Re: Should Online Scofflaws Be Denied Web Access? - NYTimes.com

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Karl Auerbach <karl () cavebear com>
Date: April 13, 2009 6:40:16 PM EDT
To: dpreed () reed com
Cc: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:   Should Online Scofflaws Be Denied Web Access?  
- NYTimes.com

David Farber wrote:

> From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com>
> Date: April 13, 2009 4:08:47 PM EDT

> Subject: Re: [IP] Should Online Scofflaws Be Denied Web Access? -  
> NYTimes.com
> ... "commit crime on net, disconnect from net"

Thinking of other unintended consequences: Corporate entities have, as  
I mentioned a few weeks back, roughly the same rights and privileges  
as natural people.

One would hope, therefore, that the ax of these draconian laws would  
fall equally on corporate entities as they would on natural people.

Thus, for example, if a corporation were to be found to have engaged  
in the same kind of behaviour as would ban a person from the net that  
that corporation would itself be banned from the net.

Thus equal treatment for equal violations would require that if were  
Google to be found to be in copyright violation 3 times it would, as a  
corporation, be banned from being on the internet.  Same for Time  
Warner, Sony, Comcast, etc.

Perhaps the realization that corporate entities could be banned from  
the net might induce some sanity.

                --karl--




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com