Slashdot Mirror

In the UK:

Obtaining a thing of value (product or service) by intentionally providing false information would be Fraudulent misrepresentation. Claiming you'd forgotten your own name might reduce it to Negligent misrepresentation.

Misrepresentation Act 1967

So merely attempting to see if the default telnet password is still active on a publicly accessible device is defined as illegal access in the UK?

It's section 1 subsection 1 of the Act. Can't get much simpler than that: https://www.legislation.gov.uk...

You need at least a pre-login warning message that the system is not public access and that continuing is exposing you to charges if you continue in France.

Most systems in the UK will provide a similar warning, but the law doesn't mandate or require it.

Is doorknob rattling (seeing if the door is locked or not without entering) also illegal in the UK?

Technically even entering isn't illegal. It's a civil offence of trespass, not a criminal one. So no, I suspect not - but the police are likely to treat it as probably cause for searching you and potentially inviting you for a long conversation with them at the station. They may even offer you a cup of coffee.

Port scanning?

That's complicated, and appears to hinge on 'intent'. See https://www.theregister.co.uk/... for some comedy.

The privacy laws in the US, UK, CA, and many other first world countries is a joke

I don't know about Canada, but the privacy laws in the UK are nothing like the (lack of) privacy laws in the USA. Enforcement may be too rare, but the law per se is pretty restrictive.

Given clause 3(b) of https://www.legislation.gov.uk... the use of Chip & Pin makes no fucking difference in the UK.

It's not like signatures are hard to forge.

The UK has laws that provide for this right to search encrypted digital data. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Part III. In the UK, strong encryption is permitted, but if the police demand that a defendent decrypts a file then either the passcode/phrase or plaintext must be handed over. If the defendent doesn't do this and is convicted under RIPA they can be sentenced to 2 years imprisonment, or 5 years if the data is believed to involve child abuse or terrorism.

There is some dispute over whether this law has been applied fairly in the UK (eg some people convicted of refusing to decrypt data have been diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome), there are no legal provisions for people who forget a password/phrase (reversal of the presumption of innocence), and the law is ambiguous regarding what exactly constitutes a provably encrypted file vs random data. But this law exists in parallel with the right to encrypt.

To be clear, I believe RIPA is bad legislation. But it is an example of what a government concocts after six years of deliberation into the problem.

And pay $PPLE a shit ton of money, or risk getting sued?

No risk if you do the reverse engineering of the protocol in the EU - which specifically allowed you to do that. See the UK Act: The Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992, read 50B (2)(a)

Investigating crime and punishing wrongdoing is not the bank's job.

The British government places certain, strict responsibilities on banks when it comes to business accounts, especially when it comes to identifying who is the ultimate beneficiary. These requirements have changed quite a lot in recent years, with the last round of changes being as late as last autumn - here's a link to a relevant page on the government's official site: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/.... It's sort of in the middle of the Money Laudering Regulations, but it sums up the gist of things: they are really keen on making life difficult for white collar criminals, and it will only get tougher. I think this is well overdue - London has been far too easy for shady, financial activity for a long time. Unfortunately, it places a burden on the banks that they have not done enough to lift, for example by training staff to understand the regulations and know how to deal with affected, but legitimate customers, so a lot of particularly smaller companies, who really didn't see this coming, have got into trouble and have no-one capable of giving them advice. In most cases it ought to be simple enough, but when faced with the question "Who is the ultimate beneficiary?" a small, 2-person company may not understand what they are talking about, and unfortunately, the support staff at the bank appear to be unable to translate it into language that people do understand. I worked with a small business who got thrown out because of this - the company owner started on a long story, which only served to make them look suspicious; it would have helped a lot if the bank staff had had enough insight into things to say "In your type of business, what we are after is simply the director that is registered with Companies House" - weirdly, HSBC's account managers are not allowed to refer to Companies House (which is the official register of companies in UK and freely available online), but have to use an intermediary, who do little more than skim information from Companies House - but in this case were some 10 years out of date. Bizarre, but such is life.

Can I provide a source? Well, sort of. I am not a lawyer. If you are contemplating accessing a computer system [for example performing a port scan] without prior permission, then I would encourage you to discuss your plans with a lawyer if it is reasonable to assume the owner of the computer might take issue with your actions.

If you read the provisions of the [UK] Computer Misuse Act (1990), see here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

or the [US] Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, here:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

you will note that both laws contain provisions which discuss whether or not your access to that computer system is authorised. The moment that your access is "not authorised" you become vulnerable to all the other provisions of those laws. Whilst these two laws are necessarily different, both of them include clear provision to show that unauthorised access to a computer system brings the actor in scope of the law.

Although I can't find it for you now, I do recall one particular case [and I might be going back 20 years or so] where a hacker was charged with "theft of electricity", because the prosecution in a case were unable to show that the individual had performed harm. Faced with the potential situation in which the accused would be released because the prosecution could not show harm, they evidenced from the transfer log that the individual had received a significant block of data, which had required electricity to transmit to the waiting computer. The Crown argued that because the access was not authorised, the owner of the resource had not given permission for the accused to receive this electrical output. The case then become one which hinged over theft. I appreciate that this is a bit of a journey from where we started, but I wanted to illustrate the ease with which a prosecutor can find *something* that was done that can be construed as a crime, then work from there.

