South Korea Joins the "Three Strikes" Ranks

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?"

Comments

IN KOREA

[Anonymous Coward]

In Korea, only old people get 3 strikes.

Re:IN KOREA

[sxpert]

nah, they get 3 strokes !

Re:IN KOREA

[xonar]

This is actually pretty funny, +1 Funnah

Re:IN KOREA

[Tubal-Cain]

Filesharing through email? Sure, it's doable...
But those attachment limits force you to split your larger files before sending them.

Re:IN KOREA

[Bl4ckJ3sus]

It's been done before.... way back in the AOL days in the warez chatrooms. You want something, ask and then you immediately get like 20 1.44mb files in your email. I see a return to this someday maybe.

Video summaries...

[Anonymous Coward]

Found here and here.

It's fairer than suing people left and right.

[Max Romantschuk]

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

2 more astroturfing posts and you are out.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Naw dude

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

[Adrian Lopez]

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.

[NeutronCowboy]

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[Shakrai]

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.

[Slumdog]

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.

[BigHungryJoe]

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

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

[Shakrai]

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.

[SoCalChris]

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[digitig]

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.

[bobKali]

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.

[Slumdog]

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.

[tkrotchko]

"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.

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

[DAldredge]

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.

[Whiternoise]

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.

[cliffski]

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.

[jlarocco]

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.

[The FNP]

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.

[jpatters]

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.

[Hordeking]

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

The Ralph Bakshi version, right?

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

[iminplaya]

The people have tasted raw meat. I don't know if they will go back to Kibbles 'n Bits. I'm hoping that these actions are a good thing in that it provides lots of incentive to create alternate means of access.

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

[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.

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

[tsm_sf]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

No problem. I do all my sharing OFFLINE. And I'm going to do more of it. Fuck 'em.

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

[mlscdi]

"Arguing on the internet is like participating in the Special Olympics; even if you win you're still retarded."

And you just won that argument, fair and square!

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Not so, a number of ISPs identify customer by MAC address. It is trivial to log association of MAC addresses to IP addresses during a given time frame. Of all the "But it could have been someone else arguments" that is by far the weakest, and that is including the likelihood of packet forging.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

How about another example then?

I put up a web page, with a link on it that says "Don't click here, this is private". You click on that link, and hit refresh twice.

I can now have your internet disconnected, and have the server logs to prove that you tried to access the material three times.

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

[usman_ismail]

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.

[turbidostato]

"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'.

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

[usman_ismail]

"Sharing someone else's copyrighted material is still not legal" In Canada downloading copyrighted music is perfectly legal (Uploading is not) because of a tax on all blank media that is given to music music producers.

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

[legirons]

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

However, being accused of sharing someone else's copyrighted material is most definitely still legal.

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

[Max Romantschuk]

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?

Yes. It sucks, but dragging someone into a legal process which can literally destroy their life is a greater evil than depriving them of Internet access.

A lot of people have commented on how easily this can be abused, and I agree. But I still withhold that on a theoretical level it's a lesser evil than lawsuits to address the problem. I never claimed I support or like the idea. I was merely answering this question in TF summary:

Why has the 'three strikes' idea caught on where others have failed?

Also, it's easier to sell to gullible lawmakers.

A real solution, of course, would be the content holders to get off their collective asses and make way for a global and non DRM:d way to access content at a reasonable fee. I'd be happy to pay a Euro or so for downloading (and being able to keep) fresh episodes of my favorite shows directly after they have aired.

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

[RDW]

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

Well, that hardly matters in Korea, where Email is Only For Old People...

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. It sucks, but dragging someone into a legal process which can literally destroy their life is a greater evil than depriving them of Internet access.

Disconnection or suing aren't the only options, fines would be appropriate ($500/movie, $100/song) with a cap per time period.

The nice thing however about fines is that they are contestable.

New Zealand is facing this this same problem (NZ)

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

There fixed that for you my little friend who is stuck in a computer and I can't get out"

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

[Tubal-Cain]

VLC can play video in ASCII...

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

[Computershack]

You got DHCP? You're pretty much guaranteed to get someone else's notice.

Bullshit. In the UK, dynamic IPs are the norm with most ISPs. They retain logs of who gets what at what time.

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

[nabsltd]

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.

[Tubal-Cain]

Not so, a number of ISPs identify customer by MAC address.

Do you have any idea how many devices' MAC addresses are some variant of DE:AD:BE:EF?

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

[superbus1929]

A real solution, of course, would be the content holders to get off their collective asses and make way for a global and non DRM:d way to access content at a reasonable fee.

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why has the 'three strikes' idea caught on where others have failed? And what is the best way to stop it spreading further?"

Because:

#1. The blatant offenders will get shut off by the ISP after a few offenses, without the 'victim' having to go through long legal processes, and the ISP gets them off the network.

#2. Innocent bystanders have a couple chances to fix their problems, and/or a chance to report a false accusation before being shut off.

As long as there are some specific controls, this is the BEST policy for handeling abuse situations.

1. Parties who file complaints should be required to extensively document everything. False complaints should be legally actionable, and excessive false complaints (either by intention or negligence/incompetance) should also be actionable.

2. Parties who have complaints filed against them should be able to counter-file a complaint, thereby suspending the "3-strikes" until court action commences.

3. ISP's should be required to verify as far as possible that complaints submitted are real and valid. Complaints which are not, or are questionable, should be removed from the user account record.

Given these three rules, this type of policy is perfect, it balances user, ISP, and 3rd party rights, involves the courts when necessary, and keeps them from being flooded with bogus and/or frivolous complaints.

There is no reason to "stop this".

After re-reading your post, I conjecture that you think this only applies to people involved in file sharing. While that is indeed the current "hot" issue, there are many others.
For example: Spam source, virus source, hacking attempts, rogue servers, backscatter, criminal activity (including kiddie pr0n) etc.

The systems currently enacted all have flaws- they either require the ISP to do the work that the plaintiff should do, or fail to protect the consumer by not requiring adequate proof, and/or by not providing a way for a consumer to contest a complaint.

But in short, if you abuse your internet connection, and get caught, then yes you should lose your access.

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

[steelfood]

Better yet, target the ones who have kids.

Their attempts to reconcile this and the "think of the children" politics will surely cause their heads to explode.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's a BS example

No, it isn't; in fact, that's the first thing I thought of. Back in the day, I used to use WinNuke to knock people off the 'net who pissed me off. With a law like this, I could have them booted forever. I'd use it a lot, too, because there are plenty of people like me out there, and it wouldn't take long for me to piss one of them off.... Use it while you got it, right?

I can't even imagine how badly this will be abused in a place like S.K. "Oh, you think you're hot shit in Starcraft? You think you're gonna beat me? Beat me, and it'll be the last multiplayer game you ever play."

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

[Sj0]

If you want to stop people from arguing over semantics and annoyingly correcting each other, I think you'd better head to a site that isn't for nerds. I mean, it's pretty much the raison d'etre for nerds.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon, that was funny.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

So can mplayer, but it's command-line.

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

[camperdave]

What is this "disconnect" of which you speak?

