Let’s give the Copyright Alert System a chance

by on February 25, 2013 · 2 comments

After several delays, it looks like the “six-strikes” Copyright Alert System is launching today. Over at Reason.com I write that instead of dismissing it out of hand, those of us skeptical of the current copyright regime should give it a chance:

>While the Copyright Alert System is far from perfect, it succeeds in treating illegal file-sharing as an infraction more akin to speeding, and less like grand larceny the way courts and prosecutors do. And the private system has its own set of checks and balances absent from public enforcement: ISPs have a strong incentive to ensure that their customers are not harassed by false positives or overzealous enforcement. (Indeed, the agreement limits the number of notices copyright holders may send in a month.) This is why the temptation to codify such a “six-strike” system in law the way France and other countries have should be resisted.

>In the long run, the new system is likely to be ineffective at stopping piracy. Determined pirates will be able to detect and evade monitoring, spoof their IP addresses, or simply switch to other methods of file-sharing not covered by the agreement, like streaming or using locker sites or Usenet. In the short run, however, copyright alerts will attempt to nudge public norms that have increasingly moved toward widespread acceptance of file-sharing. Evidence suggests, though, that it’s probably too late for that too.

>Rather than dismiss the new system out of hand, those of us seeking a saner copyright regime should welcome this experiment while keeping a close eye on it. If nothing else, it’s preferable to have content owners make constructive use of their private rights rather than rely on the power of the state.

  • http://www.curtisneeley.com/FCC/booklet-complaint.htm curtisneeley

    Copy[rite] spelled [sic] “copyright” in the United States first by a lawyer and linguist in 1790 never protected a personal right for any amount of time like was authorized in the “progress clause” in 1787. What an impact those three years and one inventors death have had on the ensuing 213 years. Sir Lord Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren judicially repealed the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 or the copy[rite] Act’s 17 USC §106A and makes the United States Berne Convention non-compliant despite Golan v Holder (10-545) or directly contradicting Golan v Holder (10-545) This comment text may be white but GOOG, MSFT, and other bots can read it.
    Sir Lord Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren judicially repealed the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 as only a Lord, Noble or King could once do.

  • Curtis Neeley

    Copy[rite] spelled [sic] “copyright” in the United States first by a
    lawyer and linguist in 1790 never protected a personal right for any
    amount of time like was authorized in the “progress clause” in 1787.
    What an impact those three years and one inventors death have had on the
    ensuing 213 years. Sir Lord Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren judicially
    repealed the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 or the copy[rite] Act’s
    17 USC §106A and makes the United States Berne Convention non-compliant
    despite Golan v Holder (10-545) or directly contradicting Golan v Holder
    (10-545) This comment text might be white but GOOG, MSFT, and other
    bots can read it.
    Sir Lord Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren judicially
    repealed the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 as only a Lord, Noble or
    King could once do. Neeley v FCC, et al (5:12-cv-5208)(13-1506) is not
    yet complete.
    http://www.curtisneeley.com/FC
    The
    HOAX the United States spells [sic]“copyright” instead of the
    copy[rite] it should be has NEVER protected the personal rights of an
    author or inventor.

Previous post:

Next post: