Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
I didnt say anything wrong with it, rather that the artists are not the big losers as they made out to be.
|
Really? Are you not the person who was talking earlier about artists having to get by through selling bootleg copies of their own media?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
since noone has been able to tell me a clear answer on if people will be cutoff without legal process I will wait until I have looked into or someone gives the answer to give further judgement on this.
The law is already in place tho to protect these companies, the fact is if someone is caught distributing copyrighted material they can be fined and even sent to jail. Also in regards to if its illegal to download copyright material without redistributing it.
|
Chrysalis, like many others you are trying to create a strawman argument. I notice from your speedtest result that you are a VM customer. If you check the T&Cs of VMs service to their customer base , in particular their AUP, you will find therein that it categorically states the conditions under which they may exercise their right to terminate the services provided to "you" where you breach any of the following:
3. Use of the Services - 3.1. We reserve the right to investigate any suspected violation(s) of this AUP. When we become aware of possible violations, we may initiate an investigation, which may include gathering information from the User involved and the complaining party, if any, and examination of material on our servers, networks or any other equipment associated with the Services.
- 3.2. You must not use the Services in any way that is unlawful or illegal or in any way to the detriment of other Internet users. You also must not allow anybody using your connection to use the Services in any way that is unlawful or illegal or in any way to the detriment of other Internet users.
4. Use of Material - 4.1. You are prohibited from storing, distributing, transmitting or causing to be published any Prohibited Material through your use of the Services. Examples of "Prohibited Material" shall be determined by us (acting in our sole discretion) and shall include (but are not limited to) material that:
- 4.1.1. is threatening, harassing, invasive of privacy, defamatory, racist, obscene, indecent, offensive, abusive, harmful or malicious;
- 4.1.2. infringes or breaches any third party's intellectual property rights (which shall include, but not be limited to copyright, trade mark, design rights, trade secrets, patents, moral rights, paternity rights and performance rights) - this includes the use, distribution and/or copying of any material without the express consent of the owner;
You (or whomsoever pays the bill), and several million other VM broadband customers, have agreed to be bound by this particular clause of the contract which exists between VM and their paying / subscribing customer base - it is nothing new. What is new is that the Government (by way of elements of the DEB) are forcing the ISPs to comply with their own terms and conditions / AUPs.
Rights holders will police the illegal downloading and the annonymised aggregate data will be provided to ISPs to issue educational warnings up to a limit where persistence on the part of the offending party will necessitate a suspension / termination.
The pro "piracy" lobbyists have cited this as a new development, again, it's not. Take for example "Talk Talk" who threw their toys out of the pram at the time that the Government strategy to force them to enforce this obligation became glaringly clear to them. I suspect they tried to kick up such a furore simply because they cannot afford to implement and enforce their own AUP without haemmorraghing many thousands of customers.
So, as I have evidenced above - there was never
really a legal or judicial requirement to be met for the processing of an account suspension or termination on the part of VM (for example) once effective and reliable data / intelligence could be established.
Where the legal / judicial requirement lay was in the identification of the offender to the rights holder (a third party) by the ISP. This, it appears from the most recent draft of the bill, is no longer an issue as the ISPs are being forced to take a more pro-active position in enforcing their own AUPs.
Why else do you think VM are so keen to work with Mr Clarke & his friends at Detica?
In addition, and direct reference to this, the
Consultation clearly lays out the initial two obligations and an optional (where necessary) third under the DEB - read Introduction & scope, points 2.1 - 2.4
Now, about that list of "2nd time around artists" and the "Lesser known artists who don't have past success" where were we with that?