The Korea Herald writes that Korea is now imposing its own version of the "three strikes and you are out of the internet." link here It will become effective this week, having been approved by the National Assembly in April. It requires web sites to ban for six months providers of copyrighted work. Sites that fail to enforce the law can be fined up to $8000 and also face possible civil suits. Current president Lee Myung-bak supported tougher enforcement after years of "loose enforcement of anti-piracy laws".

No trial? No facing your accuser? The copyright police win again.

South Korea has long had a Yin-Yang relationship with copyright. One of the things that played against South Korea was the ability of Koreans to copy movies freely. Incredibly, that hurt the native film industry much worse than foreign films. Korean filmmakers were unable to make films that made money because the films were copied (illegally) about as fast as they were made, and Korean filmmakers could not recoup their investment.

Foreign filmmakers, on the other hand, used South Korea as an additional source of revenue, and that country was not make or break. So, lots of foreign films, less and less in the way of domestic films. The South Korean government attempted to bandaid the situation by requiring all theaters to play Korean-made films a minimum percentage of the time, effectively creating a subsidy for Korean films. However, even that was not that much help for a dwindling number of Korean film makers.

Korea found itself in an interesting position. Either become much better at enforcing copyright laws, or watch as Korean theatrical films be a thing of the past (Korean television shows and series, on the other hand, do quite well). Incidentally, this situation is exactly the opposite of what the anti-copyright lobby has predicted. In theory, "innovation" is supposed to increase with the lack of IP protection. Instead, Korean filmmakers found themselves slowly going out of business. You can see how the government has responded with the three strikes law.

Re: Anonymous

"Anti-copyright lobby" - what a BS. Show me the money. I have seen this situation in other country. While there was a communist government nobody cared about US copyright. Most popular movies and music were the US movies and music. Why?

1. They ware cheep... I mean free.

2. They ware better then the local production because government influence and restrictions.

The change happens and the local studios and record labels could not compete at all. They failed. Then copyright lobby went and bribed the government and got them self a new draconian law. The results:

1. US movies and music become very expensive.

2. Local artist able to compete again.

The Result: No one is buying US music and movies. It is simple economic copyright does not stimulate creation only makes distributors richer.

1. If you want to make a case, you should show how Copyright help local artist and US artist at the same time.

2. You can not expect to have decline when you switching from strict Monopoly to Free Market model. All formal socialist countries have found that the hard way.

So switching from draconian copyright to copyleft regime should be done slowly by relaxing the copyright first and allowing time for the entertainment industry to adjust. In Korea local movie production failed because they were using Hollywood business model that is build on ridiculous copyright regime in USA.

SAL-e:

I am not sure exactly what you want me to show you. U.S. movies are freely copied in South Korea, but they also do better in South Korean movie theaters than Korean movies do. On the other hand, Korean movies have historically not done well in theaters. Both are copied relatively freely (witness the departure of most studios from South Korea because of rampant copying). However, U.S. studios now consider South Korea to be a relative backwater with respect to releases because income is low, so they use South Korean companies to handle internal distribution. This information has been well documented at Techdirt.

On the other hand, Korean studios producing theatrical releases rely on South Korean income to make their money. While copying may reduce the potential income for U.S. film companies by a few million dollars, it does not affect their ability to make movies because of the income from the rest of the world. There has been relatively little in the way of market for South Korean films outside South Korea. Thus, rampant copying and poor attendance for Korean films at theaters has put a serious crimp on South Korean theatrical film making.

All this information has been well documented and known. South Korean filmmakers have argued, successfully, that foreign film dominates South Korean theaters. Of course, it helps that it is also true. The South Korean government was swayed by these arguments and mandated that all movie theaters show a certain ratio of Korean-made movies to foreign-made films. However, showing films does not translate into attendance. It appears to me that the South Korean government is taking additional steps to assure there are domestic film producers.

A Libertarian and free marketers would argue that if South Korean filmmakers are unable to compete, they deserve to be eliminated in the market place. However, what Libertarians and free marketers do not consider is whether a domestic market will be culturally overwhelmed by foreign cultures, and whether there are those who would resist such homogenization, regardless of the benefits of homogenization.

My question to you is: what do you want me to "show" you? Everything here is readily verifiable and is reasonably factual. I did not double check every single fact I believe I have recalled, but I have followed the South Korean film industry for several decades with interest, wondering whether they would survive the onslaught of foreign films.

Re: Anonymous

You define non existing lobby that you called it "Anti-copyright". Any lobby is financially backed by interested industry. I want you to show who is financing the fictional "Anti-copyright lobby". In contrast RIAA, MPAA and IFPI have practically unlimited budgets and are "donating" (pay-off) US Congressmen and EU politicians in order to secure favorite laws.

And your second post just confirms my observation from the country where I come from. I have seen and lived through this sequence of events. It is history in repeating for me. I can make sure prediction what is going to happen in Korea.

The production of local movies and music will increase dramatically and Hollywood will continue to lose market share. The biggest problem is that new local production will be highly commercialized promoting sex, violence and cheep visual entertainment. The local culture will be completely forgotten. Just go to East Europe and see it your self. Copyright do not promote culture. That is why many of the Hollywood movies are really bad on content.

You define non existing lobby that you called it "Anti-copyright". Any lobby is financially backed by interested industry.

You are wrong. There are many lobbies that are not financially backed by any industry. Examples: Greenpeace has a lobbying function. One of NRDC's big activities is lobbying. AARP is primarily a lobbying organization. There are many lobbies with little financial backing, such as portions of the anti-copyright lobby and certain environmental lobbies, and lobbies with significant financial backing, such as AARP.

And your second post just confirms my observation from the country where I come from. I have seen and lived through this sequence of events. It is history in repeating for me. I can make sure prediction what is going to happen in Korea.

The production of local movies and music will increase dramatically and Hollywood will continue to lose market share. The biggest problem is that new local production will be highly commercialized promoting sex, violence and cheep visual entertainment. The local culture will be completely forgotten. Just go to East Europe and see it your self. Copyright do not promote culture. That is why many of the Hollywood movies are really bad on content.

I do not know what country you are from, but Korea has dealt with foreign dominance of their theaters for more than three decades. They have tried several ways to prevent the deterioration of domestic movie production, with generally little success. Perhaps it takes longer than two or three decades for the process you describe to occur.

In the meantime, it appears that Korea is trying a three strikes law.

"You are wrong. There are many lobbies that are not financially backed by any industry. Examples: Greenpeace has a lobbying function. One of NRDC's big activities is lobbying. AARP is primarily a lobbying organization. There are many lobbies with little financial backing, such as portions of the anti-copyright lobby and certain environmental lobbies, and lobbies with significant financial backing, such as AARP."

Greenpeace, if I remember had a budget of more then 200M EUR. I am not going to do audit of their finances. They have somewhere around 2.5 million supporters worldwide. Other groups you mention are also very well funded. I have seen the endorsement commercials of AARP and I can clearly tell that this is one "corrupted" organization. (Not in the classic form, but with conflict of interest) You have avoided again naming the organization name of the still very vague and generic "Anti-copyright lobby". If you make statements like that be prepare to support them with names. Heck I take a single name and single number for their financial backing.

Public Knowledge...

http://www.publicknowledge.org/

Pirate Bay...

http://www.piratbyran.org/

There are many organizations that include fighting copyright as an aim of their organization. How many would you like?

The Center for Democracy & Technology is an organization that lobbies for a limiting copyright on the internet...

http://cdt.org/

Pirate Bay?! Are you serious? LOL. They are 4 guys. The closest political movement is the Pirate Party in Sweden. They got one men in EC after the judge, member of copyright lobby, sent Pirate Bay guys in jail. Just for comparison Obama put 5 of RIAA lawyers in DOJ. And Pirate Party is not the Pirate Bay.

Public Knowledge is not anti-copyright. They are trying to restore the balance between Fair Use and Copyright. One of their directors is Lawrence Lessig and he many time stated that he is not against copyright. He just wants to have a balance on the Internet as in the physical world and for right to remix. He created Creative Commons license. It is copyright license.

CDT mission statement is practically the same as Public Knowledge. So I don't see them as anti-copyright lobby either.

Quick search revealed that CDT has filed 2007 IRS Form 990 and they received $2.8M. I did not found data for Public Knowledge because it is composed by many Foundations. But I am sure that all combined can't get even close to RIAA, MPAA and IFPI.

I only can hope that people will wake up and build real Anti-copyright Lobby and I only can hope that will have budget like "Greenpeace". Then for sure we are going to see the real change.

SAL-e:

When you go to each of their websites, they describe where they have won victories in limiting copyright or preventing extensions of copyright. Call that what you will, but they are clearly working through legal channels for limitations on copyright, either in the United States or elsewhere. That is the definition of lobbyist.

Definitions:

Anti - a person who is opposed (to an action or policy or practice etc.)

Lobby - a group of people who try actively to influence legislation.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

"copyright" is not equal to "extending of copyright"

So Anti-copyright is person or organization opposing copyright and it is not the same as "opposing/preventing extensions of copyright"

Most of the cases described on Public Knowledge are victories where the current copyright law was applied inappropriately. Usually attempt to use copyright to censor a critical opponent or block a competitor. I could not find single case where copyright law was retracted.

Read their mission statement. They are clearly looking to reduce the level of copyright as it currently exists.

http://www.publicknowledge.org/about/what/mission

Ok. I know English is my second language, but I don't see anything "anti-copyright" in their mission statement.

from: http://www.publicknowledge.org/about/what/mission

Public Knowledge is a public-interest advocacy organization dedicated to fortifying and defending a vibrant information commons. This Washington, D.C. based group works with wide spectrum of stakeholders libraries, educators, scientists, artists, musicians, journalists, consumers, software programmers, civic groups and enlightened businesses to promote the core conviction that some fundamental democratic principles and cultural values openness, access, and the capacity to create and compete must be given new embodiment in the digital age.

Public Knowledge will seek to fulfill four broad goals:

* Ensuring that U.S. intellectual property law and policy reflect the "cultural bargain" intended by the framers of the constitution: providing an incentive to creators and innovators while benefiting the public through the free flow of information and ideas.

* Preserving an Internet that is built upon open standards and protocols and "end-to-end" architecture, thereby fostering innovation and user control.

* Protecting consumers of digital technology from market practices designed to erode competition, choice and fairness.

* Ensuring that international intellectual property policies are adopted through democratic processes and with public interest participation.

Goals: 1 and 4 clearly state that they are looking for better IP laws, not for removal of the IP.

Sorry. I am done with this debate.

1. I don't see the fictional "Anti-copyright lobby" you are trying to invent.

2. Yes, there are people and organizations that are opposing the Copyright like this site, but it is personal efforts of individuals driven by their passion not a lobbyist.

3. And the most important you could not show prove that people promoting Copyleft principles are receiving money from any one. They are investing their own money and mostly time.

It is very insulting to put labels on people with different believes. The communist back home used to do that and if you continue to do the same you are not much different from them. So please, you are welcome here to argue about your support of Copyrights, but do it with out insulting the opponents.

SAL-e:

From Public Knowledge's web site:

Our first priority is to stop any harmful legislation from passing, and we've been busy the past two years mostly doing this. However, we also support legislation we think is good, and plan on introducing some positive legislation of our own very soon.

I am done with this debate. Public Knowledge has a goal to stop additional copyright legislation, and they are developing proposed legislation that would place limits on copyright. Call it what you will, but when you work to limit copyright, I consider that "anti-copyright."

SAL-e:

From The Pirate Bay's web site:

The Pirate Bay was started by the swedish anti copyright organization Piratbyrån in the late 2003, but is since October 2004 separated and run by dedicated individuals. Using the site is free of charge, but since running it costs money, donations are very much appreciated.

http://thepiratebay.org/about

So, The Pirate Bay clearly describes Piratbyrån as an anti-copyright organization. Regardless of your English skills, it is difficult to explain away what is in black and white about an organization that you claimed was not anti-copyright.

Do you have any other comments to make?

SAL-e:

These groups advocate either partial or complete elimination of copyright. Most of these groups are politically active, either directly or indirectly by trying to organize voter support:

Creative Commons

Pirate Cinema (local branches have conducted anti-copyright activities in various places such as Helsinki and Berlin)

The League of Noble Peers has conducted a number of activities that were devoted to piracy and file sharing and proposes changing copyright laws to permit unrestricted copying and file sharing.

Hipatia

Cult of the Dead Cow

Hacktivismo

In addition, there are a number of people who have individually promoted anti-copyright agendas, many of them posting on this site. Many of the individuals posting here have participated in public debates and written papers attempting to influence public policy on copyright. We call this activity "lobbying."

Okay, I have made my point, time after time after time. I am really finished with this debate.