dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6202
share rss forum feed

dan157

join:2006-09-13
Hamilton, ON
reply to Tx

Re: A Letter to TekSavvy from the Customers

At my workplace I'm responsible for everyone I supervise, and if they do something they should not or heaven forbid injure themselves or someone, then the supervisor is in big trouble. He can't say 'Not my job. I'm not going to police them all day.'

It's the same with parenting. Do your job and take responsibility for the actions of your children. You're the parent and the one in charge, not them.

Expand your moderator at work

Ree

join:2007-04-29
h0h0h0
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to ISpeakForYou

Re: A Letter to TekSavvy from the Customers

said by ISpeakForYou:

Let us ask this: are parents responsible for what their 8 year old somehow downloads on the internet?

Absolutely

said by ISpeakForYou:

Are roommates responsible for what their roommate downloads?

If you aren't a copyright infringer and think your roommate is, get them to put it in their name. Or sign up with separate accounts.

said by ISpeakForYou:

Are people that don't secure their wireless networks suddenly responsible for a fine of up to $5000, simply because they forgot, or didn't know how to secure their WiFis?

Personally I think this should be included as part of the install (which would help justify the insane charge). The tech should secure the wireless, and then if the customer makes changes (because they have old broken equipment that only supports WEP, or they like "god" much better as the password, or whatever), then yes I'd say the customer is responsible.

said by ISpeakForYou:

Are we supposed to allow people to be fined and labelled pirates, simply because someone hacked and downloaded something off their network?

They won't be fined and labelled pirates until after they're found guilty. If they were hacked and didn't do it, then it's not likely this will happen. Sure it'll probably be expensive to defend, and they may just opt to pay the extortion fee, but I guess I'm just a jerk when I say they should learn not to click on everything they see online!

said by ISpeakForYou:

Make no mistake, we will cancel our service, and move to another ISP, just as we originally moved to TekSavvy.

I fully intend to return to Teksavvy when I can, so you sure as hell don't speak for me.
Expand your moderator at work

graniterock

join:2003-03-14
London, ON
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable

1 edit
reply to ByteMaster

Re: A Letter to TekSavvy from the Customers

said by ByteMaster:


Do you know why the police (here) has to either pull you over, or have a photo showing your face, when you do something in your car you're not supposed to? License plate holder is not always equal to person driving.

Correct.... but if my car is seen at a crime by a bystander the police will be coming to me with questions. Maybe the car was at the wrong place at the wrong time. But they will come knocking and ask questions.

I was involved in a hit and run. The were able to identify the likely driver because they went to the owner of car while still tracking down the person that hit me. She gave his name but they weren't able to charge him because noone actually saw him in the commotion (only the plates). However they charged her for allowing operation of a vehicle with no insurance. I hope we *don't* go this way with internet connections.

said by ByteMaster:

I want my ISP to treat my information as were it an unlisted phone number.

Might I suggest a different example? I'm pretty sure any company with a court order would hand over the name of an account owner for an unlisted phone number.

There's some pretty massive threads on these issues. Did we ever get any clarity as to why TSI keeps logs for 90 days as to opposed 3 or 7 or 30, 34.6654 or 60 days?

said by ByteMaster:


Finally, VPN services with no logging will be The Thing To Have in 2013, and the ISP will see even more traffic go outside their own network than before, since *everything* will now go via the VPN's server.

People who value privacy should take note. I've also been wondering why plain text email is still the norm even though PGP has been around since the 90s. Would have been great if they had figured out an easy way to mainstream it and implement with almost no user interaction. Really encryption should be the norm. Ditto with https as the default for webtraffic. I think there was a good article on the news page of the forum making this argument.

The internet is experiencing growing pains right now. Definitely will be interesting to see if surveillance and censoring will win out over freedom and privacy. From a policy perspective it is such a difficult one to do right. On the one hand the same tools that "we" value "good" to be in the hands of pro-democracy activists in a repressive regime, or even just to keep our banking information safe, are the same tools allow crimes to occur.

