Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

South Korea Joins the "Three Strikes" Ranks

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the judge-and-jury dept.

The Internet 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?"

cancel ×

278 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

IN KOREA (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27137687)

In Korea, only old people get 3 strikes.

Video summaries... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27137719)

Found here [youtube.com] and here [youtube.com] .

Re:IN KOREA (1)

sxpert (139117) | more than 5 years ago | (#27137789)

nah, they get 3 strokes !

It's fairer than suing people left and right. (1, Redundant)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 5 years ago | (#27137729)

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:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27137957)

2 more astroturfing posts and you are out.

2 more astroturfing posts and you are out. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27138713)

lol!

Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (2, Insightful)

cliffski (65094) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138915)

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?

Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27137987)

Naw dude

Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (1, Interesting)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138097)

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:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (1)

Slumdog (1460213) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138351)

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?

I don't know how you got the idea that the 3 strike rule is really 'depriving' people of internet. Connection to the internet is a renewable process...you connect, disconnect, and connect again without losing your wallet. When you get sued, you lose money and time. When someone takes your money through a lawsuit, it is hard to get it back. On the other hand, if someone takes away your internet connection, you can access it elsewhere. Not too hard to figure out what is unfair, eh?

Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27138543)

Not always so. I have one (1) broadband provider in my area, DSL via the telco. I have a single dial up provider, via the public library. My final choice would be satellite - again, a single provider, albeit accessed via several subcontractors. 3 strikes and I AM OUT!! And, this is in the United States. While the US is failing to keep up with much of Europe in internet development, it is easy to understand that much of the world has fewer choices than I have. If you can have service stopped by an endless list of ISP's, and still find service, I truly envy you. I'll bet you have fiberoptic among your choices, too. God, I envy you!!

Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (1)

Slumdog (1460213) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138823)

Not always so. I have one (1) broadband provider in my area, DSL via the telco. I have a single dial up provider, via the public library. My final choice would be satellite - again, a single provider, albeit accessed via several subcontractors. 3 strikes and I AM OUT!!

Mod +1 insightful!

And, this is in the United States.

Mod +1 informative!

While the US is failing to keep up with much of Europe in internet development, it is easy to understand that much of the world has fewer choices than I have. If you can have service stopped by an endless list of ISP's, and still find service, I truly envy you. I'll bet you have fiberoptic among your choices, too. God, I envy you!!

Yes I can connect virtually anywhere, because wifi is as ubiquitous as clean drinking water from taps. Don't envy me, just get a bit of perspective if you can.

Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (2, Funny)

Whiternoise (1408981) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138893)

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

Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (1, Flamebait)

The FNP (1177715) | more than 5 years ago | (#27139097)

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:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (4, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 5 years ago | (#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?

Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (4, Insightful)

bobKali (240342) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138711)

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:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (1)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138953)

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 time, the ISP will look at the DHCP logs to find out which customer had 12.34.56.78 at that time and send them the notice. I'm not seeing the problem you're talking about.

Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138323)

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?

Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (0, Offtopic)

BigHungryJoe (737554) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138391)

Uhm, isn't it "more fair" and not "fairer"?

Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138399)

The grandparents comment was so retarded that I didn't feel the need to use proper grammar in my response to him ;)

Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27138635)

With /. being globally accessible; how the fuck aren't spelling posts modded down as Troll?

Honestly, when someone interrupts me to correct my grammar, or waits until I've finished my sentence to correct it, my knee-jerk reaction is to not ever want to communicate with said jackass again (the only obvious exception I can come up with would be in an English class). Online, all I can think of is the old meme: "Arguing on the internet is like participating in the Special Olympics; even if you win you're still retarded."

You sir, are retarded.

Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138671)

No, "fairer" is fine. Typically if the stem has fewer than three syllables it forms the comparative using the suffix "-er". Can't say fairer than that!

Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (5, Insightful)

SoCalChris (573049) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138413)

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.

Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138875)

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, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.

Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (3, Insightful)

jpatters (883) | more than 5 years ago | (#27139133)

Who are you going to email your legal arguments to once your internet is shut off?

Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (1)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138849)

"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 it to my laptop over the internet.

Can you come up with a blanket rule that can be enforced from the ISP rule that seems less arbitrary than "well, Joe's records complained about you 3 times, therefore you're cut off?". What if Joe is full of nonsense and just wants me to get cut off? Will Joe's record get cut off?

It all seems fair until you think about a practical application of such a law.

Stop it from spreading? (4, Interesting)

DreamerFi (78710) | more than 5 years ago | (#27137749)

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:Stop it from spreading? (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#27137805)

Exactly. In addition to the abuses this leaves ready for use, what good is it when people find another way to share files that can't be detected by the ISP?

The **AA et al need to get a new business model, a real one, and stop messing around and abusing the laws.

