>UK Music suggested that on their third warning, illegal filesharers should be cut off for 72 hours, for a month on their fourth warning, and on their fifth for two months.<
Heh, that sounds fair to me, second warning go virtual encrypted whatever it is, third warning visit a friends for two days, fourth and fifth warning rent a dongle for email and surfing then go usenet. It's kind'a like a bad joke. If the copyright mafia are serious, they should simply take the filesharer to court where the burden of proof is on them. I'm assuming they hope the first warning will frighten most filesharers into stopping.
I mean, this is obviously so very much more important than innocent civilians dying in Afghanistan and Iraq, people still starving to death in third world countries, Chinese human rights abuses, rape of the natural world, loss of basic freedoms and the rapidly diminishing oil reserves.
>I would rather get a 'tap' on the shoulder and be told to stop than to get a court summons which I have little chance of defending myself against.<
Don't ever do this, it's just a logic exercise...
borrow a laptop and change its name to Hakerun1te, log onto your router and do some surfing, bingo, proof that someone hacked your router (the laptops name will appear on the routers list of connected PCs). This will also allow you to query the validity of access being suspended too. Maybe.