South Korea Joins the "Three Strikes" Ranks 278
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?"
Prosecution without legal recourse (Score:5, Insightful)
want to stop it? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:What are you fighting for? (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly is the problem? You break the law, you are punished. Hating on PITA DRM is one thing, but arguing against punishment when you are plainly violating copyright is just stupid.
I don't like your attitude. One sec while I fire off some copyright violations to your isp.
Re:What are you fighting for? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What are you fighting for? (Score:5, Insightful)
A situation where you can be punished on the strength of a mere accusation, without any legal standards of evidence or proof, is an absolute travesty.
Why does baseball get to set policy? (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Re:What are you fighting for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prosecution without legal recourse (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The reason. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:want to stop it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What are you fighting for? (Score:4, Insightful)
I hereby accuse you of terrorism. Would you like to face the punishment now, or do you think that due process is important now?
He can't hear you. He unmisteriously disappeared.
Re:What are you fighting for? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:What are you fighting for? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Three reasons why this is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Three, copyright law has gone way off the rails to the point where it is significantly impairing free speech, innovation, and creativity. Century-long copyright terms, takedown notices to block speech one disagrees with, DRM that seizes control of communications technology, and a tremendous concentration of cultural ownership in the hands of a few companies are bad enough. Strengthening the enforcement of illegitimate and unjust laws only increases the injustice.
I concur. The copyright law is a bright example of laws not serving the people but lobbyists. And, it's going to get worse and worse and worse, until *we, the people* wake up and make a shift in governance which puts the legislative, judicial and executive branches of the government in their place, serving the people.
Serving you and me, listening to our needs, proactively finding ways to support us and make our lives easier, cheaper, healthier and happier.
Currently, *money* is the most important thing to the government. And, government has found ways to collect its money from us, without accountability from our side. We have no control about giving our money or where our money goes. Lobbyists do have that control and they use it to steer the government.
When a shift happens that makes *us, the people, and our well-being* the most important thing for our government, then we will see policies that serve our interests.
This shift will not happen in the government before it happens for most individuals.
What we are seeing is the government acting as a greedy, insecure, vengeful child-king. Our last president was a wonderful illustration of that.
Our own insecurity, greed and separation manifest on a large scale.
Our laws naturally become more and more oppressive until we can't take it anymore and then get eased just enough to avoid violent response. After a while this is the new norm and a more oppressive version gets pushed again, and again and again. We are cornered and the walls are closing in, all the time.
This is how you boil a frog, this is how you enslave people under the illusion of freedom.
And, of course, there's always the power... http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/19.html [george-orwell.org]
Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow.
So anyone who doesnt agree with you and might think that infringing copyright is a bad thing MUST be 'astroturfing'. What a closed-minded view. Maybe if you actually considered the possibility that the people with differing views honestly held them, and actually listened to them, you might learn something?
A surveillance society to keep copyrights in place (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:4, Insightful)
Who are you going to email your legal arguments to once your internet is shut off?
Re:3 strikes (Score:3, Insightful)
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 the names, because the ISP would be bankrupt if they had to shut off all of their customers, and the University would be crippled.
Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:4, Insightful)
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:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is it unlikely to have packet forging, Most linux box allow MAC address and IP address spoofing.
Just spoof a neighbor's mac and IP and open a TCP connection. As far as the router / switch is concerned there is no difference between 1 machine opening many TCP Connections and many machines with same mac address each opening a few tcp connections.
Sure the average movie downloading teen doesn't have the knowledge to do this but I am sure there is already some app you can download which provides a nice friendly GUI interface.
Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:4, Insightful)
So anyone who doesnt agree with you and might think that infringing copyright is a bad thing MUST be 'astroturfing'. What a closed-minded view.
First, WOOSH!
To explain...the point is that the "astroturfer" is as guilty of actually astroturfing as the "file sharer" is of actually sharing copyrighted material in a manner that is not permitted. At this point, both are just accusations, but at least here on /. there is a way to allow the accused to prove the accusation is false.
Most of these "three strikes" copyright laws aren't even "guilty until proven innocent". They are "guilty if any large corporation that holds copyrights says you are".
Since there are no provisions in these laws for false accusations, the correct solution is to find the IP addresses of any of the people in power who passed these laws and accuse them of sharing your copyrighted content.
Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone that has tried this has been abused. No ifs, ands or buts; everyone that has tried going the open route has been anally raped with no lubricant, and no kiss afterwards. It's worked like this:
Company 1: *drm*
Consumer: "u fagget i pirate u"
Company 2: "That's not right... here, just pay a reasonable fee, and I won't limit you"
Consumer: "lol ur easy 2 pirate fag"
Company 2: ":("
Company 1: *MASSIVE LITIGATION PUSH*
Your idea makes sense on paper, but human nature is a painful reminder that it just doesn't work in reality. Check out the piracy numbers on the completely open (and Linux enabled!) World of Goo.
Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:4, Insightful)
Meh. People are gonna pirate regardless, and no matter what DRM is invented, it will be cracked. There will always be content pirates. The best you can do is treat your LEGITIMATE customers well enough that they buy from you again and again and compensate for whatever losses you might take from pirates.
Re:What are you fighting for? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your argument contradicts reality.
Let me explain...
Don't break the law and you aren't in trouble.
This is exceptionally unlikely for nearly everyone to do.
First off, if you are not a lawyer by profession, you already lost at that game. All of us reading this have broken probably around a hundred laws just today in our normal daily lives. You included.
Most of those laws aren't even known, occasionally even by the police! They are still public record and 'on the books', thus are law.
Did you know in the state of Ohio, it's illegal to walk down the street with two ice cream cones in your pocket?
It's true.. and despite the unlikelihood of that happening, in addition to its harmlessness, it is still a crime.
It's like people who complain when they get a ticket for "only going 5mph over the limit" (ie, only breaking the law a little).
No, not really at all like that. In that example, a police officer both is witness to your crime, and generally has proof in the form of a radar/laser gun readout.
In the case of what the article speaks of, there is no proof (because it is not needed to make an accusation, by definition.)
Simply by having someone else CLAIM you committed a crime is enough to count as a strike.
Three such CLAIMs and you are offline.
If actual evidence and proof were required in the law, and it went before a judge or a jury of peers, then most of us would not have a problem with this law. But that isn't the case, and so most all of us have a problem with it.
What exactly is the problem? You break the law, you are punished.
Again, if that was actually what the article was saying, not only would it not be a problem, but it wouldn't even be posted on slashdot. But somehow you missed that part in the article (like, you know, all of it)
These people may or may not have committed any crime. It doesn't at all matter.
You are accused of breaking the law, and you get punished. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to you?
If not, then just wait until you get your way. I can find more than three people which will claim you broke a law, just so you won't feel bad about being punished for it when you are punished.
Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is precisely why nobody is taking the opposing viewpoint very serious. Sadly, I almost wish you were right so the RIAA could start cutting idiots like you off of the internet.
One one side there's copyright law and thousands of torrent sites with millions of torrents for RIAA and MPAA copyrighted music and movies. Obviously, the RIAA and MPAA are at least a little right that there are a lot of people downloading their content illegally.
On the opposing side you have idiots with absolutely no evidence crying "This isn't happening, the RIAA is just trying to shut down the internet to make money!".
Seriously, do you have even the tiniest shred of evidence supporting your claim?
Re:1 botnet, 1 angry geek (Score:3, Insightful)