Quote:
Originally Posted by mr ploppy
It's actually worse than that. A family who share internet access could lose that access if one member of the family is accused of unauthorised downloading. These days, that would have a major negative impact on that family. It would affect everything from school work to booking doctor visits, not just messing about on websites like this one.
|
They would not lose their internet access unless they just couldn't stop the person who does the downloading from doing it over and over and over again. If that person doesn't stop after the first or second warning, the family would also have the opportunity to cut that person off from using the shared internet connection. Thus avoiding future trouble.
Overall this seems to have been a pretty fair and balanced approach. Special care has been taken to avoid punishing the innocent and it has shown to be quite effective in convincing offenders to stop downloading.
The penalties involved are also very appropriate, we are not talking $100,000 fines and 10 years in prison. I don't see how you can do any better than this, except for those of you who take Giggleton's position.
As for the burden of proof -- these are obviously cases where there is very strong evidence that illegal actions have taken place. And just as in any other investigation you are expected to provide an alibi when serious circumstantial evidence points at you. As the small number of final cases shows reasonable explanations have been given and accepted for the vast majority of investigated cases.