The MPAA & DCMA: Guilty Until Proven Innocent

Related link: http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/08/23/pirate/index.html

Should Hollywood have the right to dictate who the ISP's can give service to?

Post your comments

The basics of the story are as follows: A couple goes out and celebrates the 4th of July, and come home to find that their ISP had cut them off, citing a report from the MPAA that accuses this customer of illegally distributing copyrighted material. The ISP can be held responsible for the infringement due to a clause in the DCMA, so if the MPAA says it happened, they cut off the customer before any proof can be given, or before they hear the customer's side of the story.

I ask myself, how does this happen in this country? One of the fundamental ideals that gives the U.S. it's identity is our idea of innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. The DCMA obviously needs to be re-written for this case alone. Apply the same rationale to an everyday necessity: electricity. What if the police think you are growing pot in your house... is it not the same thing if they tell the eletric company to cut off your power supply?

The DCMA was drafted long before these issues could even be thought of, and desperately needs a revision.

Should Hollywood have the right to dictate who the ISP's can give service to?