Europe Rejects Plan To Criminalize File-Sharing

Lineker points out a report that the European Parliament has rejected plans to criminalize file-sharing by private individuals. The amendment to remove the anti-piracy measures passed by a vote of 314-297. The decision is expected to influence how France, with its strict anti-piracy polices, approaches this issue when it assumes the EU presidency later this year. From InfoWorld: "France's so-called Oliviennes strategy to combat copyright abuse includes a 'three strikes and you are out' approach: Offenders lose the right to an Internet account after being caught sharing copyright-protected music over the Internet for a third time. The report is significant because it 'signifies resistance among MEPs to measures currently being implemented in France to disconnect suspected illicit filesharers,' the Open Rights Group said in a statement.

RIGHT?

[by Anonymous Coward]

The right to an internet account? So, France supplies every citizen with an account until they've had three strikes?

Re:RIGHT?

[by Anonymous Coward]

No, there aren't many of what we would call rights in France. Freedom of Speech for example. They couldn't have a Led Zeppelin day on the radio for example, since a fixed percentage of the music must be in French.

Re:RIGHT?

[theheadlessrabbit (1022587)]

No, there aren't many of what we would call rights in France. Freedom of Speech for example. They couldn't have a Led Zeppelin day on the radio for example, since a fixed percentage of the music must be in French.

So freedom and constitutional rights in the United States have eroded to the point where Freedom is now defined as the ability to play Led Zeppelin all day?

How the hell do Content Laws have anything to do with Freedom of speech?

We have Canadian content laws in Canada as well.

CanCon laws in no way impeed my freedom to say what I want, when I want. I can say that Stephen Harper is a fucking douche, whos anti-media policies would be right at home in North Korea. I have the freedom to walk right up to his house, knock on his door and say it to his face (if he answers his own door...)

Re:RIGHT?

[MrNaz (730548)]

You're American, aren't you? I'm Australia. Yes, I ride to work on a kangaroo.

And yes, I've been asked that seriously by an American I once met while travelling.

Re:RIGHT?

[MrNaz (730548)]

That's pretty much what I did. There is now someone running around the world who earnestly believes that kangaroos in Australia are tied up with bike locks.

Re:RIGHT?

[B5_geek (638928)]

Not an urban legend.

Quebec has the most draconian laws of any communist country.

Sure you have freedom of speech, but it must be in French.

Take our most famous "English-rights' lawsuit taht a Canadian company took to the Quebec government.

Eaton's. (A very large upscale'ish Sears) Was forced to change their signs in Quebec from: "Eaton's" to "Eatons'"

All because the former was an 'English' sign.

Re:

[compro01 (777531)]

well, technically we don't have "freedom of speech". freedom of speech is not mentioned anywhere in the charter of rights and freedoms.

Freedom of expression

[bug1 (96678)]

well, technically we don't have "freedom of speech". freedom of speech is not mentioned anywhere in the charter of rights and freedoms.

According to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, you do.

From the preamble
"Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the com

Re:RIGHT?

[theheadlessrabbit (1022587)]

Why so much people in US do not like us French people ?

Because the wine, food, healthcare, social services, and kissing are so much better in France, Americans have to hate you so they can continue to feel good about themselves.

Re:

[electrictroy (912290)]

It's difficult to please a french person. For example if you try to use their language, and don't get the accent quite right, then take it as an insult! (Most nations take it as a compliment that you at least tried.)

Re:RIGHT?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289)]

and don't get the accent quite right, then take it as an insult!

Has this actually happened to you?

Yes it has happened to me

[aepervius (535155)]

But not in the country you might think of. I visited Texas back in Dec 2004-Jan 05 (duty travel in DFW, not tourism). When I entered shops, people smiled to me, asked me what I wanted. Then I spoke to them with my thoroughly thick french accent. The fucking majority then grimaced, some even went on to tell me that french people are assholes and support terrorism.

I let my colleague do the rest of the buying & interaction. Luckily the firm I visited did not offer such negative interaction... Nonetheless I certainly told my family, friends and colleague to chose other spot for vacation than the US, or learn to disguise their accent and speak perfect english.

Re:

[Rob8 (913383)]

I lived in Luxembourg for 6 Months. I can only speak English and Afrikaans. The Germans were polite and helpful. The Locals were polite and helpful. The French looked down their noses at me, refused to even speak to me because I dared to address them in English. Even my girlfriend who speaks fluent German got a monosyllabic response from the French - usually "NO!". Take what you want from that, I no longer have any time what so ever for the arrogance of the French.

Re:

[oliderid (710055)]

Generally French have difficulties with foreign languages just like Brits or Americans.

What you take as arrogance is usually a difficulty to answer you in English or in your native tongue IMHO.

Most don't know foreign languages. They have difficulties to handle their ignorance (they are proud people usually) and thus they look arrogant.

Their answer is short (they use the only few words they know like yes,no,this way or whatever)and they look annoyed (they are in fact embarassed).

Try to speak Frenc

Re:

[Jedi Alec (258881)]

Hah, you think? The *real* reason is that when a cute french girl speaks english, no matter how poorly, the accent is absolutely &%^&#^$^& hot.

Dutch sounds a lot better with a good helping of french accent applied as well, btw.

But seriously, one of the major issues is that fact the all french tv is dubbed instead of subtitled, much like german tv btw. And if you want to get a feel for just how awful an experience this is for someone who isn't used to it, try imagining visiting another country an

Re:RIGHT?

[electrictroy (912290)]

You're probably right. (The following is just a joke.)

FRENCHMAN: "Oui! You picked up your bagel with your left hand!"
TOURIST: "I did what?"
FRENCHWOMAN: "Filthy English tourist. You come here and insult us? How dare you!"
TOURIST: "???"
FRENCHMAN: "And now he's drinking his milk with a straw. Despicable."

Don't worry

[aepervius (535155)]

I am a french (gasp!) and a parisian too (double gasp !) and I was treated as filth by anybody in authority too. I am here just saying that it looks like a pattern , and it don't really matter that youw ere a foreigner or not.

Re:

[fbjon (692006)]

No, it makes perfect sense. If you buy cigarettes and inflict harm on your health, it's only fair that you have to contribute more to the health insurance with every pack you buy. The conflict of interest only exists for a corrupt government that seeks profits above all else.

Re:RIGHT?

[by Anonymous Coward]

That's a hilarious comment on an American forum, since the US likes to pretend it singlehandedly won WWII, when in reality it was mostly the Russians who destroyed the German army, and the Brits who destroyed the Luftwaffe. The US army came in late and had to rush simply to get into Germany before Stalin took all of it for himself.

Re:RIGHT?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Brits who destroyed the Luftwaffe.

That would be Commonwealth not just the brits. ;)

Re:RIGHT?

[niktemadur (793971)]

Good job pointing out the fact that it was the Soviet army that did the lion's share of the task. Any doubt in that area can be dispelled by reading about The Battle Of Kursk [wikipedia.org], in July of 1943. After this campaign, which effectively broke the nazi army's back, Soviet forces were in a continuous forward march towards Berlin, which would have easily been achieved regardless of Operation Overlord and its' subsequent campaigns.
Most US citizens like to believe that Patton was the military genius in WWII, and he was very good indeed, but any historian worth his/her salt will tell you unequivocally that Field Marshall Georgy Zhukov [wikipedia.org] was The Man.

Re:RIGHT?

[niktemadur (793971)]

It's true that Stalin had his military geniuses shot and surrounded himself with incompetent cronies like Budienny and Timoshenko, who faithfully toed the party line.
However, Stalin also knew that Zhukov, who was also wildly popular with the troops (a major point of jealousy and paranoia), was the one general he could not afford to execute.
And so, Zhukov was shipped off to Siberia and was brought back when the cronies had things on the verge of catastrophe, such as the defense of Moscow and the siege of Leningrad. And then, there was Stalingrad and Kursk.
In fact, it is said that Zhukov was the only man in the world who could storm into Stalin's office and call him an idiot to his face, which he did on occasion, making everybody around feel like they were about to have a heart attack.

Re:RIGHT?

[Oktober Sunset (838224)]

As opposed to WW2 where the Germans did reach Paris by going through Belgium.

spare us the sarcasm

[nguy (1207026)]

The right to an internet account? So, France supplies every citizen with an account until they've had three strikes?

You have a right to have an Internet account, just like you have a right to contract with people for other goods and services.

Taking that right away is a serious interference by the government in your personal rights, not to mention in the market. Taking that right away interferes with your ability to earn a living, participate in the political process, do banking, etc. It's not as serious a

Underground

[WarJolt (990309)]

Criminalizing file sharing will just drive it underground like the good old days. Whens the last time any of you sent files over IRC?

Plus, it would be almost impossible to enforce a ban. There are already ways to increase anonymity and it's hard to block that kind of traffic.

Re:

[Aetuneo (1130295)]

I'm not sure what your point is, but I download files from IRC bots all the time. It's the only way to get some subtitled anime, and it's almost always faster.

Re:

[thegrassyknowl (762218)]

Plus, it would be almost impossible to enforce a ban.

