Slashdot Mirror


3 Strikes — Denying Physics Won't Save the Video Stars

Philip K D writes "Award-winning SF author and BoingBoing co-editor Cory Doctorow has an editorial in today's Times of London. Doctorow elegantly eviscerates the basic injustice posed by the imminent Mandelson '3 Strikes' law in Britain. He makes the explicit observation: 'The internet is an integral part of our children's education; it's critical to our employment; it's how we stay in touch with distant relatives. It's how we engage with government. It's the single wire that delivers freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. It isn't just a conduit for getting a few naughty free movies, it is the circulatory system of the information age.' It is worth noting that Doctorow was influential in the creation of the Creative Commons. He has enjoyed considerable commercial success for his writings, owing in no small part on his insistence that his work be made available for unrestricted electronic distribution and copying." In related news, the UK's second-largest ISP, TalkTalk, is now threatening legal action if Mandelson's plan goes through.

12 of 284 comments (clear)

  1. Not helping by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He makes the explicit observation: 'The internet is an integral part of our children's education; it's critical to our employment; it's how we stay in touch with distant relatives. It's how we engage with government. It's the single wire that delivers freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly.

    Cory, that's only encouraging them. Now you've told them that if you can arbitrarily cut off people's Internet access, you've got those people by the gonads and can make them do whatever you want without going through the annoying process of actually passing laws and obtaining convictions and such.

    1. Re:Not helping by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sadly, I agree. The governments in the "west" are in their "wind-down" phase. They see enormous advantages in operating closed-cartel oriented markets, with severely curtailed republic systems and controlled public messages. It is working well (in their eyes) for China, with whom they imagine they must compete.

      "Let 'em buy Mazdas and Nike, and they won't care if they're free. Control the information they are allowed to consume, and they will vigorously attack with extreme chauvinism, any messenger that points out that they are not free."

      I am consistently amazed at how deadly accurate was the prescient vision of Terry Gilliam, in the movie Brazil - so clearly seeing the dreadful intersection of a corporate/consumerist substitution for the values of a republic, and the enlistment of "state power" as the lick-spittle to enforce corporate conformity.

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
  2. I think by b0ttle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They should create a 3 strike law for dumb politician laws.

  3. Re:So what then ? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In a way that requires proving that someone stole, rather than a simple accusation maybe?

  4. "influential in the creation of the CC...?" by bcrowell · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is worth noting that Doctorow was influential in the creation of the Creative Commons.

    First I've heard of this. Citation, please?

    I know that Doctorow was one of CC's early adopters. I've never heard that he was involved in the creation of the license.

    IMO Cory Doctorow is good writer, but an absolute genius at self-promotion.

  5. Re:Alternatives by wizardforce · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about not punishing people who presumably have not been found guilty of breaking the law? If they broke the law and were found guilty, they'd be subject to the ruling of the court. If they haven't been found guilty or for that matter given no trial then the whole thing is a violation of due process.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  6. Mu. by schon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So if this isn't the answer, how do you propose that illegal software downloads, copyright infringing video clips on youtube, and illegal downloading of mp3 music *should* be handled ?

    Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

    Your question presupposes that people accused of something are automatically guilty of it.

    1. Re:Mu. by dissy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That one is so simple!

      For any legal matter, a judge must state you are guilty of the crime.

      After that, punishment is a non-issue.

      With this law, you don't have to do anything wrong, or even do ANYTHING. A person in a coma can easily be guilty of this law, since it just requires someone to accuse them.

      If i said Mr. ComaGuy downloaded a video, he is instantly GUILTY. Full stop. No more argument nor defense. The act of me claiming he did something is all it takes to be guilty of this law, having done so or not, or even being able to do so, never comes into play.

      Three people do that to Mr. ComaGuy, and when he wakes up he is banned from the internet.

      Now do you see why this law is a bad idea?

  7. Re:Alternatives by Rycross · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Take them to a court of law after doing due diligence to figure out if they were really the ones infringing. Subject them to due process. Don't play shenanigans in court or behave unethically in the proceedings. If found guilty, then charge them fair, not extortionist, penalties.

    The problem is that the media companies don't like the idea of not being able to railroad everyday people into settlement, or not being able to threaten the public with ridiculous penalties. This is because they lose the FUD-factor, and the cost of throwing lawyers at the problem becomes prohibitive.

    How do you solve this? I don't know. Its not my problem, and its not the duty of society to ensure that litigation is profitable. Its the duty of society to make sure that due process is followed and the justice system improves society. It's not my duty to ensure that the media companies stay in business.

  8. "Three strikes" to ensure wide encryption by David+Gerard · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lord Mandelson has today announced that the outgoing Labour government will be going ahead with the "three strikes" plan against Internet filesharing, thus ensuring the widespread use of encryption in all routine network communications.

    "Encrypted communications as standard is the best possible thing for everyone's privacy," he said today, "but there's so much inertia from the installed base of unencrypted systems. This will provide a rapid incentive for everyone to upgrade as soon as possible. In our last few months in power at the fag-end of a failed government, we need to leave a real legacy for the future."

    The benchmark for the new system will be illegal filesharing dropping by 70%. "That's measured illegal filesharing, of course. We have set out our metrics quite clearly. Furthermore, home taping is killing music."

    MI5 and the police have objected to the plan due to the difficulty of mass-monitoring encrypted systems, even with the RIPA power to obtain passwords, since mass anonymity systems such as TOR and Freenet have been constructed where the end-user never has nor sees the encryption key. "But a few hideous terrorist atrocities is a small price to pay for less Lily Allen songs being shared. Particularly if they happen on the Tories' watch. MuWAAAhahahaha. By the way, have you noticed just how much Dave Cameron looks like Iggle Piggle? Uncanny."

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  9. Re:heh. by coastwalker · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those who do not know David Nutt is an academic who works for the scientific advisory body on illegal drug use in the UK. He has just been sacked for expressing the view that drug harm research was being ignored by politicians and the information being disseminated by the state was being degraded by the choice of the party in power to classify particular drugs for political reasons rather than the research results on the harm that they were causing. It is not unusual for politicians to choose how to run society on the basis of whether they will be re-elected by the influence of various other players in a democracy - in this case the owners of certain media outlets who are believed to have considerable influence on the election of politicians. However this case calls into question why the party in power bothers to employ expensive researchers who they sack if the right answer is not being provided. Why not just tell us how it is based on what they think will get them re-elected. The party in power is a disgusting cesspool of unprincipled scum who will do anything to foist their arbitrary theories of how society should be run on us. They are no better than the generals in Burma or the greedy rulers of Iraq. Shame on them for their lies and incompetence. The three strikes and your out laws are just another thing that they follow because they have zero interest in reality but think that it will spin well to get them re-elected. They are lazy and evil.

    --
    Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
  10. you need to study your own history by cas2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    i'm not american, but even i know 20th century american history better than you.

    neither communism nor socialism were dirty words in america until the 1950s with all the scare propaganda about the Red Menace.

    right up until then, there was an active, large, and popular socialist movement in america. it wasn't likely to hold government in its own right but was strong enough to provide a moderating influence on the growing corporate control of american government.

    after mccarthy, socialism became a thought-crime in america and corporate control had no effective opposition.

    i'm constantly astounded by the mindless american hostility to the idea of government - it's like children denying reality. the fact is that government is inevitable and unavoidable, you can't deny its existence or power by just subscribing to some moronic "rugged individualist" mythology. so, if government is inevitable, then only sane thing for citizens do is to ensure that it works for THEM....because if it doesn't work for the citizens, it will be controlled by the rich and powerful for their own benefit. which is *exactly* what you've got. as a whole, the people of america have abdicated and the power vacuum has been filled by corporate interests, which is precisely why there is so much corporate-sponsored propaganda brainwashing citizens into believing that socialist principles like universal health care are bad for them.