10 years in prison for kodi

[sgtkate]

That seems extremely unlikely as they are a routine business and security tool.

 

As I've said I have good reasons to disagree that VPNs will be banned or at least heavily regulated to stop individuals using them.

[geared]

That's causing death by driving though, not dangerous driving.

 

When did plain old dangerous driving come into it?

 

Causing death by dangerous driving - up to 14 years (not the 5 years that others were saying)

 

 

It's very odd there's a section for that.. I don't think it's the same offence as death by dangerous driving through. it's marked as S3(z)(b) not S1 of the RTA1988

 

I don't know why it's different, some odd legal loophole.

 

The facts surrounding the case would still be very similar though, someone is still dead, their death being caused by another's dangerous driving, but it seems if the offender wasn't properly licensed or insured the maximum penalty is only 2 years inside.

 

---------- Post added 04-05-2017 at 11:56 ----------

 

Sadly, I have enough reason to disagree with you here. I'm v well educated on the digital communications bill works and it's contents. I also know that the government *need* it to work at all costs. Once people start flocking to VPN or TOR en masses to avoid the new snooping the system fails instantly. The government will not let that happen, so they will look at banning or at the very least severely undermining VPN technologies by enforcing backdoor access to any encrypted traffic. It won't be long until TOR is banned in this country for starters as any government attempts to gain access to TOR in that manner would be robustly blocked and TOR will find itself on a blacklist.

 

You might have read the bill well but it's very tinfoil hat to think the government will ever undermine such a basic and everyday business tool.

 

Many companies could just not do business without VPN, many banks and financial institutions would be at great risk without means of secure communication.

[barleycorn]

Its depriving someone of money though, not just the likes of Sky etc but writers etc who get royalties. Or not as the case may be. Why do think there was nearly a writers strike in the US?

You would only be depriving them of money if you were prepared to pay for the content if you were unable to obtain it illegally. It really is no different to borrowing a DVD off a mate, it may even lead to more sales as if you like it enough you may buy the next season...

[tinfoilhat]

You would only be depriving them of money if you were prepared to pay for the content if you were unable to obtain it illegally. It really is no different to borrowing a DVD off a mate, it may even lead to more sales as if you like it enough you may buy the next season...

 

But Id argue those who illegally download stuff are illegally downloading all the time - not he odd film theuyre borrowing off a mate. Theyre round their mates house all the time listening to his music, watching sky sports and all his films. His mate isnt getting nowt and neither are the people who produce the stuff in the first place.

[sgtkate]

When did plain old dangerous driving come into it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know why it's different, some odd legal loophole.

 

The facts surrounding the case would still be very similar though, someone is still dead, their death being caused by another's dangerous driving, but it seems if the offender wasn't properly licensed or insured the maximum penalty is only 2 years inside.

 

---------- Post added 04-05-2017 at 11:56 ----------

 

 

You might have read the bill well but it's very tinfoil hat to think the government will ever undermine such a basic and everyday business tool.

 

Many companies could just not do business without VPN, many banks and financial institutions would be at great risk without means of secure communication.

 

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/30/investigatory_powers_act_backdoors/

 

For example. No point in a VPN if the connection can be monitored at either end even if in transit the data is encrypted.

 

---------- Post added 04-05-2017 at 12:38 ----------

 

But Id argue those who illegally download stuff are illegally downloading all the time - not he odd film theuyre borrowing off a mate. Theyre round their mates house all the time listening to his music, watching sky sports and all his films. His mate isnt getting nowt and neither are the people who produce the stuff in the first place.

 

I'd disagree. The only time I ever download something is when it's content that is free to watch but on a platform I cannot access or as more often happens, I miss the series and it's not on catch-up! For example I torrented The Expanse Series 2. It's on the SyFy channel which I have, but I forgot to record it and missed the first few episodes, it's not on catch-up. Have I broken the law or not?

[Cyclone]

For example I torrented The Expanse Series 2. It's on the SyFy channel which I have, but I forgot to record it and missed the first few episodes, it's not on catch-up. Have I broken the law or not?

 

Legally speaking, yes. It having been broadcast on a channel you can receive doesn't grant you a license to watch it in any other way than when it was broadcast. (Although recording the broadcast is okay).

[geared]

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/30/investigatory_powers_act_backdoors/

 

For example. No point in a VPN if the connection can be monitored at either end even if in transit the data is encrypted.

 

Although such powers are yet to be tested, because the government know the big boys are very much against any kind of government data sharing.

 

It'll be a very long and very costly trip through the courts before there's any real possibility of change.

[tinfoilhat]

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/30/investigatory_powers_act_backdoors/

 

For example. No point in a VPN if the connection can be monitored at either end even if in transit the data is encrypted.

 

---------- Post added 04-05-2017 at 12:38 ----------

 

 

I'd disagree. The only time I ever download something is when it's content that is free to watch but on a platform I cannot access or as more often happens, I miss the series and it's not on catch-up! For example I torrented The Expanse Series 2. It's on the SyFy channel which I have, but I forgot to record it and missed the first few episodes, it's not on catch-up. Have I broken the law or not?

 

Technically yes. I think. I could download, from somewhere Im sure series 2 of fear the walking dead. It will be free on prime in the very near future (if it isnt already - I havent checked recently) so wheres the harm? That said certain services dont make anyones lives easier by making things available and unavailable at the drop of hat. Its either on demand or it isnt.

[barleycorn]

But Id argue those who illegally download stuff are illegally downloading all the time - not he odd film theuyre borrowing off a mate. Theyre round their mates house all the time listening to his music, watching sky sports and all his films. His mate isnt getting nowt and neither are the people who produce the stuff in the first place.

I'd argue that you're wrong. Do you insist visitors to your house pay a fee before you'll put any tunes on?

[geared]

Technically yes. I think. I could download, from somewhere Im sure series 2 of fear the walking dead. It will be free on prime in the very near future (if it isnt already - I havent checked recently) so wheres the harm?

 

Well if you're speaking technically then no I don't think you can just download it from anywhere.

 

You can download from Amazon Prime now I think, but that doesn't mean you can just jump on the dark web and grab the same episodes off there.