I know plenty of people who are not tech savvy, in fact I had one friend who didn't change the default password on her router until I warned her. If these companies are going through with this, then they have the responsibility to inform their customers about the importance of network security and how to secure their own networks. The cyber world is not a physical one, people can not visually see the flaw of their own security.

Sure people know to lock the doors of their houses, but their are many who don't think to do the same to their router. Fewer consider the default password on their routers. Not everyone is tech savvy, nor have the interest to learn. Which is why they need to be educated on the basics at the very least and have it hammered in if they are going to be held responsible for what goes on on their wireless network. They also have the responsibility to warn their customers about this scheme. My parents have TWC and they didn't know about this until I told them.

This is one of many reasons why I am disgusted by this scheme.

After reading what DarrkPhoenix wrote, I'm more disgusted with the vague manner in which they're going to persecute people.

I think they should implement this in one of the "alerts"

because...?

And they do so without judicial review without concern for whether or not you yourself were the one downloading the content. And all because the content owner complained.

What's more, the punishments require a $35 fee to challenge and result in you being provided by lesser service for a period even though you've paid for the service.

Beyond that, in most parts of the US, you only have a couple options for non-dialup internet.

Because in the real world we're expected to pay for things.

I think it's mostly an excuse for ISPs to throttle connections. And collect fees, I don't see any reason why the ISPs would have any interest in this otherwise. The rights holders aren't paying for the privilege of making accusations as far as I can tell.

You mean like cars or a toothbruch where each individual piece consists of some material and require some work to be done?

edit: fuck, my english deserted me last evening...

And in the real world failing to pay for something you use deprives somebody else of the ability to use it. Just because your argumentation is poor doesn't change reality.

So if I start pirating all my games from now on nobody loses out? You don't believe that. But it served it's purpose I guess.

Time to heat up some popcorn and watch these ISPs start losing customers in droves.

Sigh.

Good counterpoint. You can't act frustrated by the tone of the debate when you open with snark and assumption, dude. It doesn't work that way.

I do not pirate anything except abandonware, which would no be effected by this. Yet I still see it as corporate overreaching with the potential for calamity. It has nothing to do with looking for excuses to justify anything, it has to do with common sense power restriction.

That's why they should be providing service. Leisure Suit Larry sold more hint books than copies. And unless somebody would have bought the thing it makes no difference.

I pirate a lot of things now because I can't obtain them legally. Doesn't make any difference to the companies bottom line.

Now in the "real world" which you apparently live, is there something magical that causes this to hurt companies?