 NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to BF69
Re: Devil's advocate said by BF69:If let someone sell drugs out of my house even though I'm not selling the drugs I can still be in trouble.
If you specifically, and knowingly allow: Probably.
If someone is doing it out of your sight and knowledge? Investigated, yes, to determine if you are complicit (actively, or passively). But, absent evidence of complicancy, no trouble at all.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by NormanS:said by BF69:If let someone sell drugs out of my house even though I'm not selling the drugs I can still be in trouble.
If you specifically, and knowingly allow: Probably. If someone is doing it out of your sight and knowledge? Investigated, yes, to determine if you are complicit (actively, or passively). But, absent evidence of complicancy, no trouble at all. basically what I said. Thanks for agreeing. Unlike the others too caught up in hate to see anything logical. |
|
| said by BF69:basically what I said. Thanks for agreeing. Unlike the others too caught up in hate to see anything logical.
There is no hate involved, although accusing people of being hate mongers seems to be the latest trendy tactic when others don't agree with your viewpoint.
Pointing at an IP address and screaming INFRINGER is an absurd argument. There are many reasons that an address holder who has NOTHING to do with infringing has his/her IP show up in the flawed techniques the entertainment industry wants to use as a standard. We cannot accept that, we want at least a reasonable amount of proof. If they want the money, they simply must EARN it and prove their case which means going MUCH further than merely identifying an IP address. If they want to remain stupid, lazy, and unskilled they should be sent packing.
--
Isn't it sad that those that raise their right hand and swear "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America" are usually the ones most likely to trash it. |
|
| said by meeeeeeeeee:Pointing at an IP address and screaming INFRINGER is an absurd argument. There are many reasons that an address holder who has NOTHING to do with infringing has his/her IP show up in the flawed techniques the entertainment industry wants to use as a standard. We cannot accept that, we want at least a reasonable amount of proof. If they want the money, they simply must EARN it and prove their case which means going MUCH further than merely identifying an IP address. If they want to remain stupid, lazy, and unskilled they should be sent packing.
This reminds me of a case here in Maryland. Two guys are involved in a drug shipment scheme. At least one works at a shipping company. The sender sends a big box full of weed to an address. Now, the person who lives at that address is not supposed to get the box but it will be intercepted by the guy working at the shipping company. Well, one shipment, he fails to intercept but the cops find out about it and decide to let it go to the address in question. The address belongs to the Mayor of Berwyn Heights (small town.) Instead of taking the box before it gets to the house, they let it get delivered and do an illegal "no knock" warrant against the occupants. (No knock warrants have to be signed off and this one wasn't because it did not meet the criteria.) They go in and slam 3 people (including the elderly mother of the mayor) and kill 2 Labrador Retrievers who ran from the SWAT team.
They finally arrested the right people and the police had to settle a massive lawsuit (and the sheriff who authorized this raid lost his bid to become county executive.)
»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···379.html
The point? Just because your info is thought to be part of a crime doesn't make you guilty. |
|
| Hopefully people will begin to sue the copyright trolls and their attorneys and make this kind of nonsense unprofitable. |
|
|
|
