andrew_S Wrote:
--> I don't think its wild at all - the example is
> used to highlight an where a law when first
> implemented would have been seen as unenforceable
> and against culturally accepted practices, just
> like this one, but now is commonly followed and
> accepted. How did that happen? Through education
> and communication and the same will happen here,
> except in a different scenario. The fact the
> offense and consequence is more serious may speed
> up the process or focus the mind but it doesn't
> change the theory and methodology behind culture
> and attitude change.
Bullsh*t and you know it. You're attitude would take a turn if you were accused without having done anything wrong. This has nothing to do with methodology and teaching people right and wrong, this is about the very basics of society and human rights. The Labour Government introduced a law which states guilty until proven innocent. You can try and justify it how you want, but behind the BS you know as well as I do that that is unacceptable and needs to go.
Of course this actually assumes that what you are doing is illegal. One of my CDs is badly scratched and doesn't play. By UK law, that means I can legally download it as I own the physical copy. But the owner of the copyright (in this case Sony BMG) doesn't know that. So if they catch me downloading it, they'll make an accusation against me and without any proof at all, they will have a strike put against me for downloading something I legally own. Hell, what happens if they make a simple error and accuse somebody who hasn't downloaded anything at all? Oh, they get a strike!
It is an utterly ridiculous idea, and I hope anyone who is moronic enough to defend it is the first to suffer from it, just to watch them pull their heads from their asses just so they can fight for there own basic rights, and the right to a fair trial.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.netSportsCarArchives.com