Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellmark
but if they have to go to court because of the actions of that user, which is better to their bottom line? Loss of the customer but no lawyer fees, or still have the customer but being sued?
|
The point of this legislation is to avoid *anyone* going to court. If the media corporations thought they had grounds for lawsuits, they'd be using them, on ISPs and individuals both. They don't. They want laws that say "you don't need evidence that would hold up in court; your word that someone is hurting you is enough." They want laws that say, "it's the obligation of ISPs to patrol their customer's use of their services"--rather like a downtown parking lot being held responsible for the actions of people who park there. (If those parking lots didn't make it easy to hang out in the inner city, we'd have so much less crime & gang activity, right?)
There's no threat of "we'll take the ISPs to court if we don't get this." This is sheer whining... "we can't tell you who's causing us damage or how much damage is being done, but we're ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN we're losing money that we should be getting! Punish those people for not paying us! Never mind whether they were legally obligated to pay us--they're having too much fun for free!"