If you pirate a film, it's the ISP's fault, not yours

[mr moose]

Because.....

 

If I go buy a hammer, from my hardware store, and bludgeon lots of people and steal their shit..

Their liable for it, not me... SWEET!!!

 

/Logix

 

The law in Australia is quite clear, if you knowingly provide assistance to a criminal act your are an accessory to the fact.    If an ISP knows you are pirating then they are an accessory to theft. 

Under Australian Law if the hardware shop knows you are going to use the hammer to bludgeon someone then they are an accessory before the fact. 

[SkilledRebuilds]

The law in Australia is quite clear, if you knowingly provide assistance to a criminal act your are an accessory to the fact.    If an ISP knows you are pirating then they are an accessory to theft. 

Under Australian Law if the hardware shop knows you are going to use the hammer to bludgeon someone then they are an accessory before the fact. 

Yeah I knew all that, but no-one would ever knows this previous to the event.

 

Sugarcoated handholding turned into "open the gates".

 

Should NEVER be in the ISP control, always in the users control.

Plus.. encryption.

[Albatross]

The law in Australia is quite clear, if you knowingly provide assistance to a criminal act your are an accessory to the fact.    If an ISP knows you are pirating then they are an accessory to theft. 

Under Australian Law if the hardware shop knows you are going to use the hammer to bludgeon someone then they are an accessory before the fact. 

 

What? How would one know said person was aware of the motives of his customer? Tell me they at least have a complicated method at determining whether or not said hardware shop owner is consciously providing assistance to a murderer.

[ijKs Snow]

Some of the people in this thread aren't smart enough to move past a bad analogy and concentrate on the issue at hand, then you go and throw us this curve ball.  How are they going to rationally consider the merits of this?

True. I'll just slowly exit this thread...

[Trik'Stari]

Meh, society was fucked from the get go

[mr moose]

What? How would one know said person was aware of the motives of his customer? Tell me they at least have a complicated method at determining whether or not said hardware shop owner is consciously providing assistance to a murderer.

 

not how, if. 

 

IF a person is in full knowledge then they are guilty of accessory to the fact, in this case it is the isp (and seeing as all data is logged, it isn't hard to prove what they know),  In the case of the hammer, the key word is IF,  If we had proof he knew, then he is guilty, If we don't have proof, then he cannot be charged and even if he was he would not be found guilty because there is no evidence that say he knew. example: If in the hammer case the DPP had a witness that states the hardware salesman said "here is the hammer you need to kill those people with" then he is guilty, without that witness he is just a hardware salesmen that had nothing to do with the crime.

 

In Australia if there is evidence that conclusively links a person or entity to a crime they are an accessory to that crime.  

[theABCshop]

I'm perfectly fine with this, especially in America.

[Trik'Stari]

Wow. I had a bunch of shit written, was about to post, hit backspace to fix an error, and f.f. went to the previous page and lost the post. >.<

 

In a nutshell, use Direct TV's method to dealing with pirates, they burn out the pirate receiver activation card thingies that give people free every single channel. Turn off the pirates cpu cooler or just troll them and turn off the power supply every time they start downloading.

 

But then again, the part of me that downloaded hundreds of songs way back in like, 03-04 says fuck the companies, most of what they make is shit, and overpriced. Especially the movies, I refuse to see new movies because they end up being shit. And I dont buy albums I (and It hurts me to say this) get single songs off of Itunes (*vomits*), mainly because I dont think there exists a single album which is entirely worth paying for, meaning every song is actually good.

 

And there is the satisfaction of continuing to be able to say the only real, solid fact in life which is : you cannot beat the internet.

 

GO INTERNET GO.

[mr moose]

Wow. I had a bunch of shit written, was about to post, hit backspace to fix an error, and f.f. went to the previous page and lost the post. >.<

 

 

Happens to me all the time, real pain in the arse.

 

And there is the satisfaction of continuing to be able to say the only real, solid fact in life which is : you cannot beat the internet.

 

GO INTERNET GO.

 

They are trying though.

[Trik'Stari]

Who is lying? @mr moose. and when I say go internet go, I don't mean the companies, I mean us the user's. (*techno voice* all hail the user!)

[Sharif]

thumbs up 

[mr moose]

Who is lying? @mr moose. and when I say go internet go, I don't mean the companies, I mean us the user's. (*techno voice* all hail the user!)

 

Happens to me all the time, real pain in the arse.

