This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
I did. I even Googled details because I had no idea what your issue was.
1. There is no charge against you (at the point of time at which you're talking about paying fees).
2. The issue that you're contesting is that the ISP has identified what looks like suspicious activity on your account. This is no different to, for example, banks identifying suspicious transactions on your account and passing it on to authorities.
3. The fee is an admin charge to investigate a particular case, considering that there isn't a legal need to 'clear your name' for any reason.
4. If the entertainment group
attempts
(key word here) prosecutes you, you get to prove your innocence for free, saving you twenty (sixty) quid.
So, what's your concern?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
MyTie
I did. I even Googled details because I had no idea what your issue was.
1. There is no charge against you (at the point of time at which you're talking about paying fees).
2. The issue that you're contesting is that the ISP has identified what looks like suspicious activity on your account. This is no different to, for example, banks identifying suspicious transactions on your account and passing it on to authorities.
3. The fee is an admin charge to investigate a particular case, considering that there isn't a legal need to 'clear your name' for any reason.
4. If the entertainment group
attempts
(key word here) prosecutes you, you get to prove your innocence for free, saving you twenty (sixty) quid.
So, what's your concern?
Give me 20 bucks or I'll sue you for pooping on my grandma. Lawyer fees to defend yourself from my large corporate lawyers will cost you several thousand. So, what's your concern?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Give me 20 bucks or I'll sue you for pooping on my grandma. Lawyer fees to defend yourself from my large corporate lawyers will cost you several thousand. So, what's your concern?
My concern is that you won't have the cash to front my legal costs when you lose, assuming you manage to get such a claim into the court process in the first place without evidence.
If you can pay a fee and strike off a suspected illegal downloading action, chances are it's not going to be sufficient evidence for a corporate to use as evidence to prosecute.
Post by
Squishalot
Except there will be if you don't contest the claim.
Again - there is no claim, so there is no requirement to pay the fee. As soon as a claim is made, deal with the claim.
The ISP doesn't identify anything. They get sent an IP address and forward on the claims the company has made to the person they believe that IP address belonged to. They're also no longer allowed to refuse to do this even if they believe you're innocent. Furthermore, an IP address is not a person and is certainly not as easy to link to a person as a bank account.
What claim is it that they're forwarding? A claim or a charge? They can claim all they like - if they're not taking you to court, then it's simply words that won't hurt you.
Unless they make the claim multiple times in which case you get arrested. Three accusations during your entire life, that's all it takes.
No, if they make the claim multiple times, the entertainment industry can sue you under the relevant legislation. Whether you get arrested or not is entirely based on the level of evidence available. Do you honestly think that I (as in, Squishalot) can make several claims against you and have you arrested, unless you pay a fee? This isn't communist China - you're not going to be arrested because someone out there says you're doing the wrong thing. You might be investigated, sure, but if you've done the right thing, you're safe.
A court case is not free.
A court case against a multi-million pound entertainment group with lawyers on retention is effectively a loss before you even start.
You're assuming that they have sufficient evidence to make the case against you. I'm assuming that if you haven't actually done anything illegal, it'll be almost impossible to make that case.
How do you prove that you didn't download something?
Paying 20 quid doesn't wipe the claim, it allows you to prove to Ofcom that you didn't download something. So go on - how do you prove that you didn't download something? If you can't, then don't pay the fee - what difference does it make then? The issue you have is therefore with the process, not the fee.
Unscrupulous business practises, corrupt governments pushing through legislation backed by the biggest lobbying groups in the world, and people like you for defending them
Again - the fee isn't your beef, it's the process. I'm not saying anything about my issues with the process, I'm just saying that the fee is irrelevant.
Post by
MyTie
Give me 20 bucks or I'll sue you for pooping on my grandma. Lawyer fees to defend yourself from my large corporate lawyers will cost you several thousand. So, what's your concern?
My concern is that you won't have the cash to front my legal costs when you lose, assuming you manage to get such a claim into the court process in the first place without evidence.
If you can pay a fee and strike off a suspected illegal downloading action, chances are it's not going to be sufficient evidence for a corporate to use as evidence to prosecute.
Yeah, but this is one of those things that is very difficult to fight against. If your PC is used remotely by a Trojan, or something, there is nothing you can do.
Bottom line, no one should have to pay to defend themselves.
Post by
Squishalot
Bottom line, no one should have to pay to defend themselves.
You can defend yourself in court, or get a pro-bono solicitor, you don't need to pay big lawyers to do it for you. Hell, if you're innocent, you'll probably get lawyers fawning over you to take your case so that they can say that they've helped take down a big evil media corporation on behalf of the little guy.
