The latest approach that large media firms have for putting the genie back in the bottle when it comes to people making perfect duplicates of digital movies, games, and mp3s involves a plan that cuts users off from the Internet based on private (and difficult to refute) accusations.

The plan, known as a "three strikes" regime,  may become law in the UK (where it may kill open Wi-Fi hotspots), has been enacted in France (but not yet enforced), is part of a secret set of negotiations for the future of international "anti-piracy" rules, and may be part of backroom deals between various copyright holders and major U.S. Internet service providers.
The three strikes idea generally requires copyright holders to identify IP addresses (Internet end points that are typically assigned only temporarily to consumer-level users) that are sharing media without permission. An ISP identifies and passes along warnings to the subscriber.

On typically the third "offense," the user's service is disconnected. This may mean cancellation by the specific ISP—or it might mean you couldn't get service by any ISP in a country.

This is a large area to cover, and I'll be writing the UK and French laws, sub rosa copyright deals, and ISP contracts in future columns .

This disconnection regime has a fundamental chilling effect on personal freedoms. Not the non-existent freedom to share copyrighted media without permission, but the freedom from unfair processes that don't allow appeal, rebuttal, or dispute, and which turn ordinary citizens into non-persons.

It's the silent opening of mass warfare by rightsholders who will be able to attack millions of users with little chance of repercussion. It's some idiot's wet dream of how to solve piracy. It certainly won't work, and it may simply destroy media companies faster than they're already being eaten up.

I'm surprised that conservatives, allegedly vigilant for infringements on personal liberty by governments, haven't taken up this cause, but they may be too busy with political conspiracy theories about re-education camps and death panels to watch for actual reductions in freedom.

Let's start in this column with how this came to pass. After the bruising public response to years of litigation over digital music piracy, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) changed strategies more than a year ago and stopped suing individuals for minor copying acts.

Suing children, computer illiterates, the elderly, and the dead—among many legitimate targets who were engaged in unauthorized copying—just didn't work out for them. (The RIAA still perfectly reasonably pursues large-scale and commercial duplication.)

It also didn't seem to stop people from sharing files, nor reduce the erosion in CD and DVD sales. Something bigger and more frightening was needed than thousands of suits against individuals.

Instead of suing individuals, rightsholders thought, why not avoid the courts and just have both the threat of losing Internet access as a bludgeon against potential and actual infringers? This avoids a lot of pesky niceties required in civil actions, and no judge need ever insert himself or herself into the process.

The "three strikes" idea has many, many flaws. The method by which people have to be notified and penalties enforced varies among the several proposals, bills, laws, and secret agreements.

In general, any copyright holder can serve an infringing notice to an ISP with an IP address attached. IP addresses are a set of numbers that uniquely identifies a destination at a particular point in time. In homes, the IP address may change frequently, assigned from a pool that an ISP has been allotted by the global numbering authority. (Yes, there's a global authority, IANA, that handles Internet numbering, assigning ranges of numbers in blocks to service providers and network operators.)

Home users also typically have routers that accept an IP address from the ISP, but then use a distinct, private method of addressing for all the computer on the network. (You may have seen this in router settings as DHCP plus NAT. DHCP hands an address to a computer or handheld device automatically; NAT mediates between the router's public or ISP-facing address and the private address assigned to the local computer.)

Cafes and other hotspots assign IP addresses temporarily to any device that connects to the network for Internet access, whether the access is paid, free, or associated with a service provider account.

All of this is a mess. Question: Which copyright holders will be able to send infringement letters, and how do they prove that they own the right and the right was infringed? As with existing laws and efforts, likely only the biggest companies get a voice.

There is no apparent method of appeal, except in France (more on that in a future column). ISPs simply get the notice, pass on an alert to the customer associated with a given IP, and on the third notice, kill the connection.

The method of tracking users by IP address is inherently flawed, and will lead to entire apartment buildings or Wi-Fi hotspots being shut down because of a few incidents of sharing by a single resident or guest.

This is all just for starters. Concomitant with all of this is the fact that it will simply drive actual infringers underground, switching to approaches that are essentially untrackable. Three strikes will do nothing except cause more grief to the industries that somehow believe this is the way they can finally "win."