BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Enforcing a mandated graduated response is unworkable

"Graduated response." Open Rights Group: "the consequences of the government legislating to force the BPI’s proposals into effect would be both unwanted and unworkable. The result would be to replace the current judicial process with an administrative one: ISPs could surely not be expected to carry out reviews of such cases on their merits – they would neither be qualified to do so, nor would they have the resources to do so. It is hard to imagine anything other than a rubber-stamping process, by which users would be cut off at the drop of a hat."
Weal appeals process in graduated response

Nate Anderson. "RIAA graduated response plan: Q&A with Cary Sherman." ARS Technica. December 21, 2008: "What's the mechanism for 'appealing' a false allegation? How will subscribers be notified (i.e., what if your 'third notice' ends up caught in your spam folder, or your teenager intercepts the letters)? Will parents be held responsible for what their children are doing? Will neighbors be held responsible if they run open WiFi?"
Govt in graduated response invites mission creep

David Sohn. "Graduated response: Inviting FCC Mission Creep?" Center for Democracy and Technology. February 24, 2010: "What's wrong with that? It's an invitation to major mission creep. "The FCC's job is to execute and enforce federal communications law. It has no authority and no role in enforcing other laws. Lots of unlawful activity -- from intellectual property infringement to racketeering to securities fraud to deceptive advertising -- may occur over or using communications networks. But that doesn't make it the FCC's job to police such activity. The FCC's focus is, and should remain, promoting the availability of high quality communications capabilities in the United States -- not policing what users do with those capabilities. [...] In addition, the only reason to involve the FCC would be to force the entities the FCC regulates -- communications providers, and in particular ISPs -- to start actively policing I.P. infringement. Having government force ISPs to take on this new role should raise serious red flags."
Global use of graduated response has been mixed

"Estimating The Cost of a Three-Strikes and You're Out System." Michael Geist Blog. January 26, 2010: "the truth is implementation in many countries is a mixed bag. Countries such as Germany and Spain have rejected it, acknowledging criticisms that loss of Internet access for up to a year for an entire household is a disproportionate punishment for unproven, non-commercial infringement. [...] Those countries that have ventured forward have faced formidable barriers. New Zealand withdrew a three-strikes proposal in the face of public protests (a much watered-down version was floated at the end of last year), the UK's proposal has been hit with hundreds of proposed amendments at the House of Lords, and France's adventure with three-strikes has included initial defeat in the French National Assembly, a Constitutional Court ruling that the plan was unconstitutional, and delayed implementation due to privacy concerns from the country's data protection commissioner."
Graduated response risks collecting too much data on users

Nate Anderson. "RIAA graduated response plan: Q&A with Cary Sherman." ARS Technica. December 21, 2008: "Does this mean ISPs now have an obligation to engage in enough data retention to reconstruct the activities of subscribers? If so, this will create a cache of data that will imperil our privacy in other ways, as the government and private litigants start demanding access to it."
Graduated response gives assurances needed for investment

Barry Sookman and Dan Glover. "Graduated response and copyright: an idea that is right for the times." Lawyers Weekly. January 20th, 2010: "While graduated response will never eradicate online infringement altogether, it would also give rights holders and ISPs the necessary protection they need to develop innovative business models such as the subscription plans created by European ISPs like Orange and BSkyB, and by mobile providers such as Nokia and Sony Ericsson. Bringing together graduated response with these access-based models would give users a safe, affordable and reliable means to get the creative content they desire while fostering innovation, creativity, competition and investment in intellectual property."
Graduated response does not achieve any greater justice

"Graduation response." Open Rights Group. June 30th, 2008: "If it is not the BPI’s intention to replace the current judicial process with a more administrative one that cuts corners, why replace the current judicial process at all? Any new system would surely be the subject of so many appeals that we’d soon arrive back to where we are now anyway (on the hopeful assumption that the interests of justice and fairness would be given due regard). Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights[14] (to which the UK is a party by virtue of the Human Rights Act 1998) requires that all citizens be given access to a fair trial in situations where the rights and freedoms of the individual are threatened with sanctions. If the government legislates in this area, there is a serious danger that justice, and access to justice, will be undermined."
Costs of unenforced copyright laws has grown

