The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Report on this is here if anyone's interested.
Surely if ISP's are made to pay this money they would have little option other than to pass these costs onto their customers ?.What about customers who never done anything ?,why should they be made to pay ?.Also there was part of that article which caught my attention :
''Under a scheme outlined earlier this year, rights holders will send IP address of customers caught downloading copyrighted material to Britain's major ISPs, which will then send warning letters to subscribers, with the potential for legal action for anyone sent three notifications within a year.''
''Britains Major ISP's'',what about ISP's that are not classed as ''Major'' ?.Also,once someone has had a second warning letter what is stopping them simply changing ISP's and presumably zeroing the count ?.
Seems like a pretty ill thought out effort from Dave and the boys at number 10 to me ?.Be interested to hear what the guys on here (including obviously Freeola staff) think of this proposed scheme.
Surely if ISP's are made to pay this money they would have little option other than to pass these costs onto their customers ?.What about customers who never done anything ?,why should they be made to pay ?.Also there was part of that article which caught my attention :
''Under a scheme outlined earlier this year, rights holders will send IP address of customers caught downloading copyrighted material to Britain's major ISPs, which will then send warning letters to subscribers, with the potential for legal action for anyone sent three notifications within a year.''
''Britains Major ISP's'',what about ISP's that are not classed as ''Major'' ?.Also,once someone has had a second warning letter what is stopping them simply changing ISP's and presumably zeroing the count ?.
Seems like a pretty ill thought out effort from Dave and the boys at number 10 to me ?.Be interested to hear what the guys on here (including obviously Freeola staff) think of this proposed scheme.
Page:
I don't believe that is cyncial at all. Just plain reading into what is obvious ;)
But anyway, we will see how companies handle it, if it comes about.
But like speed camera's the principal is one thing, how it is handled and seen is another :S
But anyway, we will see how companies handle it, if it comes about.
But like speed camera's the principal is one thing, how it is handled and seen is another :S
Warhunt wrote:
> The company will not necassarily have to start levying charges
> to all customers. What's to say they won't charge only the
> customers that are infringing these laws? Seems more than
> reasonable.
Yes that does seem reasonable to charge only the offenders but the general opinion is that ISP's will indeed have little choice other than to pass these costs onto all customers :
"The previous government admitted any extra cost on ISPs may push up the cost of broadband, making it unaffordable for thousands of vulnerable consumers who need internet access to get vital services and cheaper deals,"
Robert Hammond, head of Post and Digital Communications at Consumer Focus.
Source
This is also mentioned in the PC Pro article from my original post.If you were in anyway cynical you could possibly argue that the government have just found a very clever way to introduce an internet stealth tax !.
> The company will not necassarily have to start levying charges
> to all customers. What's to say they won't charge only the
> customers that are infringing these laws? Seems more than
> reasonable.
Yes that does seem reasonable to charge only the offenders but the general opinion is that ISP's will indeed have little choice other than to pass these costs onto all customers :
"The previous government admitted any extra cost on ISPs may push up the cost of broadband, making it unaffordable for thousands of vulnerable consumers who need internet access to get vital services and cheaper deals,"
Robert Hammond, head of Post and Digital Communications at Consumer Focus.
Source
This is also mentioned in the PC Pro article from my original post.If you were in anyway cynical you could possibly argue that the government have just found a very clever way to introduce an internet stealth tax !.
It doesn't have to be easy mate, they just have to do it. Due diligance is enough. Whilst the waitress may not be able to go around checking, the network will need monitoring in some form. Perhaps checking 1 in 5 or something. Or having customers sign to say that they will not do anything bad?
It's not going to work, but the company have tried. (Being an ex retail manager + alcohol license holder i had to learn a lot about due diligance).
Copyright laws are too ignored at the moment. Yet when was the last time you heard of someone moaning about how expensive games or the cinema was?
The company will not necassarily have to start levying charges to all customers. What's to say they won't charge only the customers that are infringing these laws? Seems more than reasonable.
It's not going to work, but the company have tried. (Being an ex retail manager + alcohol license holder i had to learn a lot about due diligance).
Copyright laws are too ignored at the moment. Yet when was the last time you heard of someone moaning about how expensive games or the cinema was?
The company will not necassarily have to start levying charges to all customers. What's to say they won't charge only the customers that are infringing these laws? Seems more than reasonable.
Warhunt wrote:
> Will comment, although only as my own opinion. Not that of
> Freeola :)
Thanks mate,as mentioned I'm interested to hear peoples views on this one.Liked your ''without prejudice'' bit above ! :)
>
> The scheme seems to make perfect sense if your last post is
> considered. By levying charges to the provider, it ensures that a
> certain level of due diligance is taken to prevent the breach of
> copyright laws.
But surely this will incur costs ISP's do not currently have ?,maybe they will be happy to cover these costs but somehow I kind of doubt that.I suspect these costs will need to handed onto the customer regardless of whether they have ever breached copyright laws or not ?.Is that not like making everyone pay towards speeding fines (may as well stay with the speeding theme !) even if they have never broke the speed limit in their life ?
> In your example the business (wi-fi enbled coffee shop, int
> cafe etc) is fully responsible for their internet connection and
> it's use. They will need to take precautions to ensure their
> connection is not used for that purpose.
How exactly is that supposed to work ?.Will waitresses have to walk around looking over peoples shoulders asking ''Oi !,have paid for that ?''.
> [/S]You can say that is not easy, but do car rental companies not have to ensure certain laws are adhered to? And many other
> companies etc etc.[/s]
No it's not that easy,I have broke the speed limit in many a hire car ! :D
> But getting back to the provider point (rather than the private
> level, be it company or home owned) the rule seems to be in place to increase diligance and effort put in by providers rather than punishing them.
