Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Your Rights Online

South Korea Joins the "Three Strikes" Ranks 278

Posted by kdawson
from the judge-and-jury dept.
Glyn Moody writes "For years, the content industries having been trying to get laws passed that would stop people sharing files. For years they failed. Then they came up with the 'three strikes and you're out' idea — and it is starting to be put into law around the world. First we had France, followed by countries like Italy, Ireland — and now South Korea: 'On March 3, 2009, the National Assembly's Committee on Culture, Sports, Tourism, Broadcasting & Communications (CCSTB&C) passed a bill to revise the Copyright Law. The bill includes the so called, "three strikes out" or "graduated response" provision.' Why has the 'three strikes' idea caught on where others have failed? And what is the best way to stop it spreading further?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

South Korea Joins the "Three Strikes" Ranks

Comments Filter:
  • Which is why it's caught on. Sharing someone else's copyrighted material is still not legal, and this approach, while stupid, does give people a fair chance to stop.

    (Although I can't see it working here in Finland, where people _need_ the net to do stuff like banking.)

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Adrian Lopez (2615)

      You think depriving people of access to the Internet == which is quickly becoming an essential resource to many -- is more fair than suing people left and right?

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Whiternoise (1408981)
        Make 'em use text-only browsers :D
        "Look mum, i'm watching Lord of The Rings in ASCII art!"
        • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

          by The FNP (1177715)

          I hope that when Mom ventured and was greeted with "Look mum, I'm watching Lord of The Rings in ASCII art!", she could recognize that as the ultimate geek cry for help. I hope her next impulse would be to run to the phone and call the producers for Queer Eye for the FUCKING HOPELESS!

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Hordeking (1237940)

          Make 'em use text-only browsers :D "Look mum, i'm watching Lord of The Rings in ASCII art!"

          The Ralph Bakshi version, right?

    • by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Tuesday March 10, 2009 @02:20PM (#27138193)

      And, like a lot of people, you missed the point: there is no need in any of these provisions to prove that you were indeed file sharing. All it takes is an infringement allegation by someone stating that they represent a copyright holder. That's it. And I can tell you that the vast majority of ISPs will log the allegation, tally up the current count, and cut off the Internet if the tally reaches three. If you're lucky, they send out form mails stating that they received an infringement notice, and how many there are now.

      You got DHCP? You're pretty much guaranteed to get someone else's notice. And as you pointed out, a lot of stuff gets done over the internet. Including my job. The Recording associations are essentially killing off the ability of anyone but large corporations to use the internet. Of course they're happy with that. The questions is - are you? Can you be?

      • by bobKali (240342) on Tuesday March 10, 2009 @02:51PM (#27138711) Homepage

        Seems to me that what is needed is a large number of people abusing this law and lodging false complaints with the aim to deny service to random/ non-random people before the legislators will be able to understand what a stupid law this is. Once enough of their (voting) constituents are adversely affected they'll either rescind it or be voted out of office.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Why random people?

          Let the law pass, then use the law to deny service to the very same lawmakers who voted it in. Shouldn't take long to piss them off.

          Why hurt the common man unless we have to when it's the legislators that are being stupid.

          I also recommend using the law to hit big corporations in a variety of ways.

          • by ultranova (717540) on Tuesday March 10, 2009 @06:21PM (#27142003)

            Let the law pass, then use the law to deny service to the very same lawmakers who voted it in. Shouldn't take long to piss them off.

            Lawmakers aren't subject to the laws. That's why they pass stupid laws in the first place: they know that any complaint made against them will be investigated and, unless done by a large enough company, ignored.

            Why hurt the common man unless we have to when it's the legislators that are being stupid.

            The common man is the only one you can hurt. Legislators are quite safe in their ivory fortress.

            I also recommend using the law to hit big corporations in a variety of ways.

            If politicians are untouchable, then corporations are Demon Gods capable of smiting you with lawsuit and then dragging you through all kinds of legal Hells. Don't even think of going up against them.

            You know that old joke? "Cthulhu for president - why vote for the lesser evil?" The sad thing is that, as far as powers that be go, Cthulhu is the lesser evil.

