- Journal Archives
- Volume 19
- Volume 18
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
The public outcry concerning legislation like SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, and CISPA was unprecedented and, as far as some legislators and business interests were concerned, insurmountable. It seemed, for a moment at least, that the general public distrusted the legislature when it came to internet copyright enforcement legislation to such an extent that the mere mention of proposed legislation would spark a slew of blog posts and news reports with headlines like “The New SOPA.”
Any hope of a congressional piracy initiative in the short-term all but evaporated. The powerful lobbies funded by Hollywood and organizations like the RIAA, however, were not so easily discouraged. With a little help from the Obama administration and full complicity from most major internet service providers (including AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, and Verizon), the media conglomerates crafted the “Copyright Alert System.” The “six-strike” plan, slated to be implemented by the major ISPs by year’s end, consists of an escalating progression of warnings and penalties directed toward customers suspected of repeated copyright infringement.
On the first strike, the user may receive an email from the ISP indicating that their account may have been involved in copyright infringement. The second strike will be similar to the first alert, but will focus instead on an “educational message” meant to dissuade a user from illegally sharing files online. On the third and fourth strikes the ISP will utilize some “conspicuous mechanism” such as a pop-up window by which the user must explicitly acknowledge receipt. This strike also has an informational component much like the second strike. On the fifth strike, ISPs may begin “throttling” internet speeds or alternatively force the user to contact the ISP to “discuss” the alleged infringement. While the allowable measures for the sixth strike are unclear, the ISP could legally terminate the user’s internet access. Also, the party would be vulnerable to suits from the copyright holders under the DMCA.
Some proponents, however, insist that the connotation of a word like “strike” isn’t a precise indicator of the educative, as opposed to punitive, nature of the plan.
Concerns, however, are multifold. To begin, methods of transmitting information such as e-mail attachments, “cyberlockers,” and shared dropbox folders will not be policed or included in the plan. Additionally, ISPs will send the notifications to the ISP-provided e-mail address which, most would agree, are seldom checked by users. Of course, users will be able to appeal each “strike,” but that has done little to quell the concerns of the online community.
In the end, it is unclear whether this new attempt at preventing infringement will succeed or prove to be more trouble than it is worth. The consensus of the more technologically-inclined internet community seems to be that ISPs are, like so many other media-dissemination companies, grasping at straws.
–W. Colton Cline
Recent Blog Posts
- The Consumer Review Fairness Act: Protecting Consumers Who Post Negative Reviews On The Internet
- Google Fiber Nashville Litigation
- Brexit and the Future of UK Sports
- The U.S. is Losing the Economic Drone War
- Your Emoji May Be Used Against You in a Court of Law
- FCC Passes New Regulations to Protect Your Personal Online Information
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution