Why Not Apply A Three Strikes Rule To Everything?

from the watch-the-accusations-fly... dept

Thu, May 14th 2009 8:22am — Mike Masnick

Back when the entertainment industry first got serious about pushing its silly three strikes concept, we were among those who wondered if the entertainment industry would accept a reverse three strikes rule, meaning that if they send three bogus accusations, they lose their own internet access.

However, leave it to Ed Felten to demonstrate just how ridiculous any sort of three strikes policy is -- especially one based on accusations, rather than convictions -- by suggesting that we extend a three strikes rule to print as well, noting that the reasoning behind the internet three strikes rules seem to also apply to print:

My proposed system is simplicity itself. The government sets up a registry of accused infringers. Anybody can send a complaint to the registry, asserting that someone is infringing their copyright in the print medium. If the government registry receives three complaints about a person, that person is banned for a year from using print.

As in the Internet case, the ban applies to both reading and writing, and to all uses of print, including informal ones. In short, a banned person may not write or read anything for a year.

A few naysayers may argue that print bans might be hard to enforce, and that banning communication based on mere accusations of wrongdoing raises some minor issues of due process and free speech. But if those issues don't trouble us in the Internet setting, why should they trouble us here?

Yes, if banned from using print, some students will be unable to do their school work, some adults will face minor inconvenience in their daily lives, and a few troublemakers will not be allowed to participate in -- or even listen to -- political debate. Maybe they'll think more carefully the next time, before allowing themselves to be accused of copyright infringement.

In short, a three-strikes system is just as good an idea for print as it is for the Internet. Which country will be the first to adopt it?

It seems like anyone who thinks three strikes rules are a smart idea should be required to (a) read this and (b) explain why it shouldn't apply to print.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, ed felten, modest proposal, three strikes

32 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

lulz, 14 May 2009 @ 8:47am

Yes, if banned from using print, some students will be unable to do their school work, some adults will face minor inconvenience in their daily lives, and a few troublemakers will not be allowed to participate in -- or even listen to -- political debate.

Hold on, I need a breath.

Okay.
The mere idea of banning people from using printed materials is so asinine, it should be illegal. No. No. NoNoNo. The proposition is not only unenforceable, but ridiculous. You can't force someone to not read printed things. You just can't.

No newspapers.
No books.
No journals.
No paper.
No pens.
No literacy.
Not possible.

If no one accepts a law as being a law, you can't make them follow it. People will do whatever they want. They already are doing whatever they want.

Ed Felten is just another idiot who wants to be another totalitarian dictator.

This naysayer thinks you should jump off a bridge for being incompetent at having a rational thought process.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nicolas Sarkozy, 14 May 2009 @ 8:53am

3 strikes makes sense because I am president and I say so. Well, it makes sense except if you're accusing me of course. But anyone else is ok!

As for 3 strikes for print, I love the idea. Maybe I'll push through that law as well to make some money for these poor helpless newspaper companies!

Vive la France Libre!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lulz, 14 May 2009 @ 8:54am

Maybe they'll think more carefully the next time, before allowing themselves to be accused of copyright infringement.

I'll be sure to think more carefully the next time somebody accuses me of copyright infringement...

Even if I didn't infringe on anything

Your assertion is that it takes 3 suggestions that you've infringed anything. It doesn't actually have to be true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2009 @ 8:58am

Re: Wooshhhh!
@luls,

The point is that it is equally ridiculous to apply that sort of thinking to internet access.

I believe there is even a latin phrase/term for that sort of comparison.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish, 14 May 2009 @ 8:59am

Re:
"The mere idea of banning people from using printed materials is so asinine... The proposition is not only unenforceable, but ridiculous."

And that is exactly Felton's point. You don't get satire much, do you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2009 @ 9:02am

Actually, I somewhat like the idea for the simple fact it has the possibility to escalate to the Supreme Court very quickly.

Consider the 6th Amendment. Ed's hyperbole is making very good use of playing devil's advocate, and such a direction, if adopted, has possibility to re-affirm the 6th Amendment on multiple levels. While somewhat sarcastic in tone, his proposal presents a longer path, but one that could holds more long-term promise and legal precedence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2009 @ 9:03am

lulz,

That IS EXACTLY what the entertainment industry is talking about, three ACCUSATIONS.

Not three convictions in a court, three completely unsubstantiated accusations based only on whatever they consider sufficient evidence. No third party review, no court, no "proof" required.

Please read up on this stuff and start telling your congress people what you think!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger, 14 May 2009 @ 9:13am

Re:
"Your assertion is that it takes 3 suggestions that you've infringed anything. It doesn't actually have to be true."

Um, Lulz, that's the entire point Ed Felten is trying to make. The present three strikes policy in France (and being pushed elsewhere) is based exclusively on accusations. I don't even have to own to copyright to accuse someone of infringing on it. You don't even have to actually infringe on the copyright that I don't own to be accused. Ed's just taking it to the next step to point out how completely stupid the idea is.

