Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Networking The Internet News

EU Rejects Law To Cut Pirates Off From Their ISP 210

Posted by Soulskill
from the leave-me-tubes-alone,-arrrr dept.
MJackson writes "Europe has rejected plans to allow ISPs to disconnect users suspected of involvement with illegal file-sharing. In its final vote, the European Parliament chose to retain amendment 46 (138) of the new Telecoms Package by a majority of 407 to 57. Amendment 46 states that restrictions to the fundamental rights and freedoms of Internet users can only be put in place after a decision by judicial authorities. However, network neutrality remains unprotected."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Rejects Law To Cut Pirates Off From Their ISP

Comments Filter:
  • by Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @12:23PM (#27861755)
    As far as I'm aware it's not "illegal" to share files. It may breach someone's copyright, but it's not "illegal".
    • by binarylarry (1338699) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @12:27PM (#27861841)

      You can violate civil OR criminal law, of which both violations would be considered "illegal."

      • by andymadigan (792996) <amadigan @ g m ail.com> on Thursday May 07, 2009 @01:31PM (#27863057)
        There's no such thing as violating civil law. Copyright Law gives the copyright holder the right to sue if someone uses their copyrighted work without permission. It does not state that the act of using a work without permission is in itself a violation.

        Civil Law is always stated to give a right to someone, not to deny it to another. The effect of the law may of course be to restrict a right.

        Thus, in the absence of a criminal statute, it is disingenuous to say that copyright infringement is "illegal", let alone the mere act of providing a third party access to an electronic file.
        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by binarylarry (1338699)

          So my friend, what do you call it when you fail to abide by "Civil NotReallyLaw?"

          Illnotreallyegal?

          • by andymadigan (792996) <amadigan @ g m ail.com> on Thursday May 07, 2009 @01:50PM (#27863417)
            The only way you can "fail to abide" by civil law is to file an improper claim, in which case the claim would be rejected by the court. At least, that's the closest I can imagine to "breaking" civil law.

            Perhaps you could sue over a copyright you don't really have, in which case the defendant might have the right to countersue. But even then you haven't actually broken a law, you merely created a situation in which the other person has the right to sue you.
          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by navyjeff (900138)
            You don't have to break any civil laws to get sued for divorce, either.
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Lained (1078581)
          Well, since we're talking about EU, that's not completely true.
          Copyright, in some of the state members, falls under civil law (not without controversy). Going further more, copyright infrigement, in Portugal for example, is considered a public crime (unless it has been authorized by the authors, and in that case wouldn't be copyright infringement anyway), so there's no need for the copyright holder to press charges or sue (and can't even settle for an agreement for that matter).
          Even in the name given to i
          • Of course, I'm not familiar with EU law or member state law in this area. I admit I was speaking from an American POV. However our own media has a tendency to conflate infringement with theft.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by turbidostato (878842)

              "Of course, I'm not familiar with EU law or member state law in this area. I admit I was speaking from an American POV. However our own media has a tendency to conflate infringement with theft."

              Even more, it has the tendency, even on official claims to think that USA law is "world's law", for instance on statistics about "piracy" which doesn't go into the consideration that what is called "piracy" in the USA happens not to be so elsewhere.

        • >>>There's no such thing as violating civil law.

          Disagree. When certain southern farmers were building Cotton Engines, they were committing an illegal act. The U.S. government had granted Eli Whitney the exclusive right to that invention, and the bootleggers were in violation of that law. The only difference is how the punishment occurs. Instead of the government sending police or soldiers after you, it's upto Mr. Whitney to locate and prosecute the criminals.

          If Mr. Whitney decided not to chase-

          • Speeding is a criminal violation, infringing on a patent is not illegal. It is up to the patent holder to enforce his rights.
      • by thegoldenear (323630) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @03:25PM (#27865113) Homepage

        As I understand it in the UK, though I could be wrong, breaching criminal law is called illegal, where as breaching civil law is called unlawful.

