Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnHorb
TBF - in both cases
|
To Be Frank (or bob, or even jane
) i did include 'suspected' in both cases.
but it has to be considered OC, once you admit your going to use such copyrighted material such as the Phorm signed ISP's have already said, is it really then suspected!
while the majority have been reading up on the RIPA and DPA part of this ISP/phorm consern, some of us have been looking at the less talked about, indeed hardly mentioned so far such as the Human Rights,the safe harbor/ EU E-commerce Directive/ Conduit questions etc.
for the purposes of this ISP/Phorm related thread "copyright theft" becomes a very real interrelated concern,as does the Conduit/EU E-commerce Directive.
the BT 2007 trial using unauthorised copyrighted material position not withstanding,
it's now Virgin Media's turn to stand in the spotlight, indeed they walked right under it and turned the super beam on
.
keep in mind, Virgin Media have now put themselves sqarely in the spotlight, and into the unique position of being both a UK signed Phorm ISP AND the very first British internet company to
share responsibility for curbing
suspected piracy.....
hence the/a real pressing question is this Conduit/EU E-commerce Directive protection they seek to retain, and its implications for Virgin Media directly, should they loose or have infact,just plain automaticly given up that EU legal protection, by freely entering into both the Phorm signed contract, and now the freely entering into ‘a general monitoring of the network’ for potential unauthorised copyrighted material on their conduit protected network.
#
1823 "popper:did the UK ISPs in question, infact give up their legal protection in EU law as a mear conduit,by freely signing up and agreeing to ‘a general monitoring of the network’ in that contract for profit."
only Alexander has make comment on that so far #
1825
and while it seems true at the moment only the one HTML protocol is being proposed, the Phorm Patent clearly states that could change at any point.....
this story URL makes for interesting reading when you place your thinking into this ISP/Phorm frame of mind, and from the end users POV in this .
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.14/belgium-isp
"EDRI-gram - Number 5.14, 18 July 2007
UK's Internet Service Providers' Association (ISPA) made public its opposition to such a move to make ISPs "play judge and jury" whenever customers are suspected of engaging in copyright infringement.
An ISPA representative explained "What we wouldn't want is corporate censorship.
Any kind of censorship of the Internet has to be at the government level.
ISPs are not law enforcement.
We understand that ISPs play a part in combating instances of illegal activity on the Internet, which is why we engage with rights holders and work with government authorities on that basis, but we wouldn't say we're the gatekeepers of the Internet."
"
given the fact Virgin Media are a large part of the 'UK's Internet Service Providers' Association (ISPA)' and ISPA's statement above in July 2007.
is it now to be taken that the ISPA position has changed?, or that they dont now represent Virgin Media; or its apparent Uturn policys to freely enter into these two ‘a general monitoring of the network’ agreements, and potently giveing up their EU conduit Legal protection?