If Banning The Internet For Sex Offenders Is Unfair, Is Banning The Internet For Copyright Infringers Fair?
from the help-us-out-here dept
For many years we've questioned the logic of courts banning people from the internet for committing some sort of internet crime (mostly commonly sexual offenses online). Many courts have decided that it's ridiculous to ban people from the internet in an era when the internet has become so integral to our lives and our jobs. And, as more content and services move to being online only, it gets even sillier. If you're banned from the internet can you use a Kindle? What about a VoIP phone? It gets confusing fast. Luckily it looks like yet another court has thrown out an internet ban on a sex offender as draconian and a potential violation of the guy's free speech and association rights.While there's been some split in the courts, it looks like many are starting to question such bans, given how ubiquitous the internet has become. And yet... just as this is happening, we have the entertainment industry pushing hard to kick people off the internet for a small number of accusations (not convictions) for file sharing. Seeing as the courts are already claiming that internet bans -- even for online sex offenders -- is too draconian, how can anyone justify an internet ban as being a fair and equitable "punishment" for being accused (not convicted) of sharing some music?
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 infringement, internet ban, sex offenders, three strikes
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
lightbulb
Nice one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ye Olde Slippery Slope
In terms of copyright infringement, we don't even have a level playing field. Those howling over infringement are claiming ever more supposed "rights" that they don't even possess. If this trend were to continue we will all eventually be denied access to the internet!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ye Olde Slippery Slope
Problem solved!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ye Olde Slippery Slope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ye Olde Slippery Slope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ye Olde Slippery Slope
That should be the case already though.
We wouldn't have that discussion then now would we. Do goobers, who cares that he raped your child. He deserves another chance.
you people are sick fks. Your always finding a reason to let someone off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ye Olde Slippery Slope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ye Olde Slippery Slope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Timing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
but yes the issue raised in the post doesn't make much sense either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Plus him and Darcy were really nice to sit and have dinner with :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems to operate on similar logic.
On the other hand, we don't bar shoplifters from shopping...
I suppose it probably has something to do with having a license to drive and losing that. I'd hate to see the implementation of a license for internet use...although sometimes I wish their we're shopping licenses and that my wife's would get suspended!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're still allowed to ride in a car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
On the other hand, it's fairly difficult to cause the same dire consequences for others by torrenting. Those that engage in malicious hacking or spamming or the like are legally restricted from internet usage, similar to drunk drivers with regard to drivers' licenses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But you are still allowed to use the street system. You can ride a bike, a
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Do we take away people's access to driving after they commit driving offenses? "
But you are still allowed to use the street system. You can ride a bike, an under 50cc scooter (many places don't require a license or registration), a Segway, pay for a taxi, take public transportation, walk.
In relation to removing Internet access would be closer to saying: you have been accused of speeding 3 times, you are under house arrest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Some places don't require any license. Move there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In most cases, you get your license taken away for offenses that put peoples lives in danger. So a (most often) temporary ban is reasonable. The situation is hardly comparable to the 3 strikes perpetual internet ban.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder
Sex offenders should be sent to some island somewhere and then periodically nuke the damn thing to clean the earth of these low lifes.
Internet is not a RIGHT, and the moment the committed a crime they lost their RIGHTS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wonder
What about the sex offenders who took a nude picture of themselves? Are they on your island? Or they had sex with their girlfriend or boyfriend when they themselves were 18 and their girlfriend or boyfriend was 17? Also on your island?
The internet is a communciations platform. Do they lose the ability to communcate? To use the telephone?
What color is the sky in your world?
Is it black and white?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I wonder
Otherwise they agree to begin castrated.
What FUCKING color is the sky in your world?
Everything goes in your book quite obviously. What, you a closet perv that preys on the neighborhood childeren?
how about this you sick cock sucker.
What ever a sex offender is proven guilty of should happen to them. Doesn't matter what it is. Rape? They should be raped.
By the way, I fell the same thing should be done to domestic violence individuals. They beat their spouse, they should be beat just as bad by an individual that is the same appropriator difference in size.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
Your a stupid mother fucker, no shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
Again, the label is often applied for things far more minor than you realize. Underage girls sending a pic of themselves to their boyfriend, 18 year olds sleeping with their 16 or 17 year old gf/bf, a drunk accidentally relieving himself in a public place (if you're drunk, you're not aware of what you're doing most of the time). All of these, under current law, would be classified as "sex offenders" even though they've done nothing to truly warrant the label. Or are you the type to never question the applicability of such labels but who rather finds comfort in blind hatred?