If I close my curtains because I don't people peeping on me through the window that's considered smart. If I want to encrypt and keep private *all* my internet information and traffic; that's considered by *some* to be paranoid or evidence of dishonesty.

Where is the onus however? Is it on teksavvy? A business whose business model is built upon good support, cheap prices and slim margins? It would be nice but not expected. The onus is really on us the user. We need to support (both in voice and in the pocket book) Open Media, cippic and other policy groups that seek to push policy makers in the right direction or legally intervene in these cases.


Shadow01
Premium
join:2003-10-24
Wasteland

1 recommendation

reply to ISpeakForYou

I you infringe, then you should pay the price. The world is not free. And for those that think it should be, then I would like to put you to work and I choose to pay you nothing.

On the other side, if you are clean and you get caught up in this, you need to do 2 things... You have to sue TSI and make them prove that their data was true and accurate. You also have to ask for an injunction against Voltage to give you proper time to deal with TSI in court to make sure the info used by Voltage is accurate. These 2 things will draw TSI into this deeper and it will slow down Voltage's time to get a judgement. The more people that have individual suits with TSI and Voltage will bring the entire process to a crawl. I doubt TSI's bank roll is large enough to deal with approximately 2300 suits on an individual basis. You need to start thinking in years before anything like this gets rolling good.

Expand your moderator at work

Fuzzy285

join:2012-12-12
reply to Shadow01

Re: A Letter to TekSavvy from the Customers

said by Shadow01:

I you infringe, then you should pay the price. The world is not free. And for those that think it should be, then I would like to put you to work and I choose to pay you nothing.

Voltage is asking $20,000 from each one of the IP's. That's $46,000,000. To put it in perspective, that is more than the total worldwide gross revenue of all the titles on their list. So while I agree that people shouldn't expect to get things for free, the same should apply to Voltage. Copyright exists to promote the creation of new works. I don't think the intention was to create a framework where the commercial success of a work is quantified mainly by the revenue brought in by suing the public.

graniterock

join:2003-03-14
London, ON
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable

said by Fuzzy285:

Voltage is asking $20,000 from each one of the IP's. That's $46,000,000. To put it in perspective, that is more than the total worldwide gross revenue of all the titles on their list. So while I agree that people shouldn't expect to get things for free, the same should apply to Voltage. Copyright exists to promote the creation of new works. I don't think the intention was to create a framework where the commercial success of a work is quantified mainly by the revenue brought in by suing the public.

Which considering the cap is $5000 for non-commercial liability it goes to show right off the top the legal homework they've done in prepping the is suspect. This article hypothesized a judge could choose $100.

»www.techdirt.com/articles/201212···rn.shtml

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

1 recommendation

reply to graniterock

said by graniterock:

I've also been wondering why plain text email is still the norm even though PGP has been around since the 90s. Would have been great if they had figured out an easy way to mainstream it and implement with almost no user interaction. Really encryption should be the norm. Ditto with https as the default for webtraffic. I think there was a good article on the news page of the forum making this argument.

+100
»gnupg.org/ for GNU free versions

Even a cut-down version of paid version of PGP is actually available as freeware - courtesy of a license condition the original author of PGP (Phil Zimmermann) attached to the app.
»www.symantec.com/products-soluti···cryption - choose the Corporate Desktop trialware. You'll get the full-blown commercial version free for 30 days, after which FDE and a few other function 'wrappers' will cease to function.....but the e-mail (encrypt current window & basic file encryption) will continue to function in freeware mode.

Install this if you use Firefox or Chrome >>>>> »www.eff.org/https-everywhere for automatic SSL browsing (where supported by the websites you go to - DSLr included)

Edit: don't forget about this one too »silentcircle.com/
Phil Zimmermann & Jon Callas are principals at this company
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Zimmermann
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Callas


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to dan157

said by dan157:

At my workplace I'm responsible for everyone I supervise, and if they do something they should not or heaven forbid injure themselves or someone, then the supervisor is in big trouble. He can't say 'Not my job. I'm not going to police them all day.'

