| reply to ISPvsP2P
Re: OK... Ok, so your ok if you are accused of illegal downloading and cut you off the internet with no real proof whatsoever?
Why should it be ok for an ISP to be policing their customers when they are under no law to be doing so?
What about the parents who's kids are the ones mostly using the internet and the actual father/mother gets accused of such illegal downloading?
So if the riaa and mpaa were to set up spy people in neighborhoods or anywhere so they could catch people who lend others CDs and DVDs so they could rip (steal) music and movies you would be alright with that huh?
You must be in the pockets of the riaa & mpaa to support their crazy methods of accusing people of illegal downloading! |
|
| Never said that I'd be for it without proof. Obviously it would be smart for them to have proof before doing any action.
As for the parents, watching what their kids are doing when they're online might be a good idea. Interesting question you ask there. If I had to take a guess, it's the person on the bill that gets fined for it but I'm not 100% sure on that.
Yes I'd be OK with it. If you don't have anything to hide then you won't be afraid of getting caught.
This last thing made me laugh a little. I wish. Probably would make good money doing it but I'm happy with my current job.  |
|
 SnowymIRC unix.ro UnderNetPremium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:5
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Clearwire Wireless
| reply to Anon_X
said by Anon_X :
Ok, so your ok if you are accused of illegal downloading and cut you off the internet with no real proof whatsoever?
The roadrunner browser notification appears to address the issue of SERVING UP copyrighted material.
One of us is in the wrong thread. |
|
| reply to ISPvsP2P
said by ISPvsP2P :Never said that I'd be for it without proof. Obviously it would be smart for them to have proof before doing any action. As for the parents, watching what their kids are doing when they're online might be a good idea. Interesting question you ask there. If I had to take a guess, it's the person on the bill that gets fined for it but I'm not 100% sure on that. Yes I'd be OK with it. If you don't have anything to hide then you won't be afraid of getting caught. This last thing made me laugh a little. I wish. Probably would make good money doing it but I'm happy with my current job. well if arresting people in a movie theatre fo rhaving a birthday and facing 2-3 years in prison is where its going ill say this
might as well join a gang or maffia yourselves
and do more of this
at least make it worth it for the time you get all of you.
like OMG hes got a music tune
and OMG your in for manslaughter
a few tunes and your same boat
nice |
|
|
|
| reply to Snowy
Good point but I think his comment was about how there still be no proof of who "actually" was doing the wrong doing. It just proves that it's coming from that connection. So I'd say if there's a router or firewall involved with NAT, you're screwed because there's no way to prove the LAN IP of the machine or whether the machine was one that got access to the LAN via unsecured wireless. |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | reply to Anon_X
It's too bad we can't have the "beyond a reasonable doubt" protection for everything. It's the danger of depending on 1 or 2 big corporations for something you use every day. |
|
