Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
As I said before if someone is infringing copyright, I have no problem with them been dealt with fairly which yes would include them having their isp agreement terminated as its a breach of aup.
My problem is the method's used to catch these people.
I think we can agree to disagree on the method's used. Although I read somewhere the lib dem's have managed to get some kind of ammendment where there needs to be another debate? before users can be suspended by the secretary of state.
|
Nobody is "disagreeing" with you about the methods used - you are questioning the suitability of the process.
Quite why anyone would have an issue with an IP address being identified by a rights holder, the rights holder communicating that information to the service provider, the service provider confirming the information and, having done so, writing to the account holder to advise them of the fact (several times if necessary) and affording them the chance to either deny culpability or address the issue to prevent future infringements is beyond me.
Would you rather the ISPs used their own monitoring systems and cut users off (with, as I have evidenced from several ISP's T&Cs, no warning or redress) citing a breach of the AUP?
The fact / point is that under the DEB they would be having their access terminated both because they had violated the terms of their providers AUP
and had been
persistent in their infringement of copyrights. As such it offers
better protection for both the customers and the rights holders.
As for the Lib Dems - I think you are referring to Amendment 120a (which they themselves originally introduced and then sought to have changed) but this has subsequently been rejected out of hand.