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

[Anonymous Coward]

What good is all your legal justification if there's no process for challenging the evaluation? Also, what you've quoted provides a permanent license for SourceForge to use the submitted comments. I'm not suing them. I'm suing you for using the posted comments. SourceForge is in the clear, but I don't remember granting you a license.

Yes, of course it's stupid. But now you're down 1 out of your 3 strikes if you quote someone on /. and they decide to make a case out of it.

Worse, you appear to have quoted SourceForge's disclaimer without their permission. So, you better hope they don't want to complain, or you're down 2 out of 3.

One more and you're done, so don't you dare quote any of this.

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

[NeutronCowboy]

And? You're still not getting it. The point is that the information required to positively ascertain that somebody actually did download copyrighted content is so time- and resource-intensive to acquire that it will never happen. Instead, automated filter programs are going to do random name searches, log IP and local time stamp, and send out a form letter. The ISPs will do zero investigation on their part as well - any letter that comes in will be taken as gospel, because it will take too much work to figure out if it is true.

Instead, what's going to happen is that shoddy take-down notices will be sent out and someone will get shafted in the process. That person can either lose their internet access, or spend ungodly sums of money and gobs of time to fight the charges. And all so that the various associations don't have to update their business model.

I'm sorry (actually, not really), but that's bullshit.

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

[Drakonik]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

When *I* post a grammar "troll", my purpose is to help the person communicate more clearly. It's quite jarring when someone's elegant argument is interspersed with incorrect language. Of course you can generally figure out what they mean, but the mental effort translating their text into proper English takes up attention better spent on analyzing the poster's commentary on the discussion.

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

[cjb658]

Is it right to assume piracy and sales are mutually exclusive? Perhaps people pirate the game to find out if they like it, and if they do, then they buy it.

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

[cjb658]

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.

http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/

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

[bit01]

What a closed-minded view.

That's funny coming from a fanatic like you.

---

Like software, intellectual property law is a product of the mind, and can be anything we want it to be. Let's get it right.

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

[Golddess]

A real solution, of course, would be the content holders to get off their collective asses and make way for a global and non DRM:d way to access content at a reasonable fee.

Everyone that has tried this has been abused. No ifs, ands or buts;

Yup, which is exactly why the Amazon MP3 store went under and iTunes is still selling just DRM tracks.

Oh wait...

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

[ultranova]

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.

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

[ultranova]

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.

Last I used it, Windows provided a nice friendly GUI interface for setting a network adapter's MAC value to a desired value.

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

[superbus1929]

The "scene", as people like to call it, will always live. The people that have been pirating since swap parties and VHS recording will still be pirating.

It's the 98%ers that companies want to make afraid.

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

[Miseph]

Or, you let capitalism sort it out... the ISP that doesn't provide adequate logging saves money on that service, and then gets additional business from their customers who don't get cut off.

Of, course, 99% of internet connections were run by companies that don't care what the ##AA thinks of them (ie. not by TV providers) they probably would have told them where to shove it long ago.

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

[jlarocco]

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?

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

[schon]

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.

[trytoguess]

S. Korea is one of the most connected places with the world, with hundreds of Internet Cafes. Short of branding someone with a "do not use internet" sign it'll be almost impossible to deny someone internet access there.

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

[gwait]

Yep, we all know text files can't be faked or doctored.

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

[gwait]

And it's amazing how many posters feel that an ascii text file is solid evidence.
Photographs are pretty much out as evidence these days thanks to photoshop. Why the hell should a .txt file be considered any better?

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

[jlarocco]

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

[jlarocco]

I already explained why it doesn't make any sense to fake the files here.

If you have a more sensical explanation than the "RIAA is trying to shut down the entire internet" bullshit, I'd love to hear it.

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

[techno-vampire]

Not to mention all the negative publicity they would get if they shut down the wrong people.

They've gotten quite a bit of negative publicity from some of the suits they've filed and that hasn't slowed them down a bit. What makes you think this would be any different?

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

[Blublu]

And what happens after you have downloaded 3 Linux distros and then get your internet removed for "illegal downloading"?

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

[chromas]

Do cable/DSL modems have that option? If so, wouldn't it need to be re-registered with the ISP to allow getting anything beyond a redirect to the Modem Installation page?

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

[jlarocco]

They've gotten quite a bit of negative publicity from some of the suits they've filed and that hasn't slowed them down a bit

Hasn't it?

And that still leaves the question of why you think the ISPs and the RIAA would want to conspire together to kick random people off of the internet. Hell, don't most ISPs put it in their terms of service that they can cut off your service at their discretion? If they really wanted to randomly cut innocent people's service, why bother with the RIAA at all?

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

[usman_ismail]

You would first sniff traffic on the line and see another user's mac and use this as your own. As that user is already registered you will not be redirected to the installation page. However getting the modem to use a specified mac is much harder then getting your own computer to do this

As for DSL you might be out of luck as there is a point-to-point link between the modem and the ISP so no traffic to sniff.

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

[schon]

I almost wish you were right so the RIAA could start cutting idiots like you off of the internet.

Your logic is astounding. You wish I was right because then I wouldn't be right?

The only idiot here is you.

Seriously, do you have even the tiniest shred of evidence supporting your claim?

You mean like this or this?

If it's in their best interest, then why are they suing innocent people, and why when shown that their victims couldn't possibly be the ones they're after do they drag the suits out?

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

[jlarocco]

Your logic is astounding. You wish I was right because then I wouldn't be right?

It's called "sarcasm."

If it's in their best interest, then why are they suing innocent people, and why when shown that their victims couldn't possibly be the ones they're after do they drag the suits out?

The funny thing is, your links actually support the idea of having the RIAA request disconnects from ISPs. If they were sending disconnect notices to ISPs about specific IPs it would be impossible for them to bother the innocent people in your articles because those people didn't have internet access and thus no IP to disconnect.

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

[martin-boundary]

Of course you can generally figure out what they mean

No you can't. That is, not everybody can. There are a lot of non-native English speakers on the net, and they don't figure out what an English sentence ought to mean by idioms and the general flow of it.

Nongrammatical sentences are often quite confusing, if one's method of understanding them consists in translating each word individually into a different language, then reconstructing the sentence in that language.

Sieg Heil, Grammar Nazi, your work is highly appreciated!

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

[techno-vampire]

If they really wanted to randomly cut innocent people's service, why bother with the RIAA at all?

Yeah, I know. Of course, the tinfoil hat brigade hasn't ever let little things like facts stop them before. Why do you expect them to start now?

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

[N1AK]

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?

Yes, because taking someone through the legal process and bankrupting them (which is what happens when they are successfully sued atm) is likely to be far more damaging for them than losing home internet access for some period of time.

Now I do have a big issue with the fact that the three strike system implemented work massively in the content providers favour, and I think copyright lasts far too long. However I think that the majority of filesharing exists to avoid paying for content and that the myriad of excuses given are rarely the truth. Fight to fix the copyright system if you have an issue with it, but don't expect to get away with breaking the law.

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

[Shadowmist]

And what percentage of pirates actually buy the thing they steal? Lets get real here.

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

[Kagura]

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.

Welcome to South Korea, the country that has seen three coup d'etat since 1950 and has been ruled by dictators until 1993. You can argue that their democracy began in 1987, but really... when one of the 1979 coup co-conspiring generals is elected, does that really matter? He led the way for democratic reform, so maybe... But the point is that Korea has really only had "true" democracy for the last 15 years, and there is still a lot of corruption, and brand new major political parties every election. It's still in its infancy.

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

[Xest]

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

Exactly, as in many other countries, especially one as high-tech as South Korea where they may even use their connection for phone and TV. Finland isn't alone in that respect.

I'm not sure why you suggest it gives people a fair chance to stop though, it doesn't if they're victim to someone hacking their wireless or just using their PC and getting them banned.

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

[Ice Tiger]

How about treating it as a crime and prosecuting someone. You never know they might be innocent, due process exists for a reason.

Saying that though, companies have been known to infringe copyright themselves, wonder how they would like being cut off.

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

[tsm_sf]

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 [...] It's in the ISP's best interest to keep accurate time stamps

You don't understand my point, which has nothing to do with conspiracy or intentions. Keeping two systems in sync is not always a trivial matter.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

A few judges loosing their internet accounts would also cause some troubles for the idea.

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

[Golddess]

And what percentage of pirates would buy the thing if they couldn't steal it? Lets get real here.

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

[Khyber]

Nope, we're just using fake gift cards that work for iTunes. No need to worry about DRM when it's much easier fucking over their authentication server.

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

[ScreamingCactus]

I don't even think it will have to go that far. If the content providers are able to log every IP that downloads their content, and report it, it won't be long at all before a third of the user base is kicked off the internet, maybe even half. ISP's will be screaming for this law to be repealed.

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

[Iron Condor]

100%

You got any different numbers? Ones you can actually back up in some fashion?

Back in the days of Napster (the original) I found a lot of cool music that I ended up buying simply by looking what other people had shelved next to the things I knew and liked. I haven't bought a whole lot of music in the last couple years because there's just simply no way for me to discover things that I might like anymore.

And no, I certainly didn't end up buying every last thing I downloaded -- 90% of what I found online was crap. 90% of everything is crap. But the things I downloaded (and didn't buy) I wouldn't have spent money on either way, so the music industry didn't lose any money from my download.

Stop it from spreading?

[DreamerFi]

Simple. Accuse prominent law-makers of copyright violations.

Three times.

Except for the french president, he only needs two more.

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?

[zappepcs]

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?

[johannesg]

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?

[Aladrin]

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

Re:Stop it from spreading?

[French31]

Except for the french president, he only needs two more.

Well, not directly him.

Re:Stop it from spreading?

[Locke2005]

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?

[91degrees]

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.

Re:Stop it from spreading?

[__aasqbs9791]

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?

[Hatta]

OK. How do you propose we get the ip address of a legislator's home internet connection so we can file a complaint against it?

Re:Stop it from spreading?

[DreamerFi]

Yeah, that's a problem.

Now if only there were some disgruntled low level techs, angry at this law, working at an ISP or two that could assist with something like that.

Naah, that'll never happen.

Re:Stop it from spreading?

[turbidostato]

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

They'll do... when it's John Doe accusing Big Corp. When it is Big Corp against John Doe, on the other hand...

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

Yeah, we see examples about John Doe making a hard day for Big Corp by the dozens.

Re:Stop it from spreading?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

It's a nice idea, but realistically, you have to know it's never going to happen. Politicians and corporate oligarchs will be effectively immune to the law; regular folks won't. That's just the way it works.

Re:Stop it from spreading?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK. How do you propose we get the ip address of a legislator's home internet connection so we can file a complaint against it?

Step 1, find a legislator who has reasonably tech-savvy kids, but isn't tech savvy himself. Step 2, wifi and high-gain antenna. Step 3 isn't "profit".

Re:Stop it from spreading?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just keep shooting into the dark. Eventually you'll hit something.

Re:Stop it from spreading?

[Tubal-Cain]

Of course step 3 isn't Profit. Step three is the '...'

Re:Stop it from spreading?

[nurb432]

The law doesn't apply to the people that purchased it.

The only way to stop it is first take out the *aa, then buy our freedom back.

Its all about money.

Re:Stop it from spreading?

[EdIII]

It's so much simpler than that.

Just have everyone get three strikes. Everyone.

Next Logical Step?

ISP Executive - "Hey, where the fuck did our customers go?"
ISP Accountant - "Um, we had to get rid of 150,000 customers just last month. Oh, we may not to be able to pay salaries next month without reorganizing again".
ISP Executive - "Fuck this. Let's buy some influence in the legislature and get this stupid shit repealed".

Problem solved, one way or the other. It's impossible for this to change human behavior, so something else has to give.

Re:Stop it from spreading?

[TheMCP]

Also, people have to start fighting back against the accusations. The RIAA makes an accusation of copyright infringement against you? Sue them for slander, drag them into court, make them spend large sums of money failing to prove their accusation, and then extract a large judgment from them. Make it too expensive for them to actually use this unamerican tactic of guilty-upon-accusation.

Re:Stop it from spreading?

[Anonymous Coward]

if the employee was only fallowing orders
if the business man was only doing what everyone else is doing to make money
if the stockholder, wait no one even knows who the stockholders are
then who is responsible?

THEY ALL ARE

Re:Stop it from spreading?

[Tuoqui]

Easiest way would be to start a protest. Unfortunately that would mean getting people off their ass and likely head over to some legislative building and yelling and shouting about it.

As much as I like the idea of trying to get as many people cut off from big business/copyright organizations/government we all know that they're not gonna let that happen. After all the ISPs and the Content Producers (usually one and the same) are in their pockets.

Re:Stop it from spreading?

[johannesg]

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

I'm sorry, have we flamed before?

Re:Stop it from spreading?

[Khyber]

No, we do what we originally did - we take up arms and we set and example to the rest by blowing their fucking heads off.

You can't buy back what was never sold. We are enslaved, the only way out is uprising.

What are you fighting for?

[qoncept]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is burden of proof.

Re:What are you fighting for?

[TheGratefulNet]

mod this guy up - he makes a good point.

Re:What are you fighting for?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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?

[spikenerd]

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?

[Ninnle Labs, LLC]

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?

[javacowboy]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[Yvanhoe]

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?

[overlordofmu]

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?

[whisper_jeff]

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.

Re:What are you fighting for?

[Locke2005]

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.

Re:What are you fighting for?

[genner]

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?

[pilgrim23]

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?

[mgf64]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:What are you fighting for?

[digitig]

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?

[maroonhat]

rule of wrist is a count of 1 1000 for every 10Mph you are traveling, ~3 seconds is fine for ~30Mph but woefully inadequate for 70+

Re:What are you fighting for?

[Sj0]

We sent him to Syria, but they promised with a bow that they wouldn't torture him.

Re:What are you fighting for?

[Sj0]

If it makes you feel better, I usually keep a huge amount of space in front of me, AND I drive the speed limit, to within .1% of reading.

If someone wants to tailgate me, it's their problem when they get in an accident and the insurance companies find them at-fault for driving dangerously.

Re:What are you fighting for?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's no problem as long as you are confident that people will never be falsely or mistakenly accused due to malice or incompetence.

Re:What are you fighting for?

