how-to block ads
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| Fear mongering by Disney
Did anyone even bother to read the thread, or think for 5 seconds what this is an attempt to do? "Disney will contact Verizon when the company suspects a Verizon customer of illegally downloading content"
The operative word here is 'suspect'. There is no 'proof' in suspect, and if you've been reading about the RIAA lawsuits, you'd realize the last thing the **AA's want is to go to court. The ONLY think that verizon is doing is caving into Disney (home of the 200+ year copyrights), when they legally cannot. This is just a run around manuver by Disney, to avoid having to file a subpeona. All they want to do is complain via one of their media-sentry or 'web wanna be sheriff' goons, and get someone cut off, without ever providing proof.
It's the proof that kills them. In this country, you needed to PROVE, beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal), but at least with a preponderance of evidence (civil) that there has been a violation. Where's the proof Disney? Where's the proof that I downloaded Song of the South? Prove it..
They can't, and they know it. They are desperate to avoid being put in the same boat as the RIAA, but they can't get away from it. There's no such thing as a 'tagged bit'. That's been tried for years by cisco. I actually worked with that project, and it was a total failure. Just rarring the files defeated it, and it slowed down the network to the point of unusability. It can't be done with encryption, period. So all the new P2P's are just going to add encryption, and disney is right back where they started.
--
Grand Poobah | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| said by G_Poobah  :It's the proof that kills them. In this country, you needed to PROVE, beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal), but at least with a preponderance of evidence (civil) that there has been a violation. The main problem with this reasoning is that if you are sued in a civil court in the USA, you are presumed guilty regardless of the validity of the plaintiff's claim. You don't enjoy any of the constitutional protections guaranteed for criminal trials either.
Even if the plaintiff has no proof, you must convince the judge you are not guilty, which often involves significant legal costs. It is for this reason many defendants in such suits settle.
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! | |
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
 ·T-Mobile US
| said by pnh102 :said by G_Poobah :It's the proof that kills them. In this country, you needed to PROVE, beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal), but at least with a preponderance of evidence (civil) that there has been a violation. The main problem with this reasoning is that if you are sued in a civil court in the USA, you are presumed guilty regardless of the validity of the plaintiff's claim. You don't enjoy any of the constitutional protections guaranteed for criminal trials either. Even if the plaintiff has no proof, you must convince the judge you are not guilty, which often involves significant legal costs. It is for this reason many defendants in such suits settle. WHich is ridiculous, shows perfectly how utterly nonense our legal system has become. | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by kamm :WHich is ridiculous, shows perfectly how utterly nonense our legal system has become. It's been like that since 1789! I am guessing the Founding Fathers never anticipated that the civil court system would be abused the way it is now. What is needed is a constitutional amendment which would extend the protections guaranteed to criminal court defendants to civil court defendants. A provision allowing for "loser pays" would also help very much with this situation.
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! | |
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
| reply to kamm
said by kamm :said by pnh102 :said by G_Poobah :It's the proof that kills them. In this country, you needed to PROVE, beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal), but at least with a preponderance of evidence (civil) that there has been a violation. The main problem with this reasoning is that if you are sued in a civil court in the USA, you are presumed guilty regardless of the validity of the plaintiff's claim. You don't enjoy any of the constitutional protections guaranteed for criminal trials either. Even if the plaintiff has no proof, you must convince the judge you are not guilty, which often involves significant legal costs. It is for this reason many defendants in such suits settle. WHich is ridiculous, shows perfectly how utterly nonense our legal system has become. Yep, Gawd damn! We need a GOOD legal system like they got over thayer in Chine er ona them damn countries like Lybia, er, Syria, er, North "by Gawd" Korea.
Yep there's a bright observation.
--
How can I improve my WiFi signal? | |
|
