31 ms·
Assuming there is no material misrepresentation of how this system operates, I would find it hard to argue that it is disproportionate to keep record of an IP a
by MauranKilom 3y ago
Assuming there is no material misrepresentation of how this system operates, I would find it hard to argue that it is disproportionate to keep record of an IP address that somehow makes publicly available a file with copyrighted contents.
I too would, from a pure self-interest perspective, like to share e.g. media with impunity, but for the sake of evaluating this opinion it's not reasonable to assume a position where copyright doesn't exist.
I'd be interested in arguments against this opinion.
- Propelloni 3y agoIt is hard to argue against your position. TFA expounds that storing data required to prosecute a crime is proportionate. That sounds reasonable and hard to argue. In my eyes there are two points, however, that could be argued. 1) The data retention duration. France is holding some data sets for 13 years now without a charge forthcoming. I'm no expert on French law (or law in general) but it being a full-fledged liberal democracy with the rule-of-law, I guess there is some kind of a statute of limitation with regards to copyright infringement and I would find it hard to argue to keep the data beyond this point. Mind, the statute of limitations could be long-running (in Germany it usually is 30 years, unless the law says otherwise) 2) Seriousness of the crime. Under EU law data retention in the first place is only allowed in case of serious crimes. What is a serious crime? I think it arguable that copyright infringement is not a serious crime. To be not a serious crime it must fail to be a crime or to be serious. I think both positions can be argued, albeit being serious seems to be easier to unhinge. But I'm not going to argue any of these ;)
- cccbbbaaa 3y agoData connection retention is 1 year in France, not 13. This sounds like something related to taxes (eg. Invoices). (Also, this law was ruled unconstitutional but shenanigans ensued.)
- GTP 3y ago> To be not a serious crime it must fail to be a crime or to be serious. I think both positions can be argued, albeit being serious seems to be easier to unhinge.. AFAIK something qualifies as a crime if the law says you can get a jail sentence for it (and vice versa). So it's not something you can argue in favour or against, you just have to look at the current legislation. But you still got a point for the seriousness, since it's not a violent crime there's room for discussion here.
- Joker_vD 3y agoCrime is basically anything that's listed in special part of the criminal code (the general part talks mostly about the definitions and criminal procedure and also contains this provision; the special part is the actual list of crimes with punishments which don't have to include jail time to sill be considered crimes).
- Propelloni 3y agoThe two previous post are sort of legal positivism. Nothing wrong with that, I have read Kelsen, too -- but one could argue that copyright infringement should not be on "the list", IOW is not a crime. This, of course, would be a much more foundational discussion.
- cf141q5325 3y ago>Mind, the statute of limitations could be long-running (in Germany it usually is 30 years, unless the law says otherwise) No https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations#Germany
- Propelloni 3y agoThanks for correcting me.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Aeolun 3y agoKeeping track of the IP address is one thing, but then using your ISP’s database to link this back to a person with the intention of holding this over their head if you ever need to sounds like a form of extortion to me. Or is it fine when it’s the state doing it?