Slashdot Mirror
Positive Rights News From Europe
Various readers are sending in good news from Europe on the rights front. First, at the EU level, Mark.J brings word that the European Parliament has canned a number of controversial amendments to its updated Telecoms Package, which could have resulted in ISPs being forced to disconnect customers for involvement in illegal file-sharing of copyrighted material. Next, SplatMan_DK writes from Denmark on a recent ruling by the Danish High Court that means that Danes are still innocent until proven guilty in copyright cases, even if their IP address has been confirmed as the origin of P2P traffic involving copyrighted music. Finally, from Sweden, an update on the draconian so-called Lex Orwell, which would have effectively resulted in the routine wiretapping of the entire nation. Eric Blair sends a link on an agreement reached between the Swedish parliament and the sitting government on a new form for the controversial signals intelligence law. Supposedly, the sting has been taken out of the law: only the department of defense and the cabinet may request data, and they'll have to get court approval for it.
Whatever else you may think of intellectual property legislation, it has little if anything to do with common sense. They are highly technical and hotly-contested areas of law. You may not like it, but people on all sides of each of these issues have valid and reasoned points of view.
/. code for "finally, someone in power has adopted my point of view."
I don't know much about Danish copyright law, but whining "innocent until proven guilty" is sort of incongruous in a forum whose mantra is often "copyright infringement isn't criminal!" If it isn't criminal (and it isn't), why apply criminal standards of proof? In U.S. tort law, if a claimant can demonstrate that a wrong has been inflicted on him, and there are several possible defendants, the burden of proof shifts to each defendant to prove that he wasn't the one that committed the wrong. Danish courts have apparently determined this isn't the standard to be applied in terms of copyright violations. This isn't common sense--I suspect it's actually a very complex legal question.
Ditto on the three strikes law. Cutting off copyright violators at the source may seem draconian, but it's not as if the lights would go out the first time you download a song. The article is a little spare, but I suspect the volume of infringing content would have to be pretty significant to warrant an investigation leading to a warning, followed by a temporary supension, with complete access being cut off if after these first two measures you elect to continue infringing on someone else's right. Yes, you have a property and contractual right to your internet service. How far does the law need to go in allowing you to use that right to abuse someone else's?
Honestly, "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense" seems to be