain perfectly legal programs in certain perfectly legal ways you still seem to attract multiple strikes.
Plus the fact that you have to be very unlucky does NOT of course mean that it won't happen to anyone. There's a one in 52 chance that the top two cards in a deck are same number and colour but if you search through the whole deck you find such an instance most times.
After all winning the lottery is unusual - but that does not mean that all lottery winners are cheats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
OK, so 3 baseless allegations then. The 3 strikes only lowers the chance of being incorrectly accused, they does not remove it.
"I mentioned some points in that other thread, things like open wireless, stay over visitors, other users of the computer, etc"
...but you ignore the other possibilities, such as IP and MAC address spoofing. I remember a case a while back where the ISP had gotten mixed up due to time zone differences and identified the wrong user as having performed the infringement.
Are you really OK with innocent people being forced to defend their innocence in court due to incompetence or having been the victim of a crime themselves? Oh, and you might want to read more about this yourself. The way I'm reading it is that there is no direct court involvement. It's an appeals process set up by OFCOM, the government communications watchdog, and I don't believe a court will be involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Fuck off and die. Does your mommy know you're using the internet?"
Pretty good, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't know about the UK, but in the US, you don't pay for defending yourself against a criminal charge unless you are found guilty. There's no part of the Miranda rights that a police officer has to read that says 'You are required to pay court fees to contest your innocence.' You want to discuss civil/criminal differences? I'm game, lets talk punishments when guilt is proven. Criminal charges are the only ones that have wide-ranging restrictions on freedoms (in additional to monetary penalties), while civil charges result in fines, restitutions and occasionally extremely narrow specific restrictions on freedoms. Cutting off someone's (more specifically, an entire household's) internet access is a wide-reaching punishment.
Also, I highly doubt that the people being accused WANT to go to court - the ones that WANT to go to court are the content owners.
"Also, and this is VERY important, the internet connection is going to be cut "due to a baseless accusation", it's a 3 strikes law, not a "one and done" deal."
I agree that's absolutely important. It is important that someone's freedom is being restricted on the basis of accusations and not convictions, no matter how many there are.
"I mentioned some points in that other thread, things like open wireless, stay over visitors, other users of the computer, etc."
So you are admitting you want to punish someone who is not the actual guilty party? If your roommate gets pulled over for drunk-driving, do you lose your driving license as well?
'It is better to risk saving a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one.' - Voltaire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or they would have to have an enemy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Phew, much better. Now let me write my parliamentary rep to support this wonderful piece of legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
not that you shouldn't have an opinion but you are repeatedly misreading what points he (and others) try to make.
Mike makes no suggestion that things are unusual or should be the way we all want them. Just that there are many injustices being brought out from this DEB.
The loss of internet connection for being sent 3 letters ACCUSING you of breaking the law is a ridiculous concept in itself. it seems that it is only being suggested because the greedy, crook scandelson has been bribed (through money/dinner/whatever, baseless accusation maybe) by industry lobbyists who want him and the gvnmt to do the hard work for them.
concerns have been raised by many many people about other users sharing/hacking wi-fi connections of other users who are not tech-savvy enough to adequately secure their connections.
There will be no-one to police these accusations (i.e no-one to come out and check your network for unauthorised users when you contest the accusation) and average users are unlikely to know how to prove it wasn't them.
No-one can justify piracy but we can all justify the right to share information/creations. If a small (incredibly wealthy BTW) group of people dictate to us that we shouldn't share the wealth of knowledge/art/so-called copyright material, they should expect those of us with a bit of common sense to oppose the schemes.
add to this now that there is the distinct possibility that we will have to pay just to defend ourselves from these extremely wealthy copyright-holders (mostly large corps and recording industry execs) and you have something else for us to be upset about.
my main point(s) about this entire DEB situation and about the proposed anti-piracy laws is that the people trying to enforce these things are doing them for the wrong reasons.
FIRSTLY, the government/House of Lords/MPs/etc are in place to protect, assist and govern (in a non-dictatorial way) the PEOPLE, not solely individuals with lined pockets and wealthy corps.
SECONDLY, MP's and the government have been voted in by us to work for us... therefore shouldn't they be asking how we (the people) see piracy (and the management of piracy) without conditioning us to believe its outright wrong??
I make no suggestion that we would all suddenly be pro-piracy but most average people out there have based their opinions on the information they have been force-fed by the media (also owned by the lobbyist-related corps) and the government propaganda (again displayed through news funded, with the exception i think of the BBC, by lobbyist-related corps)
Im probably going to get lots of tin-hat comments about this but there IS a complex infra-structure of elite/elitist individuals out there who make sure that they remain at the top of the proverbial food-chain. there is a massive wealth gap in this country (UK) which is frequently denied existence by the wealthy government officials. laws like this impose the potential for poorer people to be fined obscene sums for minor infringement/copying/sharing which they cannot afford to pay.
RANT over
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I quite agree. If you are accused 3 times you should be considered guilty until proven innocent.
By the way, TAM, I noticed you infringing on a copyright of mine the other day. This is your first warning, two more and you're obviously guilty.
Does anyone else have any infringement accusations to make against TAM? Come on, we just need two more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Court Fees
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/Thejudicialsystem/DG_066863
http://w ww.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/7770.htm
Reading further, it only seems to talk about fees for filing a case against someone, not a defendant who disputes a claim (so far, haven't gone through it all yet).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That kind of sophistry is silly. Pointing out the injustice in another nation's actions against it's own citizens is a staple of commentary. I'm sure I don't need to invoke Godwin's Law here to explain why not excepting what is common practice in other nations is important....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiocy
> like filing fees are not unusual
> Perhaps you might want to get better informed
Where did Mike say it was unusual? Quote it back to us, please.
