I think this “strike policy” is better than getting hit with a lawsuit you can’t pay because you didn’t expect it.

Not sure if it’s better if it means not being able to access your finances, and especially stock options these days I believe in France they’d disconnect you for a year. Imagine living without internet for a year these days.. Here you wouldn’t be able to transfer money (make payments), manage your insurances and stocks, do your taxes, get news about new laws, work at home, activate software, access “the cloud” etc. Most of it is internet-only now.

But even if it is better, it is still outrageous because this could happen to you *even* if nobody in your household has pirated (through a friend visiting or someone hacking your wireless network or pc). Or just because they make a mistake, as no judge is necessary for this ruling…

Ryan wrote:

You don’t think they do that already? Plenty of my friends have received emails from their ISP’s saying that they are downing pirated software, movies, and more. So they are obviously watching already.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but are you saying “Ah well, since they track us already, they might as well implement a three strikes-you’re-out policy”?

Yes and no. I think for a lot of people who are affected by being sued will definitely benefit from this. Think about all of the parents that have no idea what their kids are doing on the computer. At least they will get a warning so they can start restricting the kid’s access to the machine instead of needing to fork out a few grand to settle a lawsuit. Sure I like to have my privacy, but I think this “strike policy” is better than getting hit with a lawsuit you can’t pay because you didn’t expect it.

I didn’t write that, it was a quote from the article. I’m just trying to make sure we’re on the same page.

I know, so I referred to being on the same page and then responded to your comment

You don’t think they do that already? Plenty of my friends have received emails from their ISP’s saying that they are downing pirated software, movies, and more. So they are obviously watching already.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but are you saying “Ah well, since they track us already, they might as well implement a three strikes-you’re-out policy”?

Your Wrapups, like good wine, are getting better with time.

Thanks Omar! I’m so glad you like them. Since we are busy people now with fulltime jobs we are trying to use these WrapUp articles to cater to our readers who are probably busy people as well. We cover nearly a weeks worth of content in a single article, and have tried our best to make it easy to scan through.

You don’t think they do that already? Plenty of my friends have received emails from their ISP’s saying that they are downing pirated software, movies, and more. So they are obviously watching already.

“If you’re sent 2 or 3 warnings the ISP will either start to limit your usage or cut you off completely. Guess it’s better than getting sued.”

Ahh the RIAA item.. yeah, France wants the same law *and* wants this in the whole EU. I don’t understand though.. Internet is almost like bread and water these days. Without internet some people don’t have access to their finances anymore for example. Or telephone. Besides, if one person in the household (or a visitor) has caused it, should the whole household be punished so severely? What if your wireless internet was “used” by someone you don’t know? It sounds okayish, but there are a lot of cases where a punishment like this is overly excessive.

On top of that, more filtering and scanning is necessary making both the internet access as well as police costs higher, effectively taking away costs from the RIAA and putting it in the hands of society. No wonder they are fine with this…

I’m not so sure if it’s better than suing.