Broadband speeds & Copyright 3 Strikes

[ceedee]

Originally Posted by Toto

For crying out load, how can disconnection of broadband for illegal activity be a breach of that persons civil liberties?

Just repeating my point as you seem to have missed it...

Originally Posted by Toto

Civil liberties do not come into this in my opinion. If they did, then why can a judge in the UK order a court injuntion against a convicted peado to ban access to the Internet, and the same applies also to a serial hacker? Isn't that a breach of a persons civil liberties?

It is a breach of the individual's civil liberties, just as being locked up in prison is. But because they're both ordered by a court, they're permitted.
However, disconnection via the BPI's favoured 3-strikes scheme is not ordered by a court and is therefore an unwarranted infringement of our civil liberties.

Feel free to keep putting up this false assertion and I'll keep knocking it down...

[Toto]

Originally Posted by ceedee

Just repeating my point as you seem to have missed it...


It is a breach of the individual's civil liberties, just as being locked up in prison is. But because they're both ordered by a court, they're permitted.
However, disconnection via the BPI's favoured 3-strikes scheme is not ordered by a court and is therefore an unwarranted infringement of our civil liberties.

Feel free to keep putting up this false assertion and I'll keep knocking it down...

Stop making this personal ceedee, I am not.

I am expressing my opinion on a matter that I have considerable experience with, and as such I feel qualified to respond as I have.

I welcome, with gusto, personal views on this subject, and in the same vein I respond/debate accordingly.

[ceedee]

Originally Posted by Toto

Stop making this personal ceedee, I am not.

Personal? Hardly...

I am expressing my opinion on a matter that I have considerable experience with, and as such I feel qualified to respond as I have.

I welcome, with gusto, personal views on this subject, and in the same vein I respond/debate accordingly.

Then respond to the point I have made twice instead of repeating your straw man:

In the context of the BPI's 3-strikes proposal/threat, it's not the depriving of an individual's connectivity that is a breach of human rights but that it has been deliberately designed to avoid the legal system, that it's arbitrary and has no route for appeal.

[Fergie Boy]

The only way to know if the material being downloaded is copywrited is for the isp to look at what you are downloading and that is where the infringment of your rights happens.

Someone may have made some nice HD gay male bondage porn and be sharing with like minded friends, completely legal 800MB video file being transferred over P2P but maybe not something you want your isp and their snoopers to know about, and the only way they will know if it is copywrited is by looking at it .
It should be as illegal as tapping your phone or opening your mail.

[Toto]

Originally Posted by Fergie Boy

The only way to know if the material being downloaded is copywrited is for the isp to look at what you are downloading and that is where the infringment of your rights happens.

Someone may have made some nice HD gay male bondage porn and be sharing with like minded friends, completely legal 800MB video file being transferred over P2P but maybe not something you want your isp and their snoopers to know about, and the only way they will know if it is copywrited is by looking at it .
It should be as illegal as tapping your phone or opening your mail.

Actually, the burden of proof lies with the copyright owners, but proof is absolutely essential. ISP's don't need to collect data, that is what FAST, FACT the BPI and other rights owners already provide to ISP's.

Cases where rights owners have taken individuals to court over copyright distribution hinge on evidence, although the burden of proof is a lot less stringent in civil cases. One parent who challenged a £2,500 fine because of his daughters file sharing habbit actually had the fine increased significantly.

It is extremely easy to collect evidence if the file sharer is not carefull, which most casual sharers are, and sadly all too often they are up against very qualified legal firms who simply have more legal clout and money to take illegal file sharers to court. In civil cases you cannot get legal aid if memory serves me correctly, making the adjudication almost a win win for the rights owners.

Just to give ceedee his response......Internet access is not a right in my opinion, its a priviledge, you pay for it you get it (albeit slow in many cases, even on the virgin network), you don't, or your break the ISP rules, you can get your access terminated, simple as that. The EU parliament may have voted to that end, I am not sure it will be ratified in the statute books, unless of course that has happened already.

I am all for customer rights, even civil rights, but its a two way street. My CD collection is full of aspiring artists trying to make their way in this digital freeloading society. I cough up a few quid for a CD/DVD that helps them, it shows my appreciation for their talent, and goes some small way to pay for their efforts in a hope that more people will benefit. What about their liberties?

No, I am sorry, but the provision of a service, payed in full each month is not a guarantee of entitlement. All too often people look for ways to get out of cotracts with their suppliers if they think they are hard done by, and in many cases fair enough. I bet they would complain like hell though if their service provider sought a similar termination of contract with their customer.

Unless ISP's are required by law to make a fundemental change in their terms and conditions that prevents them from disconnecting a customer for breach of its terms and conditions, this will likely not be challenged. At the moment ISP's cannot be prosecuted for allowing the redistribution of rights protected material through their network, it is commonly known as the "Mere conduit" clause. If the EU brings an end to that, ISP's will be disconnecting copyright offenders left, right and centre, with no room for appeal for fear of prosecution. If that happens folks are going to have to be extremely careful.

Frank linked the original post to his article on the news page. I don't seem to recall any VM subscriber posting here that VM had contacted them over copyright abuse. I do remember a Be Unlimited user posting a copy of a letter he received for copyright abuse.....I think that is warning enough that ISP's are getting twitchy.

[ceedee]

As I understand it, the BPI's 3-strike scheme would not expect or require ISPs to inspect any P2P data. Rather the BPI would obtain "evidence" via third-party "spies" who'd join, for instance, a particular bittorrent swarm and allegedly record the participants' IP addresses which would then be traced back to the ISP with an allegation that the individual had breached copyright.

I can't imagine any court accepting the idea that the IP address had been obtained incorrectly, as participation in the torrent swarm is open to anyone (or any member, in the case of a private tracker).

However (again, to the best of my knowledge) the "evidence" provided by these "spies" have not yet had their methods accepted as accurate or foolproof by a UK court so instead the BPI are seeking the extra-judicial (and much cheaper) route of bullying ISPs into making a disconnection.

---------- Post added at 18:19 ---------- Previous post was at 17:57 ----------

Originally Posted by ceedee

In the context of the BPI's 3-strikes proposal/threat, it's not the depriving of an individual's connectivity that is a breach of human rights but that it has been deliberately designed to avoid the legal system, that it's arbitrary and has no route for appeal.

Are you saying that you think it's perfectly okay for an ISP to disconnect a customer purely due to the unsubstantiated allegation of a third-party agent of a copyright holder who is paid a fee per shutdown without a court's approval and with no right of appeal?

How on earth do you imagine the ISP will defend themselves against a counter-action by the customer?

I apologise if I've misinterpreted your response but it otherwise doesn't seem to query or rebut my statement.

[Toto]

Originally Posted by ceedee

As I understand it, the BPI's 3-strike scheme would not expect or require ISPs to inspect any P2P data. Rather the BPI would obtain "evidence" via third-party "spies" who'd join, for instance, a particular bittorrent swarm and allegedly record the participants' IP addresses which would then be traced back to the ISP with an allegation that the individual had breached copyright.

I can't imagine any court accepting the idea that the IP address had been obtained incorrectly, as participation in the torrent swarm is open to anyone (or any member, in the case of a private tracker).

However (again, to the best of my knowledge) the "evidence" provided by these "spies" have not yet had their methods accepted as accurate or foolproof by a UK court so instead the BPI are seeking the extra-judicial (and much cheaper) route of bullying ISPs into making a disconnection.

Well, not sure about the Courts challenging the evidence, but here is a news report to show that the BPI, in this country, has been rather successful in its data collection methods .

ISP's rightly do not want to collect this data, why the hell should they. If rights owners cock it up, it should fall on their heads.

You have to wonder though, if such fines work through the courts, why all this three strike palava.

I can't find the article on the parent who lost his case, but I'll keep looking. I do remember thinking though that if he didn't understand file sharing before the court case, I bet he does now...poor sod. It also got me thinking, if they contacted his ISP first, who then made him aware of the situation, perhaps he could have saved himself a boatload of cash.

---------- Post added at 18:24 ---------- Previous post was at 18:20 ----------

Originally Posted by ceedee

Are you saying that you think it's perfectly okay for an ISP to disconnect a customer purely due to the unsubstantiated allegation of a third-party agent of a copyright holder who is paid a fee per shutdown without a court's approval and with no right of appeal?

How on earth do you imagine the ISP will defend themselves against a counter-action by the customer?

I apologise if I've misinterpreted your response but it otherwise doesn't seem to query or rebut my statement.

Hell no, no ISP should take the claim at face value, there should be sufficient evidence to back up the claim, and that evidence has to be supplied. Absolutely no way should a customer loose his connection on hear say.

You need not apologise, there is nothing more just and right than a good cause, I just like to bring some perspective to the table.

[ceedee]

Originally Posted by Toto

Well, not sure about the Courts challenging the evidence, but here is a news report to show that the BPI, in this country, has been rather successful in its data collection methods .

Perhaps I should have phrased my earlier comment slightly differently: I don't believe the "evidence" produced in any BPI case has been seriously contested in the UK yet.

As the news item (regarding the shutdown of the MVGroup torrent tracker and website) to which I linked earlier showed, the copyright lobby are notorious for producing error-ridden and unverifiable allegations backed up with threats by their expensive legal friends in the hope that "pirates", web hosts and ISPs will do their bidding without question.

I can't wait for a savvy, internet-literate lawyer to test them in the UK courts!

ISP's rightly do not want to collect this data, why the hell should they. If rights owners cock it up, it should fall on their heads.
You have to wonder though, if such fines work through the courts, why all this three strike palava.

Purely because it's designed to avoid the courts, admissible evidence and a right of appeal?
And if the BPI can make the ISP the patsy in it's protection racket, then all the better for them.

Of course, it's always been open to the BPI to forward the news of any successful court case to the defendant's ISP with the request that they terminate the account.


BTW, how much of your "few quid" for some aspiring artists' CD do you imagine they'll receive?

[dashton6]

virgin media are giving a pathetic service at the moment, I am on the 20 meg service I am lucky if I get 1.5 meg between 4.00 and midnight, If they try to put on any restictions I will leave and go on sky, there is no point at all having fast broadband if you are only surfing. I am also on the vodafone laptop broadband service with 3gig download limit it may not be a very big download for a month but it vastly outperfoms my so called fiber optic broadband that no body else is supposed to be able to compete with on speed. come on virgin wake up copper and the mobile airwaves are better.

[Toto]

Originally Posted by ceedee

BTW, how much of your "few quid" for some aspiring artists' CD do you imagine they'll receive?

One artist called them fuel vouchers, implying they got him to his next gig.

Many of them are produced by independant studios, you know, small time outfits, so I would have thought they got a lions share of the costs.

The big time artists get my cash through the online stores, its small pickings for them, but its paid for.

[dj rob st]

Originally Posted by Fergie Boy

The only way to know if the material being downloaded is copywrited is for the isp to look at what you are downloading and that is where the infringment of your rights happens.

Someone may have made some nice HD gay male bondage porn and be sharing with like minded friends, completely legal 800MB video file being transferred over P2P but maybe not something you want your isp and their snoopers to know about, and the only way they will know if it is copywrited is by looking at it .
It should be as illegal as tapping your phone or opening your mail.

we all know about it now! but i think ur isp still dont know about ur videos thought