Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
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.
|
Well the computer inspection would only happen if they denied downloading it. If they said "fair cop" and paid a small fine that would be the end of it. But by making the punishment so far out of proportion to the crime (and also punishing the rest of their family) you are much more likely to have people protest their innocence. It would be like having the death penalty for dropping litter. Even if you knew you dropped the litter you would deny it because you would have nothing to lose. If you admit dropping litter you're executed. If you deny dropping litter there's a small chance you might get to live.