It's a saddening example to quote, but look at what happened to Aaron Swartz: he downloaded public documents from a public university, but the DA wanted to throw the book at him - and did so. In Aaron's case, Federal prosecutors charged him with 11 violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act... for accessing public materials...

Downloading eBooks (or anything else) isn't illegal. *Distributing* them is, without the proper permission/license.

Correction: *copying* them without the proper permission/license is what's illegal.

In the case of printed books, if you obtained an illegally-distributed book and read it, then you wouldn't be doing any copying.

But in the case of ebooks, if you obtained an illegally-distributed book and read it on your computer, the act of reading it on computer inevitably makes a copy in the computer's memory or cache or disk. The copyright act specifically says that copies this made this way are exempt from copyright restrictions, SO LONG AS these copies are (1) temporary, and transient/incidental, (2) an integral and essential part of a technological process, (3) the sole purpose of the copies is to enable a lawful use of the work.

Is it a "lawful use of the ebook" if you're reading a copy that had been illegally distributed? I think this is up for debate, and I'm not aware that it's been tested in court.

Is it a "temporary copy" if you download an illegally-distributed ebook and store it on your phone or hard disk? -- no.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

Note: I'm not a lawyer.

There's no law against selling shitty products.. at least as long as nobody can prove you were being intentionally malicious.

Maybe not where you live, fatty.

Other parts of the world have a different POV.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... (key part is section 14(2))

When I stream, I'm downloading. The data goes from their servers to my device. You may play some tricks to minimize caching and delete the data as quickly as its done with, but it's still downloading. So how is copyright enforcement supposed to know if I'm capturing that data for later additional use?

"The ignorance is astounding"? indeed! :)

The difference between "temporary copy made that's inherent to the process of watching it" and "permanent copy" has long been a topic of debate. It was codified in UK law in 2003: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

Copyright in a literary work, other than a computer program or a database, or in a dramatic, musical or artistic work, the typographical arrangement of a published edition, a sound recording or a film, is not infringed by the making of a temporary copy which is transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process and the sole purpose of which is to enable -- (a) a transmission of the work in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or (b) a lawful use of the work; and which has no independent economic significance."

You wrote "so it's still downloading" but that's irrelevant. You should have written "it's still copying" since that's what the law is about (and what the exemption above relates to).

You asked "So how is copyright enforcement supposed to know if I'm capturing that data for later additional use?" -- First, note that the topic of this article is someone's opinion of EXISTING law, not new law. Second, note that although copyright law defines infringement, it's left up to the enforcement agencies to figure out how and what to pursue.

Anyway, enforcement of copyright infringement has largely been driven by the copyright holders themselves, e.g. UK's Federation Against Copyright Theft or America's RIAA. An opinion like this is a shot across their bows, telling them "hey stop sending infringement notices to folks who merely download your movies because we think you're not going to prevail".

Does "streaming" imply the use of some protocol that attempts to prevent the recipient from saving? What if we stream using a protocol with a known vulnerability? What if we develop a new streaming protocol and deliberately include a vulnerability? What if it is based on encryption with a password that is hard-coded to be "password" and cannot be changed? What if it merely requires the use to check a box that says, "I solemnly swear that I obey the law, mostly"?

Your hypotheticals come from someone thinking like a geek, which is a bit pointless here. You should instead think like a lawyer. Start from the relevant quote: http://www.derbytelegraph.co.u...

Accessing premium paid-for content without a subscription is considered by the industry as unlawful access, although streaming something online, rather than downloading a file, is likely to be exempt from copyright laws."

That presumably relates to a long-running question about copyright as regards temporary copies in computers. Here's the wikipedia explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

For a long time, the legal position of services such as Internet caches was dubious under British law, with such copies technically being infringing. However, an amendment explicitly allows temporary copies of literary works, other than when in computer programs and databases; of dramatic works; of artistic works; of musical works; of typographical arrangements; and of films or sound recordings – provided that such temporary copies are necessary for a technical process, are transient or incidental, and are made only for the purpose of transmitting a work across a network between third parties, or for a lawful use of the work. That amendment eliminates the awkward position of the cacheing services of Internet service providers. It is in a similar vein to an exception for the incidental inclusion of a copyright work in an artistic work, sound recording or film. However, deliberate inclusion of a copyright work negates the exception.

Here's the actual text of the law: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

Copyright in a literary work, other than a computer program or a database, or in a dramatic, musical or artistic work, the typographical arrangement of a published edition, a sound recording or a film, is not infringed by the making of a temporary copy which is transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process and the sole purpose of which is to enable -- (a) a transmission of the work in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or (b) a lawful use of the work; and which has no independent economic significance."

