Comments on: Consultation on legislative options to address illicit P2P file-sharing

By: Даниил Семин

Даниил Семин — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 06:37:26 +0000

Видел репортаж в новостях по ТВ. Долго ржал :-) Все гениальное просто!

By: кaппИ

кaппИ — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:50:23 +0000

Приветствую! Нельзя ли ссылочками с вами обменяться?

By: Five ways to publish commentable documents online at Helpful Technology

Five ways to publish commentable documents online at Helpful Technology — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:58:50 +0000

[…] An interesting call with Colin McKay got me thinking about some of the different tools available which I thought I’d write up here: 1. Wordpress + Commentpress Examples: Innovation Nation: Interactive, Open Rights Group internal consultation on legislative options to address illicit P2P file-sharing […]

By: The Open Rights Group : Blog Archive » EU Commission says ‘non’ as France tries to ditch key telecoms package amendment

Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:22:49 +0000

[…] In other news the UK government has answered an epetition to the Prime Minister seeking “to not force internet service providers to act … for the RIAA and be treated like a common courier.” The Prime Minister’s response does not go much further beyond the position already stated in the Government’s current consultation. […]

By: Barbara

Barbara — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:26:28 +0000

This option potentially allows anyone in the media access to millions of peoples’ personal infromation, thus opening a whole new dimension to identity theft. To remove the ‘going to Court’ element of collecting personal data essentially denies the average person their right to privacy. As, i imagine, a certain amount of evidence is needed before a Court would allow personal data be disclosed (!) the process of thorough (!) investigation would cease and there would be many more instances of wrongly accusing someone of infringement.

By: Barbara Burch

Barbara Burch — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 21:55:07 +0000

those breaking the law by commiting copyright infringement should be dealt with provided the rights holder has actually identified the right person. like many out there i have been targetted as a copyright infringer yet i certainly did not download / upload the game in question - IN FACT i had never heard of p2p sites or knowingly used one. the game is not on my computer that i can find and i believe i have adequate security on my computer to protect me against someone else using my connection. therefore, from experience, i would comment that these proposals involving the rights holder identifying infringers can only be successful if the methods they use to make these identifications are 100% accurate, as they obviously aren’t at the moment. i now face an ongoing battle to clear my name in this matter and avoid any further threatening letters and legal action. a situation i would not wish on anyone as it is extremely stressful and somewhat scary.

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:21:08 +0000

The contention that existing remedies are ineffective seem to have been disproved by the recent Davenport-Lyons/Pinball case. The flipside of that though is that some companies seem to have realised that threatening prosecution - or indeed prosecuting in itself could be lucrative - especially when courts seem to award ‘punative’ damages.

By: Philip Hunt

Philip Hunt — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 18:07:00 +0000

I am infavour of this. Note that such third party bodies already exist — they are called “courts of law”.

It has been argued that courts of law are a bad solution because they are too expensive. If that’s the case, then the remedy is to reduce administrative costs and delay so that they are cheaper for all court cases. If the government says they can’t do that because the quality of justice will suffer, then they are in effect admitting that whatever kangaroo court system they set up for broadband users will not deliver justice.

By: Philip Hunt

Philip Hunt — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:56:02 +0000

This won’t work, because of encryption.

Furthermore, if any monitoring system like this is to be enforced, the people who are pushing for it and who stand to benefit from it, i.e. IFPI and the content industries, must be made to pay every single penny of the cost. Internet users, many of whom are struggling on low incomes, should not have to pay for it.

By: reech

reech — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:12:53 +0000

This seems to imply that ISP’s simply act on the say-so of ‘rights holders’. Assuming everyone is a potential rights holder what’s to prevent this system from being abused or devolving into total chaos?