Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Three Strikes and you are out, Judge says so, not ISP.

Reply
Thread Tools

Three Strikes and you are out, Judge says so, not ISP.

 
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-05-2009
July isuse of NetGuide, page 18.

Article says that France's highest legal body says that the three strikes and
you are out for illegal downloading can only be given by a Judge. Internet
access is a Human Right. Thus to have this taken away needs to have the
legal system to say so.

France, that country which was so in your face nuclear testing not in my
backyard, now has given a bomb of another kind to the movie industry.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-05-2009

"Gordon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> July isuse of NetGuide, page 18.
>
> Article says that France's highest legal body says that the three strikes
> and
> you are out for illegal downloading can only be given by a Judge. Internet
> access is a Human Right. Thus to have this taken away needs to have the
> legal system to say so.
>


I doubt that anyone who regularly pirates copyrighted works in France is
cheering. Internet piracy remains a crime in France, and the anti-piracy
surveillance system there remains fully operational. Even if the prospect of
being dragged before a judge to answer charges of illegal downloading might
seem remote at this point, those few cases that are tried and proven will
almost certainly be dealt with harshly.

> France, that country which was so in your face nuclear testing not in my
> backyard, now has given a bomb of another kind to the movie industry.
>
>


You might want to switch off meolodrama mode.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
thingy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2009
On Jul 5, 8:20*pm, Gordon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> July isuse of NetGuide, page 18.
>
> Article says that France's highest legal body says that the three strikes and
> you are out for illegal downloading can only be given by a Judge.


is this bad? rather than some spotty idiot on the hell desk making the
call?

> Internet
> access is a Human Right.


I think that's going a bit far.

> Thus to have this taken away needs to have the
> legal system to say so.


I agree...however this depends on "taken away"....does your car get
confiscated for 5kmh over the limit? no....20? no, 50? yes....seems
fair....ditto downloading, say a month's dis-connect and court costs,
next time 3 months, next time 6months...depeding on the quantity as
well of course....I hardly think 2 or 3 youtube downloads should earn
a 30 day ban....downlaoding a 1 TB of movies? yes....3 month ban
(say)....

> France, that country which was so in your face nuclear testing not in my
> backyard, now has given a bomb of another kind to the movie industry.


huh? I think it reasonable that the movie industry has to prove in
front of a judge that it has a fair and reasonable justification for
dis-connecting you for a period....especially as they have been proven
wrong in the past.

Or am i missing what you are trying to say here?

regards

Thing




 
Reply With Quote
 
Me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2009
thingy wrote:
> On Jul 5, 8:20 pm, Gordon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Internet
>> access is a Human Right.

>
> I think that's going a bit far.
>

I don't. It is a right in the same way as it is for any free person to
buy a newspaper, post a letter, use a telephone, or talk to someone they
meet on the street.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2009
Allistar wrote:
> Me wrote:
>
>> thingy wrote:
>>> On Jul 5, 8:20 pm, Gordon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> Internet
>>>> access is a Human Right.
>>> I think that's going a bit far.
>>>

>> I don't. It is a right in the same way as it is for any free person to
>> buy a newspaper, post a letter, use a telephone, or talk to someone they
>> meet on the street.

>
> If someone continually abuses their telephone (making prank calls etc) then
> it's fair enough that their provider of phone services can stop doing
> business with them.
>
> If someone with an internet connection abuses it (by getting involved in
> illegal activity such as spamming or downloading data they don't have
> permission to download) then it's reasonable that the ISP can stop doing
> business with them.

It is. Do the ISP's choose to do that?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2009
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Gordon wrote:

> July isuse of NetGuide, page 18.
>
> Article says that France's highest legal body says that the three strikes
> and you are out for illegal downloading can only be given by a Judge.


How about this: give the judge a maximum of five minutes to make a ruling
<http://techdirt.com/articles/20090704/1607575444.shtml>.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Sinclair
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2009
In article <h2rs7t$d9s$(E-Mail Removed)>, Me <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
(snip)

>> If someone with an internet connection abuses it (by getting involved in
>> illegal activity such as spamming or downloading data they don't have
>> permission to download) then it's reasonable that the ISP can stop doing
>> business with them.

>It is. Do the ISP's choose to do that?


Well, I know of one case where a NZ ISP warned a user (hi misfit )
because of a complaint. That the complaint appeared malicious, however,
didn't seem to matter to them ... so we have to be really careful here. What
(if any) standard of proof of wrong doing should be required ? Certainly an
unsubstantiated complaint is not sufficient. So what is ? Seems to me that
malicious use of a phone is a good parallel ... and telecom regularly fail
to act unless the behaviour is *really* bad. Even when it is, you are
more likely to get a warning than a dead line. Maybe it's a bit like smoking
pot ? ... if you aren't stupid enough to do it in front of a policeman, you
won't usually get hassled ? I guess that's comforting.

That said, I guess ISPs are private companies who can deal (or not) with
whoever they like - probably without reasons most of the time. There are
other ISPs of course, but ...



 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Wilkinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-07-2009
Hi there,

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Gordon wrote:
>
>> July isuse of NetGuide, page 18.
>>
>> Article says that France's highest legal body says that the three strikes
>> and you are out for illegal downloading can only be given by a Judge.

>
> How about this: give the judge a maximum of five minutes to make a ruling
> <http://techdirt.com/articles/20090704/1607575444.shtml>.



Nice. How long does the defendant get to plead their case, 30 seconds?