      • by jlarocco (851450)

        You got DHCP? You're pretty much guaranteed to get someone else's notice. And as you pointed out, a lot of stuff gets done over the internet. Including my job. The Recording associations are essentially killing off the ability of anyone but large corporations to use the internet. Of course they're happy with that. The questions is - are you? Can you be?

        You do realize DHCP requests and responses can be logged, right? If the RIAA tells an ISP they saw 12.34.56.78 sharing copyrighted material at a certain t

        • by tsm_sf (545316) on Tuesday March 10, 2009 @03:36PM (#27139463) Journal
          Leaving aside the idiocy of treating logfiles like fingerprints, are you absolutely going to swear that the ISP machine and the RIAA machine are set to the same time?

          The RIAA's whole approach is a house of cards, and I believe that in the end they will irreversibly damage the credibility of genuine computer forensics.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by jlarocco (851450)

            I don't understand the conspiracy theory here. It just doesn't make sense.

            It's in the RIAA's best interest to provide accurate time stamps because they gain nothing by having the wrong people's connection cut. If the real offender is still uploading then the RIAA has just wasted time and money and achieved nothing.

            It's in the ISP's best interest to keep accurate time stamps so they can cut the right person's connection because each customer they turn off is $60 a month they stop making - that adds up

            • by schon (31600) on Tuesday March 10, 2009 @08:23PM (#27143421)

              It's in the RIAA's best interest to provide accurate time stamps because they gain nothing by having the wrong people's connection cut. If the real offender is still uploading then the RIAA has just wasted time and money and achieved nothing.

              Wrong. Utterly and completely wrong.

              In the mind of the RIAA, EVERYBODY is guilty of "stealing" their product. Even if they didn't "catch" you downloading something, you're guilty of downloading something, even if it's not theirs. And if it's not theirs, it's even better, because it spreads fear that downloading *anything* will get you sued.

              Make no mistake - the RIAA's litigation campaign isn't actually designed to catch people who are copying their music, it's designed to scare everybody into going back to buying overpriced shiny discs.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10, 2009 @02:20PM (#27138201)

      It's not fairer. "3 strikes" implicitly assumes that you are guilty. It's typically used in sentencing proceedings in some criminal courts.

      In applying it to filesharing, the laws conveniently (for the accuser) leave out the proof-of-guilt phase. It is really just "3 times accused and you're out". At least with a lawsuit the accused has a chance to put forth their side of the story to an impartial court of law. The new laws do not.

    • by Shakrai (717556)

      How the hell is is fairer than suing someone? At least in a court of law you receive some semblance of due process. Think Roadrunner is going to give you the same due process?

    • by SoCalChris (573049) on Tuesday March 10, 2009 @02:32PM (#27138413) Journal
      My comment is now on your computer, as are many other people's comments. The notice at the bottom of the page says that the comment is mine. I don't want it on your computer, so now I can call your ISP and claim that you have some of my content on your computer. Two of the other people on here can do the same, and now you don't have the internet any more.

      Yeah, that's a BS example, and wouldn't stand up in court. But it doesn't need to. All you need is three allegations, and you're done.
      • by DAldredge (2353)
        From the /. TOS. With respect to text or data entered into and stored by publicly-accessible site features such as forums, comments and bug trackers ("SourceForge Public Content"), the submitting user retains ownership of such SourceForge Public Content; with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display content activity, such content is owned by SourceForge. In each such case, the submitting user grants SourceForge the royalty-free, perpetual, irre
    • by tkrotchko (124118)

      "Sharing someone else's copyrighted material is still not legal"

      Actually, it may or may not be. There are music sites, based in the U.S. that share music of artists for free. The music is fully copyrighted. But as the artist is not famous they would for the present time prefer to get people to listen and thus do not charge.

      Or consider last.fm or Hulu. Or lots of other sites that let you download copyrighted, mainstream entertainment for free. Or if I have a copy of music on my hard drive and I copy i

    • Sharing someone else's copyrighted material is still not legal

      Driving faster than the speed limit isn't legal either. Now, imagine a speed limit of 2 mph in the city and 4 mph in open country [safermotoring.co.uk]. Would you still drive in the legal limit? Fortunately speed limits are more reasonable today than they were in 1865.

