Europe Rejects Plan To Criminalize File-Sharing 291
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.
Re:RIGHT? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:RIGHT? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The problem with not criminalizing it.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:RIGHT? (Score:2, Interesting)
And I mean that, unerringly, that was the case. It wasn't the case in Britain, nor in the Bahamas, nor Canada nor Mexico, nor America. But when I visited Paris? Every time I had to interact with a policeman or security guard or whatnot, they treated me like filth for simply existing.
Is that enough reason?
Re:The problem with not criminalizing it.... (Score:0, Interesting)
Yes, I DO think copyright monopoly law is akin to slavery - it steals a little freedom from lots of people instead of all the freedom from one person. If you don't want stuff copied, don't fucking release it in the first place, that's fine by me.
Re:The problem with not criminalizing it.... (Score:4, Interesting)
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:RIGHT? (Score:2, Interesting)
Worse, the Charter is a law, passed by Parliament, as opposed to part of the Constitution (as in the US Bill of Rights). As such, it can be amended by Parliament at its whim, as opposed to having to go through the difficult Constitutional amendment process.
Most countries are this way; rather than limiting the power of government to infringe your rights (as in the US), they define in law what your rights are. Many people, American and otherwise, fail to grasp this difference.
For example, the US Second Amendment does not give Americans the right to own a gun; rather, it forbids the government from infringing upon the right of Americans to own a gun. Similarly, the US First Amendment does not give Americans freedom of speech or religion; rather, it forbids the government from passing any law that interferes with freedom of speech or religion.
The Canadian Charter, on the other hand, grants rights (e.g., section 2 "fundamental freedoms" including freedom of speech), but then says in section 33 "that Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare" that a law they pass overrides section 2.
Similar situations are to be found in the UK, Australia, and other countries with parliaments (elected dictatorships). The citizens of these countries like to delude themselves that they are "more democratic" than the US, and that they are "more educated" than most Americans.
Zimbabwe is an excellent example of how parliaments are not "more democratic"; an important part of a real democracy are checks and balances to prevent the people from voting in a dictatorship (and to allow the minority a veto over something that stomps on their rights). Similarly, the image of "ignorant American" typically comes from some rich airhead American kid on a foreign vacation; not at all representative of Americans, but since it fits the prejudice they go with it.
Re:The problem with not criminalizing it.... (Score:2, Interesting)
The biggest problem I find with civil penalty is that it can often be inadequate to act as a genuine deterrent.
If a law requires a severe punishment to deter people from breaking it, then it's probably a bad law.
It's actually worrying (Score:2, Interesting)
Imagine telling your son that he cannot have a connection at home to do some research for school and educate himself because the government banned his parents in order to protect the interests of some greedy bastards, who the hell do these politicians work for?... i just hope the people remember who are the ones pushing these stupid laws the next time they go to vote.
If the EU approved these laws they would all of a sudden have created millions of supposed criminals, it's nonsense!
I am so happy that the record industry is dying, i invite every one to do it's part in rushing it's well deserved death.
spare us the sarcasm (Score:3, Interesting)
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 as throwing you in jail, but quite serious nonetheless. And soon, it may actually be a worse penalty than house arrest.
Re:RIGHT? (Score:2, Interesting)
About french and english, it is mostly that the majority of yound people does know some bits of english but speak so badly that they are ashamed of it and won't event try. Futhermore, they will probably not understand your accent if you do not speak really slowly and with reduced accentuation. Foreign languages education in France is absolutely terrible. We mostly get incompetent, french teachers instead of natives. Here stands the secret of the famous "french accent"