Democracy should be removed from the dictionary, for I don't believe
it has ever existed other than in the minds of some visionaries.

Kind regards,

Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
 
Reply With Quote
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-07-2009
Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bruce Sinclair wrote:
> In article <h2rs7t$d9s$(E-Mail Removed)>, Me <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote: (snip)
>
>>> If someone with an internet connection abuses it (by getting
>>> involved in illegal activity such as spamming or downloading data
>>> they don't have permission to download) then it's reasonable that
>>> the ISP can stop doing business with them.

>> It is. Do the ISP's choose to do that?

>
> Well, I know of one case where a NZ ISP warned a user (hi misfit )


Hi.

> because of a complaint. That the complaint appeared malicious,
> however, didn't seem to matter to them ... so we have to be really
> careful here.


Yep, the guy was a troll, I called him some names (such as half of the posts
in nz.general consist of nowhere near as bad as he'd called me, except he
used a remailer / anonymiser), he complained to my ISP and they said I'd now
been given my one and only warning. One more occurance and I'd lose my
connection without warning. Their T&C state that you can't use their service
to defame anyone.. fullstop. Pretty scary really, it essentially means I
can't express an opinion about a person unless that opinion is flattering
towards said person. (You've got wonderful eyes....)

I no longer use their NTP server (even though they're one of the few NZ ISPs
who actually do quite well in that regard) and I also no longer recommend
them (and I get asked several times a month for my opinion on which ISP to
use).

> What (if any) standard of proof of wrong doing should
> be required ? Certainly an unsubstantiated complaint is not
> sufficient. So what is ? Seems to me that malicious use of a phone is
> a good parallel ... and telecom regularly fail to act unless the
> behaviour is *really* bad. Even when it is, you are
> more likely to get a warning than a dead line. Maybe it's a bit like
> smoking pot ? ... if you aren't stupid enough to do it in front of a
> policeman, you won't usually get hassled ? I guess that's comforting.
>
>
> That said, I guess ISPs are private companies who can deal (or not)
> with whoever they like - probably without reasons most of the time.
> There are other ISPs of course, but ...


But... indeed. It's a PITA to change ISPs and there's the "devil you know"
factor to take in to account.

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll
be warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Sinclair
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-07-2009
In article <h2v39u$l1h$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, "~misfit~" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>> In article <h2rs7t$d9s$(E-Mail Removed)>, Me <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote: (snip)
>>>> If someone with an internet connection abuses it (by getting
>>>> involved in illegal activity such as spamming or downloading data
>>>> they don't have permission to download) then it's reasonable that
>>>> the ISP can stop doing business with them.
>>> It is. Do the ISP's choose to do that?

>>
>> Well, I know of one case where a NZ ISP warned a user (hi misfit )

>
>Hi.
>
>> because of a complaint. That the complaint appeared malicious,
>> however, didn't seem to matter to them ... so we have to be really
>> careful here.

>
>Yep, the guy was a troll, I called him some names (such as half of the posts
>in nz.general consist of nowhere near as bad as he'd called me, except he
>used a remailer / anonymiser), he complained to my ISP and they said I'd now
>been given my one and only warning. One more occurance and I'd lose my
>connection without warning. Their T&C state that you can't use their service
>to defame anyone.. fullstop.


Yeah ... hang on tho ...
1) to defame someone they have to be identified surely ? Sounds like this
chap went to extraordinary lengths to make that impossible, yes ?
2) isn't truth (or an honestly held opinion) an absolute defence ?
3) Doesn't defamation have to be proven rather than an allegation just be
made ?

Hmmm ... doesn't look so good for the (otherwise exemplary IMO) ISP here.

Pretty scary really, it essentially means I
>can't express an opinion about a person unless that opinion is flattering
>towards said person. (You've got wonderful eyes....)




>I no longer use their NTP server (even though they're one of the few NZ ISPs
>who actually do quite well in that regard) and I also no longer recommend
>them (and I get asked several times a month for my opinion on which ISP to
>use).


Yes, well ... I might be reconsidering doing so as well. I didn't know that
they were talking 'defamation' as an excuse for their behaviour. hmmm ...
pity.

>> What (if any) standard of proof of wrong doing should
>> be required ? Certainly an unsubstantiated complaint is not
>> sufficient. So what is ? Seems to me that malicious use of a phone is
>> a good parallel ... and telecom regularly fail to act unless the
>> behaviour is *really* bad. Even when it is, you are
>> more likely to get a warning than a dead line. Maybe it's a bit like
>> smoking pot ? ... if you aren't stupid enough to do it in front of a
>> policeman, you won't usually get hassled ? I guess that's comforting.
>>
>>
>> That said, I guess ISPs are private companies who can deal (or not)
>> with whoever they like - probably without reasons most of the time.
>> There are other ISPs of course, but ...

>
>But... indeed. It's a PITA to change ISPs and there's the "devil you know"
>factor to take in to account.


True.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Three strikes and static internet addresses peterwn NZ Computing 13 11-07-2011 12:08 AM
IP-Address Is Not a Person, BitTorrent Case Judge Says William Brown NZ Computing 0 05-05-2011 03:23 AM
Three strikes and your city gets reconstructed? William Brown NZ Computing 0 04-14-2011 05:01 AM
Re: Three Mobile --> Skype on three (Non-three [Symbian - Nokia] handsets) Harry Stottle UK VOIP 0 01-05-2010 08:59 AM
Three strikes, you're out Nik Coughlin NZ Computing 2 10-14-2008 07:02 AM



Advertisments