Did The Recording Industry Really Step Back From Three Strikes? Or Is It Playing Word Games?

from the don't-buy-it dept

A bunch of folks have been submitting the story from TorrentFreak claiming that representatives from Music Industry Piracy Investigations — an anti-piracy group representing the major labels in Australia — has said that it no longer favors three strikes laws, following theUN report that condemned such measures as a violation of civil rights. I didn’t report on this at first, but since people keep submitting it, I figured I might as well comment on it: and I think the story is wrong. From the sound of things, I think the MIPI folks may have pulled a fast one. The key line is the quote from MIPI general manager Sabiene Heindl that it supports “mitigation measures” concerning infringement, but that “such measures would not include termination of Internet accounts.”

Now, clearly, that might sound like backing away from three strikes, but I don’t think it does. That’s because we saw nearly the same thing a year and a half ago in the debate in the UK over the Digital Economy Act, where politicians supporting the Act, which is a variation on “three strikes” fought back against the public campaign against the Act by declaring that “disconnection” was no longer on the table. But, really, they were just playing word games. What they meant was permanent disconnection wasn’t on the table, but it wasn’t really ever in the bill. They were still very much in favor of so-called “temporary account suspension” which could last six months or more in some cases.

In other words, it’s a terminology issue more than anything else. Many people are concerned about any internet access account loss, and consider a six month suspension to be pretty bad. But to avoid the dreaded “termination” or “disconnection” buzzword, supporters of three strikes now like to claim that their plans include no such thing — instead it’s just a “temporary account suspension.” I’m guessing that this is exactly what the MIPI folks meant by saying they don’t favor termination, but do favor mitigation. That mitigation might just turn out to be a “temporary” account suspension for three strikes. So, my sense is that this story is overblown. MIPI has carefully chosen language to make it seem not as extreme and to not anger as many people, but it could still very much support three strikes… just for extended “temporary” disconnections.

Filed Under: , ,

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 “Did The Recording Industry Really Step Back From Three Strikes? Or Is It Playing Word Games?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Andrew (profile) says:

Someone said this and I found it amusing actually (It could very well be this site so sorry if I am stealing anyone’s thought but it was a good thought).

When will the UN declare that having an internet connection is a necessity. Way back in the day when phones started coming out the powers that be realized it was a necessity. We are tied so much to the internet these days. From banking online, to paying for things, twitter, facebook…the list goes on and on. Taking away that from someone is almost tantamount to severing an arm or something (and as one person earlier rightly commented you can’t stop someone from going online even if you temporarily suspend their account, between internet cafes and phones its next to impossible).

Three strikes is a really bad bad bad way for dealing with piracy. I hope someone realizes this soon and lets it die.

Oh and if anyone wants to read something interesting take a look. It kind of puts things into perspective to how bad service in America for the internet really is:


Anonymous Coward says:


I’m getting really tired of the “rules of the road” so called “analogy”. It’s such a stupid analogy. You can’t get killed by copying files.

The big content shills just came out with one of the worst possible “analogies” and tried to shoehorn it on copyright infringement. Well, guess what : IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE!

PaulT (profile) says:


Indeed. It’s the same issue as with DRM and any of the other measures they put in place – they will only affect the innocent or the most vulnerable.

Live in a city and get your access cut off? No problem, switch provider, hop on someone else’s for a while, wardrive for open hotspots or use a point located at a business that doesn’t check what you’re doing with their wifi (most of them).

Run an online business from home out in the sticks with only one ISP choice? Tough, your business can die in the name of “protecting” theirs. Bonus points for flimsy and easily faked evidence having been used to cut you off in the first place. Actual damage to the innocent in revenge for potential and unproven damage to a big corporation.

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...