IFPI Claims That Three Strikes Can Surgically Remove One Family Member From The Internet, But Not The Rest

from the please-explain-how? dept

One of the major concerns about various “three strikes” laws that kick people off the internet based on three accusations (not convictions) of copyright infringement, is that beyond being a stunningly disproportionate punishment to the action, it also potentially punishes many others: for example, a teenager can be accused three times of file sharing and his parents and siblings all lose their internet access because of it, that does not seem reasonable nor fair. And yet, in a rather odd statement, an IFPI representative, Shira Perlmutter, seems to be claiming some sort of magical ability to just block the single user from accessing the internet, saying to conference attendees that three strikes would only require cutting off “one account.” Perhaps the folks at the IFPI don’t quite understand how the internet works (or perhaps that’s a given) but generally speaking, when you have internet access at your house, you don’t set up separate access accounts for every family member… And if others in the family have access, what’s to stop the “cut off” one from using the other’s access?

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: ifpi

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “IFPI Claims That Three Strikes Can Surgically Remove One Family Member From The Internet, But Not The Rest”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Free Capitalist (profile) says:


Maybe, but I don’t think they’re that smart. My guess is they cannot tell the difference between a network (the Internet), an application or a server.

Apparently the French *do have to logon to so called “public free” networks, which must be an administrative nightmare for hotels, coffee shops and other (at least former) small scale service/access providers. So maybe you’re right after all, and they think its reasonable to have every mom and pop shop with gratis WiFi access generate and audit one-off user names. Of course, as Mike points out, requiring ISP logon is just as impotent in effectively identifying and preventing access of a single entity as is IP address “association”.

They cannot prevent sharing or hacking, and they cannot implement a “three strikes you’re off” system without violating fundamental rights granted in the U.S. *and in the EU.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: What if you have three teenagers...

“What if you have three teenagers…”

And what if they all suffer from congenital multiple personality disorder? Is that six strikes for two personalities each, nine for three, and so on?

What if you have children that are conjoined twins? Is this law applied like VMware licensing, per brain or per physical single body?

Anonymous Coward says:

What if we attack this from the other end and slip in language that requires the accusations to be delivered by e-mail. Then immediately accuse the IFPI 3 times kicking them off the internet so they can’t deliver their accusations.

Either that or require a company officer to attest to the accusation and pay a non-refundable fee to file the accusation. I would recommend a $1000 fee with a 10% increase in fees for every 100 accusations that you file.

AJ says:


I can think of several ways to abuse the hell out of a “3 strikes law”. The most entertaining of which, would be something like what “those pesky kids” like to do in my area. They steal the plates off of a car, put them on a car that looks about the same, and run every red light camera in town. Then they put the plates back on the original car. I’m sure the original owner can beat it in court, but now they have the hassle of dealing with it….

Imagine what they could do with an internet connection….

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Shira Perlmutter is an Idiot ....

“Perlmutter added that Internet service providers cut off service to customers now if they are abusing the ISP’s services.”

Look at the back peddling Verizon is doing on the piracy notification experiment they are doing. Imaging what would happen if they actually started cutting people off, or if it came out that they already had.

“while the proposed laws would require ISPs to cut off a user’s access.”

Key word being “USER” making this ineffective in the US unless everyone is required to log in everytime they go on to the internet. This would cause a major backlash against the ISP’s. Even if they say “Its the Law we have to do this”.

This would lead to a new form of identity theft, UP (Username Password) Theft. Just what we need more botnets stealing ID’s so people can commit crimes (download media)online.

Gotta love unintended consequences … What I find funny is that three strikes, ACTA, etc, are going to push the copyright debate and the actions of the media giants into the public eye … Its going to be like turning on a light in a cockroach infested apartment

home net user says:


Sorry until you get rid of the retard windows users
that know how to do stuff this is completely unenforceable and completely stupid

so when we get rid of them whose left on the net…..
YEA and linux users are too smart to be controlled

Yea see where it leads.

cell phone fees that are retarded,
ACTA law transparency not there
ISPS acting like cops
IFPI/RIAA/MPAA acting like they own the world ( waves at pinky )

yea know what happened to that french king they didn’t like


registry of DUMSHIT ( ROD )

we have the ROD now and were going to give you the ROD….

and in thinking of children what ever so happened about teaching ones kids the proper values and allowing freedom and choice

anything else ( AND UP YOURS GODWIN ) is nazi facist BULLSHIT

what on fucking arth did my grandfather fight in world war one , world war 2 and north korea for

Andres (profile) says:

Would like to see transcript

I have met Shira Perlmutter when I moderated a debate in which she takes part. Although she is definitely an IP maximalist, she did not strike me as a fool, on the contrary, she seemed exceptionally sharp and clued in, so I am a bit sceptical about the report.

Either she did say what she said, in which she is completely misrepresenting three-strikes repercussions, or she has been misquoted.

Kevin says:

Should we call in the ACLU?

I am wondering, is this even legal, since all that is required are multiple accusations, but not even one single conviction?

