Broadband speeds & Copyright 3 Strikes

[chickendippers]

Personally I don't care whether VM implement this policy or not. It's the same as identity cards; if you're not doing anything illegal then there's nothing to worry about.

[ceedee]

Originally Posted by chickendippers

Personally I don't care whether VM implement this policy or not. It's the same as identity cards; if you're not doing anything illegal then there's nothing to worry about.

Yeah, it's not as though the copyright lobby ever get anything wrong...
"Anti-Piracy Blunder Shuts Down BitTorrent Tracker"

[chickendippers]

That seems the fault of an individual web hosting company for failing to investigate. Anyway, if you've got 3 strikes then the chances of being falsely accused 3 times would be infinitesimally small.

[NTLVictim]

Originally Posted by chickendippers

That seems the fault of an individual web hosting company for failing to investigate. Anyway, if you've got 3 strikes then the chances of being falsely accused 3 times would be infinitesimally small.

With VM's management history, I would have said it was more than likely..You'll be telling me phorm is ok next!

[Griffin]

Surely with the European Parliment Voting against this, then there is every chance you would get it overturned in the European court of human rights. In which case the whole deal would fall flat as the government is also bound by that court too.

[Toto]

Originally Posted by chickendippers

Personally I don't care whether VM implement this policy or not. It's the same as identity cards; if you're not doing anything illegal then there's nothing to worry about.

Simple and to the point.

---------- Post added at 21:40 ---------- Previous post was at 21:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Frank

I doubt Virgin Media will be implementing any three strikes policy any time soon, the European Parliament already rejected the very principle of three strikes and your internet access is suspended. Not that Virgin Media has a problem interfering in customers civil liberties, but hey.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/article/...s-vm-listening

For the sake of balance there would have to be a lot of re-writing of user policies by many ISP's throughout Europe, and who's to say this is not already being implemented. What the hell has the EU got to do with this.

BACK OFF BRUSSELLS!!

[Berealwith]

Originally Posted by chickendippers

Personally I don't care whether VM implement this policy or not. It's the same as identity cards; if you're not doing anything illegal then there's nothing to worry about.

Its not the same as Identity cards, and i am not worried, "why should i be" ?

[abluegrape]

"Will Virgin Media listen"

Fat chance, VM and listen do not belong in the same sentence!

[Druchii]

Originally Posted by info4u

4 Meg

What model of modem do you have? Could be failing if it's an old model.

[djmagnifique]

Apparently 'Labour Always listens' as the headline in this news story states. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7369360.stm

I am aware that the story in the link has NOTHING to do with the internet but if Labour always listens then they should listen to the decison made by the MEP's.

I bet they don't though.

[Toto]

Originally Posted by djmagnifique

Apparently 'Labour Always listens' as the headline in this news story states. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7369360.stm

I am aware that the story in the link has NOTHING to do with the internet but if Labour always listens then they should listen to the decison made by the MEP's.

I bet they don't though.

Indeed, and its Brown's government that listened to President Sarcozy and offered to share information and ideas on how his (Sarkozy) plans to tackle copyright abuse could be realized by implementing an independant body with the authority to disconnect French subscribers who repeatedly abused copyright laws through their Internet connection.

The writing is on the wall, and the EU response to try and cover that writing with cheap whitewash and threats isn't going to change the fact that copyright abusers are on borrowed time.

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

I wonder how much money the MEP's have taken under the table,....oops sorry I meant through legitimate expense claims to pass this particular faux pas!

[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?

If there's evidence that an individual has committed an illegal act then the case should be decided in court.
Which the copyright lobby are seeking to avoid.
It's easy to see why. Just one excerpt (paraphrasing the defence lawyer in a US copyright case):

Lybeck figures that with all the potential errors in IP addresses collected by MediaSentry, the RIAA has gone after thousands of innocent people. He thinks the addresses could be erroneous as often as 20% of the time, which would mean 8,000 people wrongly accused. He believes that many innocent people have been coerced into paying because they can't afford to fight the RIAA in court.

The proposed three-strikes schemes are plainly arbitrary and offer no realistic means of defence.
*That's* were our civil liberties would be compromised.

[Toto]

Originally Posted by ceedee

If there's evidence that an individual has committed an illegal act then the case should be decided in court.
Which the copyright lobby are seeking to avoid.
It's easy to see why. Just one excerpt (paraphrasing the defence lawyer in a US copyright case):


The proposed three-strikes schemes are plainly arbitrary and offer no realistic means of defence.
*That's* were our civil liberties would be compromised.

Well, having seen how some of this evidence is collected, I am not sure the above quote is factually accurate. I appreciate that an innocent person may have a cause to complain, and there are catalogued instances where computers are compromised for that sole purpose. However if such an issue is brought to an Internet user in the first instance and they do not knowingly share rights protected material, it is in their interests to check the security of their PC/Network, and report back to the ISP anything they have found that could have caused this breach in the first place.

I agree that disconnection may be harsh, but a breach of civil liberty? No way.

[Griffin]

I got a good example of disconnection being against your civil liberties.
How about all the different companies that offer discounts for you to access your accounts & bills online, VM for example. Now imagine you innocently watch a film online or listen to music tracks online, the bands own websites often stream thier own songs. This process often involves the stream being downloaded as you are listening. I can see many people getting accused of downloading & being disconnected over this & thats where the civil liberties part comes in.

[Toto]

Originally Posted by Griffin

I got a good example of disconnection being against your civil liberties.
How about all the different companies that offer discounts for you to access your accounts & bills online, VM for example. Now imagine you innocently watch a film online or listen to music tracks online, the bands own websites often stream thier own songs. This process often involves the stream being downloaded as you are listening. I can see many people getting accused of downloading & being disconnected over this & thats where the civil liberties part comes in.

No again, I really don't think this applies.

You are not going to be chased by a rights holder for watching a free-to-air webcast or similar feed.

The issue is one of evidence, in that IP address A offfered by virtue of a connection protocal such as peer-to-peer or DC (Direct Connection - IRC Hub) to upload rights protected material to IP address B without express permission of the righhts holder. That is a breach of copyright, and is covered by nearly every ISP terms and conditions that you care to review.

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?

I know its extreme, but it is just a matter of scale.

If the prevention of access to the Internet is a breach of civil liberties when it is proved that the activity that lead to the termination of services was illegal, then we have a whole new problem to deal with.