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."
Time to work it into "ACTA" (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll just drop this stinkburger provision into page 923 of the ACTA treaty and ram it down their throats anyway.
Confused notion of "rights" (Score:2, Insightful)
Elections upcoming (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't think this is off the table yet. Wait 'til the elections are over.
An American Concept (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Confused notion of "rights" (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:illegal file-sharing? (Score:4, Insightful)
You can violate civil OR criminal law, of which both violations would be considered "illegal."
Re:illegal file-sharing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Confused notion of "rights" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Confused notion of "rights" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
why was this even on the table? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Confused notion of "rights" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Confused notion of "rights" (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Re:illegal file-sharing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:illegal file-sharing? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's illegal because it's against the law. What it isn't is criminal.
Re:illegal file-sharing? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
and here I thought this was about Somalia (Score:2, Insightful)
It really does drive home how stupid it is to call copyright infringers "pirates" when we have real pirates on the high seas.
Re:Confused notion of "rights" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Confused notion of "rights" (Score:2, Insightful)
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:illegal file-sharing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws that people refuse to abide by need to be reconsidered.
Re:Confused notion of "rights" (Score:5, Insightful)
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:illegal file-sharing? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:illegal file-sharing? (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Re:illegal file-sharing? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
won't avoid HADOPI (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:illegal file-sharing? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:illegal file-sharing? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Confused notion of "rights" (Score:3, Insightful)
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 itself is moot. This is a side issue. It basically comes down to: we need military/police to protect us from eachother and from foreign threats, and we need courts to decide contractual violations. The rest is not necessary, though it may be preferable (e.g., a legislature elected by the people).
Re:illegal file-sharing? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 in the 20s, so why would people think it would work now?
Re:illegal file-sharing? (Score:4, Insightful)
I take it you haven't heard of the Everything Clause: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause [wikipedia.org]
Not that I'm saying I disagree with you, just that the constitution is easily twisted by those who don't give a shit about it to say what they want it to.
Re:illegal file-sharing? (Score:3, Insightful)
I respect your point, but you need to give credit where credit is due. Laws that people refuse to obey should be reconsidered. However, the mere fact that people refuse to obey them is not nearly enough to sink the law unilaterally. We have to show that it's not just a case of people saying "But I don't wanna obey the law!"; it's truly a law we don't need. The problem with copyright specifically is that people disobeying the law is evidence that we need what the law protects, so by getting rid of it, we run the very serious risk that the people driving us to get rid of the law, will actually be unhappier once it's gone.
Re:illegal file-sharing? (Score:3, Insightful)
"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.