And another thing, as far as the definition of "minor" goes, before the 20th century, teenagers about 16 and up were considered adults old enough to be on their own and marry and own property. It's only been in these last hundred years or so that the boundary for "minor" has been moved up, partly due to the changes in society, I would think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
Wot I am is a father and a husband
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I wonder
Eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, my enraged friend.
It's also worth noting that there are several flaws in your (obviously) poorly thought-out plan.
1. A man solicits sex from a minor on the internet. His punishment is to be solicited for sex from a minor on the internet?
2. An 18 year old girl sleeps with her 17 year old boyfriend. Her punishment is to have a 19 year old boy sleep with her?
3. A poor fellow who cannot handle his drink is caught urinating in public thrice. His punishment is to.. I really don't know, be urinated on three times in private? (He might like it!)
Finally, regardless of the nature of the sex crime, in your world all sex offender would still get to stay on the internet.
Have a great day, danny boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
hope they track it back to your house after wards and your ass fucked by all your buddies in jail.
I got a broom stick for you pervert. Thats all you deserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
I'm noticing in this post's discussion that you lack the ability to form logical arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
Obvious troll is obvious. We've gotten spoiled having TAM around.
That's my bad. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
However I do agree on other cases such as child molesters and rapists. I am a husband and a father and I would kill anyone who touched either my daughter or my wife
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
However I do agree on other cases such as child molesters and rapists. I am a husband and a father and I would kill anyone who touched either my daughter or my wife
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I wonder
Go to therapy or take some anger management classes or you will find yourself in that island of yours very soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I wonder
In many cases that would be more of a reward than a punishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wonder
All I saw was that the courts say that taking away the internet from these people is a violation of their rights. Maybe you island should be full of judges too?
You crazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I wonder
What law in ANY country makes it a right to have internet access?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
When was I given a choice on who represents me there?
And WHY should I let a body of individuals that allow rape, genocide, slavery, piracy, ... dictate to me what should and should not be my freedom?
Are you for real?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder
Calm down dude you're going rabid here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wonder
Am I a vile disgusting monster that needs to be killed?
Or am I a loving father and husband and a human being, a real person with feelings and emotions just like you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No court has said that internet bans are unlawful. In each instance where access to the internet has been banned, courts have concerned themselves with they type of crime involved and the reasonableness of conditions and length of time associated with a ban.
Nice try attempting to equate criminal matters with civil matters. As yet I have not seen any civil banishment from the internet, and if I ever do I would fully expect it would be in the context of a time limited injunction pertaining to engaging in the infringment of copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So on top of being fined a million dollars, you also get your internet taken away from you?
That's fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think you're mincing words here. Maybe the courts haven't said that any kind of Internet ban is unlawful, but they do appear to be veering away from this kind of punishment for what is inarguably one of the worst offenses. So, the question in the headline seems perfectly reasonable to me. It's basically pointing out that the RIAA/MPAA must believe copyright infringment is, based on recent court cases, worse than child molestation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The headline asked a question. I don't see how a question can be misleading. And even if it were a statement, it would not be misleading in the slightest. It's a reasonable question. Or do you disagree? Do you think that it is fair to remove people from the internet? If so, what for?
No court has said that internet bans are unlawful. In each instance where access to the internet has been banned, courts have concerned themselves with they type of crime involved and the reasonableness of conditions and length of time associated with a ban.
Your first sentence does not agree with your second sentence. Yes, as noted in the post, courts *have* declared internet bans illegal due to the reasonableness of the punishment in relation to the crime.
And that seems to fit perfectly with my headline, which you incorrectly called misleading.
Nice try attempting to equate criminal matters with civil matters.
Heh. Really? I would think that you would know better than to bring that up, as it actually supports my position even more. I didn't even bring up the fact that one was criminal and one was civil, because I could actually potentially see a stronger case for an internet ban in a criminal case. I can't see where it could ever make sense in a civil matter (not even a lawsuit). Do you really want to suggest that it actually does make sense in a civil matter? I am hoping you misspoke. I will await your retraction.
As yet I have not seen any civil banishment from the internet, and if I ever do I would fully expect it would be in the context of a time limited injunction pertaining to engaging in the infringment of copyright.