    • by elashish14 (1302231) <profcalc4@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Thursday May 07, 2009 @12:27PM (#27861849)
      Copyright is abused left, right, front and back. It's time for reform - there's no reason why it should be legal to the extent that it's currently standard.
      • by Locke2005 (849178) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @12:51PM (#27862329)
        Copyright is abused left, right, front and back. It's time for reform - there's no reason why it should be legal to the extent that it's currently standard.

        Speed limits are abused left, right, front and back. It's time for reform - there's no reason why they should be legal to the extent that it's currently standard.

        Drug prohibitions are abused left, right, front and back. It's time for reform - there's no reason why they should be legal to the extent that it's currently standard.

        Your new to the concept of "laws", aren't you?
        • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 07, 2009 @01:19PM (#27862809)

          Laws that people refuse to abide by need to be reconsidered.

        • by mmaniaci (1200061) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @01:26PM (#27862941)

          Speed enforcement does need to be reformed. Officers seem to only give tickets as an incentive to keep their jobs. Its not about safety, its about making the quota to satisfy "the higher ups."

          Drug prohibition is as dumb as alcohol prohibition (its the same thing, alcohol is a drug). All it does is make criminals out of ordinary citizens and promote organized crime by creating its largest market.

          You may understand the concept of "law," but you have no understanding of "justice."

          • Speed enforcement does need to be reformed. Officers seem to only give tickets as an incentive to keep their jobs. Its not about safety, its about making the quota to satisfy "the higher ups."

            Damn right. In fact, the majority of the time when a speeding ticket is handed out, the distraction of the police car at the side of the road is more of a safety hazard than the speeding driver was.

            And could not agree more with the rest of what you posted as well.

          • >>>Drug prohibition is as dumb as alcohol prohibition

            It's also unconstitutional. I can not lay my hand on any part of the U.S.C. that gives Congress the power to ban substances. That's why it was necessary to amend the constitution to give them the power to ban alcohol, but no such amendment exists for marijuana or cocaine or other items.

        • In holland, speed limits HAVE been re-adjusted several times. Raised to 120 a while ago, and then adjusted again to suit local circumstances.

          Drugs laws? Well they to have changed as the times have changed.

          Your argument, it is made of fail and lose.

          • by Locke2005 (849178) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @01:58PM (#27863607)
            In many ways, the Netherlands is a very enlightened country. Unfortunately, I live in the good ol' USA, where traffic regulations are frequently (but not always) regarded as a revenue source, not a means for promoting safety. For example, the small town of North Plains, Oregon, has the luck that highway 26 (a freeway) runs through a corner of their city limits, so they frequently post one of their half dozen police on the freeway with a radar gun, clocking every car on the freeway as they enter city limits. They then chase everyone going a few mph over the limit, and usually pull them over outside of city limits. Contest you ticket, and you get to deal with a retired judge presiding in the town recreation center who has already decided you are guilty (literally; I asked if I could check the statute cited, and he said he didn't need to bring a copy of the statues to court because he had already reviewed by case and decided I was guilty) and simply rubberstamps whatever the police said. They claim they do this for the "safety of their town residents" but it is obvious that the majority of funding for their police department comes directly from fines issued to motorists on the freeway.
        • Speed limits are abused left, right, front and back. It's time for reform - there's no reason why they should be legal to the extent that it's currently standard.

          True, most highway limits are too low by at least 10mph, and everybody knows about the local 4 lane ruler straight road that's marked as a 30.

          Drug prohibitions are abused left, right, front and back. It's time for reform - there's no reason why they should be legal to the extent that it's currently standard.

          True - Portugal legalized everything 8 years back, and drug use went down.

          Your new to the concept of "laws", aren't you?

          The law is a human institution, soon.

          • >>>Portugal legalized everything 8 years back, and drug use went down.

            ritics in the poor, socially conservative and largely Catholic nation said decriminalizing drug possession would open the country to "drug tourists" and exacerbate Portugal's drug problem; the country had some of the highest levels of hard-drug use in Europe. But the recently released results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggest otherwise.

            The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

            "Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."

