Comments on: UK teens safe under 3 strikes plan

By: thepeer

thepeer — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:40:12 +0000

Although it’s awful when it happens, it’s not so much the “innocent” people who may get falsely accused that bothers me as all the millions of “guilty” people who are being targeted. Indeed, copyright laws are a godsend to the authorities as they allow them to single out anybody as a potential suspect.

Filesharing is part of online life – the internet is after all nothing but a means of passing information around – and it is absurd to continue to pretend, however much some people may want to, that it is feasible to prevent it. Instead we must consider the unacceptably high price of (vainly) attempting to do so.

By: jgharding

jgharding — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:42:17 +0000

I’ve heard tales that court cases for non-payment of Poll Tax were similar affairs, groups trials with presumed guilt etc, though I’m too young to know first hand. It would be a shame to see thousands marched through the courts ten at a time, with no chance to defend themselves, simply for swapping songs. Then again, it wouldn’t surprise me to be honest.

By: Quantam

Quantam — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:56:20 +0000

That’s about the size of it. The Constitution (and other analogous guarantees of citizen rights) is perhaps the single biggest obstacle to effective copyright enforcement in the internet age. It’s simply not economically feasible to give every alleged pirate a fair trial, either for the RIAA+friends or for the government itself.

Naturally given the choice, Hollywood would gladly sacrifice citizens’ rights to allow them to pursue infringers; disturbingly, so would world governments, it seems.

By: Crosbie Fitch

Crosbie Fitch — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:23:45 +0000

…, do you think that those people deserve to prove their innocence in a court of law?

“DESERVE TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE IN A COURT OF LAW?”

Since when have people had to prove their innocence?

It’s meant to be the case that they are presumed innocent until found guilty. And the ‘burden of proof’ is supposed to be upon the accuser, not the accused.

In this case the accused only has the recourse of an appeal, i.e. to gather evidence to overturn the presumption of guilt inferred by the accusation that warranted the court order.

Even fundamental concepts of justice are being compromised in support of what is already an unethical privilege.