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?"
Stop it from spreading? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Prosecution without legal recourse (Score:4, Interesting)
3 strikes (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:2, Interesting)
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:Stop it from spreading? (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't forget big corporations. They are legally people, after all, so after three violations they too can be disconnected.
The Reason is... (Score:1, Interesting)
The reason it has caught on is because it is a childish solution to a childish problem thought up by childish people. No offense to actual children intended.
1 botnet, 1 angry geek (Score:5, Interesting)
How do you stop it? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Three Strikes = BS (Score:5, Interesting)
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 about a "3 strikes" law for zombie computers? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Prosecution without legal recourse (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
The common man is the only one you can hurt. Legislators are quite safe in their ivory fortress.
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.
Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:3, Interesting)
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 after a while. Not to mention that shutting down the wrong people means the RIAA will keep coming back telling them to shut off even more people.
Not to mention all the negative publicity they would get if they shut down the wrong people.
So, what devious hijinks are you expecting?