2009/2/20 Matthew Somerville <[email protected]>: > Rob . wrote: >> In a radio interview the (former) Minister in charge of the bill, >> Judith Tizard, said: >> >> "yes it is easier for ISPs, Internet Service Providers, >> to cut off anyone who might be breaking the law, um, >> but you know, you can go to a library and use the >> Internet, and you can go to another ISP." > > Sure, but what does that have to do with what the law actually says, > which Francis quoted, and doesn't say the same thing? Just because a > Minister says something doesn't make it true.
The law requires that the ISP (which is so broadly defined it includes libraries providing internet access, or public wifi points) to "adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination". There is no mention of a court finding someone guilty of infringing based on some standard of evidence. Instead it is the ISP that is to be the police, court, judge and sentencer. The minister's point is that the easiest way for an ISP to handle this would be to err on the side of the accuser and terminate the connection of "anyone who *might*" be infringing. There is an opt-in draft Internet Service Provider (ISP) Copyright Code of Practice that some ISPs from the Telecommunications Carriers' Forum have made up: http://www.tcf.org.nz/library/2e53bf81-d6c4-4735-9ed0-740e8b2c6af3.cmr I'm reading it now, but it's a) opt-in, b) not the law, c) putting a large administrative burden on ISPs and the so-called downstream ISPs (e.g. libraries, hotel wifi, wifi hotspots etc). > ATB, > Matthew > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list [email protected] > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
