Would you please look at the matter.

Ivor Hughes

I don’t want to listen? Ive asked over and over for someone to show me where the laws says what these people are claiming. I have shown over and over again that it doesn, and shown that it is the ISP’s that are driving this despite their lies to the contrary, and no one has disproved my claim.

So how can you say I am not listening? Sure you can CLAIM anything you want, but when I PROVE its wrong and you FAIL to PROVE your CLAIM is right, then who is the one not listening?

And what PARANOIA? I can give you th link to the ISP “union” that PROVES the ISP’s want to be able to disconnect you WITHOUT NOTICE, for activites they “reasonably believe” is “illegal” or excessive, and that this PREDATED the amendment to the Copyright Act.

http://www.tcf.org.nz/content/6399c632-f5c1-4a4b-9ccd-46c95be72cc1.html

“The TCF established a working party in September 2007 who developed a draft non-regulated Code for disconnection to meet the following objectives:”

At that page you will find a link to the PDF of the code, where you will find:

“A Service Provider may only Suspend or Restrict a Service without informing the
Customer if the Service Provider reasonably deems the Customer’s activity to
be malicious, illegal, to pose material threat to the Service Provider’s network
or to other users or the account status represents an unusually high usage of
calling or broadband.”

So ISP’s BEFORE the amendment were claiming the right to disconnect you WITHOUT NOTICE for “reasonable” usspicion of illegal activites, or for “excessive” usage.

Case friggin closed.

Simon, you are getting boring. Your paranoia is unwelcome. Please find another playground to screw over.

Colin, enough already. I’m all for free speech, but with that right comes the responsibility to use it properly. Simon Rika has had nothing new to say for some time and I think you can probably block him now, in all fairness.

And I showed the part of the law that would have protected you if you had READ IT. So YOU give it away!

“At least here in NZ without sec 92 I can get a day in court because thats the law .. ”

You still can. Even if Section 92A says what you claim it says, it does not provide immunity from customer lawsuits. So if you feel you were unfairly disconnected you can still sue the ISP… which is the ONLY concern the ISP’s have with this law. Unfortunately it DOESN’T say what you say it does, so that is moot.

You simply can not prove you point because you point IS WRONG.

No comment on the TCF Disconnection policy that includes NO NOTICE DISCONNECTION if you are accused by the ISP of “unusually high usage of
calling or broadband.”

No law requires that, so why aren’t you complaining about THAT policy? Because you have been bamboozled, that’s why.

At least here in NZ without sec 92 I can get a day in court because thats the law .. accusations must be proven in NZ law as it currently stands.

I noticed that your first mention of the amended copyright act was AFTER it was passed (that helps) and made NO MENTION of the disconnection provisions. Seems you were more worried about your ipod than your internet access…

I wonder why?

The TCF’s REAL concern with Section 92A is not that poor users have no rights… What the TCF is concerned about is if they disconnect someone and that person SUES THEM, they have no immunity from the CUSTOMER for complying with an unenforceable law!

They don’t give a shit about YOU as their “Disconnection Code of Practice” proves!

“Simon, you’re misinformed as to who is behind the push to have Section 92 enacted. ISPs don’t want a bar of it”

Don’t they? Then how come BEFORE the act was amended the TCF created a “Disconnection Code Of Practice” that says:

“A Service Provider may only Suspend or Restrict a Service without informing the
Customer if the Service Provider reasonably deems the Customer’s activity to
be malicious, illegal, to pose material threat to the Service Provider’s network
or to other users or the account status represents an unusually high usage of
calling or broadband.”

Hmmm.. you mean to tell me the ISP’s disconnected people they “reasonably believed” were breaking the (copyright) law? Who would have thunk it???

“It’s also pretty clear from even a cursory reading of the law that ISPs will have no choice but to disconnect users based on merely accusation of Copyright infringement.”

PROVE IT!!! Jesus how many times do I have to ask? Look, here is the law:

Show me the wording that says “on accusation alone” that someone must be disconnected? As for the take down provisions, show me where it says that an ISP MUST takedown accused infringing material? If you REALLY read it you see that disconnection is only a “must” IN APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES – not defined – and there is no punishment for failure to comply. That section is unenforcable as even the TCF admit!

The other sections describe when an ISP has IMMUNITY and conditions it on takedowns. An ISP need NOT takedown anything, but then opens themselves up for lawsuits which, not surprisingly, is how things are right now!

The ONLY thing this law does is grant ISP’s immunity. THATS IT. No wonder the ISP’s didn’t complain about it until they were ready to release their code!

“NZ ISPs lose the safe harbour if they refuse a request to take down material which is later found to be infringing.”

Wow, amazing they lose a “safe harbour” that THEY DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE!!!! Well, not until this law was passed. Do you not get it?

“An ISP is not a court and cannot decide upon the veracity of this infringement claim, so *bang* down goes the anti-Scientology website.”

Which is exactly what would happen BEFORE the law change! You see, Scientology would threaten an ISP with a copyright suit and with no legal protection against it, the ISP would comply in order to avoid the expense.

So what has changed? Well now the ISP’s know they can not be sued even if they comply, which they COULD before. So the only thing that is changed is the ISP’s are now protected more than they were before.

“Based on their action alone, we should be vowing to never give them a similar weapon with which to operate here in NZ.”

They already had it. Amazing how you had no idea of the law BEFORE this amendment. So why should I believe you now?

As for your letter thread. That firstly deals with US LAW, and if you had known and understood that law, you would have known there was a formal process by which to dispute the takedown notice, they even tried to help you out by pointing you to the law where if you had read it you would have found:

“(B) upon receipt of a counter notification described
in paragraph (3), promptly provides the person who pro-
vided the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) with a
copy of the counter notification, and informs that person
that it will replace the removed material or cease disabling
access to it in 10 business days;

‘(C) replaces the removed material and ceases dis-
abling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14,
business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless
its designated agent first receives notice from the person
who submitted the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C)
that such person has filed an action seeking a court order
to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activ-
ity relating to the material on the service provider’s system
or network.”

If you had KNOWN your rights, you would have been fine. Too bad you didn’t take the hint, huh?

But that is all irrelevant, as the US law is NOT at issue here.

Hello Ivor!

Unfortunately for you, our servers are located in the US and therefore we are required to obey the law of the US. So the only one solution for your content that there’s a problem with is to host it in NZ and therefore under NZ jurisdiction. We removed your account from our servers and expect you to pay the remaining $75 within 48 hours.

Regards,
Anton

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Ivor Hughes wrote:

I have read it … I have given you the evidence that the RPSG case is spurious .. what more do you need?
Ivor

2by2host.com Support Team wrote:
> read this document that I sent you a link to: http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/pl105-304.pdf
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 7:47 PM, Ivor Hughes wrote:
>
> Alex you have already done the worst you can do .. and my advice to you is to read the law .. I am not interested in quibbling about ISP and Web hosts they both provide an internet service. So please read my previous email regarding the law because Rouse have done you a dirty .. The Extra Pharmacopiea Martindales 24th Edition has nothing to do with the copyright document that Rouse has foisted on you.
>
> Thank you
> Ivor