-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
MWEB responds to ‘online spying’ concerns
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
rwenzori
Honorary Master
What a bunch of wimps!
The very least they could do in such a case is forward the entire message they received.
This is open to amazing abuse. I could start sending fake "copyright" emails to these twits going down the list of their DSL IP addresses. They do not claim to verify anything, let alone that the source of the complaint actually has rights to complain ( ie: holds the copyright ).
May the Lord preserve me from Mweb!
The very least they could do in such a case is forward the entire message they received.
This is open to amazing abuse. I could start sending fake "copyright" emails to these twits going down the list of their DSL IP addresses. They do not claim to verify anything, let alone that the source of the complaint actually has rights to complain ( ie: holds the copyright ).
May the Lord preserve me from Mweb!
Praeses
Executive Member
What a bunch of wimps!
The very least they could do in such a case is forward the entire message they received.
This is open to amazing abuse. I could start sending fake "copyright" emails to these twits going down the list of their DSL IP addresses. They do not claim to verify anything, let alone that the source of the complaint actually has rights to complain ( ie: holds the copyright ).
May the Lord preserve me from Mweb!
please save me from them!
I really dont see the problem.... If you are using your internet connection to steal copyrighted material its still a crime, and the internet is NO-WHERE-NEAR anonymous. Making claims about spying is really a feeble attempt as the download was 'investigated' and reported. Whoever comitted the crime, was busted on a fake torrent/edonkey and the MPAA/RIAA place fake files on the torrent JUST for that purpose.
This is the same argument as being busted taking a pee in a public place and then complaining that the CCTV cameras were watching.
Simple as that.
This is the same argument as being busted taking a pee in a public place and then complaining that the CCTV cameras were watching.
Simple as that.
rwenzori
Honorary Master
There is so much wrong with your argument!
Firstly, I suggest you brush up on your local copyright law that allows eg: downloads of music files for personal and private use - no "crime" or "stealing" involved.
Secondly, Mweb do not hold the copyright and have therefore no right to complain. Neither do Mweb appear to verify the legitimacy of the claim.
Thirdly, placing fake files for download is entrapment, and in any event you cannot be had for copyright infringement because the file is not the copyrighted material but a fake.
Juice
Expert Member
Spot the odd one out. I mean really, compared to the others, it just seems ridiculously insignificant by comparison. Don't get me wrong, I believe in the protection of copyright, but come on! At least this made my day, lol.
mancombseepgood
Executive Member
Interesting scenarios...
Who did the downloading, how do you prove it...
- How do you prove that the PC wasn't hijacked at the time, or used as a proxy?
- In the case of a business line being used, where there is NAT, who did the downloading, and who would be prosecuted... the accountholder?
- What about home setups, who (in a family of 5 where the kids friends come around to use the net) - who gets the blame and is prosecuted?
I think we will see the increased use of anonymous proxies in SA in future, but what is interesting is how businesses will react to this - what measures can be put in place to prevent infringements...
Who did the downloading, how do you prove it...
- How do you prove that the PC wasn't hijacked at the time, or used as a proxy?
- In the case of a business line being used, where there is NAT, who did the downloading, and who would be prosecuted... the accountholder?
- What about home setups, who (in a family of 5 where the kids friends come around to use the net) - who gets the blame and is prosecuted?
I think we will see the increased use of anonymous proxies in SA in future, but what is interesting is how businesses will react to this - what measures can be put in place to prevent infringements...
mancombseepgood
Executive Member
I agree Juice, I have no qualms with criminals being targeted, in particular child porn, hate acts & terror, etc... my question is why do these crimes still flourish on the net?
The_Unbeliever
Honorary Master
So... does it mean that if I have a legal copy of, say, Wimps2000, and it gets scratched, and I'm unable to use the CD anymore, and I download a copy of it from another source, will I still be held liable for copyright theft?
mancombseepgood
Executive Member
If you download one with the activation crack maybe 
There is so much wrong with your argument!
Firstly, I suggest you brush up on your local copyright law that allows eg: downloads of music files for personal and private use - no "crime" or "stealing" involved.
Secondly, Mweb do not hold the copyright and have therefore no right to complain. Neither do Mweb appear to verify the legitimacy of the claim.
Thirdly, placing fake files for download is entrapment, and in any event you cannot be had for copyright infringement because the file is not the copyrighted material but a fake.
I, in no way say it was right by MWEB or anyone else. But I DO say, If you cant take the heat, then get out the kitchen.
Buying drugs from a dealer is illegal, even if the dealer is conning you and placing Disprin in the packets... its the INTENTION, not the ACT.
Last edited:
fivelza
Expert Member
That's the old copyright act, you may no longer do that.
eltherza
Expert Member
Well, firstly is mweb illegally giving out the details of the offenders by breaking the right to privacy? Are the bodies calming the infringement legit? Do they have any legal standing in south africa (rather pointless if you are not legally recognised in ZA).
Also something interesting, the right to privacy makes it hard to not get into trouble if you are wrong. Clams of snooping on what you are doing will go about and people will feel off about MWEB... so far it's mweb that has the most to lose , no the company issuing the copyright infringement notice.
Also something interesting, the right to privacy makes it hard to not get into trouble if you are wrong. Clams of snooping on what you are doing will go about and people will feel off about MWEB... so far it's mweb that has the most to lose , no the company issuing the copyright infringement notice.
How are they violating your privacy? .. they just forwarded the contents of a mail to the the subscriber. ISP's get hundreds and hundreds and thousands of these RIAA/MPAA takedown notices daily, its not unique in any way.
The Article nowhere says that MWEB give your details out to MPAA/RIAA on receipt of a complaint.
MWEB didnt snoop anything, they just forwarded an '[email protected]' complaint to the person they think is the right one. Nothing sinister there at all.
You have to remember that your right to privacy is NULL in a criminal investigation, one summons letter to MWEB and they will blabber like a kid.
RIAA/MPAA are taking wild stabs in the dark, but scaring ONE person out of 100 makes the effort worth while.
Last edited:
Although I agree with the rest of your post I dont think this was a takedown notice as it pertains to that nasty bit of work the DCMA.
MWEB didnt snoop anything, they just forwarded an '[email protected]' complaint to the person they think is the right one. Nothing sinister there at all.
You have to remember that your right to privacy is NULL in a criminal investigation, one summons letter to MWEB and they will blabber like a kid.
RIAA/MPAA are taking wild stabs in the dark, but scaring ONE person out of 100 makes the effort worth while.
They are having a hard time atm in the US - some of the techniques their 'investigators' use to 'identify' people have proved to be pretty unsound - and have no real legal basis. It's mostly bluster.
All said I'm having a hard time believing that the MPAA/RIAA are sending take-down notices to za isp's.
I hope MWEB can clear up exactly who sent this 'takedown' - if there really was one.
HvRooyen
Senior Member
Just asking
"MWEB said that they do not actively monitor user activity for purposes of detecting copyright infringement..."
But they do monitor for....
"MWEB said that they do not actively monitor user activity for purposes of detecting copyright infringement..."
But they do monitor for....
I think its an automated system... and SA is just an IP address. I know ISP's all over the world getting the notices. Even in some arb african countries. Alot of isp's just do a 'cat [email protected] > /dev/null'
I think you are giving RIAA/MPAA too much credit for brains
, I think its a simple logger, lookup, and mailto abuse script
rwenzori
Honorary Master
Link please - kindly point me to the text of this supposed "new" Act.