Posted on 02/26/2013 4:36:57 AM PST by Mad Dawgg
So if a Comcast customer breaks the law Comcast has the right to break the contract and cease services, correct?
Mind you not I am not talking about accusations I am talking about determining guilt?
Ahhh no. The contract states explicitly "Unlawful purpose" referring to "breaking the law" as in laws of the state. Comcast has no jurisdiction to find someone guilty of breaking the law. So for them to break the contract they must first have a finding from a court that states the customer is guilty of breaking the law.
Just like a rental contract I can toss someone from my apartments if they are using it for unlawful purposes BUT I must first have a court finding that the tenant used the property for "unlawful purposes" for the judge to grant me an eviction based on such. If they wanted to break the contract on accusations they would have stated so.
Correction: Comcast has no jurisdiction to impose criminal penalties for breaking the law.
So for them to break the contract they must first have a finding from a court that states the customer is guilty of breaking the law.
Highly dubious claim. Can you cite any legal precedent in support?
I know how to secure a router. Just saying that nobody can prove in court it was your PC without physically searching the disk.
A knock on the door for child abuse or terrorist activities, yes. But I think we have a long way to go before they knock and hire drive analysts for every $20 movie.
Not a correction, Comcast has no jurisdiction to find someone guilty of breaking the law. This is undeniably true. Only the Judicial System can do such. Comcast can accuse can they cannot do anything more.
Now Comcast can put in their contract a clause specifically saying that downloading copyrighted material without the copyright owners consent is grounds for termination of the contract BUT they have no such clause. Instead they have a clause that states using the equipment for "unlawful purposes" is grounds for termination. And being they have no legal standing to determine if someone is guilty of using their equipment for "unlawful purposes" without getting a warrant to gather forensic evidence of such then they have no legal standing to terminate the contract.
"Highly dubious claim. Can you cite any legal precedent in support?"
Ask any first year law student. But seriously the clause in the contract is self-evident. The phrase is: "unlawful purpose" not accused, not suspected but precisely "unlawful purpose" do you think Comcast paid their lawyers to write a contract to just throw words about? Just recently in our little town a city worker had his employment contract terminated because they have a clause that states if the worker is engages in unlawful activities during the term of his employment contract they can terminate the contract immediately. He was arrested and held in jail without bond. So they ended his contract and told him his services were no longer needed. His case was thrown out of court because the prosecutor didn't have the evidence he claimed he had in the arrest warrant. The city is now ponying up some big bucks because they terminated the employees contract before he was convicted.
bump
I wouldn't put it past the lawyers to pick a few sacrificial lambs as very public examples to scare the crap out of people.
Highly dubious claim. Can you cite any legal precedent in support?
[Empty bluster deleted] Just recently in our little town a city worker had his employment contract terminated because they have a clause that states if the worker is engages in unlawful activities during the term of his employment contract they can terminate the contract immediately. He was arrested and held in jail without bond. So they ended his contract and told him his services were no longer needed. His case was thrown out of court because the prosecutor didn't have the evidence he claimed he had in the arrest warrant. The city is now ponying up some big bucks because they terminated the employees contract before he was convicted.
Settlements are not legal precedent - did the city lose a court judgment? And naturally if the terminator can produce NO evidence of unlawful activity they'd lose a civil suit (where, note, the standard of proof is 'preponderance of evidence,' not 'beyond reasonable doubt') by the terminatee - that is far short of your claim that "they must first have a finding from a court."
Hell it isn't any wonder. You trot out a contract that clearly states one must engage in unlawful activities and a first year law student can tell you that to be guilty of breaking the law (aka deemed to engage in unlawful activities) one must have his day in court and lose first. Its why newspapers use the term "Alleged" as in: "The alleged murderer could not be located for questioning."
You do understand the difference right?
So the worker took them to court. The court ruled he didn't violate his contract AND the city has to pay him damages but in your little world this isn't legal proof? [empty bluster deleted]
It's far from establishing your unsupported claim that "they must first have a finding from a court" - for reasons I clearly explained.
How would Comcast determine the act was unlawful? There is no evidence just accusation. Further the court determined that since there is no evidence that the worker was guilty of a crime (For if he was he would be in jail or on probation which was exactly the judge's ruling) then voiding the contract based on the "unlawful clause" was in error. And since we are talking about Contract law which is settled in civil court the Comcast Contract clause is the same thing.
Strawmen arguments won't work apples to apples, oranges to orange and all that.
How would Comcast determine the act was unlawful? There is no evidence just accusation.
Comcast would be ill-advised to terminate based only on accusation. Is there any reason to think that's what this program is about?
Further the court determined that since there is no evidence that the worker was guilty of a crime (For if he was he would be in jail or on probation
LOL! That one isn't in jail or on probation shows only that the evidence was not beyond a reasonable doubt, not that it was nonexistent. Before you pontificate on legal points, you should familiarize yourself with such basics.
Ahhh in the criminal case the Case was thrown out BECAUSE THE DA COULD NOT PRODUCE EVIDENCE THE A CRIME WAS COMMITTED.
There was no reasonable doubt because there was no case hahahahh But hey keep on floundering Sparky.
Previously you claimed the case was thrown out "because the prosecutor didn't have the evidence he claimed he had in the arrest warrant" - which is a very different claim than your latest claim.
At this point it's clear that your personal recollection of this matter is not reliable. Post a link to a press account, or talk to the hand.
Wait I said he had no evidence that a crime was committed which is exactly the same thing He claimed the guy broke the law in the arrest warrant But he had no evidence that he did and the case was thrown out. Your problem is you are down to arguing semantics. You have nothing but.
Hell Comcast won in court when Big Media tried to force them to reveal identities of "alleged" file sharers to obtain warrants. WHY? Because they argued it violated privacy laws AND they also argued BIG MEDIA had no evidence that a designated customer had committed a crime. The court upheld Comcast's stance and forced BIG Media to use John Doe warrants to legally obtain the IDs of "alleged" File sharers. And when BIG MEDIA started losing these cases right and left they dropped that tactic.
<crickets/>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
