• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

ISP WIN for United Kingdom!

mpw said:
this law would not allow the identity of the subscriber to be divulged to the rightsholder without a court order. All it allows is for a rightsholder to identify which IP addresses relate to the same subscriber, and only where they’re able to show a specific relevance to the downloading of protected content to which they hold rights, and only within specific periods. It allows for the subscriber to be advised they have been recorded as having been suspected of copyright infringement, it allows the subscriber to stop this infringement, or clarify the situation. It allows for the ISP to agree to limit the service to the subscriber if they do not desist or clarify their actions.
Click to expand...

let's assume all this is true - so what's your stance on the following?
byteware said:
the only evidence required is to prove your IP address was used. They do not require that they prove that it was infringing on a copyright (in fact, they cannot prove that without information that only the subscriber would have... for instance, whether or not the subscribers owns rights to the music they are downloading...i.e. the cd)
Click to expand...
the person could very well have the right to download the copyrighted content
the person's computer or internet connection could have been hacked and abused by someone else

cutting off the person's internet connection could very well cause them considerable financial (among other) trouble
and if you think the person's plead for "i've bought the copyrighted material" or "i've got no idea" is gonna stop the connection getting cut, you're being naive

mpw said:
it’s not a conviction to have a utility service cut off.
Click to expand...
of course it is - sure you can argue about the semantics regarding "conviction", but it's a punishment for being guilty of wrong doing

mpw said:
Do you also think that every parking ticket should be dealt with by the court, every speeding fine, every piece of dropped litter, every shoplifting offence?
Click to expand...
talking of semantics; they should (and are - depending on the country of course) being dealt with by the justice system (police), not the parking lot/road/shop -owner
 
IOWA said:
I'm starting to wonder if you work for the RIAA, MPAA, or some other archiac dying business that can't adblabrrblehhhh...
Click to expand...

i was thinking at work when reading the previous posts that i haven't seen such a smart, well flowing argument in the internet in a long while, and now this?

i guess all good things do come to an end...
 
IOWA said:
I'm starting to wonder if you work for the RIAA, MPAA, or some other archiac dying business that can't adapt to the marketplace accordingly. Other those organizations and really old people who don't like change would ever support this.
Click to expand...

I doubt it... the RIAA tends to argue that they have no choice.

he's arguing that it's the same as the water company cutting your water off for whatever reason that they want to.

RIAA wouldn't argue that, because it's a strawman argument. The ISP's don't WANT to cut your service off. They don't want to be involved in this at all. They are being forced into it.
 
mrqs said:
i was thinking at work when reading the previous posts that i haven't seen such a smart, well flowing argument in the internet in a long while, and now this?

i guess all good things do come to an end...
Click to expand...


lol......Really?

Guess you don't understand the underlying meaning.
 
Infraction issued and posts deleted.

Please remember to be respectful to other members at all times.

 
byteware said:
I'm making the following assumptions.

1) You will be able to present evidence to defend yourself against the allegations.

The rightsholder will be able to rebut with evidence.

You will be able to rebut with evidence...

This will continue until there is no new evidence to submit.

2) Both the defendant and the rightsholder will be allowed to submit their evidence and argue their case in person.

3) You will not be required to take off work 10-12 times per appeal.




All 3 of these should be a requirement for a functional appeals process, and for all three of them to be true, you will need to have both the rightsholder, and the subscriber/defendant in the same room at the same time.

If you believe that one of these assumptions are incorrect, or that these can be achieved without having them all in the same room at the same time, then please explain your position.



Ok... to proof that you purchased the CD, then you will need to provide something that states that YOU purchased the CD. You will need to provide a receipt (and something that ties YOU to that receipt), or credit card statement (and proof that it is YOUR credit card statement).

This will be provided to the rightsholder so that they can review and rebut as needed.

Honestly, I hate to say this, but it appears that you aren't thinking this through, or that you are intentionally trying to make this fit your view of it.



You keep using this argument. But there are flaws in this argument:

1) The ISP doesn't suspect anything. The rightsholder does.

2) The ISP doesn't want to have a mechanism in place. They don't want a mechanism in place. They are being forced to put a mechanism in place.

3) The ISP doesn't want to deal with you at all in regards to this. They want the rightsholders to go to court, and leave them the heck alone.


So, in conclusion, if the ISP was monitoring your internet usage and suspected criminal activity (which is scary enough to think about), then yes, they could suspend your account without dealing with the courts.

However, no, the RIAA should not be able to force the ISP to suspend your internet service without going through the courts.



So, you believe the soap company should have the ability to have the water company shut off your water?

Or if you are hacking cable, the cable company should be able to have your electricity cut off?




No, it's not for a couple of reasons:

1) You don't want your ISP monitoring your data. That's a massive invasion of privacy.

2) There are Terabytes of data going through your ISP every minute. They cannot be responsible for monitoring that much data.

3) If they are responsible for one thing, then they are responsible for EVERYTHING that could be done with their data lines. That means that they will have to start censoring what you can and cannot do on their lines to protect themselves from lawsuit. That includes cyber bullying (no facebook or social networking). This gets rather extreme... don't you think?



You are getting a bit ridiculous. I mean, honestly, what do you want them to be able to do next? Shut off the electricity because that was also used, and would prevent use of a secondary internet access point (say cell phone)?



That's because you are ether failing to see the ways that they intend to use this, or are intentionally overlooking it for the sake of arguing.
Click to expand...

Bullseye.
 
Hey maybe we shouldcut off electricity while we are at it! You know,. Since computers need electricity to run.

Mpw is a lost cause who blindly supports big brother and a surviellence state. Maybe he is just arguing for the sake of arguing, who knows. He just keeps side stepping the argument spewing nonsensical rhetori.

Mpw I suggest you take a long hard look at the bill. And if you don't understand why it's a bad thing, then perhaps your comprehension is skewed.
 
Can I remind everyone yet again to keep debates civil and devoid of any personal attacks? If you disagree with another's stance then argue your case logically and avoid resorting to 'playing to the gallery'.
 
mpw:

as you've said, you can't see why this is useful to RIAA and similar groups.

I assure you, they spent millions getting this law passed. They know exactly how they intend to use it. They know why it's going to be useful to them.

I'm sorry you don't see that. Both me, Iowa, and many others do.

I have explained it to you in detail. However, you are either incapable of understanding, or intentionally trying not to see.

Either way, this conversation is not going anywhere. I think I've proven my point fairly clearly. And now, I say adieu, as there is no point in arguing with someone who either can't, or won't understand how things work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom