Europe Rejects Plan To Criminalize File-Sharing

Lineker points out a report that the European Parliament has rejected plans to criminalize file-sharing by private individuals. The amendment to remove the anti-piracy measures passed by a vote of 314-297. The decision is expected to influence how France, with its strict anti-piracy polices, approaches this issue when it assumes the EU presidency later this year. From InfoWorld: "France's so-called Oliviennes strategy to combat copyright abuse includes a 'three strikes and you are out' approach: Offenders lose the right to an Internet account after being caught sharing copyright-protected music over the Internet for a third time. The report is significant because it 'signifies resistance among MEPs to measures currently being implemented in France to disconnect suspected illicit filesharers,' the Open Rights Group said in a statement.

Comments

I have to ask

[causality]

Regardless of what France does, When I see that the EU generally doesn't just cave in anytime a corporation wants to use their government to further its own interests, my first thought is: Did someone steal the balls of every American politician and ship them overseas or something? It would explain quite a bit...

Re:I have to ask

[sticks_us]

Did someone steal the balls of every American politician and ship them overseas or something?

Not quite. I believe the balls were probably sold to a large international corp. through a complicated but effective purchase (or maybe a rent-to-own) program.

That's not to say the EU gets off the hook, the fact this thing even came to a vote (narrowly losing 314-297) means its only a matter of time until it, or a more convoluted version of it, passes.

Re:I have to ask

[Icarium]

So Europeans are human too. Who'da thunk it?

What about corporate pirates ?

[bug1]

So if a corporation gets caught violating copyright three times, does corporation get banned from the internet, or is it yet another case where corporations get a free ride ?

Who was it that said that "a corporation has a body but no soul" ?

The problem with not criminalizing it....

[mark-t]

Let's say somebody who isn't a big name copyrights a particular work and starts to sell it, and let's say that a big publishing firm sees as a potential threat. What the bigger publishing firm could do is snatch the work and start distributing it (at no cost) online themselves, using their own fatter distribution pipe for the purpose, and effectively locking the smaller publisher out of benefiting from their own work.

This sort of scenario has implications on GNU software also... if file sharing of copyrighted material without permission wasn't criminal, somebody could take some GNU software and make changes and release those changes under whatever terms they wanted via filesharing, since copyright infringement wouldn't apply to them in that case.

I am perpetually amazed at how supposedly intelligent people cannot see that sharing copyrighted files without permission of the author not being copyright infringement is a contradiction in terms.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[Mr2001]

What the bigger publishing firm could do is snatch the work and start distributing it (at no cost) online themselves [...]
if file sharing of copyrighted material without permission wasn't criminal, somebody could take some GNU software and make changes and release those changes under whatever terms they wanted via filesharing You seem to have misunderstood the difference between criminal and civil law. "Criminalizing" something means making it a crime, the sort of thing that the police can arrest you for without anyone having to sue you first.

Copyright infringement is still a civil tort, and even though you won't be hauled off in handcuffs for trading songs, you can still be sued for it.

The fact that the EU decided not to criminalize file sharing doesn't mean they legalized it.

And by the way, since you brought up the GPL... those of us who are opposed to copyright in general (I don't believe infringement should be a crime or a civil tort) tend to believe that the main effect of the GPL is to give back the rights that copyright law takes away. If anyone could distribute any software without anyone else's permission, would it really matter if some of them didn't include the source code? RMS says yes, but I say no.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[Hemogoblin]

There are many things that aren't "criminal", but are still illegal. For example, you can be punished if you break a contract, or if you perform a tort. That's what copyright infringement should fall under: tort law. Not some stupid criminal law with mandatory sentencing and fines.

Re:RIGHT?

[theheadlessrabbit]

No, there aren't many of what we would call rights in France. Freedom of Speech for example. They couldn't have a Led Zeppelin day on the radio for example, since a fixed percentage of the music must be in French. So freedom and constitutional rights in the United States have eroded to the point where Freedom is now defined as the ability to play Led Zeppelin all day?

How the hell do Content Laws have anything to do with Freedom of speech?

