ISP WIN for United Kingdom!

[Snow_Fox]

If you had an employment contract that said you would work 20hours a week for $50,000pa, and that your job was safe for 5years; would you shrug two years down the road when without warning the contract was illegally terminated leaving you with nothing? Of course you would wouldn

 

[mpw]

.

 

[mpw]

.

 

[byteware]

I do think it's right that rights holders can't oblige the ISPs to act against those customers suspected of illegal file-sharing, but I think that stronger action needs to be taken against those that steal from artists etc.

I think it's entirely reasonable for ISP account details to be made available to the proper investigating authorities, and the courts to order an account disabled where it is being used illegally.

With a court order, and probable cause.. then yes, I agree it is proper. However, rightsholders shouldn't be able to tell an ISP to disconnect an account suspected of filesharing...

 

[byteware]

And what is your reasoning? How would this law actually effect you?

Do you download illegal material? are you looking simply to evade prosecution for your illegal actions?

You don't have to actually steal copyright files for this law to affect you. You only have to be suspected of it.

For instance, say you buy a CD, and you don't trust Sony any longer after the DRM debacle... so you download every song for the CD you just paid for... Sony can call your ISP and have you disconnected... because they suspect you are stealing their copyrighted material.

You don't get a say in court, you don't get a chance to argue, and you don't get to defend yourself.

 

[mpw]

.

 

[byteware]

Not true, evidence must be provided to show that copyrighted material has been downloaded.

You're just factually wrong.

U.K. Digital Economy Bill Approved With 3-Strikes Provision | Digital Media Wire

Actually, it's quite true... you need to read up on what you are talking about.

 

[byteware]

Are you saying you think the police shouldn't have any right to search your home if they suspect you of a crime?

Without a search warrant? That is EXACTLY what I'm saying.

Wouldn't that make being a criminal an awful lot easier? What about your privacy, how're you going to protect it without any legal recourse, which there could not be practically be if evidence can't be collected as proof?

Better that 10 criminals go free than we negatively impact 1 innocent person.

 

[byteware]

They can't, as I understand it. They have to provide evidence to get the ISP to present to the user; if the user continues and doesn't respond then after persistant suspected infringement the rights holder still can't get the users details without a court order. I guess if there's evidence and non-cooperation from the user an ISP could decline their custom without further court action, but that their decision not the rights holders I believe.

ISPs must turn over infringement information to copyright holders on request.[\Quote]

Law Librarian Blog: Digital Economy Bill Passes Parliament, Awaits Royal Assent to Become Law

It would seem that you don't understand it as well as you think...

 

[IOWA]

ISPs must turn over infringement information to copyright holders on request.[\Quote]

Law Librarian Blog: Digital Economy Bill Passes Parliament, Awaits Royal Assent to Become Law

It would seem that you don't understand it as well as you think...

So how, exactly, do you prove infringement, or even suspect infringement, without trampling all over privacy? How do the companies know the material in question is legally owned?

Perhaps you should look up. DCMA takedowns. It works very similiar to that. Companies are having their legal staff fire off these DCMA takedowns without a shred of proof, regardless if its deemed as fair use or not.

Your understanding of the uk bill is flat out wrong. 100% dead beat a fish wrong. They do not have to go through court channels, and they do not need to show any kind of viable proof. All they need to do, is suspect you 3 times, and your shut off.

Do you really agree with guilty until proven innocent? Maybe you should move to china or cuba if you do.

And if you really want to believe in intellectual property garbage, that's on you. People have millions of ideas every day. Many of them the same at that. The patent system is being abused.

Oh and if someone wants to mimic the design of a vehicle, with different branding, nothing wrong with that, either. Otherwise I'm going to go patent rounded headlights and make a fortune.

 

[mrqs]

I asked either/or; so no, not obvious at all!

Yes you agree with me? or yes you disagree??

you asked "or do you disagree"; that's the only question in that quote, and that's what i was answering (obviously)

...but i wouldn't want my isp to give my account information to anyone, including any rightsholder contacting them, unless served with a court order to do so

Which is what this law is requiring

no, it isn't

 

[mpw]

.

 

[mpw]

.

 

[mrqs]

No, I

 

[mpw]

.

 

[byteware]

You're right they shouldn't, and under this Bill they are not able to do that.

You should read the law. British legal scholars disagree with you... as I posted.

This is true of any law surely? I can be accused of murder, without actually having murdered anybody, but I can

 

[byteware]

I guess if you find a website that

 

[byteware]

Sounds good in the media?

Because nowhere in this entire law, are they required to file anything with any court of law.

They are required to file a CIR (Copyright Infringement Report) with the ISP, and then unless you appeal, you are considered guilty. Enough CIR's within a year, and your ISP is required to cut off your service. You are guilty, unless you appeal.

Of all of us here, I suspect that I AM the only one who has actually read the law... and while it is different than legalese in the US, I am fairly certain that I understand enough... (backed by the interpretation that legal scholars in the UK have made regarding the law).

So, as you've said.... read the law.

 

[mpw]

.

 

[byteware]

I

 

[mpw]

.

 

[byteware]

No, what I'm saying is we seem to be interpreting the same thing differently, and while you have the time, I don't as I've work to do. Maybe when I've got more time I'll do the detail work, but I thought it would be simpler to try and get to the priciples and spirit of the law, but you seem more content with trying to pick it apart detail by detail as suits you.

You cannot argue that the law doesn't say what it says, just because you say so. I've pointed you to the sections of the law that refute what you claim.

Saying I'm wrong, without even reading the law... that's rather pointless.

It's interesting to note that when I ask the broader ranging questions you don't answer.

Admittedly, I quit reading, when it became apparent that you didn't read the law.

[

]It's like a defence lawyer getting a client that everybody knows is guilty really off on a technicality. It

 

[byteware]

This process is really quite complicated, with the onus on the rights holder at every step to provide evidence.

From what I've read of the bill. It isn't complicated at all. The bill is only 8 pages long. Unless we have a different opinion of what constitutes complicated... then I'm afraid your mistaken.

The rights holder does not determine to acceptability of the evidence.

As I stated above, the only evidence required is to prove your IP address was used. They do not require that they prove that it was infringing on a copyright (in fact, they cannot prove that without information that only the subscriber would have... for instance, whether or not the subscribers owns rights to the music they are downloading...i.e. the cd)

If the evidence is accepted by the ISP, having referred to the code laid down by OFCOM, the subscriber is given multiple opportunities to appeal.

The subscriber is found guilty without even being involved in the process, and then must appeal.

If they do not appeal then action may be taken, but that doesn

 

[IOWA]

Hey hey hey byte, I've read quite a bit of the bill. I take in more pieces of it when I have time, but I specifically read the articles that were highlighted to me by several sites.

And mpw, I never said I support people selling other people works. There's obviously a difference there.

 

[mpw]

.