            LINK - http://hypography.com/forums/political-sciences/19349-what-would-happen-if-we-legalized.html [hypography.com]

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by AK Marc (707885)
          Drug prohibitions are abused left, right, front and back. It's time for reform - there's no reason why they should be legal to the extent that it's currently standard.

          I agree. Any law such that just about everyone who has run for president since the passing of the law has violated it is a bad law. This includes speeding, drugs (ask Bush Jr. about his cocaine use, or Clinton and marijuana) and such. Not to mention that making drugs illegal funds terrorists and organized crime. Prohibition didn't work i
          • by Patch86 (1465427)

            I agree. Any law such that just about everyone who has run for president since the passing of the law has violated it is a bad law.

            So we're making corruption and white-collar fraud legal?

      • by DirtyCanuck (1529753) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @12:51PM (#27862333)

        Seriously, I think quite the opposite. When the companies Mute peoples personal videos on youtube because they play copyrighted music. Or sue a 12 yr old for downloading mp3's. Up here in Canada I have been paying tax on CDR's despite not using them for actual music in probably 3 years. And then there is the extension of copyrighted material into infinite it seems.

        Here is my take on it. If somebody is simply downloading or using copyrighted material for personal consumption then it should not be grounds for criminal action nor should it warrant the disconnection of what is considered a vital utility. On the other hand if you are PROFITING directly from distribution and SALE(Pirate Bay did neither) of copyrighted material then yes, you should be prosecuted, as you are stealing stem cells from the mouths of the starving media industry.

        How can Sony honestly cry foul after installing DRM onto my machine without first acknowledging me? I think installing remote software on a machines is FAR more illegal then redistributing sound. I think this alienation of the people that actually fund these companies is only going to lead to more people going out of their way to ensure not a cent ever makes it back to the media companies in retaliation for the lies and broken homes caused by this futile war on progress.

        • As the very least, non-commercial copyright infringement (e.g. file sharing without seeking a profit), should carry fines more in line with reality. The current fine is $750 - $150,000 per offense. The basic price of an online song (as per iTunes) is 99 cents. This means that one song file sharing can land you a fee over 750x-150,000x the price of what you shared out. I can understand raising the fee above the cost as a penalty, but that's ridiculous. Five times the market value sounds a lot more in li

        • --I think this alienation of the people that actually fund these companies is only going to lead to more people going out of their way to ensure not a cent ever makes it back to the media companies in retaliation for the lies and broken homes caused by this futile war on progress.--

          They will just tax you and get their money anyhow (CDR's, cassette tapes, other blank media). It's about controlling the distribution. In a few short years laws will be passed and enforced such as has been going on since the late

    • Well what does illegal mean in the context of the EU?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by robthebloke (1308483)
      quite right. piracy is not theft [questioncopyright.org]
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by xouumalperxe (815707)

      It's illegal because it's against the law. What it isn't is criminal.

      • by Kjella (173770) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @01:17PM (#27862761) Homepage

        It's illegal because it's against the law. What it isn't is criminal.

        Unless you hit one of criminal copyright infringement laws. For example, all the people sharing Wolverine before the release date (USC 17506(a)(1)(C) if you wanna look it up). Or everyone distributing more than 1000$ retail value in less than six months, which is easily achieved just by sharing the Adobe CS4 Master Collection once - that's the (B) section. I think if you had perfect knowledge of all file sharing quite a few people would reach criminal standards under current copyright law...

        • True, and if you're actually infringing for commercial purposes, you're also screwed. I only meant to make a weaker point (saying something's illegal is a strictly weaker statement than saying something's criminal), but you can cross the line into fully qualified criminal behaviour quite easily.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          ... release date (USC 17506(a)(1)(C) if you wanna look it up).

          Lisp programmer?

    • by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @12:52PM (#27862343)

      Sorry, but how on earth is that (+5, Informative)? Your "awareness" is absolutely, objectively incorrect, and as far as I'm aware, this is true in every nation of the EU.

      Copyright infringement is not the same in law as theft, and it is often dealt with by civil rather than criminal law, but it is still against the law. Moreover, even that is not absolute and universal: since the EU Copyright Directive and related laws, many European nations can treat large-scale, commercial copyright infringement a criminal matter, for example.