That answers most of your questions: "Does "streaming" imply the use of some protocol that attempts to prevent the recipient from saving?" -- no. "What if we stream using a protocol with a known vulnerability?" -- irrelevant. "What if I check a box which says I solemnly swear to mostly obey the law?" -- irrelevant. It also answers a question implied by your train of thought: if you use software to watch a stream, and you take advantage of flaws or deliberate designs in this software to save a copy, then the exceptions won't apply to you, and you'll be guilty of copyright infringement.

Your other questions were about authoring a protocol or software that has flaws or deliberate designs that allow folks to save a copy. This doesn't fall foul of anti-circumvention law because you're authoring the protocol yourself, not circumventing someone else's. And if a publisher uses this protocol? -- it's up to them, but using a protocol wouldn't constitute a waiver of their copyright rights.

With apologies for my own ineptitude, this time with some html:

1) Check whether it could possibly be traffic from your network. Do friends have access? Children? Poor Wi-Fi security? Open proxy server?

2) Subject access request (s7 Data Protection Act 1998) to BT, for the record which Get it Right sent to them. You want the IP address, port number and UTC timestamp, which enabled BT to do the matching to identify your account. It might cost you £10.

3) If you are willing to identify yourself to Get it Right (more so than you have done by posting the letter online, I suppose), a SAR to GiR, asking for the information which they hold on you, which led them to send the notice to BT. If they quibble about whether they hold your personal data, point out the case of Breyer, dealing with IP addresses and personal data.

4) If you are sure that it was not you, once you've seen GiR's record, consider complaining to them about inaccurate processing of your personal data. Ask for rectification under the Data Protection Act. If they refuse, complain to the Information Commissioner's Office. They may not do anything but, the more complaints, the higher the likelihood.

5) You might even consider a small claims court action for the distress caused by their processing, if you can demonstrate inaccuracy. But I'd talk to a solicitor first at that point as, while the SCC generally shields from paying the other party's legal fees, that is at the discretion of the court.

6) Vote with your wallet, and switch to an ISP which has not voluntarily entered into this scheme. If you do this, tell BT that you've moved and why.

7) Ignore it, notwithstanding the frustration of its inaccuracy / inappropriateness.

(The last one I saw was a speculative invoice for a pornographic film. My advice in that case was to simply ignore it. Nothing further was heard. (YMMV etc.))

My word, a large font printed on a sheet of A4 paper! Well, that settles it then. Just image: if they were writ even larger, and printed on the side of, oh, I don't know, say a bus; oh how much truer they could be!

Seriously though, you should have read the actual Act Of Parliament for the referendum, you know, actual reality and not just your uninformed opinion (or funny voices in your head)

We're in comedy land now where Brexiters who were arguing to leave in order to get our constitutional law back (which we never lost) are now arguing that they don't like constitutional law. I'd say make your sodding minds up, but in your case best not, eh?

Wait, what? Is this knife regulation gone to far, or is a plastic fork now some drug paraphernalia?

knife regulation gone to far...
Sorry it's a Torygraph link..
and I quote
'..But Lord Justice Laws, sitting with Mr Justice David Steel, disagreed. He said: "I would accept that a sharp or pointed blade was the paradigm case - however the words of the statute are unqualified and refer to any article that has a blade."'

For your amusement..UK Government - Buying and carrying knives: the law
and I quote
'..A court will decide if you’ve got a good reason to carry a knife if you’re charged with carrying it illegally.'

Have a good look at some of the UK's offensive weapons legislation sometime if you're bored, it all started with banning flick and gravity knives back in the 50's (probably something to do with those damn'd Teddy Boys and these menaces to decent society) and has gotten progressively weirder..e.g using the precedent created by the above-mentioned Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice David Steel specifically mentioning that '..the words of the statute are unqualified..' then The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988, Schedule 1.(k) prohibits peashooters...for your further amusement on that one, see here (yet they won't sell crossbows and other quite legal items)

Weasel wordcrafting lawyers who draft legislation at the behest of their police state masters....got to love them...

In the 80's, I used to travel around the UK with a 4.5" sheath knife prominently fixed to the outside of my rucksack, nowadays I make sure I've not even got a normal fixed blade screwdriver in it, just in case (no point being hung for a lamb...).

Wait, what? Is this knife regulation gone to far, or is a plastic fork now some drug paraphernalia?

knife regulation gone to far...
Sorry it's a Torygraph link..
and I quote
'..But Lord Justice Laws, sitting with Mr Justice David Steel, disagreed. He said: "I would accept that a sharp or pointed blade was the paradigm case - however the words of the statute are unqualified and refer to any article that has a blade."'

For your amusement..UK Government - Buying and carrying knives: the law
and I quote
'..A court will decide if you’ve got a good reason to carry a knife if you’re charged with carrying it illegally.'

