Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Graduated response antipiracy laws

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 15:58, 15 April 2010 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Is a "graduated response" in punishing P2P file sharing justified?)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 15:59, 15 April 2010 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Background and context)
Next diff →
Line 14: Line 14:
In response to copyright infringement using peer to peer software, the creative industries reliant on copyright advocate what is known as a "graduated response" which sees consumers disconnected after a number of notification letters warning that they are violating copyright. The content industry has thought to gain the co-operation of internet service providers (ISPs), asking them to provide subscriber information for ISP addresses identified by the content industry as engaged in copyright violations. Consumer rights groups have argued that this approach denies consumers the right to due process and the right to privacy.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduated_response] In response to copyright infringement using peer to peer software, the creative industries reliant on copyright advocate what is known as a "graduated response" which sees consumers disconnected after a number of notification letters warning that they are violating copyright. The content industry has thought to gain the co-operation of internet service providers (ISPs), asking them to provide subscriber information for ISP addresses identified by the content industry as engaged in copyright violations. Consumer rights groups have argued that this approach denies consumers the right to due process and the right to privacy.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduated_response]
 +Barry Sookman and Dan Glover outline the proposal below in a January 2010 Lawyers Weekly article: "Graduated response, which has been implemented in jurisdictions such as France, Taiwan, and South Korea, and which is in the process of being enacted in the UK and New Zealand, is viewed by many policy makers as a fair and effective means of addressing the problem of online unauthorized file sharing. Although each country has adopted or proposes different balances, the key characteristics of these systems are: (1) rights holders monitor P2P networks for illegal downloading activities; (2) rights holders provide ISPs with convincing proof of infringements being committed by an individual at a given IP address; (3) educational notices are sent through an ISP to the account holder informing him or her of the infringements and of the consequences of continued infringement and informing the user that content can be lawfully acquired online; and (4) if the account holder repeatedly ignores the notices, a tribunal may take deterrent action, with the most severe sanctions reserved for a court."[http://www.barrysookman.com/2010/01/20/graduated-response-and-copyright-an-idea-that-is-right-for-the-times/]
|} |}

Revision as of 15:59, 15 April 2010

Is a "graduated response" to unlawful P2P file sharing justified?

Background and context

Graduated response, also known as three strikes, is an initiative, adopted in several countries, aimed at addressing the problem of online Copyright infringement.

In response to copyright infringement using peer to peer software, the creative industries reliant on copyright advocate what is known as a "graduated response" which sees consumers disconnected after a number of notification letters warning that they are violating copyright. The content industry has thought to gain the co-operation of internet service providers (ISPs), asking them to provide subscriber information for ISP addresses identified by the content industry as engaged in copyright violations. Consumer rights groups have argued that this approach denies consumers the right to due process and the right to privacy.[1]

Barry Sookman and Dan Glover outline the proposal below in a January 2010 Lawyers Weekly article: "Graduated response, which has been implemented in jurisdictions such as France, Taiwan, and South Korea, and which is in the process of being enacted in the UK and New Zealand, is viewed by many policy makers as a fair and effective means of addressing the problem of online unauthorized file sharing. Although each country has adopted or proposes different balances, the key characteristics of these systems are: (1) rights holders monitor P2P networks for illegal downloading activities; (2) rights holders provide ISPs with convincing proof of infringements being committed by an individual at a given IP address; (3) educational notices are sent through an ISP to the account holder informing him or her of the infringements and of the consequences of continued infringement and informing the user that content can be lawfully acquired online; and (4) if the account holder repeatedly ignores the notices, a tribunal may take deterrent action, with the most severe sanctions reserved for a court."[2]

Write Subquestion here...

Pro

Click "edit" and write arguments here





Con

Click "edit" and write arguments here





Write Subquestion here...

Pro

Click "edit" and write arguments here





Con

Click "edit" and write arguments here





Write Subquestion here...

Pro

Click "edit" and write arguments here





Con

Click "edit" and write arguments here





References:

Related pages on Debatepedia:

External links and resources:

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.