Rob . wrote: > 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".
Indeed, but that's not the whole section. I'll quote the entire section 92A again: "92A Internet service provider must have policy for terminating accounts of repeat infringers "(1) An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer. "(2) In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner. > 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. Where does it say that in subsection (2)? It's a factual statement - a repeat infringer is someone who has repeatedly infringed the copyright in a work etc. - nothing about "in the opinion of the internet service provider" or "in the opinion of the copyright owner". I can't see how it can be read any other way but that a repeat infringer has to actually have repeatedly infringed the copyright in a work etc. Can you point me to some legal interpretation that says otherwise? I'm really interested, I'm not trying to say I agree with the law or anything, but I really can't see the interpretation that you're putting on it. ATB, Matthew _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
