Copyright

[J'Pol]

Check this

http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html

Particularly Article 8

ARTICLE 8
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

[clocker]

Originally posted by JmiF@23 April 2003 - 16:56


I assume you said this as a joke as it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

hmmm, let's see....
WIPO...World Intellectual Property Organization...hmmmm...
30 some treaties concerning the protection of intellectual property...hmmm...
Member nations...er...yup, United Kingdom...

erm,relevance.....hmmm don't see any.
Sorry.

Don't know WHAT I could have been thinking.

[Jibbler]

Damn! I got to work for one day and an international war breaks out while I'm gone! B)

I suppose most of this is moot since they don't have the resources to actually catch all of us. However I will point out, there is a huge difference between Civil and Criminal responsibility. Copyright laws are applied internationally.

If you are stealing files, then you have committed a crime. Your local laws may not represent this, but you are not absolved from responsibility. This is a criminal act.

It is also a Civil act, which they could sue you for, and thus recover damages if they were to win, despite your location on this humble little planet of ours.

In the UK this may be less common, but OJ Simpson is a huge example of this. He was found not guilty of the murder of his wife, but we was found to be libel in a civil court, and had to pay $25 million in damages to the family.

[clocker]

Originally posted by Jibbler@23 April 2003 - 18:10


In the UK this may be less common, but OJ Simpson is a huge example of this. He was found not guilty of the murder of his wife, but we was found to be libel in a civil court, and had to pay $25 million in damages to the family.

Oh yeah.
I'd love to see the cancelled check for that settlement.

[clocker]

Originally posted by JmiF@23 April 2003 - 17:07


ARTICLE 8
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

How does this bolster your argument?

As soon as you reach the phrase "except such as is in accordance" all your imagined protections go straight to hell.

[Schmiggy_JK23]

jmif, on a side note, could you please shrink your sig... its longer then it should be, and really fucks up my browser size wise. its alot longer then 495....

Guys, theres no doubt what we are doing is illegal. I just think its nieve for people to think cuz they are in another country, that the RIAA, the MPAA, or whoever cant prosecute them, or charge them, etc, thats just silly. Just cuz your somewhere else, doesnt mean your safe... thats moronic to think that.

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by Schmiggy_JK23@23 April 2003 - 21:21
I just think its nieve for people to think cuz they are in another country, that the RIAA, the MPAA, or whoever cant prosecute them, or charge them, etc, thats just silly.  Just cuz your somewhere else, doesnt mean your safe... thats moronic to think that.

Well look what we've found here on the ol' internet. Could this possibly put a rest to the "your country vs. my country" argument?

This is regarding copyright laws - internationally speaking:

Question: What if the alleged infringement happens outside of the U.S.?

Answer: International rules including the TRIPs Agreement and the Berne Convention allow the U.S. to enforce its copyright rules under local laws in over 100 participating nations.

Here is the link should any of you require further reading. JimF? Satisfied yet?

Edit: typos

[Schmiggy_JK23]

PWNED!

gee gee jibby!

I knew there had to be something like that...

[Schmiggy_JK23]

Article on the RIAA and their likely targests

check out that article, pretty good ideas there.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker+24 April 2003 - 01:23--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 24 April 2003 - 01:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--JmiF@23 April 2003 - 17:07


ARTICLE 8
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

How does this bolster your argument?

As soon as you reach the phrase "except such as is in accordance" all your imagined protections go straight to hell. [/b][/quote]
The ECHR and in particular article 8 protects individuals rights to privacy. These rights can be breached by law enforcement provided that various tests are met.

For example one of the tests is proportionality. One would have to show to the courts that it was proportionate to obtain a search warrant, in order to establish whether or not someone was sharing files. Further they would have to prove this in the light of that file sharing being on a non-profit making basis.

If the action anticipated were to be civil in nature then no warrant would be available. Therefore no evidence. Therefore no case.

Under the terms of the Data Protection Act your isp would be unable to provide the necessary data without a warrant or other instrument. See above.

I´ve asked this question elsewhere. Who would the prosecuting body be. Remembering it would have to be someone who has the right to prosecute criminal cases. In short it is the Crown, in England via the CPA in Scotland via the Procurator Fiscal. Neither of whom would be interested in this type of thing. Unless it is someone who is doing it on a large scale for profit.

You are left with civil proceedings, where it is a practical impossibility to get the evidence required. So sue me.