It's the same with parenting. Do your job and take responsibility for the actions of your children. You're the parent and the one in charge, not them.

LOL dan157, i own and operate a business and have since 97 with 100 or so employee's. Let me set the record straight for most everyone. managing your employee's IS NOT like managing your kids.

I can tell by your arrogance that you're not a parent. No parent would state you manage your kids like an employee.

"Suck it up and take responsibility for your kids actions on the internet" Any real parent with kids older then 8 know how difficult a task it is to "manage" your kids everyday actions.

lol manage your kids like employees... embarrassing comparison and if you are a parent, give your head a shake


elitefx

join:2011-02-14
London, ON
kudos:2
reply to Shadow01

said by Shadow01:

You need to start thinking in years before anything like this gets rolling good.

And that may be the greatest ally of the victims of Voltage's campaign. Just the sheer size and scope of their lawsuits that will need to be proven and settled individually. This may well be the most widespread legal attack in history involving the largest number of defendants ever.

Voltage's legal bills may well be in the trillions of dollars once all is said and done. Attacking thousands of alleged copyright infringers across 2 countries would exhaust the will to fight of even the most determined legal team.

Voltage may well drive themselves into bankruptcy long before we reach the end of what could well be a 10 or 20 year legal pursuit.

With court time at a premium in both Canada and the USA the odds of this getting settled in the next 25 years is slim or none.


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to A Lurker

said by A Lurker:

said by hm :

You are assuming that the computer people bought for the kid, which is in their bedroom, can not be used for practically anything in this world (mom & pop would have to know).

At the age of 8 I think the family computer should be in the family room / kitchen / some open area. There's too much crap on the internet, and people specifically trolling for kids, that to leave them with a computer in their room is a bad idea.

I mean, you don't toss your car keys at an 8 year old and expect them to be responsible. Kids should learn about the good (and bad) of the internet with their parents. Unlike a lot of kids when I was growing up, we had 2 TVs. Neither was in my bedroom. I pretty much got to chose what to watch on the 2nd one. However, it was in a room people walked through so they could see what I was watching.

Not a matter of 'should' it's a must. Not to be big brother 24\7 but because it creates an environment uncomfortable for them to do something they shouldn't. Homework is done on the desktop down here, kid's do not have laptops yet.

Even all this, mom and dad work, kid's are home by 3:30. Tons of time to hide what you're doing and that's if mom or dad are in the livingroom at all times.

No mater the case, it is the right idea, never let younger kids have computers in their own rooms


A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N

said by Tx:

Even all this, mom and dad work, kid's are home by 3:30. Tons of time to hide what you're doing and that's if mom or dad are in the livingroom at all times.

No mater the case, it is the right idea, never let younger kids have computers in their own rooms

I don't think I was allowed to be home alone at the age of 8. By the teen years though all is lost.


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed

said by A Lurker:

said by Tx:

Even all this, mom and dad work, kid's are home by 3:30. Tons of time to hide what you're doing and that's if mom or dad are in the livingroom at all times.

No mater the case, it is the right idea, never let younger kids have computers in their own rooms

I don't think I was allowed to be home alone at the age of 8. By the teen years though all is lost.

If it were up to me, my kids wouldn't be allowed home alone until they move out lol... That said, i was able to have a key to the house when i was 12-13. I'm not too, too concerned about 8 year olds abusing piracy though i can happen, i'm not too concerned.

It's when they as you said reach teenage years. That is when times change.

Oh fun times.

ByteMaster

join:2012-12-22
Halifax, NS
reply to graniterock

said by graniterock:

Correct.... but if my car is seen at a crime by a bystander the police will be coming to me with questions. Maybe the car was at the wrong place at the wrong time. But they will come knocking and ask questions.

Indeed, the police have more powers and they should. But what if it was MADD, claiming they suspected DUI, and asked the name of the DMV be released to them? And then take you to court? And put the onus on you to (1) prove it wasn't you and (2) hand them the name(s) of likely suspects and any evidence you might have in your possession? THAT is going to make fun conversation at the supper table...

said by graniterock:

Would have been great if they had figured out an easy way to mainstream it and implement with almost no user interaction. Really encryption should be the norm.

