You're misrepresenting the slippery slope fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope). A slippery slope

You're misrepresenting the slippery slope fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope). A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect. 6 strikes is neither a relatively small first step, nor is prosecuting people under it a grand leap (it's the next logical step). Slippery slope isn't a tool for dismissing any claims of cause and future effect, it is an informal rule for when claims of cause and future effect are permitted, namely when one can "demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect". In this case, "language of the agreement between ISPs and the entertainment industry" (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Six-Strikes-Official-Says-Nothing-Happens-After-Sixth-Strike-121693 http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Six-Strikes-Official-Says... and http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Will-ISP-Six-Strikes-Include-BitTorrent-Lawsuits-119981 http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Will-ISP-Six-Strikes-Incl...) clearly states that ISPs have the full authority to report 6 strikes offenders to copyright owners, should they choose to prosecute them: The Participating ISP will, however, continue to track and report the number of ISP Notices the Participating ISP receives for that Subscriber’s account, so that information is available to a Content Owner Representative if it elects to initiate a copyright infringement action against that Subscriber. No demonstration of said process is necessary because the right by IPSs and copyright holders to engage in this very process has been clearly reserved. Not a slippery slope.