Hacker News Reader

Comment by navyrain | Hacker News Reader

Given that these ISPs often have exclusive markets, in which they have no direct competitors, this would effectively deny internet access to anyone who had the misfortune of getting a few of these notices.

Lack of judicial oversight is obviously a problem. But furthermore, this really overstates the seriousness of copyright infringement, and understates the importance of internet access for all.

View on HN

Some European countries [1] and even the UN [2] have recently begun to recognize internet access as a Constitutional right. If similar decisions were made here, one might be able to sue one's ISP for breaching that right... but maybe not, as long as there's free internet at public libraries. I'm also very pessimistic that SCOTUS will recognize internet access as a Constitutional right any time soon, what with the MAFIAA still at large.

[1] http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/0309/Is-Inte... [2] http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/06/united-nat...

> internet access as a Constitutional right.

You mean Human Right.

In the case of individual countries, it's often construed as a constitutional right. But in the case of the EU, you're right, it's a human right. Thanks for the correction.

It hasn't prevented the advancement of internet three strike laws in Europe. In fact they are way ahead of the US on that lousy path. Ireland, UK, France, etc...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/france-passe...

http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/-three-strikes-isp-di...

http://extratorrent.com/article/1124/uk+admitted+%E2%80%9Cth...

Ah, sorry. I meant UN, not EU. The article I linked to in the great-great-grandparent says UN, not EU.

Western Europe sucks. Too much MAFIAA influence there.

If you read the article, you'd know that ISPs seem unwilling to cut off access entirely, even after 6 strikes.

Agreed on the judicial issues. While the ISP is legally free to make any decision it wants as to who is allowed to use its network, and in what capacity, they're essentially making these determinations based on hearsay.

What tickles me in that special way is the way this 'conversation' has gone.

Them: "We've got an awesome new idea, 3 strikes policies. 3 accusations, and your out."

Us: "Um, well actually it's not fair to have your internet cut off based on unproven accusations."

Them: "Well then... 6 strikes!"

Us: "I don't think you understand the objection..."

That's a standard political tactic; a compromise is always considered OK, so you propose something ridiculous and end up with half of ridiculous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_Window

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

That last point is my primary complaint about these systems. While yes, this is actually a quite reasonable series of warnings (the first four carry no penalties at all), it still bothers me that there is no real proof behind any of this. As far as I know, all the content owners have to say to the ISP is that such-and-such IP was uploading our content X, and then the warnings begin. There's no first- or third-party fact-checking (which, I admit, would be quite difficult with torrents anyway), it is, as you say, "hearsay." I'm not quite sure why, but the RIAA and other organizations now carry as much weight as our government regarding our internet access (can the state even shut down a customer's access at all? I have no idea, but if it can't, that's even worse).

Apart from this, and quoting the Ars Technica article, it's a prime example of "guilty until proven innocent" and a really sneaky tactic by the government to go around the political / democratic process and form "voluntary agreements" with ISP's and media companies.

You know, the "misfortune" of getting the fifth notice can be pretty effectively mitigated by stopping file sharing after your fourth notice.*

* except in the cases where you're in a botnet

Nothing stops anyone claiming to have a copyright to send a notice for any IP. Frankly, if I don't like your haircut, and know your IP, I can send a notice to your ISP claiming that you "infringe on my intellectual property."

Without judicial oversight, the potential for abuse or error is just too great.

Or you weren't sharing in the first place. I can see 'using more bandwidth than we would like you to' soon being used as prime evidence of illegal activity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com