Well, I say... I am sitting not 100M (about 300feet for you Americans) from a free public wireless access point. From my desk I can see at least another 5 with weak or no security.

There is wireless Internet available free for all at the restaurant I eat at down the road. There's free wireless at my local library. You don't have to join the library or ask for any kind of permission to use it.

There are two access points near my house with the same default SSID and no encryption with fairly huge pipes be

I have to ask

[causality (777677)]

Regardless of what France does, When I see that the EU generally doesn't just cave in anytime a corporation wants to use their government to further its own interests, my first thought is: Did someone steal the balls of every American politician and ship them overseas or something? It would explain quite a bit...

Re:I have to ask

[sticks_us (150624)]

Did someone steal the balls of every American politician and ship them overseas or something?

Not quite. I believe the balls were probably sold to a large international corp. through a complicated but effective purchase (or maybe a rent-to-own) program.

That's not to say the EU gets off the hook, the fact this thing even came to a vote (narrowly losing 314-297) means its only a matter of time until it, or a more convoluted version of it, passes.

Re:I have to ask

[mrsteveman1 (1010381)]

It's an international ball market, get used to it

Re:

[PitaBred (632671)]

Balls? Who needs balls when you're in a corporation's pocket? "ideals" and "ethics" are for poor people.

Re:I have to ask

[RAMMS+EIN (578166)]

Let's not develop the false impression that everything is great in the EU. We (I live in the EU), too, have bad laws, and a patent office that has granted software patents. Here, too, there are fear of the terrorists, discrimination against muslims and foreigners (even from other EU countries), security theater, governments that block investigations of possible mishaps, unreliable voting machines, religious fanaticism, the works.

Not that life is downright terrible in the EU, but we need to keep our eyes open, promote what is good, and correct what is wrong. Sure, I guess it's fun to laugh at Americans who can't spell their own language right, think Holland is the capital of Amsterdam, and are being spied on by their own government, but then, I know there are plenty of people in my country who can't spell their own language right, have absolutely no idea where Minnesota is, and are spied on by their government even more.

Re:I have to ask

[Icarium (1109647)]

So Europeans are human too. Who'da thunk it?

Outlawing file sharing is like...

[Pig Hogger (10379)]

Outlawing file sharing is like outlawing jaywalking. You can do it, but it certainly won't stop people from doing it. It may be enforced at first, but since people don't think it's shaking the very foundations of the Universe, they think nothing of doing it, everybody but a little bunch of anal jerks ends up doing it, and it's not enforced anymore.

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[QuantumG (50515)]

Outlawing file sharing is like outlawing jaywalking.

I agree but for different reasons. Both are a case of government ruling over people instead of representing them. People *want* to jaywalk.. they want to get from one side of the road to the other by the shortest possible route and they're willing to dodge traffic to do it. Who the hell are you to say they cant? The majority? No, we all jaywalk. So where is this authority coming from? No-where! And that's why jaywalking laws are bullshit and shouldn't even exist, let alone be enforced. Same goes for file sharing. I think we've all made it abundantly clear that we want to share files and most of us, the majority of us, don't give care about any laws we may be breaking whilst doing it.

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[Rakishi (759894)]

Who the hell are you to say they cant? The majority? No, we all jaywalk. So where is this authority coming from? No-where!

How about all the people who actually want to drive instead of playing "dodge the stupid jaywalker." You want to jaywalk, sure thing as long as certain conditions are met. These would include such things as drivers having total immunity, criminal and civil, if they hit someone crossing in a non-designated place. Likewise the jaywalker (or his estate) would be required to pay any and all costs that result including cost to the driver who hit them (such as lost time) and estimated costs to society from the resulting traffic jam.

Re:

[QuantumG (50515)]

How about all the people who actually want to drive instead of playing "dodge the stupid jaywalker."

They want to jaywalk too.. just ask em.

Re:

[Rakishi (759894)]

Well I'm a driver and I fully support anti-jaywalking laws, your point being. The only time I jaywalk is on small streets with no traffic at all but even then it's not like I'd be bothered much if I couldn't.

Even in NYC, the city with probably the most jaywalkers and flattened jaywalkers in the US, only 56% of people opposed stricter enforcement of jaywalking laws. I'm sure most places can easily get that extra 8% that's needed for the majority of people to support such laws (or enforcement of said laws).

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[QuantumG (50515)]

Here's how you do your survey:

"Hey motorist, do you think we should have stricter jaywalking laws?"
"Damn straight kid, I'm sick of all these idiots getting in front of my car."