Have a good look at some of the UK's offensive weapons legislation sometime if you're bored, it all started with banning flick and gravity knives back in the 50's (probably something to do with those damn'd Teddy Boys and these menaces to decent society) and has gotten progressively weirder..e.g using the precedent created by the above-mentioned Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice David Steel specifically mentioning that '..the words of the statute are unqualified..' then The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988, Schedule 1.(k) prohibits peashooters...for your further amusement on that one, see here (yet they won't sell crossbows and other quite legal items)

Weasel wordcrafting lawyers who draft legislation at the behest of their police state masters....got to love them...

In the 80's, I used to travel around the UK with a 4.5" sheath knife prominently fixed to the outside of my rucksack, nowadays I make sure I've not even got a normal fixed blade screwdriver in it, just in case (no point being hung for a lamb...).

Not in the UK, no. Rape requires penile penetration:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

At best it's "Sexual assault", with a maximum 10 years' custody rather than Life (for rape), and an offence range of 'no prison' to 7 years, rather than 4-19 years (for rape).
https://www.sentencingcouncil....

The law itself is sexist, even before you then start adding in the police reluctance to refer women to the CPS, the CPS reluctance to pursue a case against a woman or the discrepancy in sentencing that leads to women getting a lesser punishment for the same crime.

Criminal fucking justice system my arse.

Ever heard of the term "personal responsibility." I don't go to the gas station at night with a wallet full of money without my taser and my pistol. If you live in some backwards anti-gun liberal shit hole that doesn't let you carry one, MOVE. At the very least get some pepper spray.

Pepper spray?
read this Section 5(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968 and weep...

Correct - non-penile penetration would fall under "assault by penetration".

The High Court (in Scotland, the Court of Session) shall have power to grant an injunction against a service provider, where that service provider has actual knowledge of another person using their service to infringe copyright.

The service providers listed in that injunction were Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2, Virgin Media and BT

This has also been an issue with other Pirate Bay proxy sites, for example the BFI attempted to get the Pirate Party's Pirate Bay proxy shut down, unsuccessfully.

Amongst all these laws and injunctions, I don't see mention of anything that would refer to Callum Haywood's site, except the unsuccessful BFI attempt, since that's the only one that concerns a proxy. His site isn't one that's listed in the injunction but, even if it was, the UK ISPs listed should already be blocking it at a network level in the same way they block the original Pirate Bay.

The maximum sentence in the UK for any copyright offence is 10 years

It is worth bearing in mind that the charges in question do not appear to be charges under copyright law. They are, apparently:

one count of converting and/or transferring criminal property and six counts of possession of an article for use in fraud

Converting criminal property falls under s327 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and has a maximum prison sentence of 14 years.

Possession of an article for use in fraud is covered by s6 Fraud Act 2006, which carries up to 5 years imprisonment.

The maximum sentence in the UK for any copyright offence is 10 years

It is worth bearing in mind that the charges in question do not appear to be charges under copyright law. They are, apparently:

one count of converting and/or transferring criminal property and six counts of possession of an article for use in fraud

Converting criminal property falls under s327 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and has a maximum prison sentence of 14 years.

Possession of an article for use in fraud is covered by s6 Fraud Act 2006, which carries up to 5 years imprisonment.

The maximum sentence in the UK for any copyright offence is 10 years

It is worth bearing in mind that the charges in question do not appear to be charges under copyright law. They are, apparently:

one count of converting and/or transferring criminal property and six counts of possession of an article for use in fraud

Converting criminal property falls under s327 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and has a maximum prison sentence of 14 years.

Possession of an article for use in fraud is covered by s6 Fraud Act 2006, which carries up to 5 years imprisonment.

In the EU there is only a requirement for ISPs to monitor users, other providers (wifi, VPN etc) don't need to keep any data.

In the EU, there is no requirement of data retention at all any more – there was, for some years, but this was struck down by the CJEU in the Digital Rights Ireland case.

However, the European directive would have covered providers of Wi-Fi services: it uses the term "publicly available electronic communications services". (Article 3(1) directive 2006/24/EC).

This definition comes from the telecommunications regulatory framework – Article 2 directive 2002/21/EC defines "electronic communications service" as "a service normally provided for remuneration which consists wholly or mainly in the conveyance of signals on electronic communications networks".

Whether the Wi-Fi service would generate or process in the course of its operation of the types of data to which a retention notice could relate (list here, Part 3 in particular) is perhaps a different matter, and likely depends on the service in question. A service requiring subscriber registration, for example, or entering an email address, may well have been in scope (for example, paragraph 11(3)).

No, you only need to pay if you actually watch live broadcasts. Owning the equipment does not require a TV license.

You are wrong. A TV license is required if:

1. You install equipment capable of receiving broadcast TV, OR
2. You watch live broadcasts through any medium (including Internet-based video-on-demand services)

So, if you don't have a broadcast TV receiver, option 1 doesn't apply and, if you only watch delayed programming on Internet-based video-on-demand services, option 2 does not apply. That's the loophole.

