3 ms·

I'm not sure your State analogy works. From what I can tell this is a private party agreement, which is essentially a contract. It has nothing to do with justic

by noahc 14y ago

I'm not sure your State analogy works. From what I can tell this is a private party agreement, which is essentially a contract. It has nothing to do with justice or laws of any sort. You agreed that you wouldn't pirate content, when you signed up with your ISP. Your ISP has the right to terminate your service, and so this is just formalizing how that termination will take place with another party. So what you're really saying is "Private Parties shouldn't be allowed to gradually phase in contractual agreements". I think we can all agree that regulating private contracts to this degree isn't something we want to see the US government engaged in.

bediger4000 14y ago
I'm saying that "phasing in" punitive measures, by any authority figure, under any legal or moral basis, doesn't really sit well with the population subject to those measures. Human nature makes everyone who gets punished in an early phase very irritated by the fact that others, not subject to the early phase, but to a later phase, do NOT get punished for the same actions. No lawyering or contractual fine points or legalistic thinking necessary.
guard-of-terra 14y ago
"You agreed that you wouldn't pirate content, when you signed up with your ISP" Why? Why would your ISP care about it? Why didn't you agree (in a contract with ISP) that you are goind to brush your teeth? That you won't troll online? That you would pay your taxes? Because it's State masquerading as private party interests. Doing with lies what they can't do with laws. P. S. You americans have very unusual opinion on what makes a contract and what you can put into it. Very, very unusual. And it seems that you don't even see it.