      • You are arguing EU law vs. US which there may be a chance in the EU that it's not criminal. He cited the USC. Look it up. (USC 17506(a)(1)(C). Now this probably doesn't apply in the EU but in the US it seems to.

        Didn't they give those guys from Sweden a jail sentence? Are they not in the EU? So there as long as it can be called commercial copyright infringement, you are got there too.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by beelsebob (529313)

      This is a rather odd distinction - in most countries copyright infringement is illegal.

      Perhaps what you meant is that it's not criminal to share files. Note this is different from illegal: it means it violates criminal law, not civil law; illegal means it violates any law.

    • Additionally, how do they connect to their ISPs? Via Satellite? Because you know... landline is not available on the high seas [tumblr.com].

      And if you defend the new "definition" that the **AA fed you, then in my book, you are collaborators. Calling us murderers who steal shit on the high seas, just because we did not buy their crap, is insulting.

      • by mjeffers (61490)

        For electronic and audio-visual media, unauthorized reproduction and distribution is occasionally referred to as piracy (an early reference was made by Daniel Defoe in 1703 when he said of his novel True-born Englishman : "Its being Printed again and again, by Pyrates"[2]). The practice of labeling the act of infringement as "piracy" actually predates copyright itself. Even prior to the 1709 enactment of the Statute of Anne, generally recognized as the first copyright law, the Stationers' Company of London

  • by plasmacutter (901737) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @12:24PM (#27861777)

    They'll just drop this stinkburger provision into page 923 of the ACTA treaty and ram it down their throats anyway.

    • In that case, as I read this, ACTA will be in conflict with the legislation just passed, at least assuming the telecom package, in whatever form it finally gets passed, still contains some version of amendment 46.
  • There is no "right" to internet access, and any such attempt at asserting such a right must invariably violate actual individual rights - life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness. Likewise, the only proper role of government is to uphold and protect these rights through the courts, police, and military. The government should not be providing internet access.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Opportunist (166417)

      Hold it right there, constitution-boy, there ain't no such thing in Europe.

      Just because you have the right of "pursuit of happiness" doesn't mean it's general. And neither is the lack of other rights. Besides, "rights" is not trademark to the likewise named declaration thereof.

    • by Burkin (1534829) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @12:29PM (#27861863)

      There is no "right" to internet access, and any such attempt at asserting such a right must invariably violate actual individual rights - life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness.

      It's amusing to hear someone say that [arbitrary thing] is not a right but [insert list of other arbitrary things] are rights without any actual reasoning for saying so. Other than through agreement from the people being governed there is not some objective standard that says that something is a right or not.

      Likewise, the only proper role of government is to uphold and protect these rights through the courts, police, and military.

      Why can't they protect these rights through legislation?

      The government should not be providing internet access.

      Why not? If they can provide it better and cheaper then they should very much do so.

      • by Reality Master 201 (578873) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @12:47PM (#27862263) Journal

        Why not? If they can provide it better and cheaper then they should very much do so.

        Because that would be socialism and, as everyone knows, socialism is bad because socialism is bad, as well as being not good, also.

      • by MightyYar (622222) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @01:21PM (#27862841)

        without any actual reasoning for saying so.

        I would have thought that the concept of "natural rights" didn't need any reasoning in the context of a forum post... it's a pretty old conversation.

        But that aside, a right cannot be granted by a government - only taken away. In the complete absences of government, you still have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Notice that brian0918 snuck "property" in there, a la John Locke. That's very debatable... I think you could have a communal society that still preserves the natural rights.

        If they can provide it better and cheaper then they should very much do so.

        I agree that it is a legitimate function of government to provide services, but it shouldn't be confused with having a "right".

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by brian0918 (638904)

        arbitrary

        You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

        Other than through agreement from the people being governed there is not some objective standard that says that something is a right or not.