These are short to medium-term technical solutions that dance around the same problem. For a permanent solution, the Europeans are our only hope; read for instance here »www.greens-efa.eu/creation-and-c···525.html This is currently the fourth-largest group in European Parliament, and with ACTA behind us and INDECT, IPRED update, etc. still before us, only gains are to be expected. Once private, non-commercial p2p-filesharing is legalized in Europe, North American Internet users will demand the same.

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to ezebob2

said by ezebob2:

I must say you have taken some liberty in stating you speak for all of us customers! You do not speak for me! I have read through all these posts and have come to a number of conclusions:

1) most people posting have no or very little understanding and knowledge of Canadian law, some are even confusing civil and criminal law, US law, old outdated law

2) under a court order TekSavvy must produce names and ip's

3) no information has yet been turned over

4) it is the court that must decide if Voltage's request has merits, not TekSavvy, you or I

5) TekSavvy does not have any grounds to oppose the motion, they are neither judge or jury and can not decide it's merits, and are not a defendant in the case.

6) Privacy laws are over ruled by a court order

7) How Voltage will proceed with this info is not known, however they do have a history of requesting payment to avoid legal action

8) anyone caught up in this who receives a request for payment, or threat of legal action can choose to fight it in court and then can oppose the merit's or actions of Voltage and/or it's agents and partners

i might argue on point 5 that an improperly filed suit that has no merit under law that states 2300 of your ip addresses made commercial use of IP , that i'd ask you in a court of law to prove how 2300 people made any profit or money of just non commercial downloading

go away refile come back and then your 10 grand per infringement disappear to a maybe 100-5000 with the low side being told by govt to judges as "undue hardship" must be taken into account.

Then one gets into other aspects of evidence....
You in a court of law do one issue at a time some times and this is a big one if they are allowed with no proof to say non commercial downloading is commercial then there is no 100-5000 penalty and ill be spending money at a court near you for ht ehell of it too. ill allege with bs data that every teksavyy user downloaded my precious and i want the names and addresses of everyone...and ill do that to show Canada that is not the way we want to go...

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to ezebob2

said by ezebob2:

I must say you have taken some liberty in stating you speak for all of us customers! You do not speak for me! I have read through all these posts and have come to a number of conclusions:

1) most people posting have no or very little understanding and knowledge of Canadian law, some are even confusing civil and criminal law, US law, old outdated law

2) under a court order TekSavvy must produce names and ip's

3) no information has yet been turned over

4) it is the court that must decide if Voltage's request has merits, not TekSavvy, you or I

5) TekSavvy does not have any grounds to oppose the motion, they are neither judge or jury and can not decide it's merits, and are not a defendant in the case.

6) Privacy laws are over ruled by a court order

7) How Voltage will proceed with this info is not known, however they do have a history of requesting payment to avoid legal action

8) anyone caught up in this who receives a request for payment, or threat of legal action can choose to fight it in court and then can oppose the merit's or actions of Voltage and/or it's agents and partners

6 is a yes and no thing....it actually does depend on the nature of the privacy question at hand , if your an alledged terrorist then yes you have no privacy, if your an alledged maffia or gangster then no you may not BUT they have rules and procedures to follow still to make sure that you are one of those to get you on to three terror law crap. it isn't like a minister cna say persecute and violate all that persons rights....you'd also have still the right to fight on some fronts.The charter is clear too , that if a great number in society are being unduly harmed then a law may be in fact unconstitutional.
THIS is why harper made it clear abuot that cause he doesn't want this law being struck down. IF voltage gets away with this then undue harm is gonna be the norm and someone needs to push up a nothc and get this rolling in the supreme court for CRUEL and UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT....


nanook
Premium,MVM
join:2007-12-02
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to ByteMaster

said by ByteMaster:

Do you know why the police (here) has to either pull you over, or have a photo showing your face, when you do something in your car you're not supposed to? License plate holder is not always equal to person driving.

