Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
In a previous post I stated to Gideon that for my example this person would be accused of the crime, allowed to mount a defense, given access to legal resources and have a trial by jury just like anyone else who is accused of a crime. I then asked if a person faced that type of evidence and was found guilty by a jury multiple times (in this case we were talkig about 3 times) did he feel it was okay that they lose access to the internet because they are using the internet to commit their crime.
Gideon would only agree that they should lose access to the internet if the copyright holders lost control of their copyright if they wrong three times. He didn't expound. Does this mean just wrongly accusing people or does this mean that they lose the case in court? He didn't say.
|
for me wrong 3 time would fall into 4 catagories
1. going forward with a case when all you proof that an ip address was responsible and we find out it (by the beyond a reasonable doubt standards) i could have been hacked/soneone else could be the actual infringer (in other words going forward before you ACTUALLY have proof a person is guilty)
2. my actions were authorized because you licienced (even by a mistake in the wording of your licience)
3. your backpeddling on an established fair use (it not fair use, because you cut out the commercials arguement you made, even though JV clearly documented that his son could have commercial free copy under the original timeshifting right)
4. new establishing or extending of existing fair uses, like access shifting although for this case i think they should be allowed to buy back the strike for a price of 3 times the total cost to establish it (standard monopoly abuse prices - since the supreme court legally defined copyright a monopoly )
the first three represent deliberate and reasonably preventable abuse the last represents a potential mistake that should have a punishable consequence.