Local websites in danger

This entire situation is getting a bit out of hand. Nobody wants to admit that they were wrong. I'm talking specifically about ISPA, RiSA
 
The only sensible answer for websites owners is to host their websites offshore.

Who would want to invest the time, effort and money to build a local website when it can be taken down at the drop of a hat by anyone who can fill out a form?

It is indeed a shocking situation, made worse by ISPA cynical, "We're just the messenger" approach.

This may explain how it came about. Quoting Ant Brooks in this thread...

I will happily remove any doubt. The indemnity in 77(3) was indeed a direct result of ISPA raising concerns about the potential for abuse of the take-down notice process.

To grossly paraphrase the parliamentary proceedings:

ISPA: "Section 77 is wide open to abuse. Anyone could lodge a take-down. If the ISP doesn't honor the take-down, the implication is that they could then become liable for that content. If they do honor the take-down, the web site owner could sue their ISP. It seems as if ISPs can't win no matter what they do."
Parliament: "Okay, so if we include a clause which specifically says that ISPs are not liable for a wrongful take-down, would that deal with this problem?"
ISPA: "No, not really. The process is still wide open to abuse."
Parliament: "So you don't want that clause added then?"
ISPA: "Um. Adding that clause really doesn't deal with the problem, but having it included does at least give our members some extra protection. If that's the only change you are willing to make to that section, we'll take it."

As I've already noted, consumer voices were woefully absent from those parliamentary hearings. Perhaps we'd have a different ECT Act if MyBroadband had been around back then (and if forumites had spoken up).
Click to expand...

Does this mean that ISPA sold out the rights of website owners in return for immunity for their members? It certainly looks that way.

It is that indemnity against wrongful take-down that stacks all the cards against website owners. There is no incentive for ISPs to consider the legality of a take-down notice. There is only incentive for ISPs to take down the website.
 
Last edited:
so i can submit a take down notice about telkom?
 
Amazing - local ISPs are already have the odds heavily stacked against them, and then they behave stupidly toward their clients.
 
it seems BSA and ISPA are on a heavy anti piracy drive. My brother was hosting a DC++ server at stellenbosch uni and also got rapped over the knuckles by the head of IT for stellenbosch. Apprently all the universities are being targeted for file sharing
 
Gatecrasher said:
Does this mean that ISPA sold out the rights of website owners in return for immunity for their members? It certainly looks that way.
Click to expand...

Gatecrasher, I replied to you over in that thread, but I think my reply bears repeating here.

Ant_Brooks said:
And what would you have us do, exactly? We went to parliament. We pointed out serious problems in the ECT Act that would hurt ISPs. We also pointed out serious problems in the Act that would hurt free speech, website owners and consumers. The legislators ignored most of that input, but agreed to at least add some additional protection for ISPs. We're an association representing ISPs. Should we have turned that down? :confused:
Click to expand...

ISPA does try to push a pro-consumer agenda when making submissions on legislation. It makes sense for us to do that, since laws that hurt consumers are usually bad for business too. But we are a body representing ISPs. It shouldn't be up to us to fight for consumer rights, even though we often do.

Surely it is the DoC and Parliament who should be held accountable here? They are the ones who drafted and passed a law that has the potential to harm free speech. They did this despite ISPA (and others) pointing out the dangers. How does that make ISPA to blame for the poor legislation?
 
Ant_Brooks said:
ISPA does try to push a pro-consumer agenda when making submissions on legislation. It makes sense for us to do that, since laws that hurt consumers are usually bad for business too. But we are a body representing ISPs. It shouldn't be up to us to fight for consumer rights, even though we often do.

Surely it is the DoC and Parliament who should be held accountable here? They are the ones who drafted and passed a law that has the potential to harm free speech. They did this despite ISPA (and others) pointing out the dangers. How does that make ISPA to blame for the poor legislation?
Click to expand...

You are the logical organisation to take a stand. I know this is South Africa, that country where businesses couldn't give a flying fsck about their customers, but you represent the ISPs, who, in a normal country, would be on the side of those who put bread on the table ie: their customers. You managed to get a clause ( or two ) into the legislation that covers your collective asses in Teflon, and now you hide like a scared baby behind that legislation.


You are in a position to take a lead, to oppose this bad legislation, to challenge it in court, and ultimately to change the internet landscape in SA for the better, for your members, and for their customers. But no! "The law says we can do fsck all, so that's what we intend doing".

Lobby your members to mandate you to take a stand. Lead!


It is not a matter of who is accountable at this stage, but a matter of trying to do something about the mess we find ourselves in. Hats off to Mr Buys.
 
It's cheaper to host outside of the country in any case...screw u once again RSA...getting sick of our government and the these organizations walking around thinking they have God like power... .co.za domain names are way over priced in any case
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ant_Brooks said:
Surely it is the DoC and Parliament who should be held accountable here? They are the ones who drafted and passed a law that has the potential to harm free speech. They did this despite ISPA (and others) pointing out the dangers. How does that make ISPA to blame for the poor legislation?
Click to expand...

The legislation is poor, and you managed to make it even poorer. The legislation interposes you and your members between website owners and complainants. It gives you and your members all of the power, but none of the responsibility.

So if you or your members exercise that power in an arbitrary and careless manner, don't expect the love of this community.

The only redress for a website owner whose business and reputation may have been destroyed is to sue the complainant for wrongful take down. From the act:

(2) Any person who lodges a notification of unlawful activity with a service provider knowing that it materially misrepresents the facts is liable for damages for wrongful take-down.
Click to expand...

But since the complainant doesn't have to provide any specific facts, as in RISA's case, even that redress is useless.

If ISPA wish to play an honest role here, they have to, in full collaboration with the ISP and the website owner, examine the legality and appropriateness of TDNs before taking action.

So what if the legislation does not demand it, the message on your website...

ISPA in 2008: Champion of fair play and a vibrant South African Internet

ISPA champions the interests and rights of Internet service providers and other Internet stakeholders. ISPA supports policies and initiatives that promote the development and growth of the Internet in South Africa.

As an effective and credible independent body, ISPA empowers Internet service providers to provide world-class services to their customers and meet the high standards of integrity set out in ISPA's Code of Conduct.

ISPA strives to be a respected example of balanced industry self-regulation and collaboration, in order to achieve a robust, competitive and vibrant Internet industry.
Click to expand...

... demands it. You should be demanding it of yourselves.
 
Last edited:
ISPA, RiSA are heading for hatedom, they're soon going to be hated more than Telkom and that my friends, says alot!
 
Should an ISP decide, however, not to honour a take-down notice they can be in hot water – both legally and with ISPA. It is therefore not surprising that many IPSs "take down first and ask questions later".
Click to expand...
Proofread?
 
What get's me is the speed with which the sites were shut down and now the slownesss to get the up again and running properly.
I agree with most arguments in this thread - it's disturbing to say the least that sites in SA can be shut down as easily as that, with the hosting companies doing next to nothing in order to assist their customers. What is also worrying is that the ISPA aims for the liberalisation of the internet and related industry in SA, yet they go and hide the moment shyte starts flying, as stated by rwenzori
 
Gatecrasher said:
The only sensible answer for websites owners is to host their websites offshore.
Click to expand...
In this case it would be counter productive. Part of what differentiates them from their international counterparts is that they're accessible with local bandwidth.
Equinox said:
Proofread?
Click to expand...
There is a thread dedicated to pointing out errors. You might even be rewarded for your diligence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X