Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
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.
For example:
-Book of Armaments, Chapter 9 (excerpt)
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
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
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.