This paper critically evaluates France's proposed "three-strikes" legislation targeting illegal music and movie downloaders, which would terminate Internet access upon a third offense. Drawing on an Economist article from 2009, the paper argues that while copyright infringement warrants punishment, removing Internet access constitutes a disproportionate and rights-violating penalty. The author contends that the Internet functions as a modern library and public forum, meaning its removal deprives citizens of free speech, access to information, and educational resources. The paper concludes that monetary fines remain the appropriate and just remedy for copyright offenses.
In the article "Trois strikes and you're out," a new system of harsh penalties for illegal music and movie downloaders is proposed. The system would penalize those who download copyrighted material illegally by cutting off their Internet access — a solution that The Economist suggests is unpopular, especially among the younger generation. France's proposed law would even create a new law enforcement agency to monitor illegal activity, sending warnings to those who download illegally. Upon the third offense, the offender would lose his or her ability to connect to the Internet.
Although the new law was set to take effect on April 9th, a surprising congressional vote struck it down. Despite this outcome, The Economist suggests that other European nations are considering similar policies that would penalize illegal downloaders while benefiting record and film companies.
Although this policy proposes a unique way for governments to deal with those who violate copyright law, it has implications far more serious than a few illegally downloaded movies. Traditionally, the penalty for such offenses has been just that — a monetary fine. Making the punishment an inability to access the Internet, however, begins to deprive citizens of their fundamental rights.
The Internet may provide access to illegal movies and music, but it also holds a wealth of information, including blogs, news, educational content, and personal communications. Depriving a person of Internet use is essentially depriving him or her of access to libraries, free speech, and freedom of information. As the United Nations has affirmed, access to the Internet is increasingly regarded as a basic human right tied to freedom of expression and participation in public life.
People who steal money from houses are not barred from living in them, nor are those who steal books forbidden from libraries. By the same logic, those who commit copyright crimes via the Internet should not be denied access to it altogether. The punishment for such offenses should remain what it has always been — a fine. If one person steals another's property, the thief should be required to pay; he or she should not be deprived of the right to free speech and access to information. Removing Internet access as a punitive measure is disproportionate, and it sets a troubling precedent for how governments may restrict civil liberties in the digital age.
"Monetary fines are the just alternative penalty"
You’re 91% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.