Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
As per normal Gideon is only posting the part of the story that suits his narrative.
Here is something from later in the story: “This also includes legislation based on the concept of ‘graduated response’, which imposes a series of penalties on copyright infringers that could lead to suspension of Internet service, such as the so-called “three-strikes-law” in France and the Digital Economy Act 2010 of the United Kingdom,” notes the report.:"
So if passed it would be like a three strikes you are out law. So this doesn't mean some dude accidentally downloads one song or something and gets his internet connection taken away, he would have to have been guilty of copyright infringement multiple times.
This is no different than many laws. If you get a DUI, you lose your licenses. If you commit a robbery, you go to jail and when you get out of jail it is illegal for you to own a gun. If you are going to consistently use the internet as a tool to commit a crime, you are going to lose access to that tool.
|
what exactly about do you not understand
Quote:
“The Special Rapporteur considers cutting off users from Internet access, regardless of
the justification provided, including on the grounds of violating intellectual property rights law, to be disproportionate and thus a violation of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
|
it doesn't matter if it 1 strike, 3 strikes or 10,000 strikes
the point is that because your action take away a medium of communication it violates the international covenant on civil and political rights and is therefore a human rights violation
your licience to drive a car is not nor will it ever be a medium of communication
your right to a weapon is not a medium of communication
they are completely different in this context.