      But what about a copyright law under which no work has entered the public domain in the last 85 years? Is that reasonable? Under such a draconian law, it's perfectly ethical and fair to disobey the law [wikipedia.org].

    • "Which is why it's caught on. Sharing someone else's copyrighted material is still not legal"

      Talk about your country. It is legal on my country and, AFAIK, as counterintuitive as it seems (being the first "three strikes" adopter) it is legal in France too. They have/had to change law first and then come with the three strikes idea. It is clearly fairer than previous 'statu quo'.

  • by DreamerFi (78710) <john@NosPaM.sinteur.com> on Tuesday March 10, 2009 @01:56PM (#27137749) Homepage

    Simple. Accuse prominent law-makers of copyright violations.

    Three times.

    Except for the french president, he only needs two more [techdirt.com].

    There probably needs to be made a ruckus for each law-maker that needs to be disconnected, but after a few successful stories in the media, they'll either write exceptions for themselves into law (and that can easily be used against them next elections) or the law is dropped.

  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday March 10, 2009 @01:59PM (#27137817)
    So who do we get to appeal to when we've been falsely accused. The power company can't cut off my electricity without some legal recourse. The city can't turn off my water or sewer without some legal recourse. Who do I appeal to when my only ISP shuts me off because someone spoofed my IP address or botted my machine, or hijacked my router?
    • by areusche (1297613) on Tuesday March 10, 2009 @02:10PM (#27138021)
      This presents some interesting repercussions. What is stopping me from torrenting files over say my employer's internet connection? Or some poor soul I find while I'm walking around with my computer? Will the three strike rule apply to corporations with thousands of employees? My office has a wireless connection without any type of authentication (unsecure public wifi). All it asks are for your email, which personally is zxc@xvv.com. Will ISPs kill the internet connection for them?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bjourne (1034822)
      Isn't that exactly what they do when you fail to pay the bills? Maybe the situation is different in the US, but in most countries service providers can cut you off without a court order when you break the contract.
      • by madcow_bg (969477)

        Isn't that exactly what they do when you fail to pay the bills? Maybe the situation is different in the US, but in most countries service providers can cut you off without a court order when you break the contract.

        Yes, they could. And then you CAN sue them for quite a lot of things if in fact they were wrong and you did pay the bills.

        The GP assets those laws don't allow you to sue the ISPs for wrongful disconnect.

      • by Anonymous Cowpat (788193) on Tuesday March 10, 2009 @03:10PM (#27139055) Journal

        Well in the UK (and I'm fairly sure it became like this to harmonise with the rest of Europe), your water supplier can't cut you off for non-payment of bills, even with a court order (or, rather, they can't get an order allowing them to cut you off).

      • by Sj0 (472011) on Tuesday March 10, 2009 @05:56PM (#27141653) Homepage Journal

        Essential services are extremely difficult to turn off because of the lethal consequences. Here in Manitoba, they started putting current limiting devices on homes whose power bill is unpaid. This has already resulted in people dying of hypothermia.

    • Whether you have a valid point depends on if net access is as important as water and electricity, or is just some frivolous entertainment.

      What pisses me off is that government will pass a law triviality cutting someone off, and yet it's important enough that they will spend public money to make sure everyone is connected. They need to choose one coherent approach.

    • by Yvanhoe (564877)
      In France, it will probably be to the European Court of Human Rights (who does indeed have more urgent cases, but well...) They gave an unfavourable advice when asked about this law, the EU parliament didn't like it, most of the French parliament (including the majority) does not likes it. But then, FNAC's CEO (one of the biggest music stores in France) is a closed friend to our beloved president. And he is married to a (dumb) singer who thinks the RIAA (or SACEM as it is called here) is fighting her intere
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        This is our turn to have a Bush in charge...

        you saw the photos too, huh?

      • Yeah, France's a nuclear superpower (heh) and they have a seat on the UNSC. But their worst president will only do worst for the French.

        Speaking as an US citizen, Bush Jr did far more damage to foreign countries than any single president/ruler of any European country.

    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      The power company can't cut off my electricity without some legal recourse. The city can't turn off my water or sewer without some legal recourse.

