![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Is an English Man living in New Zealand. Not a writer, an Observer he says. Graham is a seasoned 'traveler" with his sometimes arrogant, but honest opinion on life. He loves the Internet!.
I have two shops online allshop.nz patchpinflag.nz
Email Me
tdgeek: I agree. Although there won't be court time as such, the charge will be handled by the Copyright Tribunal/Commission.
tdgeek: But there is supposed to be evidence provided, and that does need to be clear. If Guilty upon being accused as are parking tickets and speed camera notices, the evidence needs to be clear.
gzt:
There are no such evidential standards for notice generation related to peer to peer monitoring.
Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.
Talkiet:gzt:
There are no such evidential standards for notice generation related to peer to peer monitoring.
You don't know that... There have been discussions within the industry about accreditation of the rights holders, which would involve (as yet un-named) parties reviewing the procedures used by the rights holders to make sure they aren't simply picking IP numbers at random.
Cheers - N
gzt:
I don't expect ip numbers will be picked at random. What I do expect is at least some notice issuers will be using very simple minded monitoring like taking a list of addresses from public torrent trackers and automatically issuing infringement notices.
Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.
tdgeek: If the Act was not rushed through, and if those accused were innocent till proven guilty, that actually makes zero difference as far as I can see.
A downloader gets a notice. He/she is innocent till proven guilty. The rightsholder sends evidence to the commission, who accept it. The accused gets time to prove the documented evidence is incorrect. If he/she fails to do that, guilty, notice 1 is filed away. If the evidence shows an IP address up and/or downloaded a copyright file, and the ISP disclosed the accused was the owner of that IP at that date and time, how are you going to disprove that? Thats not something non P2P ers need to worry about as their IP won't be seen by rightsholders as they are not accessing copyright content. But users here keep arguing the fact that innocent users may get notices. Thats bizarre.
The ones at risk are the ones taking the risk.
karit: Adding random IPs to the tracker means that right holders must actively connect and take part so they move from mere monitoring to taking an active roll. Seeing they are taking an active role one could argue entrapment.
tardtasticx: I'll just drop this here.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |