Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Mar 2010 16:58 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 412972
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-10-20
No it would be quite easy. Repeat offenders would be reported to ISPs and they would lose service after being warned. It's that simple. "
Um... repeat *offenders*, or those who are repeatedly alleged to be offenders? I'm in Australia, and thanks to the recent IINet court decision here, noone need care anymore about a mere allegation here - obviously if the police or a court is involved one must pay attention however.
(Given the tendencies of our current Information Minister, however, I reckon it's only a matter of time before legislation changes on that point)
I feel sorry for countries where the mere *suggestion* of unauthorized use of copyrighted materials (I'm not going to use "theft"
The problem is that the accuser and not the accused is assumed to be right. The burden of proof should be on the party making the allegation, not the end-user.
It isn't a right and there's always the public library. The only people that would have a problem with this are the ones who pirate media. "
I love this argument.
"We should search everyone's home monthly. The only people who have a problem with this would be the ones doing things wrong!". Yeah. No thanks.
Edited 2010-03-09 23:05 UTC