      Power, water, and sewage are all regulated utilities.
      The rules that apply to them are different.

    • by aaandre (526056)

      The idea was never to pass a perfect law. The idea is to pass an overreaching law crushing all resistance and then back it off for the entities that bite back. Much easier, cheaper and powerful.

      If the law passes, you'll see amendments for everyone big enough to fight back.

      We are talking about a battlefield where people (a human = "person") go against giant nightmarish entities with unlimited cash resources, armies of lawyers, and laws on their side (lobbying corporation = "person") that also get to write th

  • want to stop it? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    If you want to stop it, just stop downloading.

    Are you honestly telling me that you have downloaded music or movies e.t.c. and actually believe you deserve it because it's there?

    If you really do, I think you need a slap.

    TPB and stuff are great and it is funny... but how many people really think deep down that they are correct?

    I agree that one download does not mean one lost sale e.t.c. and that half of the stuff these companies say is crap, but it does not mean I deserve to download anything I see.

    • by DrLang21 (900992) on Tuesday March 10, 2009 @02:28PM (#27138343)
      It's not an issue of what you do and don't deserve. We can argue about the ethics of TPB's business model all day and there's certainly fair argument for it being unethical. However, unethical != illegal. That's the problem here. If you want to shut people off the Internet for copyright violation, that's fine, but you had better damn well prove in a court of law that the defendant indeed violated copyright. Actually, since the punishment is no longer just monetary, you had better damn well prove in a criminal court (where the burden of proof is much more stringent) that the defendant violated copyright. The thing that has been pissing people off more than anything is abuse of the system. Using questionable evidence, flawed arguments, and outrageous damage claims is what has set most people against the recording industry. If you can prove that I shot off a Metallica mp3 to 50 people and you want somewhere between $50 to $100 in damages, that's reasonable. Demanding $100,000 with no evidence of distribution is an absurd violation of due process.
    • by profplump (309017)
      I use TPB simply as a means to reducing my locally CPU demands -- I have a valid subscription that entitles me to view (and time-shift) all the content I download via TPB, I just don't want to record or encode it locally. I realize that this is still technically a violation of copyright law, but deep down I really do think it's a valid use, that TPB is doing legitimate work in helping me, and that the law if flawed for trying to stop them.

      Now I know there are lots of TPB users who do not have legitimate acc
    • by Mex (191941)

      "I agree that one download does not mean one lost sale e.t.c. and that half of the stuff these companies say is crap, but it does not mean I deserve to download anything I see."

      Absolutely, but it doesn't mean you should go to jail for 5 years for downloading Bono's latest, nor that you should pay 150,000 dollars if your kid downloads some Harry Potter movie!

      What's wrong with a sensible fine?

  • So in other words, we are being Zerg-rushed with 3-strike laws?

    • Are you saying we should be developing our air power as a deterrent to the RIAA/MPAA?

      Oh by the way, anyone else notice that those termite traps they plant in the ground look a bit like sunken colonies?

  • Really, three strikes and you are out is straight from a game someone sat down and created out of thin air one day. Now people are basing laws on the concept? WTF?

    • by TheLink (130905)
      Because most people can't count higher than 3?

      Heck, many sound guys seldom count higher than 2 ;).
    • by EEBaum (520514) on Tuesday March 10, 2009 @02:43PM (#27138559) Homepage
      On the contrary, the significance of the number three is much older indeed than baseball.

      For example:

      then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out.

      -Book of Armaments, Chapter 9 (excerpt)

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by HTH NE1 (675604)

      Indeed. It should be based on bowling: with 10 strikes you get two more.

      Or use the rules of Brockian Ultra Cricket. The setting is already set up for apologizing at a distance.

  • You might be able to fight this by Slipping provisions in privacy legislation to prevent record keeping beyond 3 months for this sort of thing. This catches the most egregious offenders, but works no "corruption of blood"

  • 3 strikes (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Improv (2467) <pgunn@dachte.org> on Tuesday March 10, 2009 @02:12PM (#27138045) Homepage Journal

    3 strikes is more appropriate for a cultural struggle, which is what this is. Many of us firmly believe that intellectual property law is invalid, and that there is no duty to society to follow it. Both we and industries built on IP are trying to convince the public towards our perspective, and the "3 strikes" law gives some limited protection to people who have only heard our side and don't know the legal risks.

    In the end, what we hope is that instead of simply "learning and accepting" the concept of intellectual property, people will just be more careful not to get caught, and that eventually we can remove copyright and patent protections entirely from our legal system. In the meantime, it's nice not to have people have their lives ruined in this cultural/legal struggle.

    By analogy to other struggles over notions of human dignity and autonomy, if people who were part of the Underground Railroad had a 3-strikes rule, it would've afforded them some protection without requiring a complete victory .. yet.

    • But hold on... do these "3 strikes" rules actually replace the other dangers? Or just supplement them?

      In all these "3 strikes" proposals, is there some legally-enforceable rule that if you are accused of unauthorized distribution (one of your "strikes"), the copyright holder implicitly waives their right to sue? I don't think so. (But if anyone has some info one way or the other, please let me know.)

      So in other words, these rules are just another way for a person to be attacked. They can lose their net conn

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jpatters (883)

        Indeed, it gives the music industry enormous leverage. The next time they go to an ISP or University, and say: "Give us the names behind these IP addresses" and the ISP or University balks, they can just say: "In that case, we will just issue a strike against your entire address space, since from our point of view any of your customers/students may be infringing and you are not cooperating with us." Two more times, they are out of business. It's an atom bomb. Of course, they will just buckle and give them t

    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      3 strikes is more appropriate for a cultural struggle, which is what this is.

      A cultural struggle indeed.
      Which makes it so utterly confusing that South Korea would sign up for this.

      As in most Asian countries, both individual and commercial compyright infringement is so wildly rampant in South Korea as to be a de facto part of their culture.

  • The reason. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Goliath (101288)

    Harsh penalties for file sharing strike most people as being wrong.

    However, wholesale file sharing of copyrighted material also strikes most people as wrong.

    A tiered system is seen as being more fair, punishing those who commit a "youthful indiscretion" more lightly, and repeat, presumably more hardcore offenders more harshly.

    It makes sense from a limited perspective.

    • by will_die (586523)
      Those are good reasons and explain why the public will accept them, but the public also accepts the civil trials.
      Why the 3 strikes will work is because the ISPs will do it.
      Lets face it if you are a person who shares movies,music,etc you are going to be the main source of network usage for the ISP, if you have a bunch of downloaders/uploaders you have to purchase additional hardware and network time. If the ISP can remove that large usage the costs decrease. So the ISPs can 1st and 2nd strike the person,
      • yes, my ISP keeps trying to palm me off with some excuse about 'the students' when I complain that my connection is ropey. If they don't have the capacity to provide to a hefty chunk of their customers what they've promised them, I fail to see why that's my problem to put up with.

    • by DrLang21 (900992)
      Most people would consider a $100,000 damages claim for making available a single song to be wrong. Most people would accept a $50 damages claim for sending a single song to 50 different people. You can't go to civil court and demand $100,000 for someone failing to pay a $700 rent for a couple months. You can only demand what you are owed. "Pain and suffering" claims are usually hard to get through.
  • Soon well see people holding up music stores instead of file sharing because the punishment would be less harsh.

  • "3 strikes and you're out" - isn't this the kind of cowboy movie world that George W Bush lived in and now we're thankfully past? Up there with trying to explain world geopolitics in terms of "good guys and bad guys" and "you're either with us or against us".

    Surely we can have a more nuanced response to legal / political situations now you've got somebody with a brain running the USA?

    Incidently, where does "3 strikes and you're out" come from? is it a baseball term? Sorry, not familiar with baseball over he

  • To share once may be regarded as a misfortune... to share twice seems like carelessness... to share three times is considered habitual.
  • by RonBurk (543988) on Tuesday March 10, 2009 @03:01PM (#27138881) Homepage Journal
    Scenario: the wrong geek gets 2 strikes, gets mad, and fires up a botnet (or just happens to have, say, $20,000 laying around to rent an existing one for a few runs). The botnet causes a significant percentage of users in some country to start getting their "strike warnings". As a result, the fallacy of the idea that IP addresses identify human beings is exposed (or the fallacy that ISPs invest the slightest effort in controlling botnets, if you like).
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by stephanruby (542433)
      Who needs a botnet? The University of Washington has already proven this could be done with just one computer and one fake GET request (through spoofing an IP address, apparently the RIAA/MediaSentry doesn't seem to be too interested in even checking whether the GET request is valid or not). Now just imagine one computer and just one entire month of broadcasting fake GET requests to suspected RIAA/MediaSentry servers, you could easily incriminate millions of people you didn't know that way, but I doubt that
  • A surveillance society to keep copyrights in place is not acceptable.