That principle doesn't hold with red light cameras and photo radar in provinces where those devices are in use. The owner of the car is held legally responsible and has to pay the fine, regardless of who was actually driving the vehicle. These provisions have been enacted in provincial legislation and, at least in Ontario, if you don't pay the fines, even if you didn't drive the vehicle, your license to drive won't be renewed.

Do we really want the likes of Voltage to lobby politicians to enact legislation so that IP address alone (license plate number) is sufficient to identify and punish alleged copyright violators?

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to JMJimmy

said by JMJimmy:

said by ezebob2:

2) under a court order TekSavvy must produce names and ip's

Names yes, IPs/logs no.

said by ezebob2:

5) TekSavvy does not have any grounds to oppose the motion, they are neither judge or jury and can not decide it's merits, and are not a defendant in the case.

Actually they have grounds to oppose the motion. a) financial hardship (they may lose a good portion of those customers for various reasons) b) they could try arguing that the logs collected were not intended for use in that way (probably won't work due to application/scope) c) Voltage is likely to take the information across borders (see 6)

said by ezebob2:

6) Privacy laws are over ruled by a court order

Untrue. Privacy laws have stipulations for disclosure by court order, which still must be follow within the bounds of the privacy laws. ie: Even under court order data can't be taken across borders, must be secured to Tek's satisfaction, data can't be shared with others by Voltage, etc

on 5 you do know that vltage is alleging 10000 per infringement rather then non commercial ....can you tell me seeing a torrent swarm how money is being made by a user sharing ?

what tsi could do in upcoming trial is get 100 volunteers to go get a linux iso and setup a dummy tracker and show the court what voltages evidence really is and that the motion to get the names and addresses proves no more commerical gains by the ips then by a name.

Hopefully CIPPIC mentions this .YESSSS its a technicality and voltage is free to refile and spend the money to do that but then the damages will be far less and more time is gained to lawyer up and cause its under 7 grand poorer people can get a lawyer.

welcome to usa style economic terrirsm


dillyhammer
START me up
Premium
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Start Communicat..
reply to nanook

said by nanook:

Do we really want the likes of Voltage to lobby politicians to enact legislation so that IP address alone (license plate number) is sufficient to identify and punish alleged copyright violators?

A car can't be spoofed so easily. How can you pass a law than can so easily be demonstrated as completely fallible? It's not possible.

Mike
--
Cogeco - The New UBB Devil -»[Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmare
Cogeco UBB, No Modem Required - »[Niagara] 40gb of "usage" while the modem is unplugged


nanook
Premium,MVM
join:2007-12-02
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

said by dillyhammer:

A car can't be spoofed so easily.

It's not about spoofing. It's about holding the registered car owner (TSI customer) responsible for the actions of someone who shares the car (IP address) and then runs a red light or exceeds the speed limit. The legislation makes it irrelevant who actually ran the light/sped ("pirated" the movie) for the purposes of levying the fine.


dillyhammer
START me up
Premium
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Start Communicat..

said by nanook:

It's not about spoofing. It's about holding the registered car owner (TSI customer) responsible for the actions of someone who shares the car (IP address) and then runs a red light or exceeds the speed limit. The legislation makes it irrelevant who actually ran the light/sped ("pirated" the movie) for the purposes of levying the fine.

Sounds like something Vic Toews would say. "Either you're with us, or with the pirates!"



It's virtually impossible to copy a car.

I can download stuff right now and make it look like you did it. No problem. Trivial to do. In your flawed analogy, you'd have no defense. Good luck with that.

Mike
--
Cogeco - The New UBB Devil -»[Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmare
Cogeco UBB, No Modem Required - »[Niagara] 40gb of "usage" while the modem is unplugged


nanook
Premium,MVM
join:2007-12-02
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

said by dillyhammer:

It's virtually impossible to copy a car.

Who's talking about copying a car?

Let me try again.

