- 15 Nov 2002
- 1,837
- 64
http://www.koin.com/news.asp?RECORD_KEY=ID&ID[news]=5195
So, if the person who owns the telephone line doesn't own a computer, then the person is guilty by association. So I guess it follows that if somebody owns an business hotel, or the airport terminal owns the internet access, then they, too are guilty of illegal activity should somebody do something bad whilst on the internet.
Hmmm.....so does that mean if the MPAA doesn't care, then the ones doing the piracy should focus on using commercial online access, perhaps ones owned by MPAA companies themselves, thus causing themselves of being guilty by association, as well? Somehow, there seems to be a major flaw with this guilt by association clause the MPAA is trying right now....sounds like a witchhunt to me....I thought that was done with in the last century with the McCarthy Era....don't people learn anything? :?
DALLAS, Ore. -- She claims she doesn't even have a computer, but the Motion Picture Association of America Inc. is convinced that she illegally downloaded movies. Now, the association is suing....
We talked to McCarthy on the phone before she decided to get a lawyer, and she says she doesn't even own a computer -- but her roommate does.
MPAA says it doesn't care. The evidence they have is that the phone line and Internet connection are under McCarthy's name.
"It's important for people to realize the consequences of piracy and they have to take a lot of personal responsibility in knowing who's using their computers, who's using their internet, their you know their internet connections at home," Bernards said.
So, if the person who owns the telephone line doesn't own a computer, then the person is guilty by association. So I guess it follows that if somebody owns an business hotel, or the airport terminal owns the internet access, then they, too are guilty of illegal activity should somebody do something bad whilst on the internet.
Hmmm.....so does that mean if the MPAA doesn't care, then the ones doing the piracy should focus on using commercial online access, perhaps ones owned by MPAA companies themselves, thus causing themselves of being guilty by association, as well? Somehow, there seems to be a major flaw with this guilt by association clause the MPAA is trying right now....sounds like a witchhunt to me....I thought that was done with in the last century with the McCarthy Era....don't people learn anything? :?
Last edited by a moderator: