Quote:
Originally Posted by SimonHickling
I have had the latest round of "BERR / ICO / Shriti Vadera" propaganda drop in the mailbox via my MP this morning. The BERR website has this
So I did. I have left a message to speak to someone regarding this and I am going to discuss (assuming they return my call) the interception from the web-site point of view. Is there anything else people would like me to ask / raise if they do get back to me? (If so PM me, so I can keep it together - ta)
If anyone else has received this pack it might be worth making sure they realise how many of us care enough to ring them.
|
not so much a single direct question, although it might be interesting to see what they say when you bring up the different sections of the act the ISP and Phorm have already broken in the old trials, and will be breaking in any new trials.
its probably easyest to directly relate (for non tech BERR admin's etc) that to the website owners copyright content than the end users datastreams OC, so there is were it might be asked first.
see the
Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988 section
section
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/crime/crime-wh...fenceguide.htm
and compare with the act as layed out
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988...ch6-pb5-l1g107
Making or Dealing in Infringing Articles
It is an offence under s.
107 (1) of the CDPA to
(a) make for sale or hire,
(b) import into the United Kingdom otherwise than for private and domestic use,
(c) possess in the course of a business with a view to committing any act infringing copyright,
(d) in the course of a business
(i) sell or lets for hire,
(ii) offer or expose for sale or hire,
(iii) exhibit in public, or
(iv) distribute, or
(e) distribute otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright
.....
107(1)(c) seems clear enough,thats what they do...
(Sentence:6 months and or a GBP £5,000 fine)
does 107(1)(a) apply ? seems it might..
(Sentence: 6 months and or a GBP £5,000 fine)
(Indictment:10 years and or a fine)
107(1)(d)(i)-(ii) too ....
107(1)(e) again quite likely dont we think?
(Sentence: 6 months and or a GBP £5,000 fine)
(Indictment:10 years and or a fine)
and OC the next page
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988..._19880048_en_6
also likely covers Phorm and thier supplying of the device...
(2) A person commits an offence who—
(a) makes an article specifically designed or adapted for making copies of a particular copyright work, or
...
etc
[edit]
ohh and dont forget to also include the stanford Ripa conviction ruling in all things to show them we know this ruling exists and we can use it...
http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room...20Stanford.htm
...
Geoffrey Rivlin QC, the trial judge had a different view. He pointed out that “right to control”
did not mean that someone had a right to access or operate the system, but that the Act required
that person to of had a right to authorise or to forbid the operation.
Stanford appealed the judge’s decision. However, the Court of Appeal upheld Rivlin’s view.
It pointed out that
the purpose of the law was to protect privacy. Therefore Stanford’s sentence of 6 months imprisonment (suspended for two years) and a fine of £20,000 with £7000 prosecution costs
were upheld.
"