Under NZ law (specifically, Section 92 of the Copyright Amendment Act), if your ISP receives multiple accusations that you have infringed copyright online, they will have to terminate your internet connection.
Or will they?
Now, this law (not all portions of which are actually in force today, but they will be soon barring a sudden change of heart by the Government) is widely regarded by the Internet industry as complete rubbish – technically unenforceable, morally wrong and even violation of human rights. Start reading at Creative Freedom NZ. But that doesn't stop it from being a law, does it?
Read the new juicy bits of law at http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2008⁄0027/latest/DLM1122643.html
An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer.
But what is an Internet service provider defined as?
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994⁄0143/latest/DLM345639.html#DLM1703710
Internet service provider means a person who does either or both of the following things: (a) offers the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing: (b) hosts material on websites or other electronic retrieval systems that can be accessed by a user
Now here's the crux of my argument …
The person who is responsible for the account with “an ISP” (e.g. the person who pays the bill to connect their household computer to Xtra) is, under this Act, an ISP themself.
This is because it is now normal for Internet access to be available for every member of a household; therefore the person who “pays the bill” is providing connections to a user.
Seen the recent TV adverts for ADSL routers with wifi access? The adverts explicitly say that this machine should be used to enable multiple people in the house to access the Internet simultaneously. This is not some unusual tech-geek activity, it is shown to be normal practice for the sort of person who buys products advertised on prime-time TV – in other words, “everyone”.
So, if an ISP like Xtra terminate “an account” under the auspices of this law, I would argue that they have acted incorrectly; they have terminated access for an entire ISP and not for “a user”.
Just because “I as an ISP” have my network behind NAT, and only one IP address is visible to the outside world, is no reason to claim that I am not an ISP. If an ISP claims that their Terms and Conditions state that the connection should be used by only one person, I would argue that is an invalid restriction, and that their own industry advertises to encourage people to share connections.
I am an ISP. If a copyright holder wishes to complain about an action taken my a user of my network, they have to talk to me, not to my upstream ISP.
With apologies to Jonathan Swift :-
Great ISPs have little ISPs downstream from them to bite 'em,
and little ISPs have lesser ISPs, and so _ad infinitum_