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.
|
Sadly, that isn't how it works. The three strikes and out law being proposed for the US, that is already live in France, needs no evidence whatsoever. This is the issue. And, think about it, what 'evidence' are you suggesting would nail someone? Beyond reasonable doubt? Their hard drive with the file on? How you gonna get that? I've probably got 15 hard drives in this house. You gonna take the lot? You gonna "prove" a certain file is on that drive?n How do you get past the encryption on it? Or what if the criminal chose cloud storage for his downloads?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
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.
|
He wouldn't say, cos he is a bit of a mentalist.