[overlordofmu]

Then that makes two of us. Except .1% accuracy cannot be guaranteed on my part. Sorry to promote stereotypes of grandmas, but I drive like one.

Re:What are you fighting for?

[jopsen]

This would actually violate the human rights article 11. In EU you'd actually be able to test such a "conviction" at the European court of human rights, which AFAIK trumps the national courts.

However, question is just how they are going to implement such law...


By the way, in my opinion all 3 strikes laws, whether it's life-time prison, your drivers license or you internet, is bad!
- People only make them because they are easy so sell... IMO 3-strike laws of anykind are NEVER good!

Re:What are you fighting for?

[Sj0]

I use my GPS for measurement, so the 0.1% precision can be guaranteed, but I'm not positive of the accuracy.

I figure, I'm throwing around 3380lbs of steel at 60mph. I could seriously hurt myself or someone else. Why bother risking speeding tickets? Why bother leaving my safety in the hands of the idiot in front of me?

Re:What are you fighting for?

[dissy]

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:What are you fighting for?

[genner]

We sent him to Syria, but they promised with a bow that they wouldn't torture him.

Back in the old days they would have gone all Rambo with a Bow. Oh well I guess a pistol whipping is just as good.

Re:What are you fighting for?

[ILongForDarkness]

Yeah and they take the person to court. Same as if you accuse someone of copyright infringement. You get your lawyer to send a nasty letter and/or go to the courts.

The bad thing IMHO is that the RIAA represents a collection of companies. This reduces the cost to the record labels as they don't each have to bring case against a defendant. Which in turn makes it cheaper for frivelous lawsuits. I guess it is kind of class action for companies.

Re:What are you fighting for?

[Psychochild]

You'll run into a few problems, at least under the U.S. version of the DMCA:

1) you can't report copyright violation as an Anonymous Coward, you have to give a name.
2) you have to show specific violations and demonstrate ownership, which is one reason you have to give a name.
3) the person accused should be able to just as easily tell their ISP that they are not violating copyright and get access restored (if it was even taken away).
4) you will have legal liability for sending false notices (because you provided a name); the accused can recoup costs and damages as allowed by the DMCA itself.

It's not something one should take lightly, even if some people take a cavalier attitude. I can't speak for all jurisdictions, of course, but any proper geek should get informed.

Prosecution without legal recourse

[elrous0]

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

[areusche]

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

[bjourne]

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

[sakdoctor]

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

[Yvanhoe]

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

[madcow_bg]

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

[TubeSteak]

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

[aaandre]

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!

Re:Prosecution without legal recourse

[Anonymous Cowpat]

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

[Anonymous Cowpat]

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

you saw the photos too, huh?

Re:Prosecution without legal recourse

[noidentity]

If it's really reasonable, we should be able to apply it to other basic utilities, like phone, electricity, and water. Accused of making prank calls three times? No more phone for you. Accused of watering on no-water days, or using the water for illegal purposes? No more water for you. Accused of playing the stereo too loudly? No more electricity for you.

Re:Prosecution without legal recourse

[Creepy Crawler]

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.

Re:Prosecution without legal recourse

[Yvanhoe]

Oh, don't be so sure of that. He is working very hard at destroying Europe's unity right now. He is leading a protectionist front that threatens to divide Europe between East and West again. Give him some time, I'm sure he can get warmed up...

Re:Prosecution without legal recourse

[Sj0]

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:Prosecution without legal recourse

[scientus]

but that is at their discretion, and the expense of their customer. It is NOT at the discretion of anyone who happens to want to file a DMCA, which anyone can easily fill out.

Re:Prosecution without legal recourse

[Anonymous Coward]

...This has already resulted in people dying of hypothermia.

They would have had enough power to run their furnace. They decided to run some other nonessential stuff which tripped the breaker on the limiter and they must not have known how to reset it...

Re:Prosecution without legal recourse

[Sj0]

I can speak from experience, the limits they put in place weren't enough to run an electric furnace.

I remember when I was with my last girlfriend who liked keeping balances on bills, during the winter they started threatening to put one of those limiters on her power line. I don't recall the limit, but it was far less than would be required to run her electric furnace. The prospect of her kids freezing to death put her savings into that bill fairly quickly.

want to stop it?

[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.

Re:want to stop it?

[DrLang21]

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.

Re:want to stop it?

[profplump]

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 access to the content they are downloading, but their misuse of the service doesn't invalidate my use, or make the whole service illegitimate.

Re:want to stop it?

[Mex]

"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?

Re:want to stop it?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

I think you should hear me out before resorting to violence.

What I believe is that abundant goods should not be subjected to artificial scarcity.

You are deliberately reframing that to sound bad when you say "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?" It isn't a matter of who deserves what....it is a matter of what resources are available now and how people can best capitalize on them.

Taking food from a farmer's field is theft, and directly harms the farmer, because the food is not abundant. There is a finite amount of it, and taking it deprives others of having it.

The same is not so with electronic data. One person can take it without preventing others from having it as well...at zero cost. Yes, there is an initial cost to production (nobody is arguing that point). However, once it is available, there is no cost to duplication. Zip. That makes the good "abundant."

Given that people naturally want to make as much money as they can from as little effort as they can (this is simple resource-optimization), it follows that content creators would want to get money from every copy of their content that is made (hell, in many cases, they want to get money per minute that the copy is "used"). However, having a natural incentive to want something doesn't automatically justify taking it (does that sound familiar? It is exactly the accusation being made of file-sharers. THAT door swings both ways.).

The fact of the matter is: it can be copied for free, and this changes the ethical status of duplicating the product. Taking control of people's resources (their hardware, internet bandwidth, etc) away from them remains unethical, and is in fact much *more* unethical than duplicating data at zero direct cost to the creator.

To put it simply (for the benefit of those who cannot think abstractly), when there really is enough for everyone, copying stuff is simply not evil.

What about incentives to create? That problem is easily solved by the newly-emerging business models that add other kinds of value to the offerings. Artists who do not want to make stuff because they cannot force everyone to pretend like the goods are more scarce than they really are can just take their ball and go home. That's fine. Rather than whine about how unethical the world is for not paying them loads of money, they should just move to a different line of work where they can get the money they want. Other artists...those who have learned the new rules to the new game, will happily take their place.

So there you have it. If you still think I need a slap, come on down, I am more than up to some fisticuffs (posted as AC for humorous effect).

Re:want to stop it?

[Wildclaw]

"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?"

Yes.

I don't recognize artificial monopolies that limit the spread of wealth. Copyright and patents as they are currently being used is nothing more than information slavery. Copying is a good thing, enriching the world by allowing common people to experience more. Laws that try to prevent that are inherently immoral.

The so called purpose of copyright is contradictory in itself. Encouraging the creation of more...What is the point of that when people can't afford to view and/or use the creations? It only makes sense in the eye of those who want to earn more at the expense of the rest of the population.

"if you really do, I think you need a slap."

No. It is you who need an ass spanking. Trying to make the world a worse place to live by preventing the not so rich people from having access to the knowledge of mankind.

If you want the goverment to do something, get them to support creators in a more direct way. While still inefficent, it is far more efficent than artifically limiting information spread which is the case with copyright and patents. And you can't claim that you are against goverment interference, as you already are supporting the goverment implementing the far inferior copyright laws.

