how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
184 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| lawyers Like usual the lawyers will make a killing for preying on 'victims' by making them feel as if they were harmed.
Don't fool yourself, 99.9% of P2P traffic is for piracy and not WOW updates.
The little guy get UP TO $16 the lawyers get millions, how is that justice for anyone?
The people harmed get nothing basically. | |
bsoft
join:2004-03-28
Boulder, CO | Is your 99.9% number actually based on data, or did you just make it up like everyone else does? | |
 GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | reply to Tom C
Unless you're a lawyer or work for a law firm, you have no idea what type of risk and expense this kind of legal action entails.
Silly, clueless bellyaching . . . | | |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to Tom C
said by Tom C :
The people harmed get nothing basically.
Okay.. on the merit of that statement alone, how were they harmed? What's the financial loss?
The MOST that people "lost" or were "harmed" on a residential class internet service is the total sum, max, for what was paid for the service.
Further, many people have to remember that while calling for dumb pipes (which is fine) is that they are also saying they didn't buy that service for the sole purpose of P2P activity. People email, watch and stream videos from Youtube and hulu sites, etc, chat, surf websites, and other internet activity.
With that said, P2P is only a small portion of the use of the internet service. So do people deserve a full refund for the service knowing that those people "harmed" were using the connection for all the other things mentioned above? No one lost "complete access" to the internet, right? Now, on the P2P use.. how many people are willing to stand up in a court and show their P2P usage loss? .. and what they lost out on? I think this is where the rooster comes to roost. This is going to force people to have to PROVE what they lost out on.. and is that documentation going to show they were using P2P for downloading and uploading (sharing) copyrighted material which caused their "harm"...?
It's a fact that is stated here every day that people go to P2P to get their TV shows and share them as well, etc. Those people would be awfully brave to go to a court of law and say "..but Comcast stopped me from downloading CSI on BitTorrent, your honor"... that's about as bad as taking the cops to court for busting your door down on a warrant (which the police have to pay for damages to your home in the process - watched that on the news tonight by the way) and are those people willing to say ".. they busted up my house when they were looking for my pot plants, your honor"... most people don't - another documented fact.
With all that said, take the $16 and hit up a Starbucks and enjoy some coffee on the "victory" of the lawyers who got the money for ya.
And yes, there IS legitimate P2P out there, however, I doubt that anything resembling a majority of the users that were "harmed" by it were using it for legitimate purposes in the first place. (Comcast knew that as did the attorneys) | |
|