It's all here

spot on. Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the US Constitution don't *grant* rights, they *guarantee* them against State interference. As opposed the Human Rights Act in England and Wales, which ONLY guarantees that the State won't infringe on rights *granted you by the State at its own sufferance* unless it *feels the need to* - and you have NO RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE REMEDY under the Human Rights Act! Don't believe me, go read it for yourself: compare the ECHR which the HRA is based on, next to the HRA - you'll see that under the Articles in hte HRA, #13 is absent. This is because the UK Government is under the criminally erroneous impression that Art. 6 covers it. IT DOESN'T, which is WHY IT'S IN THE ECHR IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Just FYI: there is a clause in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (linked here) which immunises State actors from ANY civil or criminal prosecution WHATSOEVER on the single proviso that they turn evidence in ANY OTHER PROCEEDING. Cliffnote: you can't sue the State!

http://www.echr.coe.int/Docume... (ECHR)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... (Human Rights Act (HRA))
http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/a... (Magna Carta 1215, Modern English translation at the British Library)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... (Bill of Rights 1689 (the dates are different because this is the year the calendar changed))
http://www.senate.gov/civics/c... (The Constitution of the United States, including Amendments I-XXVII)

spot on. Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the US Constitution don't *grant* rights, they *guarantee* them against State interference. As opposed the Human Rights Act in England and Wales, which ONLY guarantees that the State won't infringe on rights *granted you by the State at its own sufferance* unless it *feels the need to* - and you have NO RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE REMEDY under the Human Rights Act! Don't believe me, go read it for yourself: compare the ECHR which the HRA is based on, next to the HRA - you'll see that under the Articles in hte HRA, #13 is absent. This is because the UK Government is under the criminally erroneous impression that Art. 6 covers it. IT DOESN'T, which is WHY IT'S IN THE ECHR IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Just FYI: there is a clause in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (linked here) which immunises State actors from ANY civil or criminal prosecution WHATSOEVER on the single proviso that they turn evidence in ANY OTHER PROCEEDING. Cliffnote: you can't sue the State!

http://www.echr.coe.int/Docume... (ECHR)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... (Human Rights Act (HRA))
http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/a... (Magna Carta 1215, Modern English translation at the British Library)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... (Bill of Rights 1689 (the dates are different because this is the year the calendar changed))
http://www.senate.gov/civics/c... (The Constitution of the United States, including Amendments I-XXVII)

spot on. Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the US Constitution don't *grant* rights, they *guarantee* them against State interference. As opposed the Human Rights Act in England and Wales, which ONLY guarantees that the State won't infringe on rights *granted you by the State at its own sufferance* unless it *feels the need to* - and you have NO RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE REMEDY under the Human Rights Act! Don't believe me, go read it for yourself: compare the ECHR which the HRA is based on, next to the HRA - you'll see that under the Articles in hte HRA, #13 is absent. This is because the UK Government is under the criminally erroneous impression that Art. 6 covers it. IT DOESN'T, which is WHY IT'S IN THE ECHR IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Just FYI: there is a clause in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (linked here) which immunises State actors from ANY civil or criminal prosecution WHATSOEVER on the single proviso that they turn evidence in ANY OTHER PROCEEDING. Cliffnote: you can't sue the State!

http://www.echr.coe.int/Docume... (ECHR)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... (Human Rights Act (HRA))
http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/a... (Magna Carta 1215, Modern English translation at the British Library)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... (Bill of Rights 1689 (the dates are different because this is the year the calendar changed))
http://www.senate.gov/civics/c... (The Constitution of the United States, including Amendments I-XXVII)

In the UK, there is no monopoly on giving legal advice — only six things in the legal sphere require particular entitlement ("reserved activities"):

• (a) the exercise of a right of audience;
• (b) the conduct of litigation;
• (c) reserved instrument activities;
• (d) probate activities;
• (e) notarial activities;
• (f) the administration of oaths.

Anyone can give legal advice, so prohibiting just software from doing so would seem a very odd move.

The professional body for solicitors in England and Wales — the Law Society — recently released a report on "The Future Of Legal Services" and, at section 4.2, it talks through (very briefly) a number of the technology changes which will either be useful to solicitors or else challenging them.

In the UK, there is no monopoly on giving legal advice — only six things in the legal sphere require particular entitlement ("reserved activities"):

• (a) the exercise of a right of audience;
• (b) the conduct of litigation;
• (c) reserved instrument activities;
• (d) probate activities;
• (e) notarial activities;
• (f) the administration of oaths.

Anyone can give legal advice, so prohibiting just software from doing so would seem a very odd move.

The professional body for solicitors in England and Wales — the Law Society — recently released a report on "The Future Of Legal Services" and, at section 4.2, it talks through (very briefly) a number of the technology changes which will either be useful to solicitors or else challenging them.

By that argument Queen Elizabeth rules the world.

You may not be aware of this, but every time you pay income tax in the USA the Queen gets a cut.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

Look it up.

"why is Hodge calling what seems to be an extremely low-level operation 'commercial-scale?'" Because Hodge has to justify the actions taken.

No more than that.