1. A car owner is identified by license plate number. An Internet account owner is identified by the IP addresses they use.

2. A car owner can share their vehicle with other drivers. An Internet account owner can share their connection with others.

3. If the driver of a car commits a red light camera or photo radar violation then the car owner, not that user, is legally required to pay the fine. If the user of an Internet connection commits piracy then the account owner, not that user, could be required to pay the fine—if appropriate legislation is enacted.

Now you might say that such legislation doesn't currently exist. I would point out that until red light cameras, photo radar and other such arbitrary fund generation opportunities became available to police and municipalities, neither did such legislation exist to cover them either.

And since you brought up [barf] Vic Toews, what side do you think he would take on this issue—ours or Voltages? Do you think he might equate filesharing with child pornography, as he essentially did in the line that made him (in)famous?


DarkStar33

join:2008-03-27
Toronto, ON
reply to ISpeakForYou

said by ISpeakForYou:

I'm going to speak on behalf of the TekSavvy customers

No thanks, you lack significant understanding of the issue at hand to even comment let alone claim to speak for anyone.
--
TekSavvy Extreme Cable Pro (Toronto, ON)
»www.speedtest.net/result/1343900371.png


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed

said by DarkStar33:

said by ISpeakForYou:

I'm going to speak on behalf of the TekSavvy customers

No thanks, you lack significant understanding of the issue at hand to even comment let alone claim to speak for anyone.

Like his "message" you indirectly try to speak for everyone yourself.

Edit: I should explain. I disagree with what you said about him/her. They do have valid points about few things.


DarkStar33

join:2008-03-27
Toronto, ON

1 recommendation

said by Tx:

said by DarkStar33:

said by ISpeakForYou:

I'm going to speak on behalf of the TekSavvy customers

No thanks, you lack significant understanding of the issue at hand to even comment let alone claim to speak for anyone.

Like his "message" you indirectly try to speak for everyone yourself.

Edit: I should explain. I disagree with what you said about him/her. They do have valid points about few things.

Some good points yes but he is asking the wrong organization to act. Its not TekSavvy's place to fight for our privacy, we have an entire dedicated agency that does nothing but that:

»www.priv.gc.ca/index_e.asp

If your concerned with the issue, write this agency along with your local representation.

Its completely outside of the responsibility for TekSavvy to act and actively harms them from intervening with these matters.

It prevents Copyright holders from having any ammunition to use against them, they are complying with the courts and staying out of it.

In this stage of the fight its Voltage Vs Canadian Legal System.
--
TekSavvy Extreme Cable Pro (Toronto, ON)
»www.speedtest.net/result/1343900371.png


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed

said by DarkStar33:

Some good points yes but he is asking the wrong organization to act. Its not TekSavvy's place to fight for our privacy, we have an entire dedicated agency that does nothing but that:

»www.priv.gc.ca/index_e.asp

If your concerned with the issue, write this agency along with your local representation.

Its completely outside of the responsibility for TekSavvy to act and actively harms them from intervening with these matters.

It prevents Copyright holders from having any ammunition to use against them, they are complying with the courts and staying out of it.

In this stage of the fight its Voltage Vs Canadian Legal System.

You my friend are a stand up guy/girl for being genuine and not blasting me (or anyone) for simple comments like i made that would usually happen.

ByteMaster

join:2012-12-22
Halifax, NS
reply to nanook

said by nanook:

3. (...) If the user of an Internet connection commits piracy then the account owner, not that user, could be required to pay the fine—if appropriate legislation is enacted.

Over my dead body!


nanook
Premium,MVM
join:2007-12-02
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

said by ByteMaster:

Over my dead body!

That's what people said about the principle of fining the car owner even when someone else actually committed the red light/speeding infraction. Yet even though the notion offends us, cash-strapped cities and lazy police departments managed to convince provincial politicians to make that the law.

The same sort of thing could happen with IP addresses. With people like [barf] Vic Toews making the legislation we have to be particularly vigilant not to let that sort of "principle" become copyright law through the efforts of MAFIAA lobbying.