Originally Posted by DamianJ

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?




He wouldn't say, cos he is a bit of a mentalist.

Originally Posted by gideongallery

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.