Lots of things are not civil rights. Telephones are not a civil right. Private transportation is not a civil right. Food, shelter, clothing, all are not civil rights. None of these "necessities" have a guarantee in the Amercian constitution. I'm sure that there are similar circumstances in other countries as well, although I can't speak on knowledge or experience. (quickly ducking euro-flame, etc.)
That doesn't mean that they have less value in our society. In fact, it's a bit hard to get by without a telephone, car, or even a place to call home. It's hard to do much of anything as a member of a Westernized society without any of these "necessities", period. The issue becomes one of determining what is and isn't a "necessity". Internet access is not currently a "necessity" to be a "functional citizen", but as the rate of adoption of internet services increases, we'll see the same effect in this area.
Granted, trading copyrighted material is illegal, and closing an account is a method used to block this activity. But one still needs to be concerned about the potential abuse by institutions and corporate entities, which have in the past and present demonstrated a complete lack of respect to the general public and consumer.
The sad truth is that the ISP is caught in the crossfire. The action is roughly akin to prosecuting the telephone company because a payphone was used to commit a crime. While the poster had the right topic, I'm not sure if they had the right intention. ISPs should be left out of this - because their use amounts to a public utility, and they should be treated as such. Saying that they are not is like saying that a telephone is not a public utility.
The MPAA shouldn't be attacking the ISP, they should be attacking the person who is making the sawp of copyrighted material. Instead of suing the ISP, they should be serving a subpeona to them to obtain access logs, login times, etc. as part of evidence. This fits within the currect American legal system, and probably would fit with several others around the globe as well.
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't mean that they have less value in our society. In fact, it's a bit hard to get by without a telephone, car, or even a place to call home. It's hard to do much of anything as a member of a Westernized society without any of these "necessities", period. The issue becomes one of determining what is and isn't a "necessity". Internet access is not currently a "necessity" to be a "functional citizen", but as the rate of adoption of internet services increases, we'll see the same effect in this area. Granted, trading copyrighted material is illegal, and closing an account is a method used to block this activity. But one still needs to be concerned about the potential abuse by institutions and corporate entities, which have in the past and present demonstrated a complete lack of respect to the general public and consumer.
The sad truth is that the ISP is caught in the crossfire. The action is roughly akin to prosecuting the telephone company because a payphone was used to commit a crime. While the poster had the right topic, I'm not sure if they had the right intention. ISPs should be left out of this - because their use amounts to a public utility, and they should be treated as such. Saying that they are not is like saying that a telephone is not a public utility.
The MPAA shouldn't be attacking the ISP, they should be attacking the person who is making the sawp of copyrighted material. Instead of suing the ISP, they should be serving a subpeona to them to obtain access logs, login times, etc. as part of evidence. This fits within the currect American legal system, and probably would fit with several others around the globe as well.