Re:Stop it from spreading? (4, Interesting)

johannesg (664142) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138113)

Don't forget big corporations. They are legally people, after all, so after three violations they too can be disconnected.

Re:Stop it from spreading? (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138229)

In South Korea? Are you an expert on S. Korean law now, too?

Re: Big Corporations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27138699)

WB: strike one? [nytimes.com]

SONY: strike one? [ithinksw.net]

FOX: strike one? [boingboing.net]

VIACOM: strike one? [mashable.com]

DISNEY: strike one? [arstechnica.com]

MPAA: strike one? [torrentfreak.com]

(let's not forget politicians)

SEN ORIN HATCH: strike one? [wired.com]

Re:Stop it from spreading? (1)

French31 (1311051) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138361)

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

Well, not directly him [slashdot.org] .

Re:Stop it from spreading? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138545)

Or simply apply the law equally to ALL internet connections. Companies like Intel have thousands of employees on a single pipe. I'm willing to bet you could find 3 instances of infringement in a single day on most OC3 connections... I say we start shutting them down!

Re:Stop it from spreading? (1)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 5 years ago | (#27139141)

Here in the US at least that would work far better than targeting politicians, I think. A politician would just get replaced, the same as when one of them turns out to be gay, etc. Maybe even better would be for media companies to get busted, as that would (IMHO) really make people see how silly such things are, when not even the companies pushing for it can abide by it. But then again, people here are awfully accepting of hypocrisy, so maybe not.

Re:Stop it from spreading? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#27139051)

I expect the ISP will demand at least a little evidence.

And I'm also sure that lying in a deliberate attempt to terminate someone's internet connection would fall foul of some law.

What are you fighting for? (-1, Flamebait)

qoncept (599709) | more than 5 years ago | (#27137807)

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. 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). Do it over and over again and you're in more trouble. Don't break the law and you aren't in trouble.

Re:What are you fighting for? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27137913)

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? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 5 years ago | (#27137961)

mod this guy up - he makes a good point.

Re:What are you fighting for? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27137953)

The problem is burden of proof.

Re:What are you fighting for? (3, Insightful)

digitig (1056110) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138809)

No, the problem is standard of proof, at least as described. On the other hand, if there is an appeal process and the accused has to prove that they have not made any illegal downloads then you are right, the issue is with the burden of proof.

Re:What are you fighting for? (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27137993)

In many of these cases, "You break the law" is actually "The RIAA(or local equivalent) accuses you of breaking the law". That is the big problem.

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.

Re:What are you fighting for? (2, Insightful)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138511)

we need a online equivalent of a Lech Walesa. Look at what came out of one simple strike in a shipyard.....

Re:What are you fighting for? (1)

mgf64 (1467083) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138729)

Well, it is only ironic that Berlusconi is passing this kind of law, talking about legality. In Italy's case the cure is probably electing someone slightly more democratic and more honest. In general this problem in my view arises from the industry having far too power, and using this power in order to interfere with things like "fair trial". The only real solution is letting these folks have LESS POWER, and this is only achievable by giving them less money. Don't go to the movies, read a book, build something, find a hobby. If you really must, buy second hand home video and music.

Re:What are you fighting for? (4, Insightful)

spikenerd (642677) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138071)

I hereby accuse you of terrorism. Would you like to face the punishment now, or do you think that due process is important now?

Re:What are you fighting for? (3, Insightful)

genner (694963) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138469)

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? (1)

Ninnle Labs, LLC (1486095) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138111)

What exactly is the problem?

Probably the fact that there is a seeming lack of due process for the accused.

Re:What are you fighting for? (1)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138129)

Accusation and guilt are two entirely different things. The "three strikes" laws are based on three accusations of copyright infringement, not three findings of guilt in a court of law.

So, basically, all I need to do is accuse you of violating my copyright three times, and you'll be disconnected.

Is that fair?

Re:What are you fighting for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27138159)

You break the law, you are punished.

No. That's not how it works in civilized countries.

It's supposed to work like this: you break the law, you get prosecuted, you have the chance to face your accusers and mount a defense, and if you get convicted, then you are punished.

See the difference?

Re:What are you fighting for? (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138175)

Well, personally I am fighting a law that could cut my internet access without judicial oversight. That is all. "Don't break the law, don't be in trouble" is fine by me. "Get trouble anyway" is not. This law project doesn't have any appeal mechanism.

This is the end of free wifi spots in France and of anonymous web access.

Re:What are you fighting for? (1)

overlordofmu (1422163) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138179)

And when I drive 30 in a 30 MPH zone you promise you will remain a safe 3 seconds behind me right?

You won't be one of the countless jerks that rides my bumper until I go 5 over will you?

