Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 makes it an offence to collect or make a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a terrorist, or possesses a document or record containing information of that kind.
There is a specific defence under s.58(3) if the person shows he had a reasonable excuse.
The law was clarified by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords in R. v. G.; R. v. J. [2009] 2 W.L.R. 724: Information is not caught by s.58 if it is everyday information that also happens to be useful to a terrorist (eg a train timetable), but information which is by its very nature designed to provide practical assistance is.
If it is caught by the section, then the issue of reasonable excuse arises - and it must be an objectively reasonable excuse. In other words, saying you have bomb making manuals because you like to blow shit up is unlikely to provide a defence. That you work in explosives, or study chemistry is.
So to be clear - the Anarchists Cookbook is not "banned", but if you do have it, it must be for an objectively justifiable reason.
It is similar to the law on knives - you can have one in public, but it is up to you to show good cause.
In practice, nerds who just collect the information are unlikely to be prosecuted, unless there is some other feature - making it available to others, having a shit-load of pipebombs and racist literature etc.
(That is the law, not a justification of it).
(IAAL)
If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear
This wonderful new technology will enable us, your benign and caring government to protect you from identity theft/terrorists/child molestors
Unfortunately, its not really effective if those pesky terrorists/id thieves/child molestors can simply chose not to carry any RFID tags..
so of course you won't mind if we embed this RFID tag in your baby's cranium while its still soft ?
Its for your protection.
The men were found *liable*. In other words, the BPI sued them, and the court then has to decide "who's more likely to be right ?". Even 51% is enough. But its between the BPI and them.
A crime on the other hand, is between all of us and whoddunit. That's why its "US v x", or over here, "R v x". In that case, the court has to be sure (beyond a reasonable doubt) that they did it.
Let's be clear about this: regardless of the rights and wrongs of copyright infringement (and lets not start that one), these men were not charged with a crime.
Slashdot Mirror
Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 makes it an offence to collect or make a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a terrorist, or possesses a document or record containing information of that kind. There is a specific defence under s.58(3) if the person shows he had a reasonable excuse. The law was clarified by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords in R. v. G.; R. v. J. [2009] 2 W.L.R. 724: Information is not caught by s.58 if it is everyday information that also happens to be useful to a terrorist (eg a train timetable), but information which is by its very nature designed to provide practical assistance is. If it is caught by the section, then the issue of reasonable excuse arises - and it must be an objectively reasonable excuse. In other words, saying you have bomb making manuals because you like to blow shit up is unlikely to provide a defence. That you work in explosives, or study chemistry is. So to be clear - the Anarchists Cookbook is not "banned", but if you do have it, it must be for an objectively justifiable reason. It is similar to the law on knives - you can have one in public, but it is up to you to show good cause. In practice, nerds who just collect the information are unlikely to be prosecuted, unless there is some other feature - making it available to others, having a shit-load of pipebombs and racist literature etc. (That is the law, not a justification of it). (IAAL)
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit... it's the only way to be sure
We need 95 year copyright to encourage more creativity among the dead
If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear This wonderful new technology will enable us, your benign and caring government to protect you from identity theft/terrorists/child molestors Unfortunately, its not really effective if those pesky terrorists/id thieves/child molestors can simply chose not to carry any RFID tags.. so of course you won't mind if we embed this RFID tag in your baby's cranium while its still soft ? Its for your protection.
The men were found *liable*. In other words, the BPI sued them, and the court then has to decide "who's more likely to be right ?". Even 51% is enough. But its between the BPI and them. A crime on the other hand, is between all of us and whoddunit. That's why its "US v x", or over here, "R v x". In that case, the court has to be sure (beyond a reasonable doubt) that they did it. Let's be clear about this: regardless of the rights and wrongs of copyright infringement (and lets not start that one), these men were not charged with a crime.