[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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.

Note the terminology used (in bold below). It obligates the ISPs to forward to the account holder notices of "apparent" infringement, not "alleged" infringement.

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.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

It is hard to understand but I dont see anything that says I am wrong.

I will try to outline this for you.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

(a) It appears to say content owners can give copyright infringement reports to isp's directly without legal process.

That is correct - and it has always been the case.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

(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.

Yes, you are correct, on both counts. At this stage there is no user identification ergo there is, again, no requirement for "legal process".

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

(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.

Yes, and in doing so is acting to protect the rights of thousands of UK citizens whose income and job security is directly derived from or dependant on revenues raised through the creative or ancilliary industries which would otherwise be further jeapordised by continued inaction or a disregard for the illegal activities of those who seek to procure media without paying for it as is normally required.

I should point out that it is not to "help" copyright holders but to protect their rights under law.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Seems to me my concerns are correct and the government is holding the copyright holder's hands.

You may consider it as "Government holding the copyright holders hands" others will see it as an attempt to reduce the wanton infringement of copyright and to secure jobs and businesses which are under threat as a result of such activities.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

(c) is particurly damaging as it means quality isps such as ukonline and BE will need to get traffic shaping equipment.

It appears that both service providers mentioned have cut off provisions akin to earlier posted T&Cs and it is clear that at least one has shaping & traffic management already in place.

It's "funny" that ISPs (such as TalkTalk by way of an example) might moot a legal requirement for additional investment in technology to address these issues as a potential death knell for their own business model - yet at the same time they extol the virtues of technological advances which they provide (at a profit) to "customers" to decimate other business models.

On that point it is interesting that you frequently raise the matter of certain rights being protected by "legal process" in relation to matters which you appear to have issues or concerns with and which you consider to be inappropriate in relation to the DEB legislation. I shouldn't really have to point this out to anyone but the illegal downloading / sharing of copyrighted material is a matter of concern to rights holders, why are those who download illegally not as vocal in their defence of those persons right to "legal process"?

That said, if in a few weeks time the DEB is passed into law it will, ironically, form the backbone of that very same legal process.

Food for thought.


EDIT:

Just for info, here are excerpts from that "quality" ISP BE's current "legal stuff" wef 01/01/2010.

So what can Be’s services not be used for?

1. Unlawful, fraudulent, criminal or otherwise illegal activities
2. Sending, receiving, publishing, posting, distributing, disseminating, encouraging the receipt of, uploading, downloading, recording, reviewing, streaming or using any material which is offensive, abusive, defamatory, indecent, obscene, unlawful, harassing or menacing or a breach of the copyright, trademark, intellectual property, confidence, privacy or any other rights of any person

and

What about usage by kids and others without you knowing?

No excuse. You are responsible for all uses made of Be’s Internet services through your account (whether authorised or unauthorised) and for any breach of this Policy whether an unacceptable use occurs or is attempted, whether you knew or should have known about it, whether or not you carried out or attempted the unacceptable use alone, contributed to or acted with others or allowed any unacceptable use to occur by omission. You agree that Be are not responsible for any of your activities in using the network. Although the Internet is designed to appeal to a broad audience, it’s your responsibility to determine whether any of the content accessed via Be’s Internet service is appropriate for children or others in your household or office to view or use.

That is some serious, pre-emptive, "ass covering" if ever I saw it.

Do you think maybe they know something?