4 ms·

Interesting...although it is obvious that if BT were required to terminate the contract of anyone who ever downloaded a song or movie, they'd be out a large sta

Interesting...although it is obvious that if BT were required to terminate the contract of anyone who ever downloaded a song or movie, they'd be out a large stack of cash. Livingston would much rather keep the contracts (and the money). And the gov should be happier with another tax. But can you imagine how jammed up the courts would be if everyone fought it (which they would)?

yungchin 17y ago
> Livingston would much rather keep the contracts Sure, but regardless of his motives, his line of reasoning can stand on its own very well: to continue the speeding-fine parallel, you would need very direct evidence of someone speeding before you could take their driver's license away. Many people depend on net-connectivity for their income, in the same way that many depend on their driver's license - thus it shouldn't be too easy to cut anyone off. > But can you imagine how jammed up the courts would be if everyone fought it (which they would)? It depends - as long as the amount fined is reasonable, the cost and effort of appealing would stop people in most cases. On the other hand, if the rights-holders would be unreasonable about it, by pushing the fines too far or disregarding fair-use, they'd find themselves in court all the time - which is arguably a good thing.
- binarymax 17y ago
  Good points. In retrospect I think it would be pretty easy to beat a fine. Imagine the following scenario: - I download the song 'Happy Birthday' illegally - I get caught and get a fine, which I have the option of appealing in court (lets say the fine is something outrageous like £500) - I option to appeal but before the court date I go to HMV and buy a single of 'Happy Birthday' for £5, and scratch it up a bit so it doesnt look shiny new. - I get to court with my CD and say "I already legally owned a copy of the song, but its all scratched so I downloaded it" Strange thing is, you beat the fine but the record company still gets your £5 for the purchase (and you keep your copy)...so minus the hassle, everyone wins.

yungchin 17y ago

> Livingston would much rather keep the contracts Sure, but regardless of his motives, his line of reasoning can stand on its own very well: to continue the speeding-fine parallel, you would need very direct evidence of someone speeding before you could take their driver's license away. Many people depend on net-connectivity for their income, in the same way that many depend on their driver's license - thus it shouldn't be too easy to cut anyone off. > But can you imagine how jammed up the courts would be if everyone fought it (which they would)? It depends - as long as the amount fined is reasonable, the cost and effort of appealing would stop people in most cases. On the other hand, if the rights-holders would be unreasonable about it, by pushing the fines too far or disregarding fair-use, they'd find themselves in court all the time - which is arguably a good thing.

binarymax 17y ago
Good points. In retrospect I think it would be pretty easy to beat a fine. Imagine the following scenario: - I download the song 'Happy Birthday' illegally - I get caught and get a fine, which I have the option of appealing in court (lets say the fine is something outrageous like £500) - I option to appeal but before the court date I go to HMV and buy a single of 'Happy Birthday' for £5, and scratch it up a bit so it doesnt look shiny new. - I get to court with my CD and say "I already legally owned a copy of the song, but its all scratched so I downloaded it" Strange thing is, you beat the fine but the record company still gets your £5 for the purchase (and you keep your copy)...so minus the hassle, everyone wins.