News - Ofcom 'three strikes' policy for illegal downloaders

[kalniel]

That's really confusing, as BoingBoing points out: "Even though British law exempts people who provide Internet access from liability for their users' copyright infringements, the pub was still fined (the details of this are confused). "
http://boingboing.net/2009/11/28/pub...k-after-u.html

It seems that the case in general is shrouded in mystery though as places are claiming the pub won't give any information out to the public.

Insane though.

It is completely messed up, I agree. Some legal commentators on that situation were mentioning the different between ISPs and subscribers - subscribers would be liable, ISPs wouldn't.. but under the recent acts they would have to pass on the details of their own subscribers.

Of course, that's talking about authorised use (which I guess is implicit if the wifi is unsecured/you give login details). Unauthorised use is already illegal (and has been upheld in court) so I guess it'd be a matter of forensic evidence if you were to put forward the argument of being a victim of crime (unauthorised use of network) instead of acting illegally. Should be relatively easy to tell from examination.

[Spamy]

court order to reveal the identity of the suspected digital thief

Digital thief? That's not quite accurate, nothing is being stolen.

Also ISPs should not have to pay any money towards this, if we're going to use bad analogies then it's like making alcohol producers pay part of the cost of charging driving under the influence offenders.

I wonder if they've taken any notice of the three-strikes system in France; apparently, it has actually reduced the amount of piracy (assuming it's not all shifted to untraceable routes), but there has been no corresponding increase in media sales. What was that, Media companies? Piracy is impacting on your sales? Are you sure?

I remember reading that piracy was on the decline in France before HADOPI was even passed.