Re:want to stop it?

[vivaelamor]

Well put.

In my view, copyright law can never be justified. The law is bad in principle because civil law where I come from is supposed to enforce contracts made by people, not create contracts in itself. However supposedly noble the goal, law is the wrong way to go about it. It is up there with the war on drugs on the list of bad ideas that have made law into a pick and mix.

You went through in detail the commodity aspect of copyright, so I shall try and follow on from the issue of incentive.

Making creativity into a career all of its own has consequences beyond providing money to those who create. If you let people charge money for making an original song then you get lots of people making original songs.. but if the primary motivation is money then people can make many original songs with very few original ideas by latching on to whatever the idea of the last popular song was. This may have the effect of drowning out original ideas because no one gets to hear them.

Another consequence may be the division between career driven artists and everyone else. With so many people devoting their lives to making music, why bother trying it if you already have a job? While those who create as a career will produce much more polished art, the variety of art may be diminished as a result. Art historically has been about expression.. if all you see or hear is career driven art then you are surely losing out by not experiencing those who are not professional artists.

Re:want to stop it?

[scientus]

http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/ accusation of infringement is not the same as a conviction, at least thats the way its supose to work.

Re:want to stop it?

[Ice Tiger]

You have a strong viewpoint there, is everything you do or plan to do that would otherwise be copyrighted put by you in the public domain?

Re:want to stop it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe I deserve it because I can't get it any other way. I download and watch South Korean television. I don't speak the language at all, but that doesn't matter much when you watch professional Starcraft. There is literally no other way for me to get this content. Who is willing to sell it to me? If this new South Korean law takes effect, it might scare people away from uploading their local TV to me to enjoy.

ke ke ke

[snarfies]

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

Why does baseball get to set policy?

[outofoptions]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[TheLink]

Because most people can't count higher than 3?

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

Re:Why does baseball get to set policy?

[HTH NE1]

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.

Re:Why does baseball get to set policy?

[Verdatum]

Oh all-knowing troll, I will respond to your flamebait.

Please update the Wikipedia article Origins of baseball, it makes no mention of your fourteenth century France origin.

The number three (3) is indeed extremely important. So is the number one (1), the number two (2), et cetera. I don't know if I'm one of "the big boys" but I fail to see any evidence, or proof, or even citations to search for further enlightenment within your comment as to why this particular extremely important number is more appropriate than other extremely important number.

Concerning the non-arbitrary nature of the number three in regards to the US Constitution, do you mean to imply that there is some relationship between "three strikes and your out" the fact that there are three branches of government? Or perhaps you refer to the concept of three classes of senate "so that one third may be chosen every second Year" I know you can't be referring to the need of a three fourths vote needed to amend the constitution, since that's really more of a .75 than it is a three.

Teenage girls will laugh at anything. No one but you cares.

Please leave comments like "Please, leave law to the big boys" to misogynistic executive characters from sex comedies of the 1960s.

Re:Why does baseball get to set policy?

[Sj0]

It's kind of terrifying to me, that somewhere in the world, there's a family of baseball historians, such that a teenage girl would give a flying fuck about how baseball was invented, let alone the '3 strikes' rule.

Re:Why does baseball get to set policy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I pulled that entire comment out of my ass. Why did you take the time to respond? Lulz.

Thanks, though =)

How to stop it...

[icebike]

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

[Improv]

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

[JustinOpinion]

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

[cdrguru]

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.

Re:3 strikes

[TubeSteak]

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.

Re:3 strikes

[jpatters]

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:3 strikes

[Improv]

We hold that culture is something that people have and will spontaneously create of their own will, regardless of incentive, and that permitting people to own songs and other ideas is hostile to culture. You can claim to own it, and we will, to the extent we can get away with it, ignore your claim, and inspire others, to the limit of our ability, to do the same.

For other things, there can be markets, whether they are capitalist markets or socialist ones. For the physical embodiments of art that properly have scarcity, that can be bought and sold as well - I would not go into the Louvre to take the Mona Lisa, although if I can get a copy of the data, I will happily spread it to others if I have it and they want it. If I hear a tune and I can either sing it/play with my instrument or transfer data of others doing the same to people who want it, I will do so when I don't think I'm likely to be caught to the extent that it's illegal.

I realise that production of these things can be considered scarce, but it's not the same kind of scarcity as physical things - when the marginal cost of distribution is near zero, and the liklihood of those who would shackle culture and punish those practicing it managing to do so is low, we'll share.

Re:3 strikes

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

This all depends heavily on your product. If you are making custom software for someone you should be charging for your time to create it. If you are a software as a service company you should be charging for hosting and maintaining your product. If you make off the shelf software, charge for help and support. If you're not creating software (I had just assumed you made software) and are a musician for example, you could charge for live concerts and sell collectible, but reasonably priced, CDs and memorabilia at your shows.

If you don't fall into any of these categories(or like categories) you should consider changing you business model, and not expect people to stay behind the times along with you.

I too work in developing digital products and still refuse to believe that I somehow deserve to be paid every time something I wrote is copied, a process which directly costs me nothing and more importantly doesn't take up any of my time.

Re:3 strikes

[jopsen]

Unfortunately, most universities doesn't stand up, anyway...

Re:3 strikes

[celle]

It's also called extortion.

The Reason is...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[Goliath]

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[will_die]

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.

[DrLang21]

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.

Re:The reason.

[Dogtanian]

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

[citation needed]

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

[citation needed]

Re:The reason.

[Anonymous Cowpat]

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.

Re:The reason.

[UnknownSoldier]

Quite trolling.

>> However, wholesale file sharing of copyrighted material also strikes most people as wrong.
> [citation needed]
Go look at the p2p networks -- namely who is using them, and what is being shared.

Aside, just because something is copyrighted, doesn't mean it is illegal to share. i.e. Anything GPL'd is an example.

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

It's called Common Sense and History. You are ignorant of the whole reason of even _creating_ something in the first place -- to share it. There is very little point in creating something if you can't share it (aside from expressing yourself.)

Copyright in the US was a kludge, in that it was given a time-limited duration.

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

It is a tacit consent that the creator gets to (solely) enjoy the fruits of their creation, BEFORE turning it over to society as a whole to use/enjoy. If copyright was forever, it would eventually halt the progress of society.

Most young people recognize the absurdity of copyright -- meaning that "creator" gets to dictate who does and doesn't share their work, and they rightly say "That's stupid." If I invite a bunch of my friends over to listen to a CD I bought, no copyright has been broken even though someone else experienced the author's work AND the author was not paid. It does not matter if I digitally share this CD to thousands, or physically to tens. Most smart authors realize the BEST kind of advertising is WORD of MOUTH because it is free publicity.

Copyright started because _publishers_ didn't want other publishers from selling their work -- not because artists wanted to prevent people for sharing their works. The fact that we had Art for THOUSANDS of years even before there was such nonsense as copyright shows that it is all about control, and money.

In the coming centuries, copyright will disappear like other out-dated modes of thinking such as Imaginary Property Rights, as people spiritually grow up to the idea that their true value is in what they can give to others, not what they can get from others.

