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."
Re:Confused notion of "rights" (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
How do they get Internet service anyway (Score:2, Interesting)
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 a crime on par with attacking ships and ransoming them, maybe a different term would be more appropriate. Try one of the ones mentioned at:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy [gnu.org]
Re:Confused notion of "rights" (Score:3, Interesting)
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 use your mind to survive, then you should be free to do so. 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. You have values and goals, like any living thing, and therefore should be free to achieve those goals - rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Other than through agreement from the people being governed there is not some objective standard that says that something is a right or not.
This is the notion of Contractarianism, to which I have the simple response: if the contract is the fundamental, why should I follow the contract? Clearly there must be something more fundamental if you can't simply get me, a person who chooses to live and further his values, to take your contract on faith. What you have done is demand reasons for my arguments, while supplanting faith as the reason for your arguments.
Why can't they protect these rights through legislation?
Legislation doesn't protect rights. Legislation sets the laws that are protected and upholded by courts and police/military.
Why not?
See the second sentence of my original post. A "right" that violates another right is a non-right.
If they can provide it better and cheaper then they should very much do so.
This is the idea of "the ends justify the means" - that if something is more convenient, go for it, regardless of the people and rights violated along the way. See above for why that should not be pursued.
Re:Confused notion of "rights" (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Not exactly making a convincing argument are yo (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:illegal file-sharing? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.