Quote:
Originally Posted by mr ploppy
Here's a radical idea — make it so that the copyright owner has to prove beyond reasonable doubt (or on the balance of probabilities if you prefer) that they actually downloaded whatever they are accused of downloading. Then punish the person who did it without punishing the rest of their family.
Was there really anything seriously wrong with that way of handling it?
|
Yes. To repeat the question I asked earlier, what do you do when someone who is as guilty as sin simply claims that somebody else must have downloaded it through their deliberately unsecured WiFi connection? Your response was that their computer should be seized and a forensic examination of it carried out to find out whether or not they are telling the truth. My viewpoint is that this is a ludicrously over-the-top action to take for a very minor offence, and one which is going to result in HUGE costs for the defendant if they are found guilty. Should someone be personally bankrupted, or lose their home, for downloading an eBook illegally? That's what could happen if what you're proposing were to happen.
So what is the answer? You're not happy with the idea that they should simply be sent a warning letter asking them to stop downloading. What would you like to see happening?
We seem to be in some looking-glass world here. I am arguing AGAINST the imposition of disproportionate punishment for trivial offences.