| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="CompPrivConst" |
|---|
Ready for comments. | | | As the internet becomes an ever-larger part of daily life, the worldwide copyright industry has started a push for laws that require ISPs to deny internet access to copyright violators. Known as “three-strikes laws,” proposals for such measures have cropped up around the world and so have vehement objections to their implementation. This outcry, which has not arisen for other instances of internet access prohibitions, indicates the extent to which people believe that a court is necessary before internet access can be taken away. In other words, the fervent opposition to three-strikes laws demonstrates that internet access has come to be viewed as a human right, at least by a significant segment of the population. | |
<
< | Several countries have been using denial of internet access as a punishment for crimes already. In the United States, there’s the case of the former University of Texas student who was convicted for hacking into the school’s network. The punishment has also been explored in the US for individuals convicted of downloading child pornography. And in Singapore, an internet ban has been used as a punishment for a teenager convicted of Wi-Fi freeloading. However ridiculous or extreme these cases may be, they have one important factor in a common: a court ordered the imposition of an internet ban for a particular individual after it found him or her guilty of a crime. | >
> | Several countries have been using denial of internet access as a punishment for crimes already. In the United States, there’s the case of the former University of Texas student who was convicted for hacking into the school’s network. The punishment has also been explored in the US for individuals convicted of downloading child pornography. And in Singapore, an internet ban has been used as a punishment for a teenager convicted of Wi-Fi freeloading. However ridiculous or extreme these cases may be, they have one important factor in common: a court ordered the imposition of an internet ban for a particular individual after it found him or her guilty of a crime. | | |
Three-Strikes Laws in the Copyright Context | |
<
< | The three-strikes laws that have been proposed by the copyright industry are very different. One of the first such laws to be introduced was in New Zealand, and included the following provision:
92A. Internet service provider must have policy for terminating accounts of repeat infringers
(1) An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer.
(2) In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner.
Notably, this provision places the entire onus of discovering and punishing copyright infringers on the ISP and provides no guidance about standards of proof or about establishing an appeals process. The UK proposal, similar to the New Zealand law, would require ISPs to enforce the law, with the added twist that if an ISP neglec tots do so, it might be prosecuted itself. The French version of a three-strikes law is more detailed, and considered to be the toughest yet introduced in the world. It calls for a new administrative agency, which would receive complaints from rights holders and would pass them on to ISPs, and which would oversee an appeals process. | >
> | The three-strikes laws that have been proposed by the copyright industry are very different. One of the first such laws to be introduced was in New Zealand, and included primarily a provision that an "Internet service provider must have policy for terminating accounts of repeat infringers."Notably, this law places the entire onus of discovering and punishing copyright infringers on the ISP and provides no guidance about standards of proof or about establishing an appeals process. The UK proposal, similar to the New Zealand law, would require ISPs to enforce the law, with the added twist that if an ISP neglects to do so, it might be prosecuted itself. The French version of a three-strikes law is more detailed, and considered to be the toughest yet introduced in the world. It calls for a new administrative agency, which would receive complaints from rights holders and would pass them on to ISPs, and which would oversee an appeals process. | | |
Reaction to Three-Strikes Laws | | | Conclusion | |
<
< | If access to the internet is a right, how should such an obligation be interpreted? It might be to provide equal internet access to all, as some governments have undertaken. This may be a goal towards which more countries aim in the future. But, at the very least, such an obligation should prevent the government from detracting from the level of equality in internet access achieved at any given moment. Prohibiting certain people from accessing the internet contributes to greater inequality, though not all prohibitions of access should be treated equally. Denying internet access as a punishment for copyright violations, as distinct from as a punishment for crimes, seems especially problematic. If such measures were to go into effect, the copyright owners, who possess disproportionate speech capabilities already, would be able to dictate and push for further unequal access to speech without court intervention. More power does not need to be concentrated in the hands of the copyright industry. The recent proliferation of three-strikes laws can only undermine the freedom of expression. The vocal opposition to these laws, whether it stems from fear for the state of freedom of expression or from some more basic sense of need, indicates that internet access has achieved a certain level of credibility as a human right in and of itself. | >
> | If access to the internet is a right, how should such an obligation be interpreted? It might be to provide equal internet access to all, as some governments have undertaken. At the very least, such an obligation should prevent the government from detracting from the level of equality in internet access achieved at any given moment. Prohibiting certain people from accessing the internet contributes to greater inequality, though not all prohibitions of access should be treated equally. Denying internet access as a punishment for copyright violations, as distinct from as a punishment for crimes, seems especially problematic. If such measures were to go into effect, the copyright owners, who possess disproportionate speech capabilities already, would be able to dictate and push for further unequal access to speech without court intervention. More power does not need to be concentrated in the hands of the copyright industry. The recent proliferation of three-strikes laws can only undermine the freedom of expression. | | |
-- StephanieTrain - 03 Mar 2010 | | | -- BrianS - 13 Mar 2010 | |
>
> |
Thanks Brian! I fixed the typos that you pointed out and also cut down the word length. I just removed the block quote in the end in favor of quoting just one provision, because I'm not sure it added a whole lot to the essay.
The point you make about contractual remedies is interesting. Personally, I would hope that the solution is not to get to that point, which is why I argue that a court must issue a decision before internet access can be denied. Such intervention would I hope prevent abuse, though the claims that could be made after wrongful denial of access are interesting to consider.
I didn't address that provision of the DMCA because I was trying to limit my discussion to countries that have considered these proposals (and, as you pointed out, as I am already out of space!) but I do think that the article you cited is fascinating. Thanks for pointing it out!
-- StephanieTrain - 22 Mar 2010 | | | |
|