RSS
UK Digital Economy Bill Concession Is To Allow In A Smidgen Of Due Process, After You've Been Declared Guilty
from the guilty-until-appealed-innocent dept
As the debate continues in the UK over the Digital Economy Bill, Stephen Timms, the minister for Digital Britain, is trying to appease critics of the bill, by promising to include an appeals process for those who are accused of copyright infringement and threatened with having their internet access removed. This is mind-boggling for a few reasons. First, the admission shows that such an appeals process hadn't been in the plan already. More importantly, it shows the general thinking: this is a guilty-until-proven-innocent process. You get accused and you're guilty until you "appeal" and can prove that you were falsely accused. That doesn't seem like reasonable due process. That seems like stacking the deck in favor of copyright holders against the public.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
I can hardly wait for the encryption of information to be made illegal.
"Is that guy wearing a mask in public! Arrest him! Or her! I cannot tell! They're obviously trying to hide their resounding guilt! Why are you wearing a mask?"
Because it's freezing out?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Proving a negative
This whole thing is like if people started to report license plates of cars we see busting speed limits, etc, and the police fined the owners... unless they appeal and prove to be innocent. It's absolutely mind boggling!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proving a negative
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
The DE Bill compares badly to Magna Carta
Indeed, it looks like the BPI took Bono's advice on being like China when drafting the clauses they wanted:
http://bit.ly/ChinaBPI
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just you wait until ACTA is signed ...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Heard of Gitmo?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
i was talking
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Been here before
"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."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100127/0527467922.shtml
So, you can appeal, but unless the plans have changed, you'll have to pay for the privilege.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Been here before
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Been here before
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
It was announced at the same time a $9 levy would be assessed to pay for the upgrade.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Catch me if you can, Mandy.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Grandmothers will be brought for little to no crimes, children will also be brought forward, etc....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment