Slashdot Mirror
Game Makers Accusing Innocent People of Piracy In the UK
eldavojohn writes "It's a topic that a lot of game makers like Atari don't want the public hearing: game makers wrongfully accusing clearly innocent people of piracy. From the article, 'According to Michael Coyle, an intellectual property solicitor with law firm Lawdit, more and more people are being wrongly identified as file-sharers. He is pursuing 70 cases of people who claim to be wrongly accused of piracy and has spoken to hundreds of others, he told the BBC.' If only a few are coming forward after receiving extortion letters ('Pay £500 OR ELSE!'), what's the actual number of those out there being wrongfully accused?"
In the UK, it's not normally a crime either. IANAL but if a law firm like Davenport Lyons has been appointed by Atari then it's not because the copyright infringement was illegal. It's because Atari disagrees with it. Only the Crown Prosecution Service can prosecute anyone. The BBC story is just shovelling misinformation from the media industry.
Who ordered that?
Most places have a curfew in the code for minors that is selectively enforced(if the kid looks like hes up to trouble). We have one in Frederick MD and most people don't know about it.
-The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
I sell CDs in a bricks and mortar store in the UK , and TWO separate extortion agencies charge me over £100 a year each for the privilege of playing music in a shop that is making them money anyway. One licence is to pay tribute the owner of the copyright on the lyrics/composition, the other is to pay tribute the owner of the copyright of the performance. It's a fucking joke, but these assholes have the blessing of the establishment, so i have no choice. I don't for one minute think the people greedily gobbling the hard earned money of my small business are the people who wrote or performed this music.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
Copyright infringement is generally not a crime. It is a civil matter, in other words between the copyright holder (Atari) and the alleged infringer. Atari can sue for damages as outlined in the law, but it's not a criminal matter so there will be no criminal record or jail. The police will not investigate or prosecute it either.
The exception is large scale infringement for commercial gain. That can go down as far as the guy selling pirate DVDs at a car boot sale, but not someone just using P2P.
So far, there has not been a single case where someone has contested downloading or upload a file on the internet via P2P that has gone to court to be tested. It seems likely, however, that the wifi defence would work, as would asking the accuser to prove your modem had not been cloned. In a civil case they could not get access to your PC or HDD.
This post is particularly interesting:
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34651729-post238.html
In other words, all a pirate needs to do is get a cloned modem off eBay and the authorities can't touch them.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I'm a member of the Federation of Small Businesses, and there have been rumblings going in the direction of allowing "micro-businesses" (less than 10 employees or some such figure) relief or exemption from these extortions.
If I weren't so busy I'd be rather active in this area as it is massively obstructive and unnecessary
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
enormous number of Joe Six-Packs who perceive it as their god-given right to committ theft via Lime Wire
It's not theft. Period. End of argument, by the way. If you want to call it theft, you are wrong, and the discussions needs to halt right there until you can start using words correctly. And no, that doesn't mean I approve. And no, that doesn't mean it's not wrong. But it's not theft, and we can't have a cogent argument when we're using false, and incidentally biased, terms.
Are they the companies that voluntarily provide products and services that you can choose to purchase or not
You need to check in on your definition of voluntary.
There is also no way that I need to decide which doctor I want to see... beside me liking having a choice.
In case you are under the impression that you can only see your 'assigned' doctor in the UK, this is not the case. You can ask to see another doctor when you book an appointment (either a specific doctor, or any male/female doctor). You don't need to give a reason.
Since we are talking about kids that don't have the same kind of responsibility and rights as adults do, their guardians should be the ones to set the rules. Not the state.
A agree entirely, and I'm amazed that California of all places has a curfew for teenagers. The nearest we have to that in the UK is an ASBO (anti-social behaviour order), which forbids individual petty criminals from certain acts -- for instance, banning them from a public place they vandalised, or imposing a curfew. You need to be arrested, taken to court and found guilty to get one though. It's meant to be better than sending people to prison etc.
If there's one thing that the UK is good for it's following the law to the letter, crossing all t's and dotting all i's.