• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Alleged Internet Pirates Lose Internet Access?

Should Alleged Internet Pirates Lose Internet Access?

  • Total voters
    39
Carjosse

Carjosse

Sit Nomine Digna
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
16,507
Reaction score
8,171
Location
Montreal, QC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
From Torrent Freak:
Internet subscribers who are caught downloading pirated content have no constitutional right to Internet access, BMG says. The music rights group is countering a defense ISP Cox Communications submitted to the Supreme Court, arguing that the cited ruling doesn't apply here.

Last week ISP Cox Communications told the Supreme Court that pirating subscribers should not be disconnected from the Internet.

The Internet provider found support for this claim in the recent Packingham v. North Carolina decision, where the highest court ruled that it’s unconstitutional to bar convicted sex offenders from social media.

If convicted sex offenders still have the right to use social media, accused pirates should not be disconnected from the Internet on a whim, Cox argued. Especially, if these piracy allegations are solely based on copyright holder complaints.
Click to expand...

I think it is incredibly stupid to take away someone's access to the internet, something you need to function fully in society these days, solely because they allegedly pirated something. I would not even support if convicted of piracy. It is even more stupid to hold the ISP responsible for it. According to Sony BMG alleged pirates are not deserving of the same rights as pedophiles. Not only is this idea incredibly stupid, it seems unconstitutional as well.

These media companies constantly overstep their boundaries and try to make piracy seem like the worst crime someone can commit, and politicians and judges who do not understand technology only help them.

Who do you think is in the right here BMG or Cox?
 
Last edited:
Is internet access a right, or a priviledge? That's the ultimate question.
 
Other. I make no claim to be a legal expert but, it seems that one company (trade group?) is losing money from piracy (BMG) while the other (Cox) is allegedly making money from it. One bothersome key word is alleged - if Cox knows that piracy (copyright infringement?) is going on and the pirates can be identified (as civilly or criminally convicted) then it would seem that they are (then become?) a co-conspirator by accepting payment for the abuse of their internet service unless they refuse to cooperate with (allow access to) known pirates.

I see it being handled (legally) as a two step process: if BMG supplies Cox with a list of known (convicted) pirates then a court should uphold Cox being included as a co-conspriator if any future piracy activity by those known pirates occurs. Merely alleging that some prirates exist and that it is up to Cox to find and remove them is going too far yet, if Cox is made aware of the convicted pirates' identities and still accepts them as customers then the shoe is on the other foot.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Other. I make no claim to be a legal expert but, it seems that one company (trade group?) is losing money from piracy (BMG) while the other (Cox) is allegedly making money from it. One bothersome key word is alleged - if Cox knows that piracy (copyright infringement?) is going on and the pirates can be identified (as civilly or criminally convicted) then it would seem that they are (then become?) a co-conspirator by accepting payment for the abuse of their internet service unless they refuse to cooperate with (allow access to) known pirates.

I see it being handled (legally) as a two step process: if BMG supplies Cox with a list of known (convicted) pirates then a court should uphold Cox being included as a co-conspriator if any future piracy activity by those known pirates occurs. Merely alleging that some prirates exist and that it is up to Cox to find and remove them is going too far yet, if Cox is made aware of the convicted priates identities and still accepts them as customers then the shoe is on the other foot.
Click to expand...

Should services be held legally responsible for what people do with their service? Even then why should they have their internet access removed and prevent them functioning in society?
 
Carjosse said:
Should services be held legally responsible for what people do with their service? Even then why should they have their internet access removed and prevent them functioning in society?
Click to expand...

That depends. If you know (are made legally aware of) that a specific tenant/customer is committing a crime using your property/service then it should be up to you to either stop serving them or accept legal responsibility for helping them continue to commit said crimes.
 
apdst said:
So much for consistency. Probaly need to work on that.
Click to expand...

What is wrong with requiring a probation of after serving time for a violent crime in which they are not allowed to purchase weapons in the interest of public safety? There is no public safety risk to a internet pirate having access to the internet.
 
To address the poll question, I think you'd run into problems pretty quickly if you're disconnecting someone's service based solely on an ip address's connection to an illegal download. Most people (yours truly included) don't have the technical savvy to restrict specific kinds of behavior on their wifi. Even if I wanted to, I wouldn't know how to block people who've connected to my wifi, legitimately and illegitimately, from using torrenting sites.

Yes, yes, somebody can probably step in an tell me how to do just that right now, but that still doesn't address the fact that the vast number of people will still have no clue how to do it.
 
Carjosse said:
What is wrong with requiring a probation of after serving time for a violent crime in which they are not allowed to purchase weapons in the interest of public safety? There is no public safety risk to a internet pirate having access to the internet.
Click to expand...

The prohibition to owning a gun applies to all ex-cons, violent crime, or not.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That depends. If you know (are made legally aware of) that a specific tenant/customer is committing a crime using your property/service then it should be up to you to either stop serving them or accept legal responsibility for helping them continue to commit said crimes.
Click to expand...

I have to strongly disagree, it should not be up to the provider of the service to police what people do with their service, that should be left to law enforcement. Not only would it have to be proven that they pirated something but that they also used their Cox Communications connection to do it which are two very different things. Also I do not believe that internet piracy is a good reason to remove someone's access to the internet.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That depends. If you know (are made legally aware of) that a specific tenant/customer is committing a crime using your property/service then it should be up to you to either stop serving them or accept legal responsibility for helping them continue to commit said crimes.
Click to expand...

Thinking out loud here....

If BMG contacted the alleged person's electric utility since their service is also required to commit the crime should we also remove their electric service?
 
Carjosse said:
I have to strongly disagree, it should not be up to the provider of the service to police what people do with their service, that should be left to law enforcement. Not only would it have to be proven that they pirated something but that they also used their Cox Communications connection to do it which are two very different things. Also I do not believe that internet piracy is a good reason to remove someone's access to the internet.
Click to expand...

Hmm... simply because a criminal last used a Colt gun bought from Academy Sports to commit a crime that should not bar them from later buying a Ruger gun from Cabela's? I see no harm in a convicted criminal being denied rights as part of a sentence and/or law - that is what due process is all about. I do tend to agree that a lifetime rights ban for a single non-violent offense goes too far - generally, after one serves their sentence including any probation or parole period then all of their rights should be restored.
 
Baralis said:
Thinking out loud here....

If BMG contacted the alleged person's electric utility since their service is also required to commit the crime should we also remove their electric service?
Click to expand...

Well, there is that law whereby anybody conducting illegal business on the property causes the property owner himself to be liable. So if you really, really want to, you can use the precedent of one law to apply to just about anything else.

Here's the very first hit after googling "law anybody conducting illegal business on property business owner liable":

What Liability Does a Landlord Have for Criminal Acts of His or Her Tenants?
In addition to being liable for the criminal acts of strangers/non-tenants, a landlord usually has a duty to protect the neighborhood of the rental property from the criminal acts of his/her tenants. Most often, landlords are held responsible for tenants dealing drugs on the property.
Click to expand...

Landlord Liability for Criminal Acts of Tenants | LegalMatch Law Library
 
Baralis said:
Thinking out loud here....

If BMG contacted the alleged person's electric utility since their service is also required to commit the crime should we also remove their electric service?
Click to expand...

Nope, just as they cannot be denied food or water which was also essential to enable them to commit any crime. Folks make it seem that the only "just" punishment is a fine/jail time unless, of course, a gun was involved. If I can show you that your customer was buying or selling stolen goods using your service to do so then you either accept responsibility for helping that crime to continue or stop serving them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom