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

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Gordon, Jul 5, 2009.

  1. Gordon

    Gordon Guest

    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.
     
    Gordon, Jul 5, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Gordon

    impossible Guest

    "Gordon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
     
    impossible, Jul 5, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Gordon

    thingy Guest

    On Jul 5, 8:20 pm, 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.


    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
     
    thingy, Jul 6, 2009
    #3
  4. Gordon

    Me Guest

    thingy wrote:
    > On Jul 5, 8:20 pm, Gordon <> 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.
     
    Me, Jul 6, 2009
    #4
  5. Gordon

    Me Guest

    Allistar wrote:
    > Me wrote:
    >
    >> thingy wrote:
    >>> On Jul 5, 8:20 pm, Gordon <> 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?
     
    Me, Jul 6, 2009
    #5
  6. In message <>, 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>.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 6, 2009
    #6
  7. In article <h2rs7t$d9s$>, Me <> 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 ...
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Jul 7, 2009
    #7
  8. Hi there,

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message <>, 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.
     
    Chris Wilkinson, Jul 7, 2009
    #8
  9. Gordon

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    > In article <h2rs7t$d9s$>, Me <>
    > 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'.
     
    ~misfit~, Jul 7, 2009
    #9
  10. In article <h2v39u$l1h$-september.org>, "~misfit~" <> wrote:
    >Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >> In article <h2rs7t$d9s$>, Me <>
    >> 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.
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Jul 8, 2009
    #10
  11. Gordon

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    > In article <h2v39u$l1h$-september.org>, "~misfit~"
    > <> wrote:
    >> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >>> In article <h2rs7t$d9s$>, Me
    >>> <> 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 ?


    There's the rub, difficult but not impossible. I outed him by digging
    through googlegroups searches (before they crippled it) and found where,
    once upon time, he'd posted to the group in question from a different email,
    which I traced back to him.

    I wouldn't have bothered except he kept acusing me of heinous acts using
    *my* real name. When he wrote to my ISP he claimed to be the person I named
    but not the one who was stalking me. They took his word for it.

    > 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 ?


    ISP in question told me they'd monitored the group for two days since they
    got complaint and saw a post ot two of mine calling him a bad word (or two).

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


    Yeah, I *was* realy impressed by them until that episode.

    > 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.


    Yeah.

    >>> 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.


    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'.
     
    ~misfit~, Jul 9, 2009
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    18
    Views:
    555
    Jimchip
    May 13, 2006
  2. Nik Coughlin

    Three strikes, you're out

    Nik Coughlin, Oct 14, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    570
    Richard
    Oct 14, 2008
  3. Harry Stottle
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,060
    Harry Stottle
    Jan 5, 2010
  4. Frank Williams

    Three Strikes Law

    Frank Williams, Mar 11, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    834
    Richard
    Mar 11, 2010
  5. peterwn

    Three strikes and static internet addresses

    peterwn, Nov 2, 2011, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,084
    Bruce Sinclair
    Nov 7, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page