        Quite simple. First you identify human nature - unlike with plants and animals, man's values and goals don't come automatically. Man must think to survive - he must using his reasoning mind to integrate sensory data into concepts and abstract higher concepts from that. So if you choose to live, you *should* use reason to survive. That's the basis of ethics. Ethics applied in the social setting reveals individual rights. If you should u

        • by he-sk (103163)

          Your right to your life is primary, and the social application of that is in the right to property - the right to do with the product of your mind as you please.

          I really don't see how the right to property follows from the right to life. Especially with the concept of private property ever expanding (real estate, intellectual property, business property, ...).

          Legislation doesn't protect rights. Legislation sets the laws that are protected and upholded by courts and police/military.

          That doesn't make much sen

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by brian0918 (638904)

            I really don't see how the right to property follows from the right to life. Especially with the concept of private property ever expanding (real estate, intellectual property, business property, ...).

            To sustain his life, a man must be free to use the product of his mind and effort as he sees fit. If he is not free to do so, then he cannot sustain his life as a human being - he would be a slave.

            Whether or not people know their rights does not mean those rights don't exist. It's not that rights are expanding, but that they're being realized.

            What is the purpose of the Bill of Rights if not to protect individual's rights by stating the limits of government action?

            The Bill of Rights is a great document, but if the government founded on such legislation doesn't recognize the rights in that legislation, then the legislation its

            • by he-sk (103163)

              To sustain his life, a man must be free to use the product of his mind and effort as he sees fit. If he is not free to do so, then he cannot sustain his life as a human being - he would be a slave.

              IHMO, the operative word in your argument is sustain. I do agree that some measure of private property is necessary, such as a roof over your head (although often it's rented) and the stuff in your home and on you. Basically, what's called personal possessions. But your argument breaks down the further you get awa

      • Why can't [government] protect these rights through legislation?

        Because a law book won't actually do anything about the burglar who repeatedly trespasses my apartment and steals my stuff.

        Addressing the real issues: in most western societies I know about, the trinity of the legislative, executive and judiciary branches of government protect the citizens' rights by working together.

        I believe it's fair to say that your parent pointed out that the police (executive) and the courts are the branches that actually do something about it.

    • by Repossessed (1117929) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @12:34PM (#27861989)

      Life Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness were dropped for free speech, habeas corpus, and guns, at least in the country you seem to be working from; you're a bit out of date here.

      And the 'right' to internet access fall under free speech (and is the only kind of free speech most people can afford). The right not to have it taken away by wild accusations of civil offenses falls under habeas corpus.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by N1AK (864906)

        And the 'right' to internet access fall under free speech (and is the only kind of free speech most people can afford).

        No. Internet access is no more a 'right' than international phone call access is. The internet is a tool for sending and receiving information, free speech protects what you say, not access to tools with which to say it. The fact that you can open your mouth and form words without risk of your government persecuting you is free speech, the fact that no one hears you is not.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          And the 'right' to internet access fall under free speech (and is the only kind of free speech most people can afford).

          No. Internet access is no more a 'right' than international phone call access is. The internet is a tool for sending and receiving information, free speech protects what you say, not access to tools with which to say it. The fact that you can open your mouth and form words without risk of your government persecuting you is free speech, the fact that no one hears you is not.

          What about freedom of press? Should it be legal to print whatever you want, but not to own a printing press?

          Replace "Internet access" with "postal system" in the posts above, if you still believe that there's a hard separation between the freedom of speech and the tools used to propagate your views.

        • Internet access is no more a 'right' than international phone call access is.

          They're both rights - I have the right to bear arms, but nobody's obligated to pay for them. I have the right to make a phone call by contracting with some company that provides the service. Nothing in our body of laws allows the gub to restrict this right, save for the times I'm in their custody (jail, the army).

    • by Nick Ives (317) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @12:41PM (#27862133)

      There is no "right" to internet access

      Er...

      restrictions to the fundamental rights and freedoms of Internet users can only be put in place after a decision by judicial authorities.

      Fail at reading comprehension much?

      • Nope, no fail. What are you even talking about??? The quote asserts a "fundamental right" of Internet users - ie, a right to use other peoples' property (the ISP's). That must violate the actual right to property.

