Per the BBC:
Is this a better approach to suing individuals and trying to scare the populace away from sharing? Is it overkill (akin to suspending the driving licenses of anyone who drove to/from a crime)? The article suggested that Sweden was on similar path (though it mentioned no details) — is this the next major push from the RIAA? Could something similar be enacted here?
I’m a bit stunned at what I consider a rather Draconian measure. While I’m not sure how things should shake out in a post P2P world, Internet access has become such an inherent part of day-to-day living that cutting it off seems a punishment far beyond the crime. Yes, file sharing—in aggregate—has a high cost, but the individual is not imposing that overall cost. Shoplifting too costs the retail industry (and the public via prices) a sizeable amount of money, but the penalties for petty theft still relate to the value of the merchandise. There are exceptions, of course (e.g., organizers of a theft ring, “shoplifting” a diamond ring), but overall the punishment generally matches the level of the individual crime.
(Oh, I’m perfectly aware that bajillions of people go about their day without ever accessing the Internet. I’m also perfectly aware that the Amish exist in a relatively technology-free world. That doesn’t mean that imposing a sentence that restricts someone to pre-industrial technology isn’t harsh.)