Barry Sookman. "The costs and benefits of graduated response in copyright enforcement." Barry Schookman Blog. February 1st, 2010: "in the phase of the digital roll-out, the benefits of the digitization could temporarily outweigh the costs of not enforcing copyright. But now that digitization is ubiquitous, there is less benefit and much higher cost with not enforcing copyright. Worse, if copyright is poorly enforced at the end user level — with free-riding going unpunished — then incentives are given to innovators to help the consumer to free-ride. The longer this signal lasts, the higher the cost of copyright enforcement."
Graduated response warnings deter further piracy

Susan Butler, a veteran musioc-industry reporter who now manages the publication Music Confidential, reporting on a trial of how graduated response effects user behavior: "The trial revealed that the vast majority of subscribers stopped the activity after receiving notices, says Ciccone. With each subsequent notice, another 50% stopped the activity. Only a relative handful of subscribers continued the activity after receiving notices. These results support the conclusion that a notice program can have a very big impact on piracy. These results were consistent with studies in other countries, added Bloss-Baum."[7]
Graduated response could shut down public Internet hubs

"'Three strikes' for the Web." Los Angeles Times Editorial. April 13, 2010 "One danger is that the duties and liabilities they impose could prompt those who provide Internet access in public spaces -- coffee shops, libraries, universities and the like -- to stop or limit their services to avoid any risk of even innocent infringement. That would be a step backward for Britain's efforts to promote ubiquitous broadband."
Graduated resonse would severely damage small ISPs

"Estimating The Cost of a Three-Strikes and You're Out System." Michael Geist Blog. January 26, 2010: "The disparate impact between big and small Internet providers highlights another hidden cost of three-strikes systems - the negative effect on the competitive landscape for Internet services. The UK estimates that the costs on small Internet providers are so great that consideration should be given to exempting them entirely, since the additional burden would result in decreased competition. The same report identifies the disproportionate harm to wireless carriers, who would face massive capital costs and be placed at a competitive disadvantage."
Infringement will persist, but graduated response helps

Patrick Ross. "ISPs and Graduated Response." Copyright Alliance. March 31st, 2009: "There will always be infringers. In Seattle, I had lunch with some of the anti-DRM speakers. One boasted to me about how active he was in using torrent services to infringe; it was easy, he said, and argued that if technology allows it then it can’t really be wrong. But most of us can be persuaded to play by the rules when it no longer seems to be in our interest to break them. The effect of these letters show that."
Copyrights on creative works must be enforced

Barry Sookman. "The costs and benefits of graduated response in copyright enforcement." Barry Schookman Blog. February 1st, 2010: "Copyright infringement is a negative externality. It raises transaction costs and inhibits investment in the creative industries. Avatar would never have been able to attract a 500 million dollar investment if this 3D movie was as easy to freely copy (free-riding) as a standard 2D video."
Graduated response is used in many countries

Nate Anderson. "IFPI: 'Three strikes' efforts hit worldwide home run."ARS Technica. August 19, 2008: "while most coverage of such ideas has focused on the French and English context, Perlmutter averred that the idea has actually gained significant worldwide traction. Governments seem to like throwing content owners and ISPs into a room and demanding that they work out some solution (often under threat that the government will simply legislate one otherwise), and graduated response appears to be least objectionable to both parties."
Graduated response educates fans about copyright/arts.

