View Single Post
Old 03-28-2011, 06:01 AM   #127
murraypaul
Interested Bystander
murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 3,726
Karma: 19728152
Join Date: Jun 2008
Device: Note 4, Kobo One
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
I entirely agree; they appear to have been little more than a bunch of cowboys. But this is entirely separate from discussions of the DEA.
It seems very similar. The ultimate part of the process would be rightsholders obtaining lists of subscribers and threatening or actually launching copyright proceedings against them.
For exactly the same reasons, they would be far happier if people just settled and paid a 'fine' rather than having to prove their case in court, and their standard of evidence would be the same as in the ACS:Law cases, that they have identified an IP address, not a person.
And in practice, are rightsholders going to do this themselves, or are they going to contract it out to the highest bidders? Which leads us back to cowboys like ACS: Law.

Incidentally, it looks as though the proposed rules would not make a person liable for hacked WEP WiFi:
Quote:
(6)The code must provide that, where a ground mentioned in subsection (3) is relied on, the appeal must be determined in favour of the subscriber if the subscriber shows that—

(a)the act constituting the apparent infringement to which the report relates was not done by the subscriber, and

(b)the subscriber took reasonable steps to prevent other persons infringing copyright by means of the internet access service
You would have an excellent argument that if your router was supplied by your ISP with preconfigured security settings, then it was reasonable to use it with those settings, even if they turned out not to be the most secure settings possible.
murraypaul is offline   Reply With Quote