UK regulator turns over Internet policing standards to movie and record industries

Discuss

15 Responses to “UK regulator turns over Internet policing standards to movie and record industries”

  1. johnwraps says:

    I am in favor of this and I believe consumers will be too. The reason the record industry has made a few wrong accusations has been because they did not have to tools to properly identify people on the internet with 100% accuracy. With these new powers, the recording artists can finally enforce their copyrights with the necessary precision to avoid any further mistaken accusations.

    “Moreover, traditional judges and juries may not have the necessary knowledge to properly handle copyright cases. Do you think it would make sense for the music industry to appoint their own judges and juries for copyright trials, thus freeing up regular judges to hear other cases?”

    Yes, I believe that would be wise for exactly the reason you stated: Civilian judges and juries don’t have the knowledge to assign a proper value to the record industry’s intellectual property. Too often, the artists have had to settle for far too little. Take Jammie Thomas, that jury awarded the victims in that case a generous (to Thomas) sum of $1.9 million. Unfortunately for justice, the Judge reduced the settlement to an insulting $54,000. In a justice system run by people with sufficient knowledge, things like that wouldn’t happen.

    • Cynical says:

      There’s something very wrong with the world when you can’t tell the sarcastic posters from the trolls from the astroturfers; I’m having real problems deciding which of those possible explanations is the least ridiculous…

  2. insert says:

    I, for one, welcome our new RIAA overlords.

  3. Anonymous says:

    You know, copyright isn’t something that only real artists or large corporations can use.

    Why couldn’t this be used by individual citizens to have wealthy and powerful Brit’s kicked off the internet?

    I’m sure someone could come up with material suitably enticing for an MP to download?

  4. MD1500 says:

    The #DEAct is a total disaster waiting to happen. If it proceeds, there’ll be an almighty backlash.

    Do the music industry seriously believe this will work? As soon as hardcore file-sharers receive their first threatening letter, most will be using their disposable income to buy encrypted connections so they can continue, instead of buying more music.

    I see no reason to support an industry that treats its core audience with such contempt.

  5. GeMo DeMo says:

    Lucky for me I live in Ireland, so won’t have to deal with this sort of thing. What now?

  6. efergus3 says:

    Ummmmmmm – didn’t you folks use to have RIGHTS?

  7. angusm says:

    That’s OK, I’m sure the record companies will act responsibly and use their new powers wisely.

    I am worried, however, that the caseload generated might be a burden on the British legal system,. Moreover, traditional judges and juries may not have the necessary knowledge to properly handle copyright cases. Do you think it would make sense for the music industry to appoint their own judges and juries for copyright trials, thus freeing up regular judges to hear other cases?

  8. Zergonapal says:

    An error has occurred. To continue:
    Press Enter to return to a Monarchy, or
    Press Ctrl+Alt+Del to restart your Government. If you do this you will lose all Acts.
    Error: OMG : WTF : LOLBBG!11!

    Press “ANY” key to continue.

  9. Tim says:

    Man, that new laser printer is SCREWED now.

  10. AGC says:

    To fix copyright. The author of a work should have copyright +15 to 20 years after death to provide for their family. However, if they transfer their copyright by selling it to a rights management group the copyright on a work should only be 15-20 years.

Leave a Reply