It's called taking a step back, and looking at the BIG picture of where humanity is going, not the myopic view of western commercialization.

--
"The only real danger that exists is man himself. He is the great danger, and we are pitifully unaware of it. We know nothing of man, far too little. His psyche should be studied, because we are the origin of all coming evil." - Carl Gustav Jung

Re:The reason.

[russotto]

Those are good reasons and explain why the public will accept them, but the public also accepts the civil trials.

Because the public has neither choice nor clue.

Re:The reason.

[Dogtanian]

Your reply was in part directed to the wrong person. If you go back and look at my post, you'll see that the only parts I wrote were "[citation needed]" after indented quotations from the grandparent and the parent post respectively.

Both made blanket statements without any backup, and if you want to see my questioning of that as "trolling", that's your problem.

I personally think that some of your views are overly idealistic. Stuff like

In the coming centuries, copyright will disappear like other out-dated modes of thinking such as Imaginary Property Rights, as people spiritually grow up to the idea that their true value is in what they can give to others, not what they can get from others.

Sorry, but I don't think we're ever going to achieve that Star Trek: The Next Generation style ideal. Maybe we'll get some of the way there, but if we don't have copyright, we'll need to find some other way of rewarding intellectual effort.

It might work for music and such, but expecting people to carry out the more mundane but necessary work for the good of the people is... no offence, but it's not that far from communism and exhibits the same problem of relying on *expecting* (not hoping) that people will behave in the way that the system requires.

If you want to do the dull-as-f*** future equivalent of an administrative office job while I get to be a musician and sleep with lots of pretty girls, that's your choice. Perhaps we won't have such mundane rubbish in the future anyway? I hope not, but I'm not relying on it.

Copyright or whatever replaces it will probably have to change to suit the age we're moving into, but the necessity for it or something like it will remain, whatever the flaws of the current implementation. ST:TNG isn't that practical a basis for a future society.

Three reasons why this is bad

[Geof]

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

[Shakrai]

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

[aaandre]

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

Re:Three reasons why this is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Three reasons why this is bad

[__aasqbs9791]

"Your ideas intrigue me. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter." -Homer

That's the first time I've used that without a sarcasm tag. How long until more people really understand what you said and do something about it?

Re:Three reasons why this is bad

[Ioldanach]

And even when you're alleged to be driving unsafely you get a day in court, but if you're alleged to be copying files, you're presumed guilty.

Re:Three reasons why this is bad

[dissy]

Three, copyright law has gone way off the rails to the point where it is significantly impairing free speech, innovation, and creativity.

I hate to be the one to point this out, but that was, is, always has been, and probably always will be the exact goal and purpose of copyright laws...

It was a way for a government to allow themselves the right to censor others.

Re:Three reasons why this is bad

[remmelt]

That's strike one for you, mister.

You outed yourself, officer.

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Punishment doesn't fit the "Crime"

[denis-The-menace]

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

Air Power?

[Dareth]

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?

too culturally specific?

[fantomas]

"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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

No more, no less

[EEBaum]

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)

To borrow from Oscar Wilde...

[CaroKann]

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

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: Big Corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

WB: strike one?

SONY: strike one?

FOX: strike one?

VIACOM: strike one?

DISNEY: strike one?

MPAA: strike one?

(let's not forget politicians)

SEN ORIN HATCH: strike one?

2 more astroturfing posts and you are out.

[Anonymous Coward]

lol!

1 botnet, 1 angry geek

[RonBurk]

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:1 botnet, 1 angry geek

[stephanruby]

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 the perception would change that much (unless you really were one of those persons falsely accused of course).

I welcome this law

[LingNoi]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Do not pass go...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

A surveillance society to keep copyrights in place

[Peaker]

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?

[Ontheotherhand]

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

3 strikes for peons

[saiha]

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

Become anonymous

[Slashdotgirl]

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/
• I2P: Also known as the Invisible Internet Project. The network is regarded as a message based system. http://www.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/
• GNUnet: is a P2P network that can support many different forms of peer-to-peer applications. http://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/

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

Re:Become anonymous

[trytoguess]

Since we're talking about sharing massive files anonymously, I think the likes of Perfect Dark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_Dark_(P2P) is more applicable.

Re:Become anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

A small correction: after its original developer "jrandom" left last autumn, the I2P project is hosted at:

http://www.i2p2.de

Okay, how about some details...

[91degrees]

If you're accused, what is your right of appeal? If you say that you weren't pirating, for example the accuser was mistaken about your or the files' identity, or you had permission of the copyright holder to share files, is a simple denial of accusation sufficient?

What does "out" actually mean? Can you sign up again with the same ISP? A different ISP? Will they block all internet access from wherever you live?

How much discretion is there for the ISP here?

How about a car analogy?

[mangu]

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. 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. Better people than me have disobeyed unfair laws.

I have a solution!

[Hordeking]

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.

politicians will save themselves at our expense

[smellsofbikes]

Look at McCain: he violated multiple copyrights with his ads, claimed that there should be a special exemption to the DMCA laws he voted for just for politicians, and once the campaign was over, everyone completely forgot about it except Jackson Browne, who is still pursuing a lawsuit against McCain, although it's generally considered wildly unlikely that'll go to trial (or that McCain will be fined $3000 for every case of infringement.)

Intimidation is the goal !

[redelm]

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 = BS

[BountyX]

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 actual infringement (businesses included).

Re:Three Strikes = BS

[CodeBuster]

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.

Re:Three Strikes = BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad that this is what will be required, instead of the law standing up for people's rights for their own sake.

Re:Three Strikes = BS

[Snowdog]

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).

That sounds reasonable at first glance, until you realize that for many people their ISP is also a content provider (e.g. Comcast), who has just as much or more financial interest in selling you TV/movies/music than they do in selling you Internet service.

If this "three strikes" approach becomes common, how long do you think it'll be before the big ISPs begin to offer Internet service packages (called something else, of course) that provide access only to content and services they or their affiliates control? It's a very attractive route to reigning in all this wild proliferation of options and getting thing$ back to where they belong.

Re:Three Strikes = BS

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Alright, so "years" is not swift.

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.

Wait a minute. If a lawsuit spanning "years" is not swift, how is IBM and Novell's legal battle with SCO--which lasted years--an example of swift action?

The sad fact is, if such a law ever gets passed in the states (and let's be honest, it's only a matter of time), it WILL take years to get it stricken, and the resultant class action suit against the RIAA/MPAA will stretch on even longer, and in the end, a lot of people will be out Internet service for at least a decade, and in recompense, will each get $10 off their next music or movie purchase. Cost of doing business....

And good luck convincing anyone that it's a bad idea before the fact. I've talked to my fair share of people about it, and they're generally of three mindsets: "I don't care," "They'll never catch me," or "Don't want the punishment? Don't do the crime." The average person just doesn't buy into the idea that they'll ever be wrongfully accused.

Re:Three Strikes = BS

[CodeBuster]

Wait a minute. If a lawsuit spanning "years" is not swift, how is IBM and Novell's legal battle with SCO--which lasted years--an example of swift action?

