[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

as I said before we need to agree to disagree.

3rd and final time a letter with an ip address gathered from a torrent tracker and time is 'not' evidence a court would accept, hence them lobbying the government to bypass legal process. You disagree with me which is fine, but there is no point in trying to make me change the way I see this.

I am not trying to make you change how you see things. I am stating a fact. There is currently no requirement whatsoever on the part of ISPs to entertain a legal process before cutting of someone whom they suspect or catch infringing on someone elses copyright.

If you have information (other than your opinion or your having read / heard it somewhere) to the contrary then publish it here. Otherwise admit that you are wrong and are flogging a dead horse.

Here is the news. If the DEB is made law then whatever it deems sufficient from an evidentiary perspective will be the benchmark, not what you, I or anyone else thinks.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

End of the day an isp can terminate who they want for any reason after all it is their service, why would I have a problem with this?

I don't know, why would you have a problem with it? Could it be that (as per your post over on TBB) you subscirbe to the school of thought that copyright infringement is "wrong" but not theft?

You really are a contradiction in terms Chrysalis. Here you are acknowledging the right of ISPs to cut people off based on "suspicion" and you are crying about them now possibly having to provide proof before doing so. Can you see how self contradictory and idiotic your stance appears?

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

You seriously cannot see a difference between an isp choosing to terminate a customer and a 3rd party been able to force them to do so?

See above (and multiple previous references to same). It's you who is splitting hairs. I am stating the fact that ISPs have always had the ability (technologically) / right (contractually) and legal obligation to do so. It is you and your ilk who are getting hot under the collar because ISPs will now be forced to do so by the participation of the very people who suffer most as a result of piracy.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Sorry but from where I sit all you thinking about is the well been of the media industry.

It's very juvenile to try and pigeonhole this as a purely music / movie / media issue. There are countless other industries such as software etc that piracy affects.

If I am considered by you, or anyone, to be supportive of legal steps being taken to prevent people losing their livelyhoods and jobs I don't think that's anything I ought to be ashamed of. On the other hand - those who have an issue with my doing so would in my opinion have good cause to question their own ethics / moral scruples (or lack thereof).

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Not only this but you chose to put in bold some information I already know and is nothing to do with what I said. The isp is obligated to pass on the report, that is not saying the isp can check the evidence and dispute it on behalf of the customer,

Forgive me, I put things in bold because It is obvious that you are failing to comprehend basic english - a fact borne out by your continued and repeated refusal to deal with the facts as presented to you. If you care to go back and read either the Act or my previous post on the matter you will see that the ISP is obliged to issue a "notification". The notification is an entirely different thing to the the "copyright infringement report" which is provided to the ISP by the rights holder.

The ISPs (who you seem to think are your friend, protecting you and providing all and sundry with entertainment and software on tap illegally at the click of a button) are not interested in defending you, they are interested in preserving their market share and the legal element of their customer base - at the minimum cost to themselves. The unfortunate thing for freetards is that the Government are now, very belatedly, bringing them (the ISPs) to book. Effectively everyone knows that you can't stop piracy but if you start hurting the bottom line of the conduit providers, blocking the facilitators and disconnecting the more persistant offenders you will make an impact.

Part of the costs issue being consulted on (for I know you haven't even bothered reading the links provided) is directly relevant to the additional overheads which will be incurred by ISPs to ensure that they have effective usage monitoring systems in place to monitor and ensure the accuracy of alleged infringements. You yourself have even alluded to this in your posts on another forum "...the costs will be tremendous".

Do you really think, for a minute, that back here in the real world ISPs are going to expose themselves to the threat of breach of contract proceedings based on an "apparent infringement"? If this Act becomes law they will need to have considerable proof prior to any move to disconnect a subsciber for persistant infringement. That they may not feel inclined to share that proof, or how they established same, with the subscriber up to the point of appeal necessitating them having to do so, is entirely up to them and based, most probably, on reasons of commercial confidentiality.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

it says exactly the opposite that the isp without question has to pass on the report even if false.

That is total rubbish. Under schedule 4. Obligation to notify subscribers of reported infringements subsection (4) states "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. I can't find any reference to "even if false" in the initial obligations code - can you point it out for me?

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Also isp's are agreeing with me and they do this for a living.

Well, well, well, there's a surprise - you overlooked / ignored my earlier posts about why the ISPs "are agreeing" with you, didn't you?

It is not in their interests financially to be compelled by law to cut off persistant or repeat offenders - everyone, even you, knows that.

Chrysalis, with all due respect, since you entered this discussion you have posited several statements which I have challenged you on and asked for clarification or for you to substantiate. You have singularly failed to respond to any of them. Your continued evasiveness is noteworthy but let me tell you something which I think you need to know.

Closing your eyes tight, sticking your fingers in your ears stamping your feet and repeatedly singing out aloud "La, la, la la, I'm not listening" will not change reality.

You best get used to that fact.