Quote:
Originally Posted by mr ploppy
Shame the Daily Wail didn't tell their readers all this before the law was rushed through, then it might have made a difference.
|
It's also a shame that people take that newspaper seriously.
Actually, in its entirety, the Mail story isn't all that bad. It's just that the factual last few paragraphs of the article are basically the opposite of the headline.
The Guardian's story is no page-turner, but likely more accurate:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...al-economy-act
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
Y'know, paying £20 in court costs hardly sounds like a tremendous burden.
|
And it's not like anyone is going to pay it. All that is going to happen is that you get a warning letter. And if you ignore it, all that happens is you get another one. And another. There's no reason to waste the £20 on an appeal.
It's true that supporters of the
upheld law hope it is a first step:
Quote:
|
Provision is also made for the possible, future introduction of obligations on ISPs to take technical measures limiting or even suspending individual subscribers’ internet access in appropriate circumstances – to be laid down by ministers, and fleshed out by Ofcom, again in a code.
|
I'd make it like a parking ticket. You can appeal, but given the low penalty it might not be worth it. Under that kind of system, there still will be lots of scofflaws, but most people will play by the rules.