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)
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)
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)
So my friend, what do you call it when you fail to abide by "Civil NotReallyLaw?"
Illnotreallyegal?
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: (Score:2)
Copyright infringement is simply not against the law. It may be in contradiction with license of a copyrighted work, but it isn't against the law. Similarly, if my work contract says I must be present during certain hours, and I'm not, I haven't broken the law.
"The murder of a person shall be a felony." (oversimplified, but not by a lot) describes an act and states that it is a crime.
"The author has an exclusive right to distribute the work." (again simplifi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (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 i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>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-
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:illegal file-sharing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:illegal file-sharing? (Score:5, Funny)
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?
Re:illegal file-sharing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws that people refuse to abide by need to be reconsidered.
Re: (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
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."
Mod parent up (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>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.
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.
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:Not exactly making a convincing argument are yo (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 - $150,000 per offense. The basic price of an online song (as per iTunes) is 99 cents. This means that one song file sharing can land you a fee over 750x-150,000x the price of what you shared out. I can understand raising the fee above the cost as a penalty, but that's ridiculous. Five times the market value sounds a lot more in li
Re: (Score:2)
--I think this alienation of the people that actually fund these companies is only going to lead to more people going out of their way to ensure not a cent ever makes it back to the media companies in retaliation for the lies and broken homes caused by this futile war on progress.--
They will just tax you and get their money anyhow (CDR's, cassette tapes, other blank media). It's about controlling the distribution. In a few short years laws will be passed and enforced such as has been going on since the late
Re: (Score:2)
Well what does illegal mean in the context of the EU?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's illegal because it's against the law. What it isn't is criminal.
Re:illegal file-sharing? (Score:5, Informative)
It's illegal because it's against the law. What it isn't is criminal.
Unless you hit one of criminal copyright infringement laws. For example, all the people sharing Wolverine before the release date (USC 17506(a)(1)(C) if you wanna look it up). Or everyone distributing more than 1000$ 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: (Score:2)
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?
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: (Score:2)
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)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Confused notion of "rights" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (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: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, Funny)
Because that would be socialism and, as everyone knows, socialism is bad because socialism is bad, as well as being not good, also.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The problem with socialism is that it requires perfect people to work. I only know of one guy who has ever met that requirement.
I appreciate your honesty, but because you have chosen to remain anonymous I won't be able to remember when/where you met me.
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: (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 u
Re: (Score:2)
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, ...).
That doesn't make much sen
Re: (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 its
Re: (Score:2)
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
Some counterpoints (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about people who don't want Internet access?
Then they don't have to buy the service. It can be run like that Greenlight, Inc company that is entirely funded through it's subscriptions and not by cross-subsidizing.
When the government provides something, everyone pays.
Which is a good thing in many cases. I'd prefer my property to not have the potential to catch on fire and burn down because the person next to me didn't want to buy the services of the fire department.
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.
Re: (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: (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: (Score:2)
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).
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?
Nope. (Score:2)
Fail at abstraction?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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: (Score:2)
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]
Re:Confused notion of "rights" (Score:4, Informative)
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: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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
newintellectuals.org, like oldintellectuals.org but now with less intellect.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Don't think this is off the table yet. Wait 'til the elections are over.
Re: (Score:2)
No but at the speed politicians work it's bought us another 2 years at least ;)
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: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: (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).
America was its own country, long before it was in (Score:2)
America was its own country, long before it was invaded by europeans. History, those who do not know it somehow keep on repeating it.
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Amendmant 138 adopted (Score:4, Informative)
On another note:
"Amendment 138 adopted: internet access is a fundamental right "
http://www.blackouteurope.eu/ [blackouteurope.eu]
Wait a minute... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yarrr!!!
why was this even on the table? (Score:2, Insightful)
Cut Pirates Off From Their ISP (Score:3, Funny)
Arrrr matey!
Re:Cut Pirates Off From Their ISP (Score:5, Funny)
You mean this isn't about preventing pirates from coordinating their attacks via twitter?
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.
What use would it be? (Score:2)
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
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
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.
won't avoid HADOPI (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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: (Score:2)
Well, I live in the County of Lincolnshire, we've got an original copy of the Magna Carta, but no constitutional chart. What should I do?