In a message dated 6/29/2010 11:21:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
There needs to be a deterrent to infringement. If all that happens if you get caught riding the bus without paying fare, is that you have to pay the fare, who would pay the fare upfront? >>
Why not apply the same logic to all infractions.
If you run a red light three times in your life, then you may not ever drive again. If you leave your underwear on the floor three times, then you cannot wear clothes.
How exactly would you impose a "you cannot use the internet" restriction anyway? I don't see it as a very likely outcome.
W.J.
[email protected] wrote:
In a message dated 6/29/2010 11:21:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
There needs to be a deterrent to infringement. If all that happens if you get caught riding the bus without paying fare, is that you have to pay the fare, who would pay the fare upfront? >>
Why not apply the same logic to all infractions.
If you run a red light three times in your life, then you may not ever drive again. If you leave your underwear on the floor three times, then you cannot wear clothes.
How exactly would you impose a "you cannot use the internet" restriction anyway?
If a way of halting the gross infringements can't be done. Then go back to hitting the seeders with $22,000 fines per infringed work. The economic costs of simply walking away and not stopping the piracy are too much.