«

[Xhumed]

New legislation about restricting internet access to anyone deemed to have downloaded copyrighted material has been discussed here in previous posts and now the first stage of the legislation has been passed in France.

New legislation passed in France.

It's still not been defined just how evidence that someone has downloaded copyrighted material will be collected, it's been suggested that the copyright holder would have to contact the downloaders ISP but how the hell is the copyright holder going to know who has been illegally downloading their material?

The ISP's don't want the job which involves them being the judge and jury and intercepting their customers internet connection and spying on them with DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) this obviously is not going to make them very popular, the biggest worry is that when a law is passed in any EU country it is often then adopted in other EU countries so it probably won't be long before similar laws are used in most of Europe and probably the world especially in the USA.

ISP's don't want to be judge and jury!

[_r.u.s.s.]

but france had this law for quite a while already

[CrybKeeper]

EDITED: Actually, The service provider is a field I have researched and wrote about.

Nearly all ISP's have a service and mission statement, which will include these lines; We are a public Service Provider. Our aim is to provide a secure connection to media content.
I have two phone calls stating: they are a convenience and a luxury service provider.
What this clearly means, is your ISP should pay for a secure service and protect the customer, which is included in the fee to said customer. i.e. We, the end-users, should never have to pay for anti-viral software, subscriptions to parental controls, or any other 3rd party protection, while being provided a secure public service by an ISP.

In a nutshell, ISP's claims, demand they pay for Norton, not you and I.

This translates to, The very same ISP, should be protecting all sides, including the copyright holder and if necessary, the ISP should also provide insurances.

Further translation: Higher bill from your ISP.

[Xhumed]

Originally Posted by _r.u.s.s.

but france had this law for quite a while already

Probably "Sarkozy" just telling everyone that it was law before it was, Sarkozy = :lecher:

Originally Posted by CrybKeeper

Actually, The service provider is a field I have researched and wrote about.

Nearly all ISP's have a service and mission statement, which will include these lines; Our aim is to provide a secure connection to media content. We are a public Service Provider and considered a public utility.

What this clearly means, is your ISP should pay for a secure service and protect the customer, which is included in the fee to said customer. i.e. We, the end-users, should never have to pay for anti-viral software, subscriptions to parental controls, or any other 3rd party protection, while being provided a secure public utility by an ISP.

In a nutshell, ISP's claims, demand they pay for Norton, not you and I.

This translates to, The very same ISP, should be protecting all sides, including the copyright holder and if necessary, the ISP should also provide insurances.

Further translation: Higher bill from your ISP.

My ISP sent me about ten emails saying how wonderful they are for adding a spam filter to their email system but it's so crap hardly anyone uses it

[red_avatar]

I turned their spam filter off. I'd rather have spam than have lost mail. While I used it, over 100 mails got lost in the space of two months. I do say "lost" because they delete the blocked mail - unlike Google which puts it in a "spam" folder for you to browse "just in case". Oh, did I mention they had activated this filter without notifying me? I had to manually turn it off! Man, I was pissed off. This was during my unemployment time, and I had received several emails from companies that got nuked by my ISP.

[Fruit Pie Jones]

Originally Posted by CrybKeeper

Nearly all ISP's have a service and mission statement, which will include these lines; Our aim is to provide a secure connection to media content. We are a public Service Provider and considered a public utility.

Really? Can you provide a citation of an ISP policy document that states that they are in any way responsible for security? That seems like a one-way express ticket to Litigation Hell. My own ISP's policies clearly state "You are solely responsible for the security of any device connected to the Service, including any data stored on that device." They then go into significant detail in explaining the various ways in which I am responsible for the security of anything I connect to their service. Any ISP claiming to provide a secure connection to the Internet had better have a very clear definition of "secure connection" in their policy documents - and the means to back up their claim - or they're asking for a big, steaming pile of trouble.

[CrybKeeper]

Originally Posted by Fruit Pie Jones

Really? Can you provide a citation of an ISP policy document that states that they are in any way responsible for security? That seems like a one-way express ticket to Litigation Hell. My own ISP's policies clearly state "You are solely responsible for the security of any device connected to the Service, including any data stored on that device." They then go into significant detail in explaining the various ways in which I am responsible for the security of anything I connect to their service. Any ISP claiming to provide a secure connection to the Internet had better have a very clear definition of "secure connection" in their policy documents - and the means to back up their claim - or they're asking for a big, steaming pile of trouble.

Well, I did goof it somewhat. I went back and found an archived e-mail from then. I meant to say, ISP's claim they are NOT a public utility, but they do claim, they are a convenience and a household luxury service.

Yes, I actually had several e-mails from others who stood on my side with this. One e-mail from Spyware Review Magazine, boldly states I am absolutely correct.

Time Warner and Cox Cable, both stated in phone conversations, they are not considered a public utility, but are a luxury and convenience. This gives them the right to refuse services at their choosing. This also means, they MUST provide a convenient web service with a luxurious feel. Wouldn't this automatically imply a safe experience also?

Analogy:

If I book a hotel room and lock my door. However, the Hotel leaves their back entrance open, inviting thieves in, shouldn't I have the right to compensation and even better, preventative safety measures in place? Security guard, cameras? This is because, a Hotel is a convenience service provider and all ISP's, clearly define themselves as the same.

ISP's are the final wall between me and the bad guys. My primary cost for this convenience goes to the ISP.

[Hawkzombie]

Sheesh...makes me glad I`m in Canada...

[dosraider]

Believe me, a lot of us are glad you're far away in Canada.
:tongue:

[Xhumed]

A little update on the three strikes issue, I emailed all seven of the MEP's in my part of the country regarding three strikes and their response has been frankly pathetic :mad:
One says that he thinks that "Unfortunately I fear that you have been misled with respect to the proposed changes to the EU communications framework laws. The reforms are intended to open up choice and competition, not restrict it.
Existing National laws across the EU already allow operators to provide differentiated services, accommodating the diverse needs and desires of consumers across the market place."

Notice anything missing? He has not understood the reforms or even mentioned the three strikes issue!

Another MEP replied, "I am pleased to inform you that the committee voted to ensure that no restrictions were imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of internet users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities."

and" This report will now go forward to the Council of Ministers for their decision. While the European Parliament has voted to protect the rights of internet users, there is a risk that the amendments will get voted down by the Council.
France has been championing the three-strikes legislations and is likely to block these developments. I am aware that the UK along with France is pushing strongly to change the wording agreed by the Parliament. This action will delay the progress of the report and put at risk the many important aspects in this package which will increase competition and boost jobs. I therefore urge you to raise your concerns with the UK Government and ask them to support the article which ensures that an internet cut-off can only be imposed after approval from a competent legal authority."

This guy at least seems to understand a bit about what's going on although his information is out of date because he replied by snail mail and France has now passed the three strikes bill.

The other five MEP's have not replied, probably too busy filling in their expenses forms and negotiating with their accountants (payed for with tax payers money) ways to avoid paying back the expenses they claimed by "MISTAKE"