Before you answer, ask yourself, "I am telling the truth? Would I break the law by riding the bumper of the lawful citizen?"

Re:What are you fighting for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27138733)

I thought 5 seconds was the mark of safe driving distance. Maybe I've been driving TOO safe.

Three reasons why this is bad (1)

Geof (153857) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138271)

Three problems:

One, as others have mentioned, is a lack of proof or due process.

Two, the punishment is out of proportion to the offense. Going 5mph over the limit could get someone killed. How come we don't have three strikes for speeding? Sharing music is not life-threatening. Internet access is not just nice to have, like TV or radio. For many people it is essential to their employment, to their ability to communicate (though this is a generational thing, so lawmakers are relatively unaware of it), and to their participation in a democratic society.

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.

Re:Three reasons why this is bad (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138387)

Going 5mph over the limit could get someone killed

So could going 5mph under the limit.

How come we don't have three strikes for speeding?

Actually a lot of states do. Here in New York if you get three speeding tickets in a 18 month timeframe (or two in work zones) you'll lose your license for a period of time. Of course with a speeding ticket you get a day in court and the chance to confront your accusers......

Re:Three reasons why this is bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27138887)

Driving unsafely can kill or hurt innocent people, copying files cannot.

Re:Three reasons why this is bad (5, Insightful)

aaandre (526056) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138811)

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:What are you fighting for? (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138277)

What if the owner of the local donut shop could accuse you of speeding? What if three accusations resulted in you losing your license? That's what's happening here - you get accused of a crime _by a business_ and you lose access to something you've paid for. No trial. No requirement of proof of an actual crime. Nothing. "You're guilty" said three times results in you losing access to the internet.

Now, if you consider that fair and right, then you live in a world in which I want no part.

You outed yourself, officer. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27138409)

"What if the owner of the local donut shop could accuse you of speeding?"

Only a policeman would mention "donut shop" and "speeding" in the same sentence.

Re:What are you fighting for? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138321)

If you are convicted three times, that would be one thing. But punishing someone for being accused three times, likely by the same entity each time, violates long-established principles of due process.

Prosecution without legal recourse (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#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?

Re:Prosecution without legal recourse (3, Interesting)

areusche (1297613) | more than 5 years ago | (#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:Prosecution without legal recourse (2, Insightful)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138135)

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.

Re:Prosecution without legal recourse (1)

madcow_bg (969477) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138799)

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.

Re:Prosecution without legal recourse (3, Informative)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 5 years ago | (#27139055)

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).

Re:Prosecution without legal recourse (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138235)

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.

Re:Prosecution without legal recourse (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138251)

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 interests.

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

Re:Prosecution without legal recourse (2, Funny)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 5 years ago | (#27139075)

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

you saw the photos too, huh?

Re:Prosecution without legal recourse (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138927)

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.

Re:Prosecution without legal recourse (1)

aaandre (526056) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138955)

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 the rules of the battle.

Fun, fun, fun!

want to stop it? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27137833)

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:want to stop it? (5, Insightful)

DrLang21 (900992) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

ke ke ke (1)

snarfies (115214) | more than 5 years ago | (#27137979)

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

Air Power? (1)

Dareth (47614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138483)

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?

Why does baseball get to set policy? (2, Insightful)

outofoptions (199169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138033)

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:Why does baseball get to set policy? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27138189)

Are you trying to mess with everyone's head? Where do you get off claiming such ridiculous things?

Baseball was NOT invented "one day" by someone who just "sat down". Baseball can be traced back to fourteenth century France. Oh wait, are you now going to babble about how "the French hate freedom" and all that right-wing crap?

The number three (3) is an extremely important one, not simply from a gaming and legal standpoint, but from a numerical / mathematical one as well.

Trying to dismiss it out of hand as "arbitrary" shows your lack of knowledge about baseball, stick games in general, and the Constitution of the United States.

Feel free to write to your Congressman, however. I am sure they will laugh at your idea of "sitting down and inventing something out of thin air" as much as my sister is. That's right, a teenage girl is laughing at you right now. I showed her your post and she got quite the chuckle.

Please, leave law to the big boys.

Re:Why does baseball get to set policy? (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138401)

Because most people can't count higher than 3?

Heck, many sound guys seldom count higher than 2 ;).

No more, no less (5, Funny)

EEBaum (520514) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138559)

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:Why does baseball get to set policy? (2, Funny)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 5 years ago | (#27139107)

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.

How to stop it... (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138037)

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 (4, Interesting)

Improv (2467) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138045)

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:3 strikes (1)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138569)

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 connection, with a low burden of proof. But they are still open to legal intimidation and lawsuits (with higher burden of proof, mind you). Taking your "Underground Railroad" example, this would mean that the person would be let off with a warning by one group of people (the first 2 times anyway)... but other groups of people could still harass them. So they are not more protected.

