356
South Korea
In July 2008, Minister of Justice Kim Kyung-hwan introduced the crime of “ cyber
defamation, ” which punishes those who insult others through the Internet with up
to two years imprisonment or a KRW 10 million (USD 8,800) fi ne.
48 Under this rubric,
criminal law applies to defamation and threats, while penalties for cyber defamation
and “ cyber stalking ” will be pursued under information and communication laws.
49
Public fi gures whose personal information is widely shared on the Internet are often
the primary victims of online defamation, as in the cases of Tablo
50 and Choi Jin-sil.
51
Some have called for stronger defamation laws as a result of such incidents.
52
Government prosecutors also pursued blogger Park Dae-sung on charges of “ spreading false data in public with harmful intent ” following his popular writings on economic matters during the 2008 economic crisis.
53 Using the pen name Minerva, Park
had criticized government economic policy and gained notoriety for accurately predicting the fall of Lehman Brothers and the crash of the won.
54 Park was acquitted in
2009 and saw a subsequent appeal dropped following a December 2010 Constitutional
Court ruling that struck down the law prohibiting the spread of “ misleading information with the intention of damaging the public interest. ”
55 The court found that the
defi nition of “ public interest ” was vague and that the law violated freedom of speech,
although the government may still charge individuals with spreading misinformation
under the NSL.
56
On April 1, 2009, the National Assembly adopted a “ three-strikes ” approach to copyright infringement, particularly fi le sharing and downloading movie content.
57 In an
amendment to Article 133 of the Copyright Law dealing with the “ collection, abandonment, and deletion of illegal reproductions, ” the Minister of Culture, Sports, and
Tourism would be authorized to shut down message boards that refuse to comply
with more than three warnings to remove copyrighted content,
58 while users who
upload such content may also have their accounts canceled.
59 These punitive measures
could be taken regardless of whether a takedown request by a copyright holder has
been issued.
60
Social media sites whose “ main purpose is to enable different people to interactively
transmit works, etc. among themselves ” are treated as “ special types of online service
providers ” under Article 104 of the Copyright Law.
61 Under Article 104, providers are
obliged to take “ necessary measures ” to intercept the illegal interactive transmission
of copyrighted works upon the request of rights holders. Article 142(1) lays out fi nes
to a maximum of KRW 30 million (USD 26,000) for these special providers who fail to
take necessary measures, while other providers who “ seriously damage ” copyright
enforcement as a result of their failure to take down reproductions or “ interactive
transmissions ” are also subject to fi nes of up to KRW 10 million (USD 8,800).
62 Under
the amended legislation, providers who have been fi ned under Article 142(1) twice
and have failed to take necessary measures can be blocked upon the issuance of a third
fi ne.
63
South Korea
In July 2008, Minister of Justice Kim Kyung-hwan introduced the crime of “ cyber
defamation, ” which punishes those who insult others through the Internet with up
to two years imprisonment or a KRW 10 million (USD 8,800) fi ne.
48 Under this rubric,
criminal law applies to defamation and threats, while penalties for cyber defamation
and “ cyber stalking ” will be pursued under information and communication laws.
49
Public fi gures whose personal information is widely shared on the Internet are often
the primary victims of online defamation, as in the cases of Tablo
50 and Choi Jin-sil.
51
Some have called for stronger defamation laws as a result of such incidents.
52
Government prosecutors also pursued blogger Park Dae-sung on charges of “ spreading false data in public with harmful intent ” following his popular writings on economic matters during the 2008 economic crisis.
53 Using the pen name Minerva, Park
had criticized government economic policy and gained notoriety for accurately predicting the fall of Lehman Brothers and the crash of the won.
54 Park was acquitted in
2009 and saw a subsequent appeal dropped following a December 2010 Constitutional
Court ruling that struck down the law prohibiting the spread of “ misleading information with the intention of damaging the public interest. ”
55 The court found that the
defi nition of “ public interest ” was vague and that the law violated freedom of speech,
although the government may still charge individuals with spreading misinformation
under the NSL.
56
On April 1, 2009, the National Assembly adopted a “ three-strikes ” approach to copyright infringement, particularly fi le sharing and downloading movie content.
57 In an
amendment to Article 133 of the Copyright Law dealing with the “ collection, abandonment, and deletion of illegal reproductions, ” the Minister of Culture, Sports, and
Tourism would be authorized to shut down message boards that refuse to comply
with more than three warnings to remove copyrighted content,
58 while users who
upload such content may also have their accounts canceled.
59 These punitive measures
could be taken regardless of whether a takedown request by a copyright holder has
been issued.
60
Social media sites whose “ main purpose is to enable different people to interactively
transmit works, etc. among themselves ” are treated as “ special types of online service
providers ” under Article 104 of the Copyright Law.
61 Under Article 104, providers are
obliged to take “ necessary measures ” to intercept the illegal interactive transmission
of copyrighted works upon the request of rights holders. Article 142(1) lays out fi nes
to a maximum of KRW 30 million (USD 26,000) for these special providers who fail to
take necessary measures, while other providers who “ seriously damage ” copyright
enforcement as a result of their failure to take down reproductions or “ interactive
transmissions ” are also subject to fi nes of up to KRW 10 million (USD 8,800).
62 Under
the amended legislation, providers who have been fi ned under Article 142(1) twice
and have failed to take necessary measures can be blocked upon the issuance of a third
fi ne.
63