[He said it was wrong, not rare, genius.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legalization
It would certainly be hard for them to pull it off, but I would not put it past them to try to include that in the bill as well. Nothing like hiring the government to do most of the work for you, and have them pay you back for the little you do do (which is baseless to begin with).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just About Anything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Honest Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What This Fails to Address
Isn't "innocent until proven guilty" the backbone of most justice systems in the developed world?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What This Fails to Address
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like traffic tickets in NY
Some cop or state trooper pulls you over and writes out a ticket for some claimed infraction (speeding, running a red light, not obeying a traffic device, whatever). The ticket does _not_ tell you what the fine is. Your only options are to plead guilty, or to plead innocent and contest the ticket to a judge. If you plead guilty, a judge will tell you what you owe at a later date.
Here's the best part, if you plead innocent there's a _mandatory_ $85 court fee. You have to pay that fee _even_if_you_are_found_innocent.
The police are free to write tickets indiscriminately. If they write you a ticket for failing to obey a traffic sign in Buffalo, and you've never actually _been_ to Buffalo it will cost you at least $85 to get the chance to explain that to a judge. If the typical penalty is $50, then it's cheaper to simply pay the ticket than the $85 fee to contest it.
See, bad copyright laws aren't our only export to the U.K.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sounds like traffic tickets in NY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just guessing but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just guessing but...
Mandelson could find a way to scape but all the people he know?I doubt it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just guessing but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defamation lawsuit.
The U.K. is the paradise for such lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can anyone else smell what's coming?
With the costs to the copyright idiots dropping like a rock, they will kick up their campaign against piracy and start sending massive amounts of accusations. I'd guess that within a year most of the current internet users would be cut off. We already know how accurate they are at sending the current letters, how will they react when they don't have nearly as many consequences and can bully many more people. We also know that these people don't think logically, they have a win at all costs mind set. They'll see what they think is a hint of piracy and send three letters just to force it to stop.
Now, we all know how this will end. The law will be revoked for fear of a nation wide riot and the sales of little plastic disks will not go up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ITS a travesty of justice
YEA i see
you rich fucking asshole goofs are gonna be the first to go when the revolution starts
THAT'S RIGHT ANTI MIKE TROLL GOAT FUCKER
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government Legal Fees...
The current infatuation with 'fees' is going to get far more expensive over the long run; just look at the banks.
What we really need is some plain old common sense. Why, why do I have to pay for something that I have already paid for again?
I can tell you why, because politicians and the like are just as greedy as the banks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Line from the linked article
Did the article get this right? Is it not just downloading infringing content, but how much you download?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Line from the linked article
Would they differentiate between P2P downloading and other uses? If so, people would just use other methods to download infringing content. If not, people who choose to stream their HD movies on the Xbox 360 would be cut off for watching too much legal content... Also imagine the nightmare if an actual cap is written into the bill - too big and it's useless, but whatever they specify will be too small in a few short years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Businesses and Legal Status
Wouldn't it be funny to see a company get kicked off for 3 accusations? I think so.
It also demonstrates how unusable the idea is. If an employee from a work computer commits a violation the company as a legal person would be liable and thus get thrown off the inet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Businesses and Legal Status
To me it smells like only certain copyright organizations will have the ability to make these accusations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Businesses and Legal Status
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A "new" business model?
"So hey, Mister, ya see we's cut off your Internet, and If you ever wanna see it again, your gonna have to pay us and we will let you ask us to turn it back on. Capiche?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To TAM
TAM - you must prove your innocense of these three charges AFTER you have already been locked up and denied the freedom and ability to readily research your options. WE MUST PROTECT THE INNOCENT PUBLIC FROM THE ACCUSED.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHAT ABOUT THE CORP GIANTS!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WHAT ABOUT THE CORP GIANTS!!!
No, because they're specially privileged "people". See Corpocracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mistakes are not random
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why bother?
Has anybody considered the fact that he's actually a sensible person (In other words, an IP skeptic) who is simply here to "play" at being an RIAA lapdog?
Certainly, his "arguments" are excruciatingly bad at the best of times. What makes me think he's actually a sock-puppet or something is the fact that he descends into periodic bouts of almost Zen-like verbiage: "And...but...unless" --- a literal "fill-in-the-blank" objection to anything and everything.
If I didn't know better, I'd compare it to the tendency among FLOSS (Free/Libre/Open-source) computer folk to enjoy self-referential humor and elaborate put-ons.
In all likelihood, TAM is basically the Techdirt equivalent of "Jeff K." -- a gloriously inspired parody of just exactly how abysmally shallow and ultimately self-defeating IP apologist trolls actually are.
http://www.somethingawful.com/hosted/jeffk/
Either that, or he's Jack Valenti's bastard step-son, who hides under his bed at night, shaking uncontrollably because his idol compared the VCR to the "Boston Strangler".
Or maybe he's just "Sam I Am's" other personality.
In any case: why are any of you bothering with TAM at all (other than to treat It like the tragically un-funny joke It really is.)
Just Sayin' :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why bother?
Kind of like how Hitler was actually anti-Nazi, but nobody got the joke?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why bother?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why bother?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dinner, anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MentalSlavery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]