It is important that movie watchers and music fans understand how these industries work, and how copyright laws are essential to their future. Graduated response can be viewed as an educational campaign, as much as a warning and punitive system, for establishing a new respect and cultural appreciation for how these industries and artists make money. Because so many young people don't understand these fundamentals, and take them for granted, such an educational push and cultural shift is very important.
Graduated response incentivizes copyright enforcement

Barry Sookman. "The costs and benefits of graduated response in copyright enforcement." Barry Schookman Blog. February 1st, 2010: "Graduated response restores incentives along the copyright distribution chain, (in the digital networks and equipment), to enforce copyright. Thus, it makes copyright enforcement costs decrease instead of increasing when free-riding is not deterred. The graduated response is a means to internalize in the technical chain the enforcement of the copyright."
Graduated response is best compromise b/w stakeholders

Barry Sookman and Dan Glover. "Graduated response and copyright: an idea that is right for the times." Lawyers Weekly. January 20th, 2010: "A graduated response system that is proportionate, respectful of privacy, limited to clear cases of infringement, and supervised by the courts or other tribunals, is likely to be a win-win proposition for all stakeholders in Canada as well. It would accomplish the dual goals of reducing online piracy and increasing legitimate sales through consumer education and the knowledge that a deterrent exists if illegal file sharing does not cease."
Colleges have used own graduated response systems

Barry Sookman and Dan Glover. "Graduated response and copyright: an idea that is right for the times." Lawyers Weekly. January 20th, 2010: "Colleges and universities have really been engaged in their own form of graduated response for many years. If you take a look at what universities have been doing, they have escalating sanctions for people who have been identified as repeat infringers. Something as simple as, for example, at Stanford, where they charge a $100 reconnection fee for somebody who fails to respond to a first notice. Then a second offense is $500 and a third [time] offender has network privileges terminated and to regain access, they have to pay a $1,000 fee. That's a very clear graduated response system. [...] Others will just give a warning the first time, and the second time they might do a temporary disconnect for 24 hours, and a third time they might refer you to the judicial affairs system. Every school has its own variation, but they've really been implementing informal graduated response."
Enforcing copyright law online is simply infeasible.

Copyright violations are numerous. Many don't even know that they're breaking the law. Even more don't care. Copyright violations is a huge problem, but trying to tackle is like trying to tackle the problem of drugs. It's impossible, and we let the problem balloon up even before we knew what the problem was. Monitoring everybody in the internet is one thing, trying to stop them from violating copyrights is another. Too expensive, too wasteful, too huge. The money and resources spent on tackling this problem by graduated antipiracy response laws would be better spent on creating more jobs, and fighting terrorists in the Middle East.
Graduated response is the least draconian option

Barry Sookman and Dan Glover. "Graduated response and copyright: an idea that is right for the times." Lawyers Weekly. January 20th, 2010: "Graduated responses systems are not intended to be anti-consumer or heavy handed. To the contrary, user interests and their privacy and procedural rights are respected. Instead of being hauled into court for copyright infringements, users receive multiple notices before any action is taken by rights holders. These notices provide ample opportunities to change consumer behaviour from unauthorized file sharing to purchasing content legally. When proceedings are taken, there are procedural safeguards to ensure that sanctions are only imposed on the real offenders, and that they are proportionate."
Graduated response relies on mere accusations w/o due process.

Google lawyers concluded responding to a New Zealand draft of 'graduated response' principle: 'Mere allegations of copyright infringement should not trump users' rights. Copyright law is often complex and context sensitive, and only a court is qualified to adjudicate allegations of copyright infringement. Indeed, in Google’s experience, there are serious issues regarding the improper use and inaccuracy of copyright notices by rights holders."[5]
Enforcing graduated response will be very expensive

"Estimating The Cost of a Three-Strikes and You're Out System." Michael Geist Blog. January 26, 2010: "Initial [UK] government estimates peg the expense to Internet providers alone at as much as 500 million pounds (C$850 million) over ten years. This includes the costs of identifying subscribers, notifying them of alleged infringements, running call centres to answer questions, and investing in new equipment to manage the system."
Not enforcing copyrights incentivizes piracy innovations

