View Single Post
Old 06-27-2012, 07:26 AM   #4
JoeD
Guru
JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 895
Karma: 4383958
Join Date: Nov 2007
Device: na
Applaud the reason for the changes, but I really don't like the way they've implemented this. Having to pay £20 just to contest a charge against you is <insert lots of colourful language> stupid. I won't dredge up the old arguments but anyone interested in them just has to read the "IP does not identify a person" thread.

This is going to sound like a broken record, but the pirates are yet again getting the better deal. Think about it. I get a letter accusing me of downloading movies, I haven't', but I have to pay £20 to contest it. I'm either out of pocket, or branded a pirate because I didn't defend myself and risking further sanctions as the letters pile up.

Pirate downloads movies, gets a letter, no need to contest since he/she knows they're guilty, no need to pay £20 and no need to stop as it's just a letter. They'll wait until 3 or more have arrived and more sanctions before even considering stopping, or they'll switch how they download to avoid IP logging.

Last edited by JoeD; 06-27-2012 at 07:30 AM.
JoeD is offline   Reply With Quote