Simon Rika
Since: 2009-02-19 13:47:41.061
Posts: 2
Posted at 2009-02-19 13:53:43.427. Permalink.
Here is the text of Section 92A:
“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.”
That is it! So here is a “policy” that “provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances” of "repeat infringers":
“Any user convicted in a court of law of repeat copyright infringement shall have their account terminated, if so ordered by that court.”
Can someone tell me how that DOESN’T fully and completely comply with section 92A without infringing on our rights?
Don’t believe the lies. This is not a law that is wrong, it is a stealth move by the ISP’s to start banning heavy data users.
Count on it. Even if section 92A is repealed tomorrow, you can bet this code of practice will remain.
Quentin Todd
Since: 2007-11-03 07:27:50.433
Posts: 68
Posted at 2009-02-20 06:38:40.662. Permalink.
The Internet is a core service provider to business, personal and educational users. It is the main thread of commerce, communications and friendship connections. Any attempt to limit that connection by any means, is an infringement of a basic right- true? The user pays for the service- therefore they have a right to use that service as they see fit- within reason of course, in light of ethics, morality and sheer common sense. I don't want child porn on the Internet for example. So the question of piracy has to come in two parts:
a. how do we get ISPs to NOT limit the rights of users?
b. how can we define 'piracy' and what does it mean when Simon Rika says 'heavy data users' can that be defined as 'piracy'? Why ban 'heavy data users'?
Matthew Holloway
Since: 2009-03-03 23:38:39.976
Posts: 1
Posted at 2009-03-03 23:45:56.913. Permalink.
That is it! So here is a “policy” that “provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances” of "repeat infringers":
“Any user convicted in a court of law of repeat copyright infringement shall have their account terminated, if so ordered by that court.”
Can someone tell me how that DOESN’T fully and completely comply with section 92A without infringing on our rights?
It's quite easy to explain that -- waiting for a court judgment probably isn't "appropriate". Australian ISPs that have sent infringement notices to the police have been taken to court for not dealing with this in an appropriate way. Until there is case law establishing what this vague law says then we won't know how to even obey the law.
Even Judith Tizard said that this would cut off people who "might be breaking the law", not those who were found guilty in a court of law.
So that's why your policy isn't valid, and that's why what people is saying is true.
If you have any more questions please feel free to email me on
Thanks
