Slashdot Mirror
Sweden's File Sharing Debate Becomes Mass Brawl
praps writes "When Sweden's Data board gave the film and games industry organisation Antipiratbyrån an exemption from data protection laws last week it seemed that file sharers were on the ropes. Then the music industry joined in with some punches of its own, saying it too will hunt those who share songs online. Suddenly, file sharers have the support of their ISPs, who are refusing to cooperate with the big industries - and it's game on." From the article: "Only the file sharer's ISP can link the IP address to the person. If the ISP receives a request for such information from the police, they cannot refuse it, but a few calls from TT revealed that requests from APB would be ignored." We've previously reported on Swedish anti-downloading laws before.
Just to correct a few grammatical errors it should not be ISP's it should be ISPs. The apostrophe makes ISP possesive yet there is nothing in that sentence owned by the word ISP. You are trying to make ISP plural with would simply be ISPs which is not possesive.
Michael-m.co.uk - Home of Michael Mulqueen
Interesting, I was about to flame you when I happened upon this. It appears that it used to be required to use the apostrophe when pluralizing acronyms, but now it is accepted to not use the apostrophe unless the acronym itself already contains punctuation.
When did they change that rule?
Actually (in the US) it is the jury's duty to determine facts, and the judge's duty to interpret the law. A judge can and will set aside the jury decision if the facts at hand clearly indicate (or were stipulated to...) criminal action. Jury's can't legally ignore bad laws.
I think you should mind your P's and Q's!