Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
The question isn't whether or not file "stealers" should be prosecuted. The issue here is whether the companies and authorities are stacking the deck unfairly by writing laws that essentially make us all criminals, and therefore liable for prosecution if we just happen to be the one somebody else names.
|
That's not particularly unusual here. Technically I can be cited any time I drive over the speed limit by 1 MPH or walk across an empty street without a light. Am I? No. Selective enforcement. It gives the justice system leeway to prosecute and can work pretty well a lot of the time as long as they're being reasonable. Technically those mix tapes I made in the 80s were illegal, but no one was interested in busting me. They're interested in busting the people who are really costing them money, like the lady who had over a thousand songs available for download to whoever wanted them. Is this an ideal situation? No. Can it be abused? Yes. Do I have a better suggestion? No. I wish I did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
Right now, that is the situation (in the U.S.). If Apple, for instance, decides I have been stealing from iTunes by disseminating their files for free, whether they have proof or not, they can take me to court. They do not have to present their proof first, in order to drag me into court. They can unilaterally tell my ISP to cut me off, without informing me first, and without proof that I've done anything wrong, my ISP will (in most cases) comply without question. I am considered guilty until proven innocent, at least initially.
This is the state of U.S. laws on digital file protection today. Unlike other copyright protection laws, digital laws allow the accuser to take unilateral steps against the accused before due process, and that's what needs to be fixed.
|
This to me is one of the most heinous things in the whole mess and something that could be easily fixed if ISPs were given protection against being held liable for their customers' behavior. They should still need to respond to court orders but another corporation shouldn't be able to lean on them privately.