In fact, if the "3 strikes" doesn't prevent subsequent suing, then it in fact acts as the policing that the media industries have been asking for. The media lawyers can issue tons of accusations, and then sue anyone if an accusation sticks (with the ISP doing the legwork of checking who owned the IP, and cursory fact checking in the logs).

This doesn't seem like progress.

Re:3 strikes (0, Flamebait)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138869)

An obvious solution to the "I want" problem. You see, I would really like the world to work the way you think it should. I should be paid, by someone, so that I don't have to charge people for software. Making people pay is like, you know, oppressing them and we shouldn't have to oppress people.

The problem is, I have people oppressing me all around me. The mortgage on the house, the grocery store, the gas station, and endlessly on and on. This is so wrong. A cowardly solution is to say that when people stop oppressing me that I will stop oppressing others. It would be nice to be able to free myself from all this oppression and just live in a nice park somewhere and have people give me food. I have tried to convince my employees of this unilateral solution but they remain unconvinced.

This brings us back to the real problem. People like you want stuff and they do not have infinite amounts of money to pay off people that want to oppress them. One solution is to just take things and sidestep the oppression. This works well for digital things, but less so with food, clothes and other material items. In fact, it works so well fomr digital items that today I can't imagine anyone paying for digital music - it is all there for the taking. For free. And we have been steadily convincing people since around 1980 that if you can take it that there is nothing wrong with just taking it. Most of the people I meet under 30 have been convinced.

So what happens when people don't pay for digital goods? Well, until someone can tell me how to pay employees without getting any money, I am going to keep oppressing ... er, I mean charging, people. It would be nice if the government would just give everyone enough money so they didn't need to do anything except consume, smoke pot and drink beer. Mr. Obama is certainly pushing things in that direction and I salute him for it.

Do not pass go... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27138981)

Glad to see a legal system based on baseball. I look forward to blue line rules (hockey) applied to international trade and "go fish" applied to banking regulations.

Re:3 strikes (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138995)

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 is... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27138181)

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.

The reason. (3, Insightful)

Goliath (101288) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138263)

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:The reason. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27138497)

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

No it doesn't. Most people, when they think about it even a little, realise that copyright itself is in fact wrong.

Re:The reason. (1)

will_die (586523) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138571)

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, still keeping them as paying customers, and if they don't decrease usage they can dump the person and doing this keeps the copyright owners off your back. The ISP don't lose.

Re:The reason. (1)

DrLang21 (900992) | more than 5 years ago | (#27139081)

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.

Punishment doesn't fit the "Crime" (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138475)

Soon well see people holding up music stores instead of file sharing because the punishment would be less harsh.

too culturally specific? (1)

fantomas (94850) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138521)

"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 here in the UK. The only people carrying baseball bats here are folks who are up to no good and their bats probably have never made contact with a baseball, only other people's knees or heads...

Re:too culturally specific? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27138669)

it's from baseball, but an almost identical concept exists in rounders, which is played in britain and ireland. There's also obvious similarities to cricket, which is like a boring version of baseball where the circle has been dimensionally collapsed to a line and it takes one strike to be out.

To borrow from Oscar Wilde... (1)

CaroKann (795685) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138591)

To share once may be regarded as a misfortune... to share twice seems like carelessness... to share three times is considered habitual.

Baseball models everything. (1)

CHK6 (583097) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138627)

Sure with three strike that country is out, but can't they come back the next inning and try again?

To bad legal system is based on a simple rule of baseball. But then again it makes sense. The copyright holders are the pitchers and consumers are the batters. If you play nice, you can get on base, else you are struck out or possibly beaned in the head with a fastball. Not much different than the dating scene too.

Even in cases where government wants to seize private land from citizens, I bet the judges see this as nothing more than stealing a base in baseball. Who needs legal president, when the official baseball rule book is handy?

1 botnet, 1 angry geek (4, Interesting)

RonBurk (543988) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138881)

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).

I welcome this law (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#27138901)

I welcome it and many like it. I will be setting up my different domain names and sending out emails and letters to all the RIAA and MPAA IPs.

Three strikes and they're out. I guess they didn't realise these laws could be used against them. I hope you all join me in the act.

eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27138949)

For us noobs, how about a description of this so-called three-strikes policy? And how about providing links that aren't sticky?

A surveillance society to keep copyrights in place (5, Insightful)

Peaker (72084) | more than 5 years ago | (#27139095)

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.

Why has the 'three strikes' idea caught on? (1)

Ontheotherhand (796949) | more than 5 years ago | (#27139123)

It's the highest number that most politicians can comfortably count up to?

3 strikes for peons (1)

saiha (665337) | more than 5 years ago | (#27139131)

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

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>