No, it's because of the way the law is drafted. In order for copyright infringement to be a crime (rather than just a civil infringement), the infringement has to either be done in the course of business, or otherwise than in the course of a business but on such a scale that it adversely affects the copyright owner.

He's probably one of the numerous fat idiots who think truth isn't a defence under UK law because they read something on the internet written by a fat idiot.

For the benefit of him and any other DeVry alumni.

Truth of a statement is a valid legal defense against libel accusations in the U.S. And many other Western countries, but not in the UK.

(1)It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.

You opened the door, you had a good look, and you still walked into it. Perhaps in future you could do some research (I asked for citations, did I not?) instead of repeating shit you heard the bigger kids saying.

Asserting isn't a defense. Proving beyond doubt is. This can sometimes be very difficult to do - if you write that Dr Quack has been promoting a cancer treatment does doesn't actually work and he sues you for libel, you then need to provide absolute proof that his treatment really does not work - and if it hasn't been subjected to proper scientific study, how are you supposed to do that?

It has never had to be proven "beyond doubt", just to the civil standard of proof. In fact, the standard is now lower - it only has to be substantially true, and only in the aspects of the statement that could adversely affect someone's reputation.

So if you say "Dr Quack's onion based cancer remedy is ineffective" you only have to show to the "balance of probabilities" that it doesn't work. It doesn't matter if it actually is made from shallots rather than onions as this is not the aspect of your statement that could damage Quacks' reputation. In fact, in this particular case you can probably assert a "Publication on matter of public interest" defense in which you only have to show that "(b) the defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest." Alternatively, if it was published in a peer-reviewed scientific paper there is another defense unless the statement was false and motivated by malice.

So a single user "downloading" a single movie with bittorrent could fall under the 10-year rule. That they don't is your opinion at the moment. It isn't coded into law, or otherwise protected.

Well, that rule doesn't exist yet, so none of us know that.

However, assuming it is a direct extension of what currently attracts a maximum two-year sentence, that is still quite a stretch. The specific circumstances under which copyright becomes a criminal matter are in fact enumerated in statute law. Here they are.

Notice that the recurring theme in almost all of the specifics is something along the lines of knowing or having reason to believe that the copy is infringing. The CPS guidance specifically notes that this means a requirement for criminal intent must exist.

If you do knowingly choose to participate in a system that causes mass-distribution of a specific work and you know that work is infringing someone's copyright, then yes, your actions might be criminal infringement. But even then it appears unlikely based on cases tried so far that a court would hand down a significant custodial sentence on conviction in a case where there was no profit-making involved.

They pass a broad law, stating the goal of stopping screeners and pre-release leaks, but word them to cover everything, so there are no gaps or holes, then apply them to the targeted area, for a year or two, then target anyone using bittorrent.

Given that the maximum penalty for these offences is already two years, and it has been more than a decade since the relevant SI was introduced, can I assume you have a whole stack of citations waiting to show me how dangerous it is to run BitTorrent today as a result? Because I don't see a lot of people in the UK even getting prosecuted for criminal copyright infringement because they ran BT, never mind convicted or sentenced to jail time.

So "lost profit" is the same as robbery.

Taking money that someone else was entitled to by law is pretty much exactly the same as robbery, or at least fraud. And arguing that they weren't entitled to it even though there was demonstrably a customer willing to pay for the work because that customer paid a copycat for their copy instead of the legitimate rightsholder is another stretch.

I can just toss you in the "batshit insane" category and ignore you.

Of course you can. You're free to hold whatever opinion of me you like. But my post contains citations of real laws and official prosector's guidance, and yours contains a slippery slope argument about something that has demonstrably not actually happened in far longer than the timescales you claimed. Your opinion of me won't change those facts.

So a single user "downloading" a single movie with bittorrent could fall under the 10-year rule. That they don't is your opinion at the moment. It isn't coded into law, or otherwise protected.

Well, that rule doesn't exist yet, so none of us know that.

However, assuming it is a direct extension of what currently attracts a maximum two-year sentence, that is still quite a stretch. The specific circumstances under which copyright becomes a criminal matter are in fact enumerated in statute law. Here they are.

Notice that the recurring theme in almost all of the specifics is something along the lines of knowing or having reason to believe that the copy is infringing. The CPS guidance specifically notes that this means a requirement for criminal intent must exist.

If you do knowingly choose to participate in a system that causes mass-distribution of a specific work and you know that work is infringing someone's copyright, then yes, your actions might be criminal infringement. But even then it appears unlikely based on cases tried so far that a court would hand down a significant custodial sentence on conviction in a case where there was no profit-making involved.

They pass a broad law, stating the goal of stopping screeners and pre-release leaks, but word them to cover everything, so there are no gaps or holes, then apply them to the targeted area, for a year or two, then target anyone using bittorrent.