Here's how to see if the people want it or not:

"Hey pedestrian, you just jaywalked, here's a $200 fine, and if I catch you again it's off to jail!"
"You're fucking kidding me right copper? Here's what I think of your ticket." [rip] [rip]

And if I need to explain this to you then frankly I doubt that you ever get out of your car.

Re:

[Rakishi (759894)]

Everyone jaywalks. You said yourself that you jaywalk. There isn't anyone under the age of 15 who hasn't jaywalked.

That most people have done it does not mean that most people oppose making it illegal. I for example don't. Likewise making something illegal does not mean it will always be prosecuted and exceptions can be put into the law itself.

If you think laws against jaywalking are not unjust then you are, quite simply, a fascist.

No that's what you think, I simply find the trade-off worth it. Given how such laws exist in most of the US and how they are enforced in many place it seems most people agree with me. If they didn't agree then like in NYC (where the opposition only had a small majority) any effo

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[QuantumG (50515)]

Yes, it is all a gigantic conspiracy! It couldn't possibly be that someone's son or daughter was killed whilst jaywalking and made it their life quest to have a law passed "for our own protection". Motorcycle helmets and seatbelts are other examples of Freemason infiltration of our government.. it's the all seeing eye man!!

What about corporate pirates ?

[bug1 (96678)]

So if a corporation gets caught violating copyright three times, does corporation get banned from the internet, or is it yet another case where corporations get a free ride ?

Who was it that said that "a corporation has a body but no soul" ?

The problem with not criminalizing it....

[mark-t (151149)]

Let's say somebody who isn't a big name copyrights a particular work and starts to sell it, and let's say that a big publishing firm sees as a potential threat. What the bigger publishing firm could do is snatch the work and start distributing it (at no cost) online themselves, using their own fatter distribution pipe for the purpose, and effectively locking the smaller publisher out of benefiting from their own work.

This sort of scenario has implications on GNU software also... if file sharing of copyrighted material without permission wasn't criminal, somebody could take some GNU software and make changes and release those changes under whatever terms they wanted via filesharing, since copyright infringement wouldn't apply to them in that case.

I am perpetually amazed at how supposedly intelligent people cannot see that sharing copyrighted files without permission of the author not being copyright infringement is a contradiction in terms.

Re:

[alexhard (778254)]

Hi, you seem to not have noticed the words "private individuals". Yes, they could release the software via filesharing, but then it would still be free (as in beer, not as in freedom obviously, but it doesn't make any difference..nobody from it except the end user who gets something for nothing). If, on the other hand, you start a business and sell that modified GNU software, which actually is a big deal, it stops being a private matter and you should (and will) be prosecuted for it.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[Mr2001 (90979)]

What the bigger publishing firm could do is snatch the work and start distributing it (at no cost) online themselves [...]
if file sharing of copyrighted material without permission wasn't criminal, somebody could take some GNU software and make changes and release those changes under whatever terms they wanted via filesharing

You seem to have misunderstood the difference between criminal and civil law. "Criminalizing" something means making it a crime, the sort of thing that the police can arrest you for without anyone having to sue you first.

Copyright infringement is still a civil tort, and even though you won't be hauled off in handcuffs for trading songs, you can still be sued for it.

The fact that the EU decided not to criminalize file sharing doesn't mean they legalized it.

And by the way, since you brought up the GPL... those of us who are opposed to copyright in general (I don't believe infringement should be a crime or a civil tort) tend to believe that the main effect of the GPL is to give back the rights that copyright law takes away. If anyone could distribute any software without anyone else's permission, would it really matter if some of them didn't include the source code? RMS says yes, but I say no.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[Hemogoblin (982564)]

There are many things that aren't "criminal", but are still illegal. For example, you can be punished if you break a contract, or if you perform a tort. That's what copyright infringement should fall under: tort law. Not some stupid criminal law with mandatory sentencing and fines.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[Mr2001 (90979)]

Multi-thousand dollar fines for sharing a handful of songs are "inadequate"? You must be joking.

Increasing the penalties won't help, because the risk of incurring that penalty is still exceedingly small. The average file sharer is more likely to die in an accidental fall than to be caught infringing.

Re:

[mark-t (151149)]

Sure.... if you can come up with some way of giving people an incentive to produce new works and receive due recognition for them without somebody else of possibly higher profile coming along and getting all the credit. Currently, that's what copyright does right now.

Dumb idea in the first place

[pclminion (145572)]

Define "Internet account." As in, your name is on the bill from some ISP somewhere? Are these people aware that you don't actually have to have an "account" to use the Internet?

In related news ...

[kylehase (982334)]

European ISPs encounter rolling service disruptions due to unusually high traffic.