Debate Digest: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook, Law school, Balanced budget amendment, US debt ceiling deal.
Debate: Graduated response antipiracy laws
From Debatepedia
Revision as of 17:01, 15 April 2010 (edit) Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs) (→Pro) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 17:02, 15 April 2010 (edit) Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs) (→Pro) Next diff → |
||
Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
====Pro==== | ====Pro==== | ||
- | *'''Colleges have used own graduated reponse systems.''' [http://www.barrysookman.com/2010/01/20/graduated-response-and-copyright-an-idea-that-is-right-for-the-times/ Barry Sookman and Dan Glover. "Graduated response and copyright: an idea that is right for the times." Lawyers Weekly. January 20th, 2010]: "Colleges and universities have really been engaged in their own form of graduated response for many years. If you take a look at what universities have been doing, they have escalating sanctions for people who have been identified as repeat infringers. Something as simple as, for example, at Stanford, where they charge a $100 reconnection fee for somebody who fails to respond to a first notice. Then a second offense is $500 and a third [time] offender has network privileges terminated and to regain access, they have to pay a $1,000 fee. That's a very clear graduated response system." | + | *'''Colleges have used own graduated reponse systems.''' [http://www.barrysookman.com/2010/01/20/graduated-response-and-copyright-an-idea-that-is-right-for-the-times/ Barry Sookman and Dan Glover. "Graduated response and copyright: an idea that is right for the times." Lawyers Weekly. January 20th, 2010]: "Colleges and universities have really been engaged in their own form of graduated response for many years. If you take a look at what universities have been doing, they have escalating sanctions for people who have been identified as repeat infringers. Something as simple as, for example, at Stanford, where they charge a $100 reconnection fee for somebody who fails to respond to a first notice. Then a second offense is $500 and a third [time] offender has network privileges terminated and to regain access, they have to pay a $1,000 fee. That's a very clear graduated response system. [...] Others will just give a warning the first time, and the second time they might do a temporary disconnect for 24 hours, and a third time they might refer you to the judicial affairs system. Every school has its own variation, but they've really been implementing informal graduated response." |
Revision as of 17:02, 15 April 2010
Is a "graduated response" to unlawful P2P file sharing justified? |
Background and contextGraduated 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
|
Con
|
Write Subquestion here... | |
Pro
|
ConClick "edit" and write arguments here
|
Write Subquestion here... | |
Pro
|
Con |
Universities: | |
Pro
|
Con |
Pro/con source | |
Pro
|
ConClick "edit" and write arguments here
|
References: | |
Related pages on Debatepedia: | |
External links and resources: |