 

They are trying though.

 

 

Trying, not Lying.  The people who want to control the internet (namely government and ISP's).

I was agreeing with you.

[Murdoch]

The law in Australia is quite clear, if you knowingly provide assistance to a criminal act your are an accessory to the fact.    If an ISP knows you are pirating then they are an accessory to theft. 

Under Australian Law if the hardware shop knows you are going to use the hammer to bludgeon someone then they are an accessory before the fact. 

 

 

Wait what? Is copyright infringement in the context of downloading a film for yourself classed as a criminal act in Australia?

 

 

In UK law copyright infringement is for the most part a matter for the civil courts, so it's illegal but not criminal unless you're actively selling loads of pirated shit or something. Either way I think that statement is a stretch, there's no way an ISP is an accessory to theft, it's not even 'theft' it's copyright infringement. Not the same thing, at all.

[Trik'Stari]

@mr moose oh word.

[Stefan Becker]

<sarcasm>

This perfectly makes sense

</sarcasm>

[Misanthrope]

Wait what? Is copyright infringement in the context of downloading a film for yourself classed as a criminal act in Australia?

 

 

In UK law copyright infringement is for the most part a matter for the civil courts, so it's illegal but not criminal unless you're actively selling loads of pirated shit or something. Either way I think that statement is a stretch, there's no way an ISP is an accessory to theft, it's not even 'theft' it's copyright infringement. Not the same thing, at all.

 

Hey it's Australia: they don't even think enough of their adults to let em play violent games.

[mr moose]

Wait what? Is copyright infringement in the context of downloading a film for yourself classed as a criminal act in Australia?

 

 

In UK law copyright infringement is for the most part a matter for the civil courts, so it's illegal but not criminal unless you're actively selling loads of pirated shit or something. Either way I think that statement is a stretch, there's no way an ISP is an accessory to theft, it's not even 'theft' it's copyright infringement. Not the same thing, at all.

 

In Australia copyright infringement is being in possession of a copyrighted media without legal permission.  For me to get a copy of a movie on my hdd I have to copy it from somewhere,  So even though someone else is making their copy available either online with a torrent or by lending me their disc, I am the one who is actively making a copy therefore I am the one breaking copyright law.  I allowed to format shift my music so I can use it in my car, but I am only allowed to do this if I already own a copy of the music.  I am not allowed to keep any format shifted media after I relinquish my ownership of the original (e.g it burns or is stolen and I am reimbursed from insurance or I sell it on).

 

Therefore downloading copyrighted material from the net is illegal on my part because I am the one starting the copy process.

[Murdoch]

In Australia copyright infringement is being in possession of a copyrighted media without legal permission.  For me to get a copy of a movie on my hdd I have to copy it from somewhere,  So even though someone else is making their copy available either online with a torrent or by lending me their disc, I am the one who is actively making a copy therefore I am the one breaking copyright law.  I allowed to format shift my music so I can use it in my car, but I am only allowed to do this if I already own a copy of the music.  I am not allowed to keep any format shifted media after I relinquish my ownership of the original (e.g it burns or is stolen and I am reimbursed from insurance or I sell it on).

 

Therefore downloading copyrighted material from the net is illegal on my part because I am the one starting the copy process.

 

Yeah it's illegal, sure. But is it a criminal offence? could you be arrested and fined or imprisoned by a criminal court?

 

In the UK copyright infringement (lets call it piracy for personal use) would only open you up to being sued by the rights holder (or a party acting on it's behalf) in a civil court. You couldn't be arrested for simply downloading a film. But there have been cases of people being arrested for uploading a torrent onto a website, which was classed as illegal distribution of copyrighted material which is indeed a criminal act.

 

However the point about the ISP's liability is an interesting one, there does seem to be a movement to shift the blame onto them, but it's a seriously flaky argument. And it certainly wouldn't hold up in court, at least under existing laws.

 

The closest example in Law I can think of was... The owner of Oink a music sharing torrent website which was shut down a number of years ago by the British Police under pressure from the RIAA. He was arrested for operating the site, all his computers and servers were seized. The police clearly knew his website was facilitating copyright infringement on a large scale, but he hosted none of the actual copyrighted files, there were none on his computers all he did was provide individuals with the means to share between themselves. Eventually they charged him with 'Conspiracy to defraud' which is about as vague a crime as it gets. It took ages to get to court, and as soon as it did, he was promptly found not guilty.

