EU Rejects Law To Cut Pirates Off From Their ISP 210
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."
illegal file-sharing? (Score:5, Informative)
Amendmant 138 adopted (Score:4, Informative)
On another note:
"Amendment 138 adopted: internet access is a fundamental right "
http://www.blackouteurope.eu/ [blackouteurope.eu]
Re:It's called due process (Score:5, Informative)
It's not only an American thing. We've got the same in Italy, Europe. Check Article 27 at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Italy [wikisource.org]
The defendant is not considered guilty until final judgment is passed.
I expect every democratic county to have the same statement in its constitutional chart even if governments (US included) sometimes find ways to work around those principles.
Re:Confused notion of "rights" (Score:4, Informative)
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?
Re:It's called due process (Score:1, Informative)
Not another person banging on about Magna Carta. MC simply gave the barons a right to challenge the authority of the king, a damn good step in the right direction I'll grant you, but the peasants and middling-sort were still pretty much screwed until the plague more or less wiped half the work force of England off the map! It allowed the surfs to finally tell their landlords to get stuffed and get decent conditions and pay.
MC was an important step towards the ideas of democracy, but it wasn't until people like Thomas Payne finally started to lay ideas down that later formed the US constitution, that democracy and all it's attendant "interests", started to look like something that people could finally attain.
Re:An American Concept (Score:5, Informative)
"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.
Re:illegal file-sharing? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Confused notion of "rights" (Score:4, Informative)
Re:An American Concept (Score:3, Informative)
American legal scholars, at least, claim that presumption of innocence was an established concept in ancient Rome, ancient Greece, and in the Old Testament (in addition to its present in England).
Re:illegal file-sharing? (Score:5, Informative)
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...
Re:Confused notion of "rights" (Score:4, Informative)
The EU human rights act has a number of fundamental rights built into it. Of course being the EU it isn't anywhere near as succinct as the earlier documents such as the US constitution.
Life, Liberty and the pursit of Happiness would be written as,
"Article 2, Article 6, and the pursuit of Article 9" (there's no reference to happiness in the HRA, but "Right to marry and right to found a family" is close enough).
source: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf [europa.eu]
Not exactly making a convincing argument are you? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Hilarious. (Score:4, Informative)
We're talking about private entities cutting off users of their services, not about the government doing so. Obviously I'm against the latter. Yeesh...
So you're not stupid, just blissfully ignorant. Great. Let me give you the brief summary of the French HADOPI law which is the reason this is a hot EU topic: The french MAFIAA accuse you of copyright infringement. Guilty until proven innocent. Three strikes, then the ISP is instructed by the government to cut you off. The ISP never needed a law, they have their terms of service which contains a million reason to terminate service including none at all.
Re:Hilarious. (Score:4, Informative)
We're talking about private entities cutting off users of their services, not about the government doing so.
So if the government tells an ISP to cut someone off (by passing one of those, you know, law thingies), and the ISP does it (because it's the law), then you're claiming that it's not really the government doing it?
What colour is the sky in your world?
Re:illegal file-sharing? (Score:1, Informative)
Not much... at least directly.
European directives have to be followed by the member states. Else, they risk to be fined.
Yet, EU parliament is not powerful at all: its decisions can be canceled by the european commission (one member per country), which is itself below the ministers council (quite self explanatory - ministers and heads of states from the EU).
Sarkozy, the french mini-me of Adolf H., as of today emperor of France, tried to cancel the first vote of this parlementary resolution by pressuring against the commission, but failed (the commission will be elected again after european elections in june, so they fear the parliament for the time being, as it's this very parliament that chooses the member of the commission), but succeeded in pressuring the ministers at the council.
Though it failed again, as the parliament decided to vote it again (in spite of the debilitated and weak compromise of Catherine Trautmann, a french social-traitor from the parliament)... so a compromise will have to be found, again, which doesn't exclude this resolution to be voted a third time. It's expected we'll hear about that next autumn. Problem for the union with the refusal from France to let this resolution pass (because they're now discussing about 3-strike moronry in their own parliament) is that it blocks a telecommunication law package, in which the resolution is included. And as a lot of money is engaged in this package, France attitude is far from being well received, and thus, will probably lead to an approval of this resolution, for the third time.
Anyway, Kopimi is stronger than all. Anyone can do anything, nobody will ever even get close to beat it.
Re:illegal file-sharing? (Score:2, Informative)
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 it there's some pointers: you call it copyright, in EU it's commonly refered to Authors Rights [wikipedia.org].
HADOPI-like laws will be banned (Score:3, Informative)
HADOPI-like laws will be banned thanks to a different amendment:
http://www.blackouteurope.eu/blog/amendment-13846-adopted-again.-internet-is-a-fundamental-right-in-europe..html [blackouteurope.eu]
(thanks for think_nix)
Well, Stallman's wrong. (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:An American Concept (Score:1, Informative)
Yes, it's an American concept, just like, say, democracy [wikipedia.org], or the separation of powers [wikipedia.org]!
We're so glad we've got you, America!
(On a less snarky note, there's many great things that the USA contributed to the world, but you're making a fool out of yourself if you assume that anything and everything that's good, or even anything and everything that's a cornerstone of US-American society today, was actually thought up first by the USA or by US-Americans.)
Re:America was its own country, long before it was (Score:4, Informative)
America was its own country, long before it was invaded by europeans.
While North America definitely was there before it was invaded by Europeans, there wasn't a single country or state called "America", or anything similar under a different name, before Europeans established one. A bunch of independent nomadic tribes spread over a large territory and constantly quarreling between each other, with no higher authority, does not make a country.
Re:America was its own country, long before it was (Score:4, Informative)