My point in all this is that this fee thing has nothing to do with defending yourself, and everything to do with buying off the ISPs from bugging you about your activity. When push comes to shove, the person who's done the right thing will still be protected in court,
if it comes down to that
, and the person who's done the wrong thing will end up being arrested, assuming they haven't hidden their tracks well enough.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
MyTie
You can defend yourself in court, or get a pro-bono solicitor, you don't need to pay big lawyers to do it for you. Hell, if you're innocent, you'll probably get lawyers fawning over you to take your case so that they can say that they've helped take down a big evil media corporation on behalf of the little guy.
Well, you wouldn't be "taking down" any corporation, since you would be the defender, not prosecutor. And, do you see pro-bono solicitors hanging off trees like crab apples?
Interesting world you live in. Are there unicorns there?
Post by
Squishalot
Well, you wouldn't be "taking down" any corporation, since you would be the defender, not prosecutor. And, do you see pro-bono solicitors hanging off trees like crab apples?
Metaphorically, you would be. And for the right cause (such as digital rights), you do. At least in Australia, and from what I've heard, the UK, you would anyway.
In Australia, we've got a system of court lawyers who basically take on pro-bono / very low fee cases where a person isn't capable of funding / finding their own lawyer at their own expense. My girlfriend used to do work experience for one of them when she was doing her law degree. Their policy is a 'pay whatever you can afford', whether that's a couple hundred bucks, or 20 cents.
I was under the impression that the US had a court-appointed pro-bono solicitor system as well. Could be too much Hollywood.
And we can do without the ad hominems, if you don't mind.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
FatalHeaven
Interesting world you live in. Are there unicorns there?
Could we be any more disrespectful?
Personally any time I have needed legal defense, It was easy to get pro bono lawyers. And every time, albeit it was an extreme rarity that I'd need one and was over 5 years ago, they defended me flawlessly.
Post by
Squishalot
An interesting read from a teacher's perspective of today's youth.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/i-want-out-of-generation-i-20120626-210ke.html
On the one hand, we encourage kids to learn to question and to explore rather than rote-learn. On the other, we want them to shut up and listen when they don't actually know any better. Have we gone too far in instilling curiosity in today's youth, to the extent that they're mistaking a little bit of information for the whole truth?
Post by
asakawa
Well, that's a curmudgeonly and grumblesome article that essentially boils down to "kids these days!". Sounds like a bad teacher blaming the system to me or perhaps one who has been left behind in the age of chanting out times tables like prayers and has no concept of how to engage kids in the more meaningful ways that are encouraged now.
My wife's a teacher and she'll often talk about how every different child has a way of learning that's slightly unique but largely falls into some general categories like Auditory, Visual, Kinaesthetic and so on. There are certainly some kids who will respond well to rote learning but I'm willing to bet that most people reading this won't consider themselves to be that sort of person (I know I'm not/wasn't).
Engaging and inspiring kids is the key to good teaching. The author of that article needs to keep up I think.
Post by
Squishalot
Oh I agree - the article itself appears far too ranty to be taken seriously in and of its own accord. The ranted bit does have some merit, however - forums of today tend to be far more opinionated then forums of yesteryear (thinking a decade ago). Demographic change, or cultural change? I'd be curious to hear what your wife thinks.
Post by
asakawa
I'll ask her later but I don't think a change within a decade and one that you see on something as international as the internet can be attributed to teaching practices. Partly because things (teaching) haven't changed all that much in 10 years but also because the changes in behaviour you see on the internet is most keenly influenced by the rise of the internet itself and not regional teaching methods.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
For DoctorLore and Squish.
Since I don't really use torrent sites or anything, I am not very informed on really what all the copyright stuff is about. I mean, I know the basics of it, obviously, but not the real details. The only realy way I have been affected by it was megaupload was where a lot of the files were stored that I used for re-flashing cell phones that I fixed for work.
But, just from my very limited knowledge on the subject, I have a couple observations / questions.
1. What percentage of the people that are, or will, be getting these "demand letters" actually commiting copyright infringment? I mean by "letter of the law"....actually getting something for free that would have normally required them to pay for it?
2. Based on this quote:
5.If you receive 3 letters and don't manage to prove your innocence to the appeals board, your information is handed over to the entertainment group(s) so they can prosecute you.
it apppears to me that you reallt don't "have" to pay anything, unless you want to. If you are not doing anything wrong, it seems it would be pretty hard for them to actually prosecute you once it did make it to a court.