Barry Sookman. "The costs and benefits of graduated response in copyright enforcement." Barry Schookman Blog. February 1st, 2010: "if copyright is poorly enforced at the end user level — with free-riding going unpunished — then incentives are given to innovators to help the consumer to free-ride. The longer this signal lasts, the higher the cost of copyright enforcement."
Lisbon better reinforces EU sustainable development

- "Treaty of Lisbon. Questions and Answers". Europea.eu - "Does the Treaty of Lisbon preserve what the EU has achieved for the environment? What about climate change? Yes, entirely. The Treaty of Lisbon states that one of the Union’s objectives is to work for the sustainable development of Europe based, in particular, on a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. Although the idea of sustainable development was included in the existing treaties, the Treaty of Lisbon will reinforce and better define this objective. Sustainable development is also affirmed as one of the fundamental objectives of the Union in its relations with the wider world."
Lisbon Treaty modernizes EU governance and democratic processes

"Treaty of Lisbon. Taking Europe into the 21st century". Europa.eu. - "Taking Europe into the 21st century. The Treaty signed by the Heads of State or Government of the 27 Member States in Lisbon on 13 December 2007 will provide the EU with modern institutions and optimised working methods to tackle both efficiently and effectively today's challenges in today's world. In a rapidly changing world, Europeans look to the EU to address issues such as globalisation, climatic and demographic changes, security and energy. The Treaty of Lisbon will reinforce democracy in the EU and its capacity to promote the interests of its citizens on a day-to-day basis."
The Lisbon Treaty pays too little attention to climate change

"An alternative guide to the Lisbon Treaty". Sinn Fein, Liberal Irish political party. - "Climate Change The Irish government has made great play of its “success” in having climate change introduced into the Treaty. However, this “addition” amounts to a mere 6 words that do not empower the EU to do anything it could not currently do under existing Treaty provisions. The relevant article states, “promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change.” Indeed the current EU Climate Change package is based on the existing provisions. Considering the urgency of the climate change crisis, the fact the Irish government could only secure these six words, and nothing additional to the existing provisions, is an indication of the lack of seriousness in regard to this issue."
Lisbon Treaty will reduce power of small countries

"The Case for a No Vote". Lisbon Treaty Information Campaign - "Already two-thirds of our laws are made in Brussels. But Lisbon transfers more power from you – the Irish voter – to the EU. We lose our EU Commissioner and removes decision -making from the Dáil in 32 areas, giving you less power [...] If the Lisbon Treaty is passed our voting weight in the EU Council of Ministers will be slashed by 60%. Germany’s power and influence, on the other hand, will increase by 100%. Lisbon means our voice is weaker in the EU and we lose the power to be heard [...] Lisbon is a power-grab by the big EU states, whose larger populations would give them the biggest say in deciding EU laws. It’s a bad deal for Ireland."
Lisbon Treaty enables the EU to address today's global challenges

"Lisbon Reform Treaty - good for women, good for Ireland and good for Europe." 19 Mar. 2008 - "Saying YES to Europe is recognising that some of the most critical challenges facing us are challenges which can only be addressed at a global level. Global warming, global migration and globalisation are just three of these challenges; each of which requires international cooperation to find workable solutions. Now is not the time for isolationism."
The Lisbon Treaty is too confusing and unclear

"Sunday Times: Lisbon treaty: yes, no or eh?". Kathy Foley. 13 Jan. 2008 - "Some hours later, I made it to page 25. I was hungry, tired, dispirited and suffering a thumping headache. You tend to get migraines when you read sentences like “The use of Union competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality” over and over again, without ever coming to understand what they mean."
No good alternatives to the Lisbon Treaty

Andrew Duff. "Why Ireland must say ‘Yes' to Lisbon". Financial Times. 12 May 2008 - "The second big falsehood is that if Ireland says No, there will be something better on offer. There won't. The Treaty of Lisbon is the best we can do. It is not perfect, and, like the camel, not pretty. Someday it too will need to be revised. But Lisbon is today's consensus. There is no agreement to do anything else - certainly not to embrace the neo-communist agenda of Sinn Féin. This time, there really is no Plan B."
The Lisbon Treaty generally makes the EU more democratic

