Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDon
Please point me to anything other than hearsay that says the monitoring is going to be down to the ISP. There is literally no chance it will be as for an ISP to monitor who is infringing they'd need a complete catalogue of every copyright work going, and it'd have to be constantly maintained. Rights holders have repeatedly refused to provide such a database to many download sites citing it as being impractical, so why would they be able to do it now?
|
See the already published proposals.
In their draft form they state that once an infringer has initially been notified to the ISP the ISP will issue a first warning. The ISP will then monitor for subsequent / continued infringements and where appropriate issue further notifications explaining that if the account holder "persists the rights-holder may take legal action against them". This is neither the language nor the tact of a third party complainant. Whichever way you look at it (including even the Talk Talk diagram interpretation) it is monitoring on the part of the ISP.
As far as the database question is concerned you have partially answered your own question further down wherein you state "It is up to the rights holders to protect their copyright, not any 3rd party". The rights holders will readily identify infringements rather than afford ISP's the opportunity to suggest that their being required to do so is impractical or an onerous burden on their resources. Moreso now that they have a firm Government commitment to address the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDon
Not even talk talk think it will be, and if there was any hint of it they'd be shouting it from the rooftops like they are with the rest of the proposal. Right from the very start it's been about rights holders notifying ISPs and then ISPs having to carry out the notifications to end users (which is what the rights holders have to pay for, added staff and technology costs to actually deal with the notices). It is up to the rights holders to protect their copyright, not any 3rd party.
|
If, as is already agreed and clearly stated in the proposals, the rights holders have to foot the bill for the issuing of any notices then what do you think Talk Talk's
"And they want you to pay for this new scheme" scaremongering regarding some supposed "
copyright enforcement tax" is about? Could it be their way of levying a fee to offset their additional monitoring costs?
I think they are playing to the gallery - and handling it very badly.