[mr moose]

Yeah it's illegal, sure. But is it a criminal offence? could you be arrested and fined or imprisoned by a criminal court?

 

In the UK copyright infringement (lets call it piracy for personal use) would only open you up to being sued by the rights holder (or a party acting on it's behalf) in a civil court. You couldn't be arrested for simply downloading a film. But there have been cases of people being arrested for uploading a torrent onto a website, which was classed as distribution of copyright material which is indeed a criminal act.

 

However the point about the ISP's liability is an interesting one, there does seem to be a movement to shift the blame onto them, but it's a seriously flaky argument. And it certainly wouldn't hold up in court, at least under existing laws.

 

The closest example in Law I can think of was... The owner of Oink a music sharing torrent website which was shut down a number of years ago by the British Police under pressure from the RIAA. He was arrested for operating the site, all his computers and servers were seized. The police clearly knew his website was facilitating copyright infringement on a large scale, but he hosted none of the actual copyrighted files, there were none on his computers all he did was provide individuals with the means to share between themselves. Eventually they charged him with 'Conspiracy to defraud' which is about as vague a crime as it gets. It took ages to get to court, and as soon as it did, he was promptly found not guilty.

 

Well I can't comment on other countries legal systems, however all they would have to do is prove the ISP knew the user was carrying out illegal activity and didn't stop it. We have not had any cases go to court so no precedent has been set.  I don't think any individuals have been done for copyright yet.  I wouldn't write off the possibility though.

 

The other example that springs to mind is a stall in a sunday market,  If the market owner knows that a store in his market is selling illegal goods then they are an accessory, however no precedent has been set on this one either. 

Which leaves us with a whole heap of law to interpret and no cases to refer to.   

 

As I said earlier though, majority of internet usage in Australia is pirating and porn,  If ISP want to maintain an income stream they will protect their users as best they can.  Telstra included (for all those who hate on telstra  )

[Murdoch]

 

Which leaves us with a whole heap of law to interpret and no cases to refer to.   

 

This kinda nails it.

 

People who use the argument 'it's the ISP's fault', have no intention of logically backing up their claims, or working within the existing laws. They are trying to shift the debate and force the ISPs (generally by lobbying the Government) to implement punitive measures which circumvent the legal process.

 

As in, we think you might be pirating stuff, we don't have to prove it but we're gonna cut off your internet anyways.

[mr moose]

As in, we think you might be pirating stuff, we don't have to prove it but we're gonna cut off your internet anyways.

I think they know and probably can prove it, but until a precedent has been set a judgment not in their favor can make future case really hard.   It's almost like a really big game of chess.

[FullNuclearBreakfast]

I know you aren't serious but it got me wondering how anyone could think video games could cause violence etc etc. Violent people cause violence. :rolleyes:

Games don't kill people, rappers do.

 

It is stupid though. People like to blame the *new thing* - before games it's been: the radio, movies, The Beatles, rock & roll, Elvis, TV... none of them were legitimately causing anything, but people seem to like to have a kind of scapegoat that they can blame everything bad on. The question is what it'll be next - maybe people will start saying flying cars are causing mass shootings.

[LOST TALE]

I just came here to say this thread is trivial.

It<s like some noobs debating wether it's the person's fault for dying or the shooter for shooting the person.

[mr moose]

I just came here to say this thread is trivial.

It<s like some noobs debating wether it's the person's fault for dying or the shooter for shooting the person.

 

It looks like you just posted to tell everyone how superior you are.

 

It's not trivial, discussing laws that effect all of us it quite important and necessary for a better understanding.  I can't believe you don't see that.

[Murdoch]

It looks like you just posted to tell everyone how superior you are.

 

It's not trivial, discussing laws that effect all of us it quite important and necessary for a better understanding.  I can't believe you don't see that.

 

I think he's just saying the original guy's argument was so weak that it's trivial to even bother with. And I kinda agree this particular argument is a trivial one.

 

However, his opinion is reflective of a more general trend of attempting to shift liability for actions online from the individual and move it to that of the ISP. The idea it seems is that 'personal responsibility' shouldn't count online, people are not to be trusted, if you commit a crime online it's because the ISPs have allowed you to do it. And this needs to be curbed, the ISPs should control and police the internet, because people are stupid.

 

That is the argument they are actually making, and to dismiss this as trivial, is pretty foolish.