Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
I dont know if I am allowed to link to another site, but I just read an interesting article on tbb from an isp.
They raised some very good points why this bill needs to be not ruled in, and it appears now the lib dems are going to try and block it completely.
The bill makes no mention that the isps can check against the evidence, it seems to say the information is passed to the isp, the isp then passes this onto the customer and the government can choose to enforce technical measures based on this evidence. The key point is the onus is onto the end user to prove themself innocent rather than the copyright holder going to court to prove them guilty. This bill is very very wrong as it will just lead to internet censorship all for a small group of copyright holders.
|
That is patently untrue and more scare mongering on the part of ISPs and the piracy lobby.
Tell me Chrysalis, why are you not up in arms, or prepared to comment, on the already existing ability, as repeatedly evidenced herein, of ISPs to terminate accounts even without the involvement of third parties?
Rather than reverting to form and ignoring information which is contrary to your "ideal world" view you could read the "obligations" part of the bill I linked to earlier
Here are the relevant points under "Obligations".
(4) An internet service provider
who receives a copyright infringement
report must notify the subscriber of the report if the initial obligations
code requires the provider to do so.
(5)
A notification under subsection (4) must be sent to the subscriber
within the period of 1 month beginning with the day on which the provider
receives the report.
(6) A
notification* under subsection (4)
must include —
(a) a statement that the notification is sent under this section in
response to a copyright infringement report;
(b) the name of the copyright owner who made the report;
(c) a description of the apparent infringement;
(d)
evidence of the apparent infringement that shows the
subscriber’s IP address and the time at which the evidence was
gathered;
Is that clear enough for you?
Evidence
is required, several letters will issue, where appropriate / required and this is not a straight to court thereafter issue.
You are making yourself look foolish with your continued refusal to accept the reality of the situation and your credibility, and indeed that of your "argument" is not helped by the fact that you assert that this whole "plot", as you see it, is "all for a small group of copyright holders".
The fact of the matter is (as stated several times in this thread alone) these measures are to protect the rights, income, jobs and futures of hundreds of thousands of people and those who work in or are dependant upon the creative sectors or ancilliary activities.
Please stop acting so naive.
* A "Notification" as distinct from a "Copyright infringement report".