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. Advertisements

  2. Gordon

    impossible Guest

    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.
    You might want to switch off meolodrama mode.
     
    impossible, Jul 5, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Gordon

    thingy Guest

    is this bad? rather than some spotty idiot on the hell desk making the
    call?
    I think that's going a bit far.
    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)....
    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

    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

    It is. Do the ISP's choose to do that?
     
    Me, Jul 6, 2009
    #5
  6. 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. It is. Do the ISP's choose to do that?[/QUOTE]

    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,

    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

    Well, I know of one case where a NZ ISP warned a user (hi misfit :) )[/QUOTE]

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

    Cheers,
     
    ~misfit~, Jul 7, 2009
    #9
  10. 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
    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.
    True.
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Jul 8, 2009
    #10
  11. Gordon

    ~misfit~ Guest

    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.
    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).
    Yeah, I *was* realy impressed by them until that episode.
    Cheers,
     
    ~misfit~, Jul 9, 2009
    #11
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.