Swift relative to what? Relative to other legal actions of similar size and complexity, which have taken decades to settle from start to finish in some cases (i.e. the tobacco master settlement agreements), a few years is downright fast...er swift.

suit against the RIAA/MPAA will stretch on even longer, and in the end, a lot of people will be out Internet service for at least a decade, and in recompense, will each get $10 off their next music or movie purchase. Cost of doing business....

The customers will only be cut off if the MAFIAA can win an injunction to disconnect the subscribers in question while the litigation works its way through they system. Naturally, the ISPs (being opposed to losing 10 years of subscriber fees while they fight it out) will oppose any such injuction. IANAL, but it seems to me that it would be very difficult for the MAFIAA to prove immediate and irreperable harm (the gold standard for injunctive relief) if the subscribers are NOT cut off while the case works its way through the courts. This means that the ISP refuses to disconnect anyone, MAFIAA sues, and everyone stays connected while the case is litigated because MAFIAA fails to get an injunction. At least, that is my take.

The average person just doesn't buy into the idea that they'll ever be wrongfully accused.

That is true, unfortunately. The average American has lived a sheltered life compared to people in other less democratic nations and puts far too much trust in the government and its system of laws. Our founding fathers would truly be shocked if they could see what monster has become of the thing which they created to be limited and finite in power.

Re:Three Strikes = BS

[arkhan_jg]

Ah, but you're missing something. For many ISPs, p2p users cost them money. They've priced their products so low, that they only make profit on the browser brigade; people who use far less bandwidth than they actually promised them. Those who use anything like their full capacity allowances cost them money instead.

Having a user accused of copyright infringement by the 'official' representatives? Hey, that means we can kick off our heaviest users without argument, and charge them a termination fee for breach of their terms and conditions! Yay! The only downside is having to do the paperwork.

Don't count on the mainsteam ISPs being your ally in this fight. Some of them will be as glad to cut you off the internet as the RIAA is to cut you off. Remember, a stated goal of measures like this is to put pressure on families; teenagers using p2p don't care or even know about copyright law, but surveys have shown they're a lot more concerned about what will happen to them if they cause their Dad's internet connection to get cut off. That innocent people will also get cut off doesn't matter to the music labels, as long as they make teenagers afraid to download,

Re:Three Strikes = BS

[fgouget]

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?

This depends on the details of the legislation. At least in France you will have to continue paying the ISP while your internet access is blocked!

Oblig.

[the_one(2)]

"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
Sooner or later people will say enough is enough and stop listening to the content industry altogether...

Let's be frank

[Karem Lore]

Let's be frank, I and nearly everyone else here and on the net have at least breached copyright on 3 occasions. Should we therefore all be band from using the internet the following will happen:

1) Google will lose all their ad revenue.
2) In fact all companies will no longer have an audience to shovel their products.
3) Companies will fold.
4) Techies will find a way around it anyway.
5) We will laugh because we have the DVD/CD Writers and there is always VHS and tape to fall back to.

It is futile...

Actually on a positive note I have been using Spotify recently, a nice music app that streams music for free with a vocal advert (like the radio) every 20 minutes or so (and always at the end of a track, never in the middle).

How do you stop it?

[Thergrim]

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).

WhoGoesThere

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm 27 - Been online since 1993. This issue has existed since then. Content Empires saw this coming 15+ years ago -- why didn't they restructure their infrastructures? Economies are bad, but trying to squeeze blood from a turnip (millions of file sharers with dynamic ips) is desperate. What sort of AI-driven software can account for the variables involved in 3 strikes and disconnecting a subscription? What about VoIP/Data services? After 3 strikes - the VoIP phone stops working too?

What about the bottom line?

[Anachragnome]

I wonder how the ISPs will react when they amount of people they are "banning" starts to cut into their profits.

At that point, what do they do? Keep losing customers or stop enforcing the laws?

I think this is another case of one industry flirting with another then finding out the other is a wolf in sheep's clothing. I HOPE it REALLY bites them in the ass.

Re:A surveillance society to keep copyrights in pl

[jamesmcm]

There isn't an issue with copyright. The GPL is copyright, but that's great. The issue is with restrictive copyright licenses that do not benefit the public (the initial aim of copyright).

Please read Misintepreting Copyright

GMT and NTP?

[Aqualung812]

If the RIAA tells an ISP they saw 12.34.56.78 sharing copyrighted material at a certain time.

What time? GMT? Great, first problem solved. I'm sure no one will make the mistake of crossing PST with EDT. So now you trust both the RIAA and an ISP to keep all their gear synced to a good time source?

Can it be done? Sure. Will it be done by the same people that think an IP proves who was behind the NAT device? Doubtful.

Re:GMT and NTP?

[moonbender]

Syncing a machine via NTP isn't rocket science, you know. Since ISPs already keep logs for a number of purposes requiring accurate timestamps, they probably have figured that one out. Or you just disregard notices which occur close to either end of a DHCP "session" -- leaving room for clocks which are a couple of minutes off.

This is not what makes this kind of policy so fucked up.

Re:GMT and NTP?

[cjb658]

Seems to me it's not in the best interest of ISPs to give their customers the boot. Unless they were absolutely sure of a violation, they should want to do everything possible to keep them as customers.

Re:GMT and NTP?

[gwait]

With a three strikes law in place, it's more likely to follow the current US DMCA practice - if the receiver of a DMCA takedown notice doesn't respond to the notice, and it proves out to be a valid complaint, then said receiver is also liable in a lawsuit.

An ISP will likely toss you to the wolves than to risk getting sued for ignoring the three strikes.
(Until they are down to some low percentage of customers I'd imaging, but by then its too late, the frog has been boiling already).

My Generation

[bobbonomo]

I did not read this whole thread because there is too much... and this is like arguing religion or politics. Here are my comments anywho.

I take you back about 50 years when mimeograph machine started to make copies and then to photocopiers. I wonder where the photocopy industry (Xerox) would be if we had been this stiff about copyrights in those days. OK so "we" passed "fair usage laws". End of problem.

Do we realise how many times copyright laws are broken in offices today throughout the world? Look around the office. How many photocopies of everthing are there around? Magazines, newspapers, printed copies of web sites. Photocopies of this and that at school. We do this without even thinking. I remember when we made a "Xerox" of something instead of a copy. Technically they are all copyright violations. Oh yeah... "fair usage". Right!

OK so "you" need to invent "fair usage" again.

I do understand the need for copyright as in "I take IP of someone else and sell it for profit" as though it were mine.

To use the analogy above, if I share an electronic copy of a tune with a friend, I am simply making a photocopy of the New York Times front page and giving it to someone so they can read it. Yes, I did deprive the artist of 1 sell but I also did it to the New York Times. No one makes a fuss about the latter not even NYT.

Isn't P2P like photocopying. Bet ya the RIAAAAAAA have copies of things. How many A's in that?

Three strikes? Who's on first?

Re:My Generation

[russotto]

Do we realise how many times copyright laws are broken in offices today throughout the world? Look around the office. How many photocopies of everthing are there around? Magazines, newspapers, printed copies of web sites.

Never mind the printed ones. The copies in the computer are violations themselves, by a strict reading of copyright law. Copyright (as currently formulated) and computers are quite incompatible, but most of the clash is invisible. Copyright and the Internet (also as currently formulated) are completely incompatible. The few patches on it that don't do more harm than good are woefully inadequate to reconcile them.

