UK: Sex Offenders More Deserving Of Internet Access Than Infringers
from the double-standards dept
Does the UK really have stricter punishment for copyright offenders than sex offenders? It appears so. As part of a ruling concerning kicking people offline for sex offenses, a judge ruled that to be unlawful (hat tip to MD1500 for sending this in). The ruling clearly states:A blanket prohibition on computer use or internet access is impermissible. It is disproportionate because it restricts the defendant in the use of what is nowadays an essential part of everyday living for a large proportion of the public, as well as a requirement of much employment. Before the creation of the internet, if a defendant kept books of pictures of child pornography it would not have occurred to anyone to ban him from possession of all printed material. The internet is a modern equivalent.I don't know enough about UK law to know if this acts as a precedent that could apply to copyright cases as well, but it would seem to undermine a big part of the punishment set up by the Digital Economy Act there...
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: civil rights, infringement, internet access, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course the politicians are willing to bend over backwards for the big media company, because the latter can pay the former.
The people hurt by sex offenders can't.
I just hope that there are some politicians out there, who aren't in it for the money, but actually care about their constituents, but I'm not holding my breath. And yes, I know, I could maybe step into politics myself, but we already have enough one issue and one man parties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, wait, you were serious.
As an aside, what would happen if a prison computer was founf to consistenly infringe? Would it be arrasted on copyfraud charges?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(Conveniently, there is no precise definition of freetards.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: DannyB on Jul 26th, 2011 @ 9:25am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Infingers can still go to a friends house, or the public library, or any public hotspot and use the internet.
Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That said, there is still a problem with blanket disconnects for folks that are employed from home, self-employed, etc. etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There is a problem with blanket disconnects for anyone. Just as in the example they state - - if someone copied books three times, leading to three strikes, one would not be banned from books or reading.
Information is necessary to life and liberty. Cutting someone off from the internet, either by banning them from using it or cutting a single connection, is akin to kicking someone out of school for plagiarism. Yes, there are ways to learn everything you need to learn outside of school but it does not help anyone to have someone cut off from information and the rest of society.
Go for a week without the internet, See how well that goes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Blanket disconnects would mean that people couldn't work in an office with a web connection, or for that matter even operate a cash at McDonalds (they are all using tunnelling back to the head office to track sales and inventory issues).
My original point is that a three strikes disconnect is nothing like a blanket court order for an internet ban, so comparing the two is pretty meaningless.
Well, meaningful if you are trying to "work da FUD", if you know what I mean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course it does. You must be a freetard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Depends on the person and the local area. A disabled man who depends on local buses to the local town may as well have been cut off from everywhere, for example.
"Infingers can still go to a friends house, or the public library, or any public hotspot and use the internet."
*Accused* infringers, remember, which is the major issue. I'm also still waiting for a good explanation as to how the loss of something that's been deemed a human right and can be vital for home workers & businesses is a just punishment for potentially losing someone some money by sharing some songs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What you are assuming is that entirely innocent people will randomly be kicked off without any notification. That just isn't the case. You are also assuming that someone who is disabled wouldn't have recourse via various disabilities acts already enacted in law.
Home workers would be wise to (a) not pirate stuff on their work line, and (b) perhaps have a "business" internet connection installed rather than sneaking around on their home connection.
More than anything, it gets back to not pirating stuff. It solves so many of your arguments if people secure their equipment, don't pirate, and don't share their connections with strangers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Presumption of guilt, how typical.
"What you are assuming is that entirely innocent people will randomly be kicked off without any notification. That just isn't the case."
Wrong. It is not only possible that it will happen it's inevitable. It's already happened in France and they just started banning people!
"Home workers would be wise to (a) not pirate stuff on their work line, and (b) perhaps have a "business" internet connection installed rather than sneaking around on their home connection."
Again with the presumption of guilt and, wait this can't be right, are you honestly suggesting that business lines are (a) available to every private residence and (b) exempt from the digital economy act?
"More than anything, it gets back to not pirating stuff. It solves so many of your arguments if people secure their equipment, don't pirate, and don't share their connections with strangers."
No, more than anything it gets back to the fundamental problem of this law and others like it: the presumption of guilt. Your arguments would make much more sense if there was a presumption of innocence but because there is a presumption of guilt the idea that 'just don't break the law' solves so many of the problems just falls apart. Furthermore, why should an open network be illegal? That makes no sense at all. Why should I be fearful and mistrust people around me just because it pads some companies bottom line for me to behave that way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Me: Incorrect. This guys connection has been used to download pirated material. End. He isn't innocent. Stupid, ignorant, and foolish, perhaps, but not innocent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, everyone's guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wrong. His ISP received accusations that his IP had been used to download copyrighted material. He did not do it, and no conclusive evidence has been given to show that it was even his router involved (do you want me to list all the times false notices have been sent?).
"He isn't innocent. "
He is innocent of the crime of which he was accused (not convicted, as no court has seen the evidence). He is suffering the punishment, while the perpetrator (assuming there was one) just moves onto the next innocent victim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ah, ridiculous hyperbole, I see. Pick a better example. That's one of the few things he won't be shut down for, since it's illegal.
It's also something worth being shut down for since someone is actually harmed. Unlike the loss of a hypothetical purchase.
You also (deliberately, I assume) make your regular mistake of assuming that "accused" means "guilty".
"What you are assuming is that entirely innocent people will randomly be kicked off without any notification."