        Fail at abstraction?
        • The quote asserts a "fundamental right" of Internet users - ie, a right to use other peoples' property (the ISP's).

          No, it asserts that internet users have fundamental rights, although they do have a right to internet access insofar as the gub has no authority to restrict them from it.

    • by vertinox (846076) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @12:41PM (#27862143)

      I'm pretty sure that internet access is protected by the 1st amendment in Fredoom of Speech and of the press.

      If the government came in and banned you from using the internet, in effect they are preventing you from voicing your dissent and your ability to post on websites that is protected by the first amendment.

      Arguably, (and I'm not sure where you got this idea) this is not about the government giving everyone free internet access but rather making a law that can kick people off the internet even if it is through a private company.

      I mean you could in theory, make it so that the person could send only but not download anything, but the whole point of the internet was two way communication.

      What good is it if you can only send emails and not read them?

      Of course it wouldn't really work like that because you'd have to send an outgoing request to your email server to pull them in the first place.

      Either way, the Government of any nation should not determine by law who is and who is not allowed to use the internet for that tramples over the whole point of freedom of speech and press.

    • by plasmacutter (901737) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @12:44PM (#27862225)

      There is no "right" to internet access

      but there is a right to free expression and a right to live life on an equal playing field.

      Removing internet access abrogates both these rights.

      Go looking for a job today that doesn't involve a hat and nametag, and see how far you get with their personnel office before they tell you to "use the damn website".

    • by Locke2005 (849178)
      "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" [wikipedia.org] [not property] is a purely American construction, found in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. This is Europe; the closest they would have is "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" [wikipedia.org]
    • by ponos (122721) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @12:52PM (#27862359)
      This does not mean that a government has to provide internet access. It implies the inverse: that a government (see for example, French "HADOPI" law) or third party cannot terminate your internet access on the suspicion that you are infringing copyright, without legal recourse and due process. Seems quite reasonable...
    • by Kjella (173770) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @01:00PM (#27862467) Homepage

      I think you're the one twisting words here. "Freedom of the press" does not mean I can go to a publisher and demand my book be printed, but if the government forbade me publishing a book it'd be a violation of my rights. The right to internet access does not mean I can go to an ISP and demand service, but if the government forbade me using the Internet it'd be violation of my rights. Actually, if you don't thinking silencing blogs and discussion forums like the one you're posting to right now would be a violation of the first amendment, you should not be let near a discussion on fundamental rights.

    • by pmontra (738736)
      I feel that accessing the Internet is one of the things that allow me to pursue my right to liberty and happiness. It's no different than access to air and water. If governments want to give free Internet access to the people of the world I won't oppose that. Just allow me to chose a different ISP if I like so.
    • by smoker2 (750216)

      Reality Talk [newintellectuals.org]

      newintellectuals.org, like oldintellectuals.org but now with less intellect.

    • by Tom (822) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @01:09PM (#27862617) Homepage Journal

      There is no "right" to internet access

      Welcome to the 21st century, glad you could finally make it.

      You see, the list of "rights" has changed a lot during the history of mankind. A thousand years ago, "freedom" wasn't on it, nowadays we could not imagine doing without. The "pursuit of happiness" would've sounded like a load of hogwash to most early middle ages peasants, who had a whole load of more pressing matters on their hands, like not starving or how to explain the noble lord that ius primae noctis meant only the first night, no matter how beautiful your new wife is.

      So, with the realization that in modern life there's a whole lot you simply can't do very well without Internet, especially now that government have begun to put a lot of their citizen information and public services online as well (and reduced their physical presence to save costs), we've put Internet access on that list. More or less, depending on your country. In most of Europe, for example, you already do have a right of "informational freedom", which guarantees your free access to information such as newspapers, libraries and the Internet.

    • Free speech?
      Freedom of the press?

      See, Internet access is a tool to exert these rights.

      Anyway, your list of basic rights is truncated, check your database logs to find who did it.

  • Elections upcoming (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @12:24PM (#27861787)

    Don't think this is off the table yet. Wait 'til the elections are over.