Even you see the insanity of it, and that's what he wants you to think:

"This law would be completely asinine and should not be passed. Wait, this internet bill is the same damn thing and should never be passed as well."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lulz, 14 May 2009 @ 9:21am

@Everyone smarter than me:

That guy really had me going there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Adam (profile), 14 May 2009 @ 9:24am

3 Strikes
Seems to me that this rule should apply to mail as well, i.e. the post office refuses to deliver mail to recipients of multiply infringement accusations. To generalize then, if you are accused of using a medium of communication to infringe, you lose access to that medium.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser, 14 May 2009 @ 9:26am

Genius
Too funny. This Ed Felton guy is a genius. I would love to see a supporter of the Internet three strikes rule get asked this question in some public forum. Oh, say...like The Daily Show or The Colbert Report where the person would be called on their inevitably bullshit response rather than the interviewer just moving onto the next softball question.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nobody, 14 May 2009 @ 9:27am

This is a satire piece, like Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal". Check that one out too... it's even more ridiculously funny. Also, if you read Ed Felten's piece to the end, you'll notice that the post is tagged "Copyright" and "Humor";)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lulz, 14 May 2009 @ 9:31am

Re:
@Everyone smarter than me:

That guy really had me going there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2009 @ 9:32am

And lets use that logic as an argument for everything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Weird Harold's former #5 fan, 14 May 2009 @ 9:33am

Re:
This is a satire piece, like Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal". Check that one out too...

Curses! You stole my comment!

I was just getting ready to tell lulz to stay far away from Swift. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2009 @ 9:51am

The relationship between an ISP and a user of its services is a private one based upon contract law. If an ISP elects to incorporate into its TOS a "3 strikes" provision, there is nothing in law that prevents it from doing so.

If such a provision was incorporated into federal/state statutes, the "government action doctrine" would come into play. But here this is not the case, so the doctrine has no applicability.

There are, of course, some rules of law that do provide restraints on private action via contract or otherwise. The utilization of P2P does not, as a general rule, strike me as one that would be so restrained.

If ISPs decide to implement a "3 strikes" rule, that is their prerogative. If a user doesn't like this, they are always free to use another ISP.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The infamous Joe, 14 May 2009 @ 9:52am

Re: Re:
The sad thing is that your brain didn't immediately discount this as satire, because deep down you know that someone out there would think this is a good idea and push for it.

It's a sad world we live in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The infamous Joe, 14 May 2009 @ 9:56am

Re:
If ISPs decide to implement a "3 strikes" rule, that is their prerogative. If a user doesn't like this, they are always free to use another ISP.

Right, because there's plenty of competition in the ISP market.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
christopher (profile), 14 May 2009 @ 10:20am

The argument used...
Reductio ad absurdum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

c.f. http://www.skepticsfieldguide.net/
AND
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
uhmno, 14 May 2009 @ 10:32am

Re: Re:
In free market economies, like most of Europe, there *is* competition. Must suck living where you live :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2009 @ 10:36am

Re: Re:
Shhh! A.C. was doing fine until you showed up!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bruce Ban'er, 14 May 2009 @ 10:41am

I love it...
So, when the cop pulls me over for speeding after I am banned from print, I simply say:

"Sorry officer, I wasn't able to read the speed limit sign. I'm banned!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2009 @ 10:48am

Re:
Banned from reading the directions on your med, the instructions for cooking your food, the reason for the burning hand in your water heater manual . . .
I think that was the poster's point.
If you are caught jay walking three times, do they revoke your shoes?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WHatever, 14 May 2009 @ 11:00am

Insane!!!
Does this mean if banned, I won't have to stop at a Stop Sign since I wouldn't be allowed to read it. Oh yeah! I guess i could speed to
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2009 @ 11:01am

Re:
Why do we have to keep re-affirming the constitution or amendments every few years. Why can't they just stay afirm? *sigh*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2009 @ 11:05am

Re: I love it...
Well, if I recall you need to be literate to have a driver's license. Which means that if you were banned from reading, that would make your license invalid, because you no longer qualify. So I think you'd still be screwed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2009 @ 11:59am

Re:
Lulz, did you miss the point entirely???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2009 @ 12:01pm

Re: Re:
Damn, I really need to read the other comments before posting my own. Sorry, Lulz, I see he did catch you off guard at first.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mechwarrior, 14 May 2009 @ 12:32pm

A real world example would be Cali's three strikes law for convicts. Id like someone to show a study of what percentage of Lifers in Cali were due to stealing a pack of cigarettes (or any inconsequential item), initiating the third strike.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nonobear, 14 May 2009 @ 1:39pm

Re:
Troll.

Obviously this is the point. To show how ridiculous it is in any medium...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch, 15 May 2009 @ 9:48am

Re: Re: Wooshhhh!
ad absurdum?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch, 15 May 2009 @ 9:58am

Re:
France is not considering a 3 strikes terms of service for some ISP, it is considering a 3 strikes law. Kind of changes the picture.
[ link to this | view in thread ]