Given that the maximum penalty for these offences is already two years, and it has been more than a decade since the relevant SI was introduced, can I assume you have a whole stack of citations waiting to show me how dangerous it is to run BitTorrent today as a result? Because I don't see a lot of people in the UK even getting prosecuted for criminal copyright infringement because they ran BT, never mind convicted or sentenced to jail time.

So "lost profit" is the same as robbery.

Taking money that someone else was entitled to by law is pretty much exactly the same as robbery, or at least fraud. And arguing that they weren't entitled to it even though there was demonstrably a customer willing to pay for the work because that customer paid a copycat for their copy instead of the legitimate rightsholder is another stretch.

I can just toss you in the "batshit insane" category and ignore you.

Of course you can. You're free to hold whatever opinion of me you like. But my post contains citations of real laws and official prosector's guidance, and yours contains a slippery slope argument about something that has demonstrably not actually happened in far longer than the timescales you claimed. Your opinion of me won't change those facts.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

"13 Abstracting of electricity.
A person who dishonestly uses without due authority, or dishonestly causes to be wasted or diverted, any electricity shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years."

So yes, the language is precisely correct.

Technically he has also committed a criminal offence.

However, PCSOs (which are sometimes known unaffectionately at "plastic policemen" are non warranted police officers with very limited powers. Most of their arresting powers are actually the same as those available to any citizen (aka "citizens arrest") and have very limited conditions of applicability. PCSOs do have some additional powers specially granted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

However, they are a modern invention and of considerably lower status, both legally and in the public perception compared to the more traditional volunteer role of "Special Constable" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The problem here is that PCSOs generally lack common sense and seem to be power-happy. Unfortunately their warranted colleagues feel some obligation to back them up, rather than telling them to grow up, as might be applicable in cases like this.

Unfortunately for the artist, even through he has been de-arrested, he now probably no longer qualifies for the visa waiver programme for entry to the USA as the US notion of arrest is somewhat different to the English notion and the USA as far as I know does not have a concept of "de-arrest".

So actual harm has been done. No wonder the public perception of the police is falling like a lead balloon.

Here is the actual law.

If a person who has been released on bail in criminal proceedings fails without reasonable cause to surrender to custody he shall be guilty of an offence.

It really is time DeVry fixed their international law course materials. This place is full of their alumni.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

A good hint that you don't have a clue what you're talking about?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

Whoosh indeed.

If insurance isn't mandatory here then why will the police confiscate your car if you don't have it?

Simple: they don't. If, however you have neither insurance nor a bond of a half million pounds posted with the accountant general of what is now the supreme court, then they'll confiscate your car. Since very, very few people have a handy half million (at a minimum, see below) to leave with HM, next to no one actually does this. So the PSAsa are all about driving without insurance, not "driving without insurance or having deposited the sum of 500,000 pounds (this may vary) with the accountant general of the senior courts" because that's not very snappy.

See Part IV, clause 144 if the road traffic act 1988:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

Now enjoy being smug at your friends down the pub with your new-found pedantry next time the topic of conversation arises :)

There is no crime of 'skipping bail' in the UK- only the USA has the 'crime' of breaking bail conditions.

The Bail Act of 1976 says otherwise. Section 6, Offence of absconding by person released on bail, says in part:

(1) If a person who has been released on bail in criminal proceedings fails without reasonable cause to surrender to custody he shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) If a person who— ..(a)has been released on bail in criminal proceedings, and ..(b)having reasonable cause therefor, has failed to surrender to custody,
fails to surrender to custody at the appointed place as soon after the appointed time as is reasonably practicable he shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) It shall be for the accused to prove that he had reasonable cause for his failure to surrender to custody.

(4) A failure to give to a person granted bail in criminal proceedings a copy of the record of the decision shall not constitute a reasonable cause for that person’s failure to surrender to custody.

(5) An offence under subsection (1) or (2) above shall be punishable either on summary conviction or as if it were a criminal contempt of court.

(6) Where a magistrates’ court convicts a person of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) above the court may, if it thinks— ..(a)that the circumstances of the offence are such that greater punishment should be inflicted for that offence than the court has power to inflict, or ..(b)in a case where it commits that person for trial to the Crown Court for another offence, that it would be appropriate for him to be dealt with for the offence under subsection (1) or (2) above by the court before which he is tried for the other offence,
commit him in custody or on bail to the Crown Court for sentence.

(7)A person who is convicted summarily of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) above and is not committed to the Crown Court for sentence shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both and a person who is so committed for sentence or is dealt with as for such a contempt shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine or to both.

He was granted bail (which was posted by followers) in a criminal proceeding (extraditions are criminal proceedings). He was ordered to return on a specific day and failed to do so. He was granted chances to return in order that his bail would be returned to those who had donated to it, but still did not, and the bail was revoked and the money kept by the Crown. Unless Assange can prove that his failure to appear was reasonable, he's in for three months at a minimum but it could be up to 12 months, plus a possible fine.

I don't know that any country would make bail jumping not be a crime. It's intentionally evading criminal prosecution. Assange will probably never get bail again anywhere in his life.