"Treaty of Lisbon. Questions and Answers". Europea.eu - "Does the Treaty of Lisbon make the decision-making process more democratic? Yes. The Treaty of Lisbon will increase the number of policy areas where the directly elected European Parliament has to approve EU legislation together with the Council comprised of national Ministers (the “co-decision” procedure). The Treaty of Lisbon strengthens the democratic control of the European Union with a stronger role for both the European Parliament and national parliaments. It will establish a clearer distribution of powers between the Union and the Member States, which will make it easier for the citizens to understand 'who does what'."
Opponents of the Lisbon Treaty often spread misinformation

Andrew Duff. "Why Ireland must say ‘Yes' to Lisbon". Financial Times. 12 May 2008 - "Others, wilfully or not, misread the Lisbon treaty. Left-wingers claim that Lisbon will impose nuclear energy on Ireland. Business people spread alarm about how the EU, under Lisbon, will force Ireland to raise its corporation tax. Nationalists insist that Ireland's post-colonial ‘neutrality' will be impossible to sustain under Lisbon. And right-wing Christians claim that the Charter will authorise abortion in Ireland. (Where is the Pope when you need him?)"
Lisbon Treaty threatens Anglo-American and transatlantic relations

Sally McNamara. "The EU Reform Treaty: A Threat to the Transatlantic Alliance". Heritage Foundation. February 20, 2008 - "For both sides of the Atlantic, the Lisbon Treaty is bad news. The treaty poses a massive threat to the future of the Anglo-American Special Relationship as well as the broader transatlantic alliance. It will further entrench Europe's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP), both major threats to the future of NATO, and will seriously impair the ability of America's allies in Europe to stand alongside the United States where and when they choose to do so. [...] An America without Britain alongside it would be far more isolated and friendless and significantly less able to project power on the world stage. For Washington, there is no real alternative to the Special Relationship. Its collapse would be damaging to America's standing as a global power and would significantly weaken her leadership of the war against Islamist terrorism."
Lisbon Treaty responds to concerns raised by EU citizens

"Treaty of Lisbon. Questions and Answers". Europea.eu - "The Treaty of Lisbon responds to concerns raised by European citizens. For example, the political commitment to tackle the twin challenges of climate change and energy policy is fully reflected in the Treaty. For the first time, the treaties will contain a section on energy which assigns to Union policy in this sector the objectives of ensuring the proper functioning of the energy market, in particular energy supply and the promotion of energy efficiency and energy saving, and the development of new and renewable forms of energy."
Lisbon Treaty strengthens the EU's ability to secure Europe

"Treaty of Lisbon. The Treaty at a glance". Europa. - "Improving the life of Europeans: the Treaty of Lisbon improves the EU's ability to act in several policy areas of major priority for today's Union and its citizens. This is the case in particular for the policy areas of freedom, security and justice, such as combating terrorism or tackling crime. It also concerns to some extent other areas including energy policy, public health, civil protection, climate change, services of general interest, research, space, territorial cohesion, commercial policy, humanitarian aid, sport, tourism and administrative cooperation."
Most EU citizens have not been given a vote on Lisbon Treaty

Sally McNamara. "The EU Reform Treaty: A Threat to the Transatlantic Alliance". Heritage Foundation. February 20, 2008 - "The notion that the people of Europe should not have a vote on a treaty with huge implications for the future of the continent demonstrates the utter contempt that the Brussels bureaucracy has for the average man or woman on the street. There is no doubt that if the treaty were put to a popular vote, the electorates of several countries would reject it. The whole "European Project" is fundamentally undemocratic, unaccountable, and opaque. If subjected to referenda across the EU, it would almost certainly be consigned to the dustbin of history."