We have Canadian content laws in Canada as well.

CanCon laws in no way impeed my freedom to say what I want, when I want. I can say that Stephen Harper is a fucking douche, whos anti-media policies would be right at home in North Korea. I have the freedom to walk right up to his house, knock on his door and say it to his face (if he answers his own door...)

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[QuantumG]

Outlawing file sharing is like outlawing jaywalking. I agree but for different reasons. Both are a case of government ruling over people instead of representing them. People *want* to jaywalk.. they want to get from one side of the road to the other by the shortest possible route and they're willing to dodge traffic to do it. Who the hell are you to say they cant? The majority? No, we all jaywalk. So where is this authority coming from? No-where! And that's why jaywalking laws are bullshit and shouldn't even exist, let alone be enforced. Same goes for file sharing. I think we've all made it abundantly clear that we want to share files and most of us, the majority of us, don't give care about any laws we may be breaking whilst doing it.

Re:RIGHT?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

and don't get the accent quite right, then take it as an insult!

Has this actually happened to you?

Dumb idea in the first place

[pclminion]

Define "Internet account." As in, your name is on the bill from some ISP somewhere? Are these people aware that you don't actually have to have an "account" to use the Internet?

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[Rakishi]

Who the hell are you to say they cant? The majority? No, we all jaywalk. So where is this authority coming from? No-where! How about all the people who actually want to drive instead of playing "dodge the stupid jaywalker." You want to jaywalk, sure thing as long as certain conditions are met. These would include such things as drivers having total immunity, criminal and civil, if they hit someone crossing in a non-designated place. Likewise the jaywalker (or his estate) would be required to pay any and all costs that result including cost to the driver who hit them (such as lost time) and estimated costs to society from the resulting traffic jam.

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[QuantumG]

Here's how you do your survey:

"Hey motorist, do you think we should have stricter jaywalking laws?"
"Damn straight kid, I'm sick of all these idiots getting in front of my car."

Here's how to see if the people want it or not:

"Hey pedestrian, you just jaywalked, here's a $200 fine, and if I catch you again it's off to jail!"
"You're fucking kidding me right copper? Here's what I think of your ticket." [rip] [rip]

And if I need to explain this to you then frankly I doubt that you ever get out of your car.

Yes it has happened to me

[aepervius]

But not in the country you might think of. I visited Texas back in Dec 2004-Jan 05 (duty travel in DFW, not tourism). When I entered shops, people smiled to me, asked me what I wanted. Then I spoke to them with my thoroughly thick french accent. The fucking majority then grimaced, some even went on to tell me that french people are assholes and support terrorism.

I let my colleague do the rest of the buying & interaction. Luckily the firm I visited did not offer such negative interaction... Nonetheless I certainly told my family, friends and colleague to chose other spot for vacation than the US, or learn to disguise their accent and speak perfect english.

Re:Yes it has happened to me

[Rob8]

I lived in Luxembourg for 6 Months. I can only speak English and Afrikaans. The Germans were polite and helpful. The Locals were polite and helpful. The French looked down their noses at me, refused to even speak to me because I dared to address them in English. Even my girlfriend who speaks fluent German got a monosyllabic response from the French - usually "NO!". Take what you want from that, I no longer have any time what so ever for the arrogance of the French.

Re:RIGHT?

[Oktober Sunset]

As opposed to WW2 where the Germans did reach Paris by going through Belgium.

Re:RIGHT?

[niktemadur]

It's true that Stalin had his military geniuses shot and surrounded himself with incompetent cronies like Budienny and Timoshenko, who faithfully toed the party line.
However, Stalin also knew that Zhukov, who was also wildly popular with the troops (a major point of jealousy and paranoia), was the one general he could not afford to execute.
And so, Zhukov was shipped off to Siberia and was brought back when the cronies had things on the verge of catastrophe, such as the defense of Moscow and the siege of Leningrad. And then, there was Stalingrad and Kursk.
In fact, it is said that Zhukov was the only man in the world who could storm into Stalin's office and call him an idiot to his face, which he did on occasion, making everybody around feel like they were about to have a heart attack.