Look at it this way: So, two competing tech companies are both trying to outdo the other, and so finally one day, company A decides it just doesnt have the innovation to out-perform company B, so what does company A do? accuse the lead designer, or the company owner of copyright infringment, and *poof* next thing you know, company B goes out of business becasue they cant even get online to do research, or advertise, or promote, or sell their product……..

geee, unintended consequences…….

Our country’s histroy has been a series of unintended consequences, becasue of people acting out of anger and emotion rather than thinking with the brain they were born with and using a little common sense and logic.

Sure, if you want to BAN someone from the internet, you first have to determine WHO the internet belongs to, therefore establishing WHO has the authority to even DECIDE who can’t access their property. If it is commonly owned public property, paid for by a shared expense or public tax (sort of like our US highways) then shouldnt ALL of the OWNERS have the right to decide who even gets to make these decisions?

pocketknife says:

1. Good luck proving anything in a court of law.
2. Enforcement is impossible. I suppose that has never stopped the government before…
3. Arguably one could make and 8th amendment case out of this. Use of “the internet” is essential to daily life. One would have a hard time functioning in any capacity without internet access, and even more so as time goes on.

nasch (profile) says:


I find it disturbing that the effectiveness of this measure is even allowed to enter the debate:

“As more countries weigh whether to punish serial copyright infringers by taking away their Internet access, critics debated Wednesday whether such efforts have a deterring effect.”

To me, that would be like debating whether having cops just shoot traffic offenders to death would be more effective than issuing tickets (yes, I’m exaggerating). It doesn’t matter if it would be more effective or not, it’s wrong.

Michial Thompson (user link) says:

Three Strikes is laughable at best in the US

Y’all do realize that at best all this talk about three strikes laws is laughable at best here in the US. Remember the innocent until PROVEN guilty aspect of our constitution?

Even if these laws get passed they will not survive even one minute in front of the supreme court. In fact I think that even with the slighted threat of legal action by a subscriber the providers will cave in anyway.

If they pass a LAW that allows the three strikes to go into affect then that law must be constitutional, and even though the internet is not a right for Americans it is our RIGHT to be innocent until proven guilty which is where this law would fail.

So Bring it on, I say pass the damn law sooner than later so that it can be put to rest sooner than later.

James says:

Completely rediculous

Whether or not the person being quoted was taken out of context, misquoted or just plain stupid, its obvious that the very idea of a 3-strikes internet law (for copyright infringement no less) is pointless.

As far as I recall, people all over the world use the internet for all sorts of activities that are, or could be considered to be, illegal, and we don’t have lobbying groups trying to pass assinine laws trying to get their access stricken (although rapists and sex offenders might be a good place to start).

Apparently the recording industry, and their cronies, “think” their cause is more important than other ills that exist in the world online–that are actually far worse. Perhaps they “think” that they are special? Hmmm, come to think of it, perhaps they are special but not in the way they want to be considered.

AndyB (profile) says:

That isn't an accurate representation of what she said

I was there and saw the talk. There was a lot of what she said that I disagree with, but the linked article badly misinterpreted what she said.

What Shira was referring to was the fact that while your Cable internet account may be cut off, you are not banned from using work, library, internet cafe, iphone, etc… “Account” means “internet service account” not “user account on a PC”.

It is important to be accurate when discrediting the RIAA and IFPI – they say plenty that makes no sense. Getting what they say wrong makes the actually silly stuff they say harder to successfully fight.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: That isn't an accurate representation of what she said

There was a lot of what she said that I disagree with, but the linked article badly misinterpreted what she said.

The linked article stated that she also said that “in most cases, Internet access would be suspended to only one account and may not affect a whole family.”

Now, NationalJournal.com publishes who they are, their physical address and phone numbers. You, on the other hand, are an anonymous blog commenter. Guess which one I find more credible as to what was really said.

Alex Curtis (profile) says:

More to the story

Shira had a lot to say and so did the UK MP. What was interesting was that this panel discussion was for US policy makers and neither the MPAA nor the RIAA (the American movie and recording label associations) participated. The panel organizers were stuck with international representatives. As it turns out, though, the international people said everything the MPAA and RIAA wouldn’t have said (publicly), which is why the panel was so useful.

Here what they had to say:


geekrawker says:

Accurate or Inaccurate

It doesn’t matter much. I’m with Comboman, my internet costs me around $60 a month. Infringements or not, i highly doubt my ISP would want to loose the revenue. If my ISP cut my access, i can guarantee that i would cancel my other subscriptions with them such as TV and Phone, i doubt i’m alone in thinking this. That could be more than $200 a month per household they cut off. I just don’t see that happening.

A user registry is just as ridiculous, i cant imagine how difficult it would be to implement this… maybe use our socials at birth to establish our accounts? Is it time to rotate my SSIP address again? And what about using encrypted connections that bounce around the world, will that count as a strike? Just login with your dogs name and open up your encrypted VPN.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...