its not pretending, I admit I am been lazy that I have not read it yet.
I am also asking rather than saying. If my fears are wrong then fair enough.
For example in america its common for people to serve false DMCA notices to get sites they dont like shutdown.
---------- Post added at 10:18 ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 ----------
so
Quote:
|
The owner may make a copyright infringement report to the internet service provider who provided the internet access service if a code in force under section 124C or 124D (an “initial obligations code”) allows the owner to do so
|
Quote:
A “copyright infringement report” is a report that—
(a) states that there appears to have been an infringement of the owner’s copyright;
(b) includes a description of the apparent infringement;
(c) includes evidence of the apparent infringement that shows the subscriber’s IP address and the time at which the evidence was gathered;
(d) is sent to the internet service provider within the period of 1 month beginning with the day on which the evidence was gathered; and
(e) complies with any other requirement of the initial obligations code.
|
So this obligates isps to pass on notices of infringement, I notice it doesnt say 'suspected' notices of infringement and only an ip address and time is required. Lack of evidence.
Further down (I wont paste is a lot of work formatting it) there is obligations for isp's to impose restrictions such as port blocking, throttling and even disconnection.
It is hard to understand but I dont see anything that says I am wrong.
(a) It appears to say content owners can give copyright infringement reports to isp's directly without legal process.
(b) It appears to say isp's must provide a list of other copyright infringement reports to a content owner if they ask for it, again without legal process. However the end user remains anonymous.
(c) The secretary of state can order isp's to impose technical limits to help copyright holders. Such as throttling, blocking ports and suspending the user. So basically censor the internet.
Seems to me my concerns are correct and the government is holding the copyright holder's hands.
(c) is particurly damaging as it means quality isps such as ukonline and BE will need to get traffic shaping equipment.