On 05/06/11 5:18 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 02:39:45 +0300, Gadi Evron said:
The title is misleading, as this is more about "denying" access. But
this is still quite interesting. I don't think this has *any*
operational implications, but every operator to see this was immediately
worried. I figure it warrants a discussion.
No discussion needed - yes, it appears to conflict with "3 strikes you're off"
copyright laws, until you accept that only criminals will get hit with 3
strikes, and criminals can be required to give up some rights as punishment, so
it's OK.
I will happily go along with this argument when the "3 strikes you're
off" copyright laws are enforced thru a process which A) assumes you are
innocent until proven guilty; B) that you are allowed to present a
defense and challenge all witnesses; and C) that you are entitled to
have your case heard by a jury of your peers. To the best of my
knowledge, none of the "3 strikes you're off" copyright laws proposed or
enacted have provided these basic human rights.
jc