That's a fair point and I agree that's where the thinking behind it has probably come from.In theory you could argue it's a good idea but what might work in theory may not necessarily work in practice.I feel that is exactly what will happen in this case,just my opinion.
Thanks for the response mate,like I said think it's an interesting topic to hear peoples views on.I wonder what people outside of the UK think of it ?.
> Will comment, although only as my own opinion. Not that of
> Freeola :)
Thanks mate,as mentioned I'm interested to hear peoples views on this one.Liked your ''without prejudice'' bit above ! :)
>
> The scheme seems to make perfect sense if your last post is
> considered. By levying charges to the provider, it ensures that a
> certain level of due diligance is taken to prevent the breach of
> copyright laws.
But surely this will incur costs ISP's do not currently have ?,maybe they will be happy to cover these costs but somehow I kind of doubt that.I suspect these costs will need to handed onto the customer regardless of whether they have ever breached copyright laws or not ?.Is that not like making everyone pay towards speeding fines (may as well stay with the speeding theme !) even if they have never broke the speed limit in their life ?
> In your example the business (wi-fi enbled coffee shop, int
> cafe etc) is fully responsible for their internet connection and
> it's use. They will need to take precautions to ensure their
> connection is not used for that purpose.
How exactly is that supposed to work ?.Will waitresses have to walk around looking over peoples shoulders asking ''Oi !,have paid for that ?''.
> [/S]You can say that is not easy, but do car rental companies not have to ensure certain laws are adhered to? And many other
> companies etc etc.[/s]
No it's not that easy,I have broke the speed limit in many a hire car ! :D
> But getting back to the provider point (rather than the private
> level, be it company or home owned) the rule seems to be in place to increase diligance and effort put in by providers rather than punishing them.
That's a fair point and I agree that's where the thinking behind it has probably come from.In theory you could argue it's a good idea but what might work in theory may not necessarily work in practice.I feel that is exactly what will happen in this case,just my opinion.
Thanks for the response mate,like I said think it's an interesting topic to hear peoples views on.I wonder what people outside of the UK think of it ?.
Will comment, although only as my own opinion. Not that of Freeola :)
The scheme seems to make perfect sense if your last post is considered. By levying charges to the provider, it ensures that a certain level of due diligance is taken to prevent the breach of copyright laws.
In your example the business (wi-fi enbled coffee shop, int cafe etc) is fully responsible for their internet connection and it's use. They will need to take precautions to ensure their connection is not used for that purpose.
You can say that is not easy, but do car rental companies not have to ensure certain laws are adhered to? And many other companies etc etc.
But getting back to the provider point (rather than the private level, be it company or home owned) the rule seems to be in place to increase diligance and effort put in by providers rather than punishing them.
That's the focus point. Like speed cameras (in an ideal world anyway), the point of them is to slow people down, not catch them.
The scheme seems to make perfect sense if your last post is considered. By levying charges to the provider, it ensures that a certain level of due diligance is taken to prevent the breach of copyright laws.
In your example the business (wi-fi enbled coffee shop, int cafe etc) is fully responsible for their internet connection and it's use. They will need to take precautions to ensure their connection is not used for that purpose.
You can say that is not easy, but do car rental companies not have to ensure certain laws are adhered to? And many other companies etc etc.
But getting back to the provider point (rather than the private level, be it company or home owned) the rule seems to be in place to increase diligance and effort put in by providers rather than punishing them.
That's the focus point. Like speed cameras (in an ideal world anyway), the point of them is to slow people down, not catch them.
Sonic Chris wrote:
> EDIT: On second thoughts, my post will probably just be removed
> (quite rightly seeing as Freeola is itself an ISP). I'll keep
> schtum ;D
That was a close one,looks like we almost almost got a second response there !
Anyway,at the very possible risk of talking to myself I have thought of yet another flaw in this proposed new scheme.What about shared or public connections such as those found in bars and cafe's ?,most in my town advertise free Wi-Fi.How is this scheme possibly going to work in those situations ?.I just think the whole operation is going to be like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling.The idea of trying to make a company partly responsible for any of it's customers actions is never going to work in practice IMO.If that was the case wouldn't motor manufacturers only make cars with a top speed of 69.9 MPH ?.
> EDIT: On second thoughts, my post will probably just be removed
> (quite rightly seeing as Freeola is itself an ISP). I'll keep
> schtum ;D
That was a close one,looks like we almost almost got a second response there !
Anyway,at the very possible risk of talking to myself I have thought of yet another flaw in this proposed new scheme.What about shared or public connections such as those found in bars and cafe's ?,most in my town advertise free Wi-Fi.How is this scheme possibly going to work in those situations ?.I just think the whole operation is going to be like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling.The idea of trying to make a company partly responsible for any of it's customers actions is never going to work in practice IMO.If that was the case wouldn't motor manufacturers only make cars with a top speed of 69.9 MPH ?.
EDIT: On second thoughts, my post will probably just be removed (quite rightly seeing as Freeola is itself an ISP). I'll keep schtum ;D
On the plus side these comments have probably just doubled the traffic through the tech forum ! :)
pete_21 wrote:
> Anyway,cheers for the (only!) response Warhunt.
Chin up! :¬)
That's one more than most of my posts get ;¬)
> Anyway,cheers for the (only!) response Warhunt.
Chin up! :¬)
That's one more than most of my posts get ;¬)
[s]Hmmm...[/s]
It just seems like a government exercise in PR to me.Can't see how it could possibly work in practice but I suppose we'll have to wait and see on that one ?.Regarding the points I made I was merely stating what jumped into my mind when I read the report.Can't imagine I am the only person who read it had thought that ?.Anyway,cheers for the (only!) response Warhunt.
Page: