Thursday, 29 October 2009

Why 3 strikes

The idea the government has on some blocking of internet access and 3 strikes rule is silly.

1. If a criminal offence has been committed, prosecute the offender, lock them up or fine them. One strike. Done.
2. If a civil wrong has been committed, sue the offender, get damages for the offence. One strike. Done.

Basically, the only way any "3 strikes" rule makes any sense is if the law is made so that the first two strikes have no penalty other than counting towards the 3 strikes. To be valid, in my opinion, they would have to be proper legal action for each of those two strikes else they are merely unfounded accusations. An unfounded accusation cannot count as a strike. So "3 strikes" would mean it is harder for the music industry to take action as they have to take action 3 times (per offender). Do the music industry want that?

It also means that suddenly everyone who is downloading music that they should not be, is safe. Until they have had the first 2 strikes they know there is nothing that can be done to them. Its an open market for copyright violation! All the people that were concerned they could be sued or prosecuted no longer need to worry until the second strike, at which point they move their downloads to some other identity (neighbours wifi, etc).

It just makes no sense!

3 comments:

  1. It's clear they're allowing unfounded accusations to count as a 'strike'. The upshot is on the 3rd strike it's much easier to defend yourself in court, because all you have to do is invalidate *any* of the 3 strikes to make whole action invalid, and win the case (since the law requires you to be guilty of 3 offences and if they can only prove you guilty of 2 you walk free).

    It's completely silly.. it'll never get into law I expect as this gov. is on borrowed time already.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Presumably the same theory will be being applied to car manufacturers - if one of their vehicles is driven over the speed limit or is used to carry stolen/illegal items?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ah, I should add that my last comment was made in light of your original post which asked "Why would ISPs be involved in cutting off internet any more than power companies involved cutting off power FFS?".

    ReplyDelete