Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy
Actually, that is the entire point of this law....
|
Then allow me to rephrase.
I'd be fine with an expedited process (akin to having a specialized court for drug-related issues) with escalating warnings, culminating in a 1 year ban. As long as there is legal review and no presumption of guilt, it's fine, and would be a constitutionally valid version of the law (from what I can tell).
By the way, if someone in your household is using your connection and you keep getting warnings, again I don't have a lot of sympathy for you. You were warned, the consequences will hopefully be made clear to you, and especially if it's your child, no one else is going to step in and fix the situation for you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DawnFalcon
They've fallen 15% and the Swedish music business in particular currently having a major panic. (Sales have been in freefall in Sweden for a long time, and the bill was sold on the basis it'd change everything...)
|
Oh?
Sweden sees 100% increase in legal downloads after law was enacted
And this article claims physical and digital sales are both up for the first half of 2009, in part due to the new law
I'm not finding evidence of a 15% drop in sales, then again Google News is b0rked today.
I definitely concur that piracy is not a one-to-one sales loss, but that doesn't alter the fact that infringement is infringement.