No, they can be notified that they need to stop doing whatever it is they're not doing, and then get kicked off when they continue not doing it.
"You are also assuming that someone who is disabled wouldn't have recourse via various disabilities acts already enacted in law."
...which can be expensive and doesn't take into account other non-disabled people in the same position.
"Home workers would be wise to (a) not pirate stuff on their work line, and (b) perhaps have a "business" internet connection installed rather than sneaking around on their home connection."
So, business connections are exempt from this? Cool, all you have to do is work at somewhere with an incompetent admin (i.e. the home worker) and pirate all you want for you and your friends. Neat.
"More than anything, it gets back to not pirating stuff"
I already don't, but you're trying to make it so that all it takes is 3 false accusations from you to get me kicked off anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Cease and desist immediately from downloading gay bestiality porn.
This your first notice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
AKA a natural history documentary about bonobos...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We continue to find traffic indicating continued downloading of "gay" "bestial" "porn" at your site. You must cease and desist immediately.
This your second notice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Since you continue to download gay bestial porn, we have no choice but to require your ISP to cease providing Internet access to you indefinitely. This action should be completed in the next 72 hours.
Wouldn't it have been nice to force me to reveal myself as your accuser, have me provide actual proof of my accusation, and be able to defend yourself against my accusations in a court of law before this action was taken?
Nah...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I lose my internet connection for something I did not do.
Or better yet, I have a home wireless internet connection. I have secured it, but someone manages to hack it and use it anyway. I get these 3 strikes for something that someone else did and I lose my internet.
Here's another one. Someone spoofs their IP and uses that to infringe. Unfortunately, that spoofed IP is the same as my IP. I get 3 strikes and lose my internet connection.
Now these are three cases where it is not my fault and I still lose my internet connection and am inconvenienced.
Now even if I was the one who infringed, whose to say that my infringement was not fair use? I would have to go through an expensive and time consuming process to prove my fair use and in the mean time, I am unable to have a home internet connection.
None of this is fair. Nor is it proportional to the offense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For the record, the Court opted for restricting access to devices that store history, a ban on tampering with the history and a requirement to show the history to a police officer on request.
As for being a precedent, the statement is unlikely to be binding on any Court concerning copyright, but some of those statements are likely to be highly persuasive. That said, it looks like disconnections are still a few years away in the UK for copyright. At the moment the focus is on web-blocking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, I see. So it would also be reasonable to ban sex offenders from having any printed materials at home. After all, they could still go to a public library if they wanted to read something.
Yeah, I see how that works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> library, or any public hotspot and use the internet.
So let me see if I get this right.
It's okay to punish other (innocent) users of a connection, based on the mere accusation of infringement.
Also it's perfectly fine for an infringer (perhaps a real actual infringer) to use another internet connection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I propose a new law
We will have a mandatory registration to a national infringer database. Those registered are barred from the internet. They are barred from living within 300 feet of an open wifi connection. They are barred from living within 1000 feet of and entering any school or library. They are only allowed to work in coal mines or other similar vocation. They must wear at all times a yellow copyright symbol, no smaller than 3 inches in diameter, upon their person at all times and in plain view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I propose a new law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I propose a new law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I propose a new law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Florida housing sex offenders under bridge
http://articles.cnn.com/2007-04-05/justice/bridge.sex.offenders
The sparkling blue waters off Miami's Julia Tuttle Causeway look as if they were taken from a postcard. But the causeway's only inhabitants see little paradise in their surroundings.
Five men -- all registered sex offenders convicted of abusing children -- live along the causeway because there is a housing shortage for Miami's least welcome residents.
"I got nowhere I can go!" says sex offender Rene Matamoros, who lives with his dog on the shore where Biscayne Bay meets the causeway.
Sex Offenders Forced To Live Under Miami Bridge
by GREG ALLEN
May 20, 2009
In Miami, a causeway in the middle of Biscayne Bay has become home to one of the county's least desirable populations: sex offenders.
What began a few years ago as a stopgap solution has become de facto public policy. For sex offenders with few resources who want to stay in Miami, there's just one option: an encampment of tents and shacks on the Julia Tuttle Causeway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no "law" in the UK: they're serfs under a monarch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is no "law" in the UK: they're serfs under a monarch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*Alleged* infringers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *Alleged* infringers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That explains it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See how easy that is???
I can't wait for protect IP to go into affect, I have my list of infringers already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's take a very hypothetical situation and let's look a the likely result.
Situation:
A technology has been discovered that allows a person to use clean water to fuel their vehicles. This requires only a reprogramming of the EPROM on the car and 'bingo' it runs on water - 100% clean, no emissions other than hydrogen and oxygen.
What do you think would happen? Would the world be happy that we no longer pollute the environment with fossil fuels? Would the world be happy that we likely just eliminated even the possibility of 'global warming'?
Sure the people would be ecstatic. But oil and power companies all over the world would be in court immediately. Suing to try and block this technology. All sorts of 'theft' accusations would be brought up and other spin like this.
And don't say it's different - because if the recording industry still had it's way, we'd be stuck with **PLASTIC** (made from petroleum) CD's and DVD's along with all the packaging and other landfill waste that was required to sell discs in stores.
But now, no oil is needed to distribute media - and they bitch about it. So the next time you hear the 'green spin' from one of these corporations - think about it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cruel and unusual punishment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do sex offenders scare the living daylights out of big corporate lobbying interests?
Do copyright offenders?
Any questions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]