    If there has to be a choice between surveillance on all civilian communications and ceasing the copyright regime, I choose ceasing copyrights.

  • 3 strikes unless you are in government or your family is in the music exec business (not the music business).

  • Become anonymous (Score:4, Informative)

    by Slashdotgirl (912338) on Tuesday March 10, 2009 @03:20PM (#27139215)
    The following are just some of the programs, which provide a level of both encryption and anonymous communication for Internet usage:
    • Tor: Onion-based routing that acts as a proxy layer between the client computer and the Tor network. http://tor.eff.org/ [eff.org]
    • I2P: Also known as the Invisible Internet Project. The network is regarded as a message based system. http://www.i2p.net/ [i2p.net]
    • FreeNet: is a distributed information and storage retrieval system designed to address the concerns of privacy. Freenet is designed to be anonymous and totally peer to peer. http://freenetproject.org/ [freenetproject.org]
    • GNUnet: is a P2P network that can support many different forms of peer-to-peer applications. http://gnunet.org/ [gnunet.org]
    • Open VPN: is where one can use software that encrypts your traffic on a server created in another country instead of the one you are in. http://openvpn.net/ [openvpn.net]

    There are other programs and if you do not want others knowing what "traffic" you carry then you would be wise to use them.

  • We revise our constitution to operate thusly:

    Three angry letters to congressmen from constituents, any letters at all, and you're out of office.

    There. Problem solved.

  • Of course there are problems with recourse, false accusations and DOS exploits. This is _desired_ by the *AA !

    They basically want to frighten people into compliance with their business model. From their PoV, nothing wrong with excessive fright and injustice. Not their problem.

    This is a fundamental problem when strong/concentrated interests influence/manipulate a representative democracy to improve their own welfare. The general populace, diffuse interests lose out because of inertia.

  • Three strikes is the biggest bullshit ever. Copyright traffic does and will pass through many machines until it reaches it's destination. Does this mean EVERY machine gets a strike?

    Also, from a business standpoint it is COMPLETELY counter productive. The ISP's would essentially be killing off their customer base. What about businesses? Employees share shit all the time, so the ISP's have to cut a $10,000 monthly agreement because of three violations? Such legislation would cause more economic loss than the
    • by CodeBuster (516420) on Tuesday March 10, 2009 @04:07PM (#27139951)

      Such legislation would cause more economic loss than the actual infringement (businesses included).

      Which is why the ISPs will challenge the law in court when and if the MAFIAA attempts to bring suit for failure to "cut off" a customer(s). If you were a business and some third party, who is not a paying customer, came to your place of business waving some piece of paper in your face and told you to "cut off" certain customers and never serve them again (resulting in a loss for your business) would you just do it? Certainly not, and neither will the ISPs. The negative PR from their customer base and the prospect of losing tens of thousands of dollars a month in subscription fees will put ISPs in a fighting mood, lawsuits be damned. A lawsuit might take years to work its way through the courts and in the meantime the ISP is losing tens of thousands of dollars per month in subscriber fees from customers that it has been forced to "cut off". The MAFIAA will be put in its place when it starts costing the large ISPs such as AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint/Nextel real money. It will be like when SCO foolishly attempted to sue IBM and Novell, the MAFIAA will be swiftly crushed by the much larger telecom industry and their lobbyists/attorneys.

  • How do you stop it? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Thergrim (1012321)
    Massive fraud. With a constant barrage of phony (but authentic looking) infringement letters sent to ISP's. ISP's cannot/will not validate each letter they receive (or have emailed or faxed to them).

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?

Working...