Quote:
Originally Posted by mr ploppy
|
Again you've just posted a link without actually saying anything which is pretty unhelpful as I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make. This time you've just linked to the act itself so I guess you want me to back up that post you quoted right?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Digital Economy Act 2010
124A
Obligation to notify subscribers of copyright infringement reports.
(1)This section applies if it appears to a copyright owner that—.
(a)a subscriber to an internet access service has infringed the owner's copyright by means of the service; or.
(b)a subscriber to an internet access service has allowed another person to use the service, and that other person has infringed the owner's copyright by means of the service..
(2)The owner may make a copyright infringement report to the internet service provider who provided the internet access service if a code in force under section 124C or 124D (an “initial obligations code”) allows the owner to do so..
(3)A “copyright infringement report” is a report that—.
(a)states that there appears to have been an infringement of the owner's copyright;.
(b)includes a description of the apparent infringement;.
(c)includes evidence of the apparent infringement that shows the subscriber's IP address and the time at which the evidence was gathered;.
(d)is sent to the internet service provider within the period of 1 month beginning with the day on which the evidence was gathered; and.
(e)complies with any other requirement of the initial obligations code..
|
There. Now please explain how the legal requirement for a copyright owner to file a report which specifically includes evidence before the ISPs are required to do anything on their behalf doesn't make a mockery of your post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr ploppy
The law changes one important aspect of it — they no longer need any evidence. The accusation alone is enough to start the punishment process.
|