No. CSE, NSA, GCHQ, NZ/AUS's agencies, all of 'em have explicit laws preventing them from operating internally.

From the Intelligence Services Act 1994 you will see that GCHQ's powers are quite well defined.

This involves giving advice and assistance "to any other organisation which is determined for the purposes of this section" - which includes MI5 (Security Service) as they are a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. And the constraints are:

The functions referred to in subsection (1)(a) above shall be exercisable only—

(a)in the interests of national security, with particular reference to the defence and foreign policies of Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom; or

(b)in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom in relation to the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands; or

(c)in support of the prevention or detection of serious crime.

Although their powers to activate a warrant under section 3(2)(c) may not relate to property in the British Islands, that doesn't mean that they cannot work with, and provide assitance to the Security Service (MI5) under section 3(2)(a). Do note that only 3(2)(c) [and 1(2)(c), which is identical except in reference to SIS instead of GCHQ] is excluded for GCHQ to use as justification for a warrant to snoop on property within the UK.

Just because people don't like the idea or that they find it unpalatable, that doesn't make it less true.

-- Pete.

No. CSE, NSA, GCHQ, NZ/AUS's agencies, all of 'em have explicit laws preventing them from operating internally.

From the Intelligence Services Act 1994 you will see that GCHQ's powers are quite well defined.

This involves giving advice and assistance "to any other organisation which is determined for the purposes of this section" - which includes MI5 (Security Service) as they are a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. And the constraints are:

The functions referred to in subsection (1)(a) above shall be exercisable only—

(a)in the interests of national security, with particular reference to the defence and foreign policies of Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom; or

(b)in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom in relation to the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands; or

(c)in support of the prevention or detection of serious crime.

Although their powers to activate a warrant under section 3(2)(c) may not relate to property in the British Islands, that doesn't mean that they cannot work with, and provide assitance to the Security Service (MI5) under section 3(2)(a). Do note that only 3(2)(c) [and 1(2)(c), which is identical except in reference to SIS instead of GCHQ] is excluded for GCHQ to use as justification for a warrant to snoop on property within the UK.

Just because people don't like the idea or that they find it unpalatable, that doesn't make it less true.

-- Pete.

No. CSE, NSA, GCHQ, NZ/AUS's agencies, all of 'em have explicit laws preventing them from operating internally.

From the Intelligence Services Act 1994 you will see that GCHQ's powers are quite well defined.

This involves giving advice and assistance "to any other organisation which is determined for the purposes of this section" - which includes MI5 (Security Service) as they are a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. And the constraints are:

The functions referred to in subsection (1)(a) above shall be exercisable only—

(a)in the interests of national security, with particular reference to the defence and foreign policies of Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom; or

(b)in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom in relation to the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands; or

(c)in support of the prevention or detection of serious crime.

Although their powers to activate a warrant under section 3(2)(c) may not relate to property in the British Islands, that doesn't mean that they cannot work with, and provide assitance to the Security Service (MI5) under section 3(2)(a). Do note that only 3(2)(c) [and 1(2)(c), which is identical except in reference to SIS instead of GCHQ] is excluded for GCHQ to use as justification for a warrant to snoop on property within the UK.

Just because people don't like the idea or that they find it unpalatable, that doesn't make it less true.

-- Pete.

The Times is published and printed in England, by a company incorporated in England. Ergo, as a commercial entity it is wholly governed by not the US commercial code but by the Companies Act 1985. THE DMCA DOES NOT APPLY HERE.

Not sure why you keep mentioning this. A) it is wrong. B) it doesn't matter anyone, American, English, or Martian can seek remedy in the US courts for a US crime committed by a US entity.

The Times is published and printed in England, by a company incorporated in England. Ergo, as a commercial entity it is wholly governed by not the US commercial code but by the Companies Act 1985. THE DMCA DOES NOT APPLY HERE.

Facebook - Twitter - Tumblr... and see if the ISPs dare to block these

It would be interesting to see what would happen. Injunctions under s97A can be imposed on "service providers", which is defined very broadly, as " any person providing an information society service", so not just telcos.

My feeling is that the copyright industry would attempt to secure injunctions against Facebook, Twitter and so on, if they had entities in the jurisdiction. Both Twitter and Facebook do, as both have offices in London. However, they are not the entities providing the services, so it would be interesting to see how a court might rule — if the European Court's approach of Google Spain was followed, their proximity to the service provision might be sufficient to bring them within scope...

Facebook - Twitter - Tumblr... and see if the ISPs dare to block these

It would be interesting to see what would happen. Injunctions under s97A can be imposed on "service providers", which is defined very broadly, as " any person providing an information society service", so not just telcos.

My feeling is that the copyright industry would attempt to secure injunctions against Facebook, Twitter and so on, if they had entities in the jurisdiction. Both Twitter and Facebook do, as both have offices in London. However, they are not the entities providing the services, so it would be interesting to see how a court might rule — if the European Court's approach of Google Spain was followed, their proximity to the service provision might be sufficient to bring them within scope...