|
Carphone Warehouse will not comply with 'three strikes' copyright plan
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 6 April, 2008
Carphone Warehouse has revealed that it has no intention of cooperating with the record industry's BPI or the UK Government in a plan to disconnect users who are caught engaging in illegal file sharing activities. "Our position is very clear, we are the conduit that gives users access to the Internet, we do not control the Internet nor do we control what our users do on the Internet," CPW ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
6. April 2008 @ 22:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
Good for carphone wharehouse. At least they believe in habeas corpus.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
sgriesch
Junior Member
|
6. April 2008 @ 22:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
Carphone Warehouse is exactly right. They are not responsible for the traffic on their servers. My analogy is that the government provides the roads that we drive on. If I have an accident is it the governments fault because it happened on their road? I don't think so.
|
Junior Member
2 product reviews
|
7. April 2008 @ 03:23 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
We are not asking ISPs to act as the police
That's right, the BPI is doing all the policing here, ISP need not trouble themselves with that sort of extra work.
|
|
eiamhere
Junior Member
|
7. April 2008 @ 11:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
"We are asking them to act on information we provide to them."
There are many problems with this, I believe above is one of the largest.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
7. April 2008 @ 14:38 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sgriesch:
Carphone Warehouse is exactly right. They are not responsible for the traffic on their servers. My analogy is that the government provides the roads that we drive on. If I have an accident is it the governments fault because it happened on their road? I don't think so.
Absolutely correct. Goverments are at fault on the account of drunk drivers too by the same faulty logic. Get real !!!
"The flimsier the product,the higher the price"
Ferengi 82nd rule of aqusition
 |
|
fgamer
Suspended permanently
|
7. April 2008 @ 16:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ok, don't they realize this takes time and money to police all their customers the way they want it done? I think it's crazy how these 3rd party companys can dictate what an ISP should have to do to protect the music industrys rights when they should be responsible for DRM'ing their own music more securely themselfs. What they want these ISP's to do is on the same lines as the Cable company demanding TV makers to disable someones television if they're caught stealing cable 3 times. It makes no senes and should not be legal/allowed!! Government seems to neglect protecting it's citizens from all this bullS**t!! Perhaps because they're in the pockets of some of these anti-consumer companys!
|
|
DjDanio
Newbie
|
7. April 2008 @ 17:05 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sgriesch:
Carphone Warehouse is exactly right. They are not responsible for the traffic on their servers. My analogy is that the government provides the roads that we drive on. If I have an accident is it the governments fault because it happened on their road? I don't think so.
Commit enough offences and you're banned from the roads.
Crap analogy mate.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
7. April 2008 @ 17:57 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by sgriesch:
Carphone Warehouse is exactly right. They are not responsible for the traffic on their servers. My analogy is that the government provides the roads that we drive on. If I have an accident is it the governments fault because it happened on their road? I don't think so.
Quote:
Commit enough offences and you're banned from the roads.
Crap analogy mate
.
No, I disagree with your conclusion as there are (a whole bunch of) unlicensed drivers, or am I incorrect ? Now how do you get rid of all of them ?
|
|
sssharp
Junior Member
|
7. April 2008 @ 19:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
sgriesch provided a good point. With the drunk drivers do the liquor/beer sellers stop them, no. Can we sue the govt/liquor stores/makers for providing the items to the wrong hands, no. These analogies can be used many different ways. DjDanio, they attempt to ban people from the road but their are people who will drive. If they want all of the downloading to stop send us back to the 80's where the internet was an unknown process to the basic consumer.
|
Senior Member
|
8. April 2008 @ 05:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
Looks like ill be joining the car phone warehouse virgin media wont need to give me 3 strikes as soon as they send me the first letter ill be off take my hard earned £25 a month somewhere else somewhere were my provider isn?t telling me what and not I cant do
|
|
hobo155
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
8. April 2008 @ 14:20 |
Link to this message
|
So the ISP's should disconnect user and warn users based upon the evidence provided by the BPI? The ISP's are supposed to take the word of the BPI, and to just assume that the BPI is providing the information correctly. Who polices the BPI to make sure that they are doing their jobs properly? What if an ISP suspends or kicks a user from it's services based on incorrect info from the BPI? The only evidence the BPI and other such groups rely on is an IP address and mostly the name of a file, and in the case of torrents, only the name of a .torrent file. What if you were a member of the tor network or were offering a proxy service and your IP address just happened to route through p2p traffic? You would end up getting a warning or kicked from your ISP just because of your IP address!
I am glad to see an ISP standing up for the users for a change. They should not be held accountable for illegal files the same way that cell phone companies are not responsible for monitoring for illegal chatter on their phone networks. The next thing you know the BPI will be after the internet cafes to monitor users activities and make sure they don't download something illegal. The BPI should do something useful with their organization, rather than going after teenagers who just want to hear their favorite groups latest album, or people like you and me that just find it easier to have DRM free music rather than the likes of iTunes telling me how and from what I am allowed to listen to music.
|
|
DRokKer
Newbie
|
8. April 2008 @ 14:34 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by killalot:
Looks like ill be joining the car phone warehouse virgin media wont need to give me 3 strikes as soon as they send me the first letter ill be off take my hard earned £25 a month somewhere else somewhere were my provider isn?t telling me what and not I cant do
that makes two of us.
|
|
sgriesch
Junior Member
|
8. April 2008 @ 23:23 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by DjDanio:
Originally posted by sgriesch:
Carphone Warehouse is exactly right. They are not responsible for the traffic on their servers. My analogy is that the government provides the roads that we drive on. If I have an accident is it the governments fault because it happened on their road? I don't think so.
Commit enough offences and you're banned from the roads.
Crap analogy mate.
Not if it's another person's fault, or if I hit a deer, or if I slide on a patch of ice. Still the governments fault?
It's offenses not "of fences".
Crap spelling mate.
|
|
sgriesch
Junior Member
|
8. April 2008 @ 23:31 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sssharp:
sgriesch provided a good point. With the drunk drivers do the liquor/beer sellers stop them, no. Can we sue the govt/liquor stores/makers for providing the items to the wrong hands, no. These analogies can be used many different ways. DjDanio, they attempt to ban people from the road but their are people who will drive. If they want all of the downloading to stop send us back to the 80's where the internet was an unknown process to the basic consumer.
That's exactly right. What if someone piggy-backs off another person's connection? Even if something is encrypted it's still not full-proof. Innocent until proven guilty in this country (in theory).
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
mav2k5
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
9. June 2008 @ 19:24 |
Link to this message
|
I'm not with virgin media anymore but if i were and I received one of these warning letters, I would simply do the following:-
Contact my solicitor (if the letter comes from yourself no matter how valid the points, it does not carry any force unlike a solicitors letter will) and have these questions asked :-
1. Provide to myself the evidence on which you make these claims.
2. How did you acquire this information about myself?
I doubt anyone would receive a reply, as in the vast majority of cases the evidence is either very weak or none existent in terms of standing up in a court of law, and most importantly they will have had to spy on your personal usage which most definitely includes accessing your pc in some fashion without your prior consent, this is in my country, ILLEGAL!!
|
