Scholar shows 'three strikes' programs don't reduce piracy

Evaluating Graduated Response
, a new paper from Rebecca Giblin from the law school at Australia's Monash University, looks at the impact of "three strikes" and "graduated response" punishments for file-sharing. Countries including France, New Zealand, Taiwan, South Korea, the U.K., Ireland and the U.S. have adopted systems whereby people accused of file-sharing have their Internet access curtailed. This takes many forms, from losing access to YouTube and Facebook until subscribers complete a "copyright training course" designed by the entertainment industry to out-and-out disconnection from the Internet.

A good summary in IT News by Juha Saarinen discusses Giblin's findings from an in-depth survey of the file-sharing landscape before and after the introduction of three strikes rules: "There is no evidence demonstrating a causal connection between graduated response and reduced infringement. If 'effectiveness' means reducing infringement, then it is not effective."

Giblin is the author of 2011's Code Wars, an excellent book on the first ten years of file-sharing data.

Neither the Waikato University research nor rights holders' studies that point to infringing file sharing reducing in New Zealand considered the impact of better access to new, legitimate content services.

In South Korea and Taiwan, graduated response systems appear to have had very little if any impact on copyright infringing file sharing, Giblin wrote.

"Although the Taiwanese scheme has now been in operation for several years, there seems to be no evidence in the English language materials that any user has had their access suspended under the law, or any plausible evidence put forward to suggest it has brought about any reduction of infringement," according to Giblin.

Three-strikes laws do not reduce online piracy: study [Juha Saarinen/IT News]

(via /.)