Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
You are right on all of these accounts. So again, I ask, which would you rather have? Would you rather the ISP contact you and tell you they suspect that you are illegally downloading and if you are not you can contact them and hope that they can help you find out it you have been hacked etc or would you rather nobody says anything, they come into your house, seize your computers and you get to explain in court how it wasn't you and you must have been hacked?
To me it seems a little more sensible to try to deal with the problem before lawyers get involved than to just suddenly one day be accused of a crime and forced to defend yourself in court.
|
so were are completely ignoring the principle of innocent until proven guilty
what exactly about the chain of evidence that DJ presented to you do you not understand
Quote:
In a perfect world I would agree with you. I go back to my earlier statement above. If you are truly innocent and are a victim of hacking would you rather get a warning that you are suspected of pirating so you can contact your ISP and work with them to find out what is happening and stop it or would you rather be sitting in your living room watching TV one afternoon and have the police show up to seize your stuff and have to explain to them that it wasn't you?
Neither option is good, but to me it is the difference between being warned that you might get punched and just getting kicked in the balls for no reason.
|
except the real choice is between getting fucked over both ways
and the copyright holders respecting rights like presumption of innocents
having to actually make their case to get the info of the persons address BEFORE they bust down any doors
Having prove that the seizure of the equipment is justified BEFORE they seize anything
and then having to prove that their collected evidence actually proves the person is guilty BEFORE they apply penalties.