Quote:
Originally Posted by mr ploppy
4 to 6 are about the copyright holder's ability to persue a civil case against infringers, something they already had the power to do. There is still no requirement for any evidence for any stage up to and including an entire family being denied access to the internet.
|
As you very well know, there is no provision for anyone being "denied access to the internet" in the current law. That would require secondary legislation. There is currently an investigation being conducted by the Parliamentary Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, into the Act. Perhaps we should wait and hear the outcome of their report before we jump to conclusions about what may or may not happen? Given that there's been a change of government since the original law was passed, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Act were to be changed.
Quote:
|
But you still haven't explained how people are supposed to prove their innocence, especially without any Legal Aid.
|
There is no requirement to prove innocence. The burden of responsibility is, as always, on the accuser to prove guilt. This law does absolutely nothing to change the level of evidence required for a conviction; I'm not sure why you think that it does? You say that courts have ruled that an IP address does not constitute proof of illegal activities. If that's the case, then people have nothing to worry about.