Why "graduated response" attacks consumers' rights

Submitted by Jeremy Malcolm on Fri, 23/04/2010 - 23:47

Tags

It has become hard to imagine life without the Internet. We rely on it in so many ways every day, from staying in touch with family and friends, to paying bills, shopping, doing homework, reading news, and sharing music and video.

But if you find yourself doing all these things online, you could soon find yourself doing none of them. Because downloading music and videos, except through the channels that copyright owners approve, could get you banned from the Internet.

This is the latest weapon of the music labels and movie studios in what they characterise as a war on piracy of their content online. So far, they have succeeded in changing the laws of France, South Korea, New Zealand, Taiwan and most recently the United Kingdom.

Under the most stringent of these "three strikes" laws, consumers who share files can be barred from the Internet for up to a year, after receiving just two warnings. This adds to the existing penalties for copyright infringement that run to thousands of dollars per copied file.

The problem with this new penalty of disconnection from the Internet is that it is both indiscriminate and disproportionate. It is indiscriminate because it affects not only the person accused of sharing files, but also the entire household that may share that Internet account.

It is disproportionate because they are not simply prevented from downloading more copyright material, but also from using the Internet for online banking, self expression, or education (the South Korean law, at least, is kind enough to reserve them the ability to access email).

Consider also that it isn't always easy to be sure whether copying a file is an infringement. Almost all music and video recordings are copyrighted, yet the law of every country allows you to make copies without permission for certain purposes that amount to "fair use" or "fair dealing".

To make things more complicated, copyright law differs around the world. Is it legal or illegal for a budding movie reviewer to put a segment from a movie online with their review? Perversely, the answer depends on where they are, and where they uploaded the review.

In some countries (Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands and Canada), it is even legal to download content that was made available without the copyright owner's permission, for private use. In exchange, copyright owners charge a levy on sales of blank media and equipment.

In this context, how can a consumer be sure whether they are infringing copyright or not? How much less certain can their Internet provider be, when suspending their account for an infringement that the user (or their son, or their neighbour) may have committed?

It is time for consumers to stand up against this. The Internet is no longer just a plaything, and their ability to access it is not to be trifled with by copyright owners over a few copied songs that they could hear on the radio, or last week's episode of Desperate Housewives.

This doesn't mean that there should be a free-for-all for consumers to download whatever they want. But it does mean that enforcement efforts should be targeted at those who profit from infringement, rather than by suspending the Internet accounts of ordinary consumers.

To read more about these issues, check out Consumers International's 2010 IP Watchlist, that was released this week.

Share this post with