Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
(Post 35738337)
So they are liable to being punished for it but not liable to err... what?. Logic goes where?
|
In this instance, "
liable" is a legal term and specifically refers to their
legal liability.
Quote:
In law, a person is legally liable when they are financially and legally responsible for something.
|
This is the crux of the matter, they may be the owner of the connection that infringed copyright but that alone does not make you (legally) liable for what someone does on it. The bill you're quoting from focuses on educating the owner, to ensure that they're aware that the infringement is taking place - not so that they can be taken to court. As others have pointed out, leaving your wireless unsecured or having someone break in (say via a widely reported flaw in WPS...) shouldn't mean you are (again,
legally) liable for what they've done. If someone steals your car, you aren't responsible for them running over an old lady, but you will be notified that it was involved in an accident. See?
The logic is fine, it's your misunderstanding of what being
legally liable actually means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
(Post 35738337)
Regardless:
Quote:
(1)This section applies if it appears to a copyright owner that—
(a)a subscriber to an internet access service has infringed the owner's copyright by means of the service; or
(b)a subscriber to an internet access service has allowed another person to use the service, and that other person has infringed the owner's copyright by means of the service.
|
|
I find it highly amusing that you're quoting this, yet that text does not actually appear in either wikipedia link you supplied. I had to google it and, of course, it's from the
Digital Economy bill itself. However, unsurprisingly you've cut and paste only part of the story. "This Section" refers to section 12A, which is titled "Obligation to
notify subscribers of copyright infringement reports".
Again, nothing there states that they are legally liable, they are simply being notified that infringement has taken place according to a copyright holder.
I'm going to pre-empt the next thing you'll quote:
Quote:
following such a disclosure, the copyright owner may apply to
a court to learn the subscriber’s identity and may bring
5
proceedings against the subscriber for copyright infringement
|
This is really the bit that matters, as it applies to the topic post. However note that the bill is only in relation to the ISP supplying details to the copyright holder, it in no way specifies who is actually (Once more: legally) liable for the infringement that took place.
They still have to prove that the owner is responsible in court and to my knowledge, this hasn't been tested properly in the UK yet.
