[LINK] When private cops get out of hand...
rick at praxis.com.au
Sun Apr 15 11:31:27 EST 2007
rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au wrote:
> "Fed up with falling sales, the industry ... has been discussing tough
> new guidelines"
> And the industry's response to this?
>> "Under this system, people who illegally download songs would be given
>> three written warnings by their Internet service provider.
>> If they continued to illegally download songs, their internet account
>> would be suspended or terminated.
>> Those with dial-up internet could face having their phone disconnected.
> So now we have a private company deciding that it should be empowered to
> decide who has the right to a telephone line.
Well, we don't have this situation *now*.
Legislation would need to be passed. As well, a right of reply and to
offer your defense would be necessary. The burden of proof would lay
with the record company in conjunction with the ISP to prove an
infringement. It would be my right to examine the evidence and request
an audit if need be.
Something as simple as a mismatch between IP address and customer account
could easily occur. Especially with dynamic IPs.
Another mitigating factor would be an open and insecure home wireless
network that has been hijacked.
And another factor: machine ownership / zombie box syndrome. Who is to
say that the pr0n and p2p software running on a hacked PC was actually
installed and run by its owner?
Any other factors that would affect the fairness of such a proposal?
Something in the article bothers me. How do record companies now *know*
that certain people are downloading certain things? Isn't the implementation
of such snooping illegal and tantamount to wiretapping? I can feel
a new thread coming on: exactly who has the right to eavesdrop on
my Internet traffic? Certainly not *everyone*?!
Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services
His mother should have thrown him away and kept the stork.
-- Mae West
More information about the Link