    • by Xest (935314)

      No but at the speed politicians work it's bought us another 2 years at least ;)

  • by jellomizer (103300)

    Innocent Until proven guilty. Granted it doesn't always work properly and it sometimes lets the bad guys go Scott free. But it really is a good idea. As it is better for the Bad Guys to go free then the Good guys to be locked up. Also this could lead to abuse say for this case you are just using a lot of bandwidth legally, They could kick you off and say you were probably pirating just so they don't need to improve their infrastructure.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 07, 2009 @12:47PM (#27862261)

      "Innocent until proven guilty" is not an American concept. America's legal system was derived wholesale from the British legal system. The criminal burden of proof was established long before America was even its own country.

    • by Yokaze (70883)

      Actually, a Greek/Roman concept. First codified after the Middle Ages in 1789, France. In the US, it took a case before the Supreme Court [wikipedia.org] to establish that principle. In 1895.

      I hope, I don't have to clarify, that this principle is also enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights.

      This is news, because it reiterates that, because some country already named here in a totally opposite direction ignored that.

  • by think_nix (1467471) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @12:26PM (#27861823)

    On another note:

    "Amendment 138 adopted: internet access is a fundamental right "

    http://www.blackouteurope.eu/ [blackouteurope.eu]

  • The Somali pirates have web sites now?!?
  • Where's the "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense" tag when you need it? Just because they THINK someone is committing a crime doesn't mean they have the evidence. This should've been a no-brainer from the start.
  • by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @12:38PM (#27862073)
    Sigh. "Copyright infringement != Piracy", but I guess this just won't die, so here goes...
    Arrrr matey! ... <NO CARRIER>
  • It really does drive home how stupid it is to call copyright infringers "pirates" when we have real pirates on the high seas.

  • Yes, some action has to be taken against piracy. It has gotten to a point where no nation in the world is capable of enforcing their laws.

    There were some pirates that were caugh, most notably by the US, but they are very few comparing to the whole, and piracy is just growing. And to try them... it's just useless. The laws aren't adequate, jurisdiction is confused, a mess.

    We need some serious legislative action. But what do we see? France comes with a baseball law. Why??? Although I don't defend pirates' acc

  • I wasn't aware there were any ISP's that offered service in the middle of the Indian Ocean anyway.

    Do they use their Internet access to notify the ship owners what their ransom is?

    Ooh. I see, you were using the wrong term, which lead to my confusion.

    "Piracy" is the act of attacking ships with weapons and either stealing their cargo, or the whole ship, and "pirates" is what people who do that are called. Lately its in fashion to ransom the ships.

    Assuming you don't agree that 'making copies of music files' is

    • Actually, piracy has long been used to refer to copyright (and patent) infringement. "Long" as in, long before the RIAA existed. Look it up. [wikipedia.org]

      If you don't like Wikipedia, here are historical examples from the OED:

      1654 J. MENNES Recreation for Ingenious Head-peeces clxxvi, All the wealth, Of wit and learning, not by stealth, Or Piracy, but purchase got.]

      1700 E. WARD Journey to Hell II. vii. 14 Piracy, Piracy, they cry'd aloud, What made you print my Copy, Sir, says one, You're a meer Knave, 'tis very basely done.

      1770 P. LUCKOMBE Conc. Hist. Printing 76 They..would suffer by this act of piracy, since it was likely to prove a very bad edition.

      1855 D. BREWSTER Mem. Life I. Newton (new ed.) I. iv. 71 With the view of securing his invention of the telescope from foreign piracy.

      1886 Cent. Mag. Feb. 629/1 That there are many publishers who despise such piracy..does not remove the presumption that publishers and papermakers have been influential opponents of an equitable arrangement.

      Sorry to burst your bubble.

  • won't avoid HADOPI (Score:2, Insightful)

    by pleymort (1462659)
    This reject from EU won't avoid our lovely French president to enact the HADOPI law... So in few days in France, if you "share" copyrighted data, you could be cut off from your ISP....

Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it. Geniuses remove it. -- Perlis's Programming Proverb #58, SIGPLAN Notices, Sept. 1982

Working...