>
> How many of you will follow TelstraClear and Xnet (which is already
> terminating customers if they receive complaints from copyright
>
> holders) and take down sites without checking or verifying complaints?
My policy on s92 is currently that any customer who is _convicted_ of
copyright infringement (using their Internet service via us) in a New
Zealand court will have their account terminated, or if we are legally
instructed to do so by means of a court injunction or order.
The Minister can't have it both ways - if Internet access is a "human
right", then the standard for termination would have to be quite high
and the quality of evidence necessary to secure that conviction also high.
If e-Government is a guaranteed way of doing business with citizens, and
some citizens are disenfranchised by having access terminated on a
low-quality evidence takedown notice, then there's an obvious conflict.
We don't take away driving licences on allegations of illegality; we do
so on the basis of convictions (and even then, not always).
We don't take away mail delivery on allegations of illegality; we do so
on the basis of convictions or on _evidence_ that conditions of use have
been breached.
The argument that ISPs are in a unique position to proactively filter
and control customer traffic in the case of alleged infringement is
bogus. Copyright holders have mechanisms to protect their rights and
they have the duty to do so. Get a search warrant, add a lawful
intercept, archive the offending Web site (get Natlib to help here).
Don't attempt to take a technical shortcut to solve a social problem
that ends up diluting the evidence base.