Re:My Generation

[bobbonomo]

Yes, agreed. This is all absurd. I think fair usage has to be defined again. I see copies on computers as fair use: photocopies of a NYT article. I would really like to walk aroung the RIAAA offices just to see. Yes I knew 3 A's.

What's on second.

1 to many strikes

[Saysys]

2 strikes is what it should be. 1 strike: you may have been wrongly accused/convicted 2nd strike: you are clearly a career criminal if one stint in jail didn't turn you around.

How about a "3 strikes" law for zombie computers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else find it ridiculous that file sharing is what is getting this kind of draconian attention? In the meantime, *millions* of compromised zombie systems around the world are used for everything from spamming to hacking corporate and government systems and no one cares or does jack-shit. Want a 3 strikes law that would benefit everyone? How about "Your has been p0wned by the Russian mob. This is your 3rd warning. Goodbye." (followed by your ISP pulling the plug on your sorry ass.)

How to stop it

[laughing rabbit]

And what is the best way to stop it spreading further?

Don't buy, don't share, don't download, don't listen, don't watch.

Tune In, Turn On and Drop Out! Starve them all into oblivion. Play the game and they are legitimate.

I don't buy music because it can't be played...

[jopsen]

I record my music from internet radio, which is legal, in my country of residence... And I wouldn't mind buying the tracks if the came at less than a dollar and without DRM... But where I live no such services are available... Stuff from iTunes Plus generally costs about 2USD, and iTunes doesn't even run on my platform of choice...
Some other distributers have started offering mp3's on a small subset of their collection... Meanwhile they support DRM, and create music subscriptions with DRM... E.g. Another company I can't and will not support!

mod parent +5

[unity100]

that's a whopping idea. imagine, warner bros is accused of copyright infringement 3 times. and entire warner bros ip range is off the net.

Re:mod parent +5

[dissy]

that's a whopping idea. imagine, warner bros is accused of copyright infringement 3 times. and entire warner bros ip range is off the net.

I like that idea!

Ok, first you send in complaint #1, then I will send complaint #2, and then.. oh damn.. if only there was some place we could find just one more anonymous coward...

Can't imagine it

[crossmr]

having lived here for nearly a year Koreans seem to have a fairly relaxed attitude towards things like copyright and trademarks so I can't imagine this being much more than a law on paper that isn't really enforced.

Re:Can't imagine it

[tobiah]

I was living in Seoul during the 1988 Olympics, they had banned eating dog and snake to accomodate Western sensibilities. Was riding the bus one day and passed a food cart labeled "chicken", with a four-legged chicken on the spit... I'm not sure what the situation is these days, but the Koreans have a very long history of disrespecting their government (which was often foreign). Very few countries in the world take the letter of the law, or adherence to one's word, as seriously as Americans do.

Re:Can't imagine it

[crossmr]

I think it would be like their law against adultery. Used only when it suits someone. Like a movie star trying to save face or some situation like that.

Re:Can't imagine it

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so glad I ordered the four-legged chicken!

three strikes for Exxon - Bhopal - Citibank

[FreakWent]

I think if any company, corporation, charity or any other legal entity is convicted three times of any criminal offence then they should be disbanded/unchartered/dissolved and all the funds and assets should be forfeit to the government.

That's an example of why three strikes is a bad idea.

Can anyone play?

[zuperduperman]

This game sounds really fun. I can just upload some random warbling melody I record of myself and then start sending out 'strike' notices to everyone I don't like. Of course, they'll be 'striking' back in no time, so it should be quite a battle to see who can get all their strikes in first.

As long as this is an all-in party we should have a ripe old time!

You got the source wrong!

[jonaskoelker]

-Book of Armaments, Chapter 9 (excerpt)

It's chapter 2, verses 9 through 21.

Ahem... Your nerd certificate, please.

Re:You got the source wrong!

[EEBaum]

*hangs head in shame*

4 balls, you walk

[bidule]

Balance of terror.

If they can cut your internet after 3 strikes, you should gain the right to pirate after 4 balls. Since you could play their game and send yourself 4 clearly fake strikes to cheat them out of their copyright, they'd have to limit the strike rule to something that cannot be faked. Yeah right, they'd make the rule as asymmetrical as possible...

How about once you get to 3 strikes, a Big Brother agency (payed by the MAFIAA) would force/help you secure your internet connection and keep scanning for any trace of illegal file sharing. If you're still pirating away but forensics shows that your computer is under bot control, gee that's too bad it's not your fault.

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you say something somebody else claims not to like more than twice in your lifetime, your tongue will now be cut out.

Civilization takes communication or interaction of any sort that offends *anyone* very very seriously, and we'll permanently prevent you from interacting with others if you ever upset anybody.

Re:A surveillance society to keep copyrights in pl

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately the Corporations controlling most of the world have decided otherwise on your behalf.

Re:A surveillance society to keep copyrights in pl

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you should join your local Pirate Party branch. We exist in several countries (see http://www.pp-international.net/ for a list). If your country does not yet have a Pirate Party, then you might help start one. Don't just whine on slashdot as all the other slashdotters. Do something!

Egil MÃller
Piratpartiet (SE)

How immature are lawmakers?

[M-RES]

Does anyone who proposes a law based on a sports metaphor deserve to be a lawmaker? It's just immature and lacks any kind of intelligence - just like the sport the metaphor is drawn from.

Re:Three Strikes = BS (Mod Parent Up)

[Tuoqui]

Mod Parent Up.

The problem is that ISP companies aren't just the lines. They're frequently owned by big media 'content providers'... Like Comcast or Time-Warner or whatever other company. They have a stake in keeping content in artificial scarcity of copyright and threatening to cut off internet access.

GP post would make sense if not for that little fact.

I've been falsely shut off

[Anonymous Coward]

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

I don't either. But don't attribute to a conspiracy what can be caused by simple incompetence.

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.

Except they aren't getting it right... see below.

Not to mention all the negative publicity they would get if they shut down the wrong people.

So, what devious hijinks are you expecting?

Well, I've already had my internet connection cancelled falsely by Mediacom cable. I got 1 warning (with service shut off) in like October -- it was (probably?) real, I was torrenting my ass off. I quit torrenting then. I got shut off in December -- no torrenting, but I figured "What the hell, it must have crossed in the mail from before". Late January -- off again. They finally sent me a letter saying what it was off for. FUCKING UFC WRESTLING!!! Guess what, I never watched UFC ever.. I have a log proving the IP address they have in the letter did not match mine, in fact I *never* had that IP address. (I have DHCP but only get a new IP rarely.) They wanted me to sign something or other saying I would cut it out and give 1 last chance, but I said the hell with it and turned in my modem (since I already wasn't doing anything and was falsely pointed at.) I don't want some stupid legal problem in the future because Mediacom cannot match IP addresses & dates to users.

          I'm sure EVENTUALLY they'll wonder why the people they start cancelling at random complain so much. But I have my doubts that this is an uncommon problem.

          Where's my publicity? I know the owner of a competing ISP, and my preference is to keep it quiet and let Mediacom screw themselves rather than blow the lid and have Mediacom fix it.