And you believe this to be perfectly acceptable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Drunk drivers should lose the privilege of driving on public roads.
Armed robbers should lose access to guns.
Internet predators should lose direct access to the Internet.
The RIAA and MPAA should lose access to lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But not lose access to roads.
Armed robbers should lose access to guns.
But not to ski masks.
Internet predators should lose direct access to the Internet.
If it is judged that they are likely to offend again, they've already served any jail term, and this is decided to be effective and the least restrictive means of preventing reoffense, I agree.
If I beat someone with a wrench, should I lose access to hand tools? If I infringe copyright on the internet, should I lose access to that tool which has many legal uses? What is so special about the internet? If I infringe by copying books, should I lose access to paper?
I think there are certain narrow circumstances where "People should lose access to the tools they use to commit their crimes, wherever possible" might be reasonable, but in general it is way too broad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, I do, so long as it is reasonable under the circumstances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Can you express under which circumstances you would find it to be acceptable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course it's fair.
Come on, you know that $$$ > human life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course it's fair.
I am a registered sex offender. I nvr assaulted anyone! I watched someone get changed without there knowledge. Yes I am on tbe sex offenders register but that is not wot I am. Wot I am is a loving father of 4 and a loving husband. I save thousands of lives of total strangers every year and do so because that is who I am. I am a person just like u
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do you ban someone from the internet?
They can make it inconvenient but they can't ban a person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How do you ban someone from the internet?
All the while, getting kicked off the internet isn't going to make anyone buy more music, so the original "problem" isn't even solved.
What could go wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i'm probably about to infringe on a copyright here:
taken from Sid Mier's Alpha Centauri
admittedly, this is probably more appropriate to attacks on the internet as a whole, but still.
I think a lot of people, especially in positions of power, haven't yet grasped how similar 'the internet' and 'the street' actually are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: i'm probably about to infringe on a copyright here:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought it was about three strikes and how you are kicked off without due process.
Oh well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if they somehow *did* supposedly enact a "law"
Kevin Mitnick was ONE guy. Let's say they attempt to "ban" ten thousand pretty tech-savvy "pirates". You think that will actually work? You think they won't just "war-drive" the fuck around, doing destructive (and pretty much untraceable) shit with whatever open Wifi connections they find?
How *would* you even "ban" someone from the Internet, anyway? IP addresses aren't like people's names. The only thing they *might* be able to do is ban people from purchasing Internet connectivity *IN THEIR OWN NAME*, from an ISP. No way to "ban" somebody from using a cracked smart-hone. No way to "ban" somebody whose name you don't know, on the basis of the quality of evidence that leads "anti-piracy" organizations to issue cease and desist warrants to computer printers. The whole notion of "kicking somebody off the Internet" rests on a total misunderstanding of what the Internet is (a series of common protocols -- not even a "thing" in the sense of a single unified network).
The only thing an attempt at "banning" someone -- ANYONE -- from the Internet will do, is piss of a lot of really tech-savvy folks who -- already -- don't give two liquidy shits about what "the law" says in relation to copyright, etc.
This isn't about whether it's a "right" (but that works as a really nice straw-man, btw). It's about what people *will do*. People are *still* doing 'illegal' drugs. Prohibition doesn't work.
Penalizing somebody who understands the ubiquitous -- and necessary -- tools upon which our entire civilization runs (computers and digital networking and such), is simply a recipe for creating an entire new crop of Kevin Mitnick clones. It won't work, because it CAN'T work.
So whether it's "fair" or not is also totally irrelevant. It's not particularly "fair" that if you bring a knife to a gun-fight, you probably get shot. What happened to the MesoAmerican tribes (Aztecs, etc) wasn't particularly "fair" either, but as we all know by now, superior firepower wins.
All the rest of it -- including Drama-troll's dramatic little re-enactment of "Sunset Boulevard" -- is bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do I Know people are still doing "illegal" drugs?
Seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How do I Know people are still doing "illegal" drugs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How do I Know people are still doing "illegal" drugs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet Bans
The results came back that only 5% of teens had ever been sexually solicited online and that those other higher numbers did not take into account that many cases of harassement were by other teens.
The AG's promptly rejected the results of their own studies and purged thousands of former sex offenders from myspace and facebook.
Fear not only makes for great election year soundbites but it is ratings gold for all media outlets.
This is America who cares about the truth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Internet Bans
Truth is a treat to a well-ordered society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]