Why Not Apply A Three Strikes Rule To Everything?
from the watch-the-accusations-fly... dept
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.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.
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?
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
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 chronology ]
Re: Wooshhhh!
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Wooshhhh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And that is exactly Felton's point. You don't get satire much, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That guy really had me going there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's a sad world we live in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Obviously this is the point. To show how ridiculous it is in any medium...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
That guy really had me going there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
3 Strikes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Genius
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Curses! You stole my comment!
I was just getting ready to tell lulz to stay far away from Swift. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
Right, because there's plenty of competition in the ISP market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The argument used...
c.f. http://www.skepticsfieldguide.net/
AND
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love it...
"Sorry officer, I wasn't able to read the speed limit sign. I'm banned!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I love it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insane!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]