3 ms·

> 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 sp

> 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.