| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 117692 | 2011-04-29 10:58:00 | Simon Power and his right-wing BS on the copyright bill | braindead (1685) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1198405 | 2011-05-02 06:36:00 | True they may not listen, To what extent and what means can right holders produce evidence of suspect downloads? Will there be a certified standard procedure or format, without possibly infringing other laws? Also won't ISP's be pushed/hassled from both parties? How can ISP's better play a role? Maybe partner with legit online global stores... Sure the Account Holder can say why they think the Rights Holder has got it wrong... but WHAT guarantees they will listen? You might say "well I never downloaded that file, and it's not on my hard drive, have a look if you want" and they could say "well our system said you downloaded it, and if it's not there you must have deleted it, but we say you still downloaded it so pay up" What's to stop that from happening, even if they got it wrong? As I mentioned somewhere else, there were some bittorrent trackers inserting false IP addresses - what will you do if yours happens to match one of the made-up ones? |
kahawai chaser (3545) | ||
| 1198406 | 2011-05-02 06:36:00 | Sure the Account Holder can say why they think the Rights Holder has got it wrong... but WHAT guarantees they will listen?Plenty, because by the time it gets to the Tribunal stage it's not the Rights Owner who's listening - it's the Tribunal, who are required to listen. You might say "well I never downloaded that file, and it's not on my hard drive, have a look if you want" and they could say "well our system said you downloaded it, and if it's not there you must have deleted it, but we say you still downloaded it so pay up" What's to stop that from happening, even if they got it wrong?The law doesn't work that way - if you think they screwed up, then they effectively have to prove that they did not. You say "I never downloaded it, it's not on my hard drive, have a look at it if you want", and the Rights Owner now has to convince the Tribunal that their system is correct. As I mentioned somewhere else, there were some bittorrent trackers inserting false IP addresses - what will you do if yours happens to match one of the made-up ones?See above - the same scenario applies. |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 1198407 | 2011-05-02 06:42:00 | Will there be a certified standard procedure or format, without possibly infringing other laws?Yes - the Act specifies this. Also won't ISP's be pushed/hassled from both parties?Nope; in most cases they're not actually allowed to do anything other than forward letters between the Rights Owner and the Account Holder, and keep a record of those letters. For this task, they are allowed to bill the Rights Owner (which is also a handy deterrent to the Rights Owner filing incorrect notices, as it will cost them). The ISP is also not allowed to pass on any of your information to the Rights Owner, not even your name. How can ISP's better play a role? Maybe partner with legit online global stores...They don't have to; they can just concentrate on being an ISP, and this new legislation takes away the ability of the Rights Owners to constantly hassle the ISPs about it. |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 1198408 | 2011-05-02 06:46:00 | 122N Point 2 - The information contained in the infringement notice[s] is correct....i.e the allegations against you are true. You are offered the chance to convince us otherwise but until you do YOU ARE PRESUMED TO HAVE DONE IT. How is that not guilty until you prove that you didnt do it. |
Barnabas (4562) | ||
| 1198409 | 2011-05-02 06:57:00 | 122N Point 2 - The information contained in the infringement notice[s] is correct....i.e the allegations against you are true. You are offered the chance to convince us otherwise but until you do YOU ARE PRESUMED TO HAVE DONE IT. How is that not guilty until you prove that you didnt do it.Because it doesn't require you to prove that you didn't infringe - it simply says "These guys over here think you infringed their copyright, and this is why. Do you disagree with any of this?" If you disagree with it, the Rights Owner then has to prove infringement to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. You *don't* have to prove why your disagreement is valid, although obviously if you can do so you'll have a much stronger case. Here's the actual text of 122N: “122N Infringement notice as evidence of copyright infringement “(1) In proceedings before the Tribunal, in relation to an infringement notice, it is presumed— “(a) that each incidence of file sharing identified in the notice constituted an infringement of the rights owner's copyright in the work identified; and “(b) that the information recorded in the infringement notice is correct; and “(c) that the infringement notice was issued in accordance with this Act. “(2) An account holder may submit evidence that, or give reasons why, any 1 or more of the presumptions in subsection (1) do not apply with respect to any particular infringement identified in an infringement notice. “(3) If an account holder submits evidence or gives reasons as referred to in subsection (2), the rights owner must satisfy the Tribunal that, in relation to the relevant infringement or notice, the particular presumption or presumptions are correct. |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 1198410 | 2011-05-02 06:59:00 | 122N Point 2 - The information contained in the infringement notice[s] is correct....i.e the allegations against you are true. You are offered the chance to convince us otherwise but until you do YOU ARE PRESUMED TO HAVE DONE IT. How is that not guilty until you prove that you didnt do it. Just like if you get a parking infringement or speeding infringement at the moment is it not? If you pay the infringement you are deemed to be guilty. If you don't pay you get charged with failing to pay and you can defend that by proving you weren't in charge of the vehicle when the infringement took place. No difference that I can see really. |
Snorkbox (15764) | ||
| 1198411 | 2011-05-02 07:01:00 | Just like if you get a parking infringement or speeding infringement at the moment is it not? If you pay the infringement you are deemed to be guilty. If you don't pay you get charged with failing to pay and you can defend that by proving you weren't in charge of the vehicle when the infringement took place. No difference that I can see really.Not quite - the big difference here is that the Rights Owners aren't given any (special) legal status, and they aren't assumed to have proven anything. You don't have to defend with proof (although it helps). |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 1198412 | 2011-05-02 07:07:00 | Not quite - the big difference here is that the Rights Owners aren't given any (special) legal status, and they aren't assumed to have proven anything. You don't have to defend with proof (although it helps). Fair enough comment I suppose. At the moment they are still debating what form an infringement notice should take and what costs the ISPs can recoup. As usual the resultant law(s) can be challenged when a person finally gets a notice though. |
Snorkbox (15764) | ||
| 1198413 | 2011-05-02 07:10:00 | Because it doesn't require you to prove that you didn't infringe - it simply says "These guys over here think you infringed their copyright, and this is why. Do you disagree with any of this?" Here's the actual text of 122N: The way I read it it says "These guys over here say that you infringed their copyright. Sure you can disagree with it but the initial presumption is that you did in fact do it" The presumption of guilt is there. I agree that there may not be a burden of proof on your behalf to prove innocence but what other laws do we have that assume guilt? You argument seems to be that "IF" you disagree to your presumption of guilt "THEN" you can object as opposed to "I am innocent until you can prove that I am guilty" |
Barnabas (4562) | ||
| 1198414 | 2011-05-02 07:12:00 | Bill & Ben party anyone? :D Just keep your children away from them:eek: |
plod (107) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||||