So, just based on what little I know, and from what I have read in this thread, it seems that the $20 "fine" they are imposing is more targeted to those that they have some form of evidence of infringment, and it is a rather cheap way of making you pay for something that you probably should have paid for in the first place.
If you are innocent, it would seem that you should not pay the $20, and make them have to prove something they should not be able to prove, in a court. If you are guilty, than paying $20 here and there is probably cheaper than what you would have paid if you had bought the software at retail price.
Now, don't get me wrong. I still think is is ass-backwards the way they are doing it, especially by American standards of justice. But I know you rguys have some slightly different rules over there, so I don't know if this is more "normal" there than here. I know that something like this wouldn't last 12 seconds before it was torn apart in court and tossed out.
Post by
MyTie
Well, that's a curmudgeonly and grumblesome article that essentially boils down to "kids these days!". Sounds like a bad teacher blaming the system to me or perhaps one who has been left behind in the age of chanting out times tables like prayers and has no concept of how to engage kids in the more meaningful ways that are encouraged now.
My wife's a teacher and she'll often talk about how every different child has a way of learning that's slightly unique but largely falls into some general categories like Auditory, Visual, Kinaesthetic and so on. There are certainly some kids who will respond well to rote learning but I'm willing to bet that most people reading this won't consider themselves to be that sort of person (I know I'm not/wasn't).
Engaging and inspiring kids is the key to good teaching. The author of that article needs to keep up I think.
Ive noted how the phrase "kids these days" is taken very negatively on this forum. This reminds me of the defensiveness i encounter when being critical of wow. Could it be that, as a general statement, the net amount of discipline displayed by people who are kids today is a net less than the net discipline of kids of the past? If so, why is it such a taboo to point it out?
Post by
asakawa
I think it's the same logical fallacy as was touched upon in the "new breed of animals" thread. Parents see kids listening to Maralyn Manson and forget they listened to Alice Cooper. They're intimidated by a group of teenagers on a street corner and don't equate it to the times they did the same thing because they never thought of themselves as intimidating when they were playing with their friends as a youth.
I don't know anything about how the forum takes that phrase, it's not something I've ever witnessed, but I think it's a shorthand for an idea without any substance. I think it says more about the person saying it than those about whom it's being said. If the forum generally disagrees with the idea then that would likely be because the demographic is largely a similar age to that that is being denigrated, or at least young enough to remember being that age well, and they don't consider themselves to fit the mould being described.
I certainly wouldn't say that
any and every
instance of someone using the phrase "kids these days!" is obtuse or ignorant. Kids demonstrably aren't all or always angelic and I've certainly come across some dreadful little tykes in my time. I just think you're always on a losing path whenever you make sweeping statements like that and I certainly think the author of the linked article is guilty of that. Though it's clearly a piece intended to stir up some discussion I don't really even get the feeling they believe everything they're saying. A teacher who really thinks those things of their students is someone I'd be happy to describe as a bad teacher.
Post by
Ksero
That the author of the article that squish linked is doing exactly what he accuses the teenagers of doing. The only reason teens aren't afraid to state their opinions now is because we won't get beaten if we try to. Many times in school I challenged a teacher on what they were teaching. Algebra was my strongest subject in grade 7 and 8, but in grade 7 the teacher wouldn't accept my answers even when she was wrong and I was right I got an 72 that year. In grade 8 I had a much better teacher, who had learned that he isn't always right. I got 99.7 in algebra that year, got every question right (missed a title on 1 graph), corrected the teacher at least 1 or 2 times a day, and he would thank me for it.
I think teachers nowadays need listen to their students more, you aren't gonna be able to teach them anything by just telling them what to do, if you can't figure how to get students to respect you that's your fault as the teacher.
Post by
Squishalot
I'll ask her later but I don't think a change within a decade and one that you see on something as international as the internet can be attributed to teaching practices. Partly because things (teaching) haven't changed all that much in 10 years but also because the changes in behaviour you see on the internet is most keenly influenced by the rise of the internet itself and not regional teaching methods.
Oh, I agree it's probably not due to teaching practices, but she'd see the cultural shift appear in the classroom, I would have thought.
Where are you getting that? I got into online fora pretty early and I seem to recall them being opinionated from the get-go...
Side note: if Godwin's Law was a person it would be old enough to drink.. ( -_-);
Maybe the forums I frequented earlier on were tamer :P I generally found they were a bit more respectful of people than ones these days.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.