Slashdot Mirror
EU Strikes Down French "3 Strikes" Copyright Infringement Law
Erris writes "Opendotdotdot has good news about laws in the EU: 'EU culture ministers yesterday (20 November) rejected French proposals to curb online piracy through compulsory measures against free downloading ... [and instead pushed] for "a fair balance between the various fundamental rights" while fighting online piracy, first listing "the right to personal data protection," then "the freedom of information" and only lastly "the protection of intellectual property." [This] indicates that the culture ministers and their advisers are beginning to understand the dynamics of the Net, that throttling its use through crude instruments like the "three strikes and you're out" is exactly the wrong thing to do.'"
Because our laws know different levels of control.
Above all are the human rights, the right of information (communication) is way on top, a basic human right.
You could probably find offences that if repeated sufficiently often could warrant a reduction of this right, sharing IP as we know it is not going to be one of them.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
The member states signed treaties that they will have to obey certain restrictions imposed upon them by the EU. If they didn't want that they shouldn't have joined the EU. They wanted the benefits, they gotta live with the downsides too. France isn't a small country and could certainly have stayed out of the EU without being bullied into joining.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Can we get some of this "common-sense" in New Zealand please?
"Anti-piracy" 3-strikes was railroaded into our copyright law (section s92a) after select committee hearings and due process. Then the Minister had the gall to complain that all the moaners should have got involved in the process.
gadgetophile.com
I read the blog post and I find the title a litle inaccurate: the EU level clearly rejected the three strike principle to be extended as a EU directive but it is unclear if the decision will force France to back down on its national law.
It may need a directive to specify that this kind of approach is forbidden. Then, it may need a formal complain from the EU commission or a French citizen size the European Court of Justice to have the law revoked or modified.
The parent post also mentionned prison here. But the law was specifically designed to avoid sending people to prison for what is a minor offence.
Personnaly, I don't find the principle of three strikes and you are disconnected so problematic as it looks like road regulationsBUT there are some serious issues with the current implementations:
Ok, I guess my karma will suffer from the opinion above but please, could someone explain we what would be a balanced approach that would enforce right of creators and freedoms of Internet users?
What are your proposal slashcrowd?
No state should ever kill anyone.
The single most stupid damging human afflication is
beyond doubt 'patriotism" I have never been able to work out any useful function of patriotism.
Its just a mechanism of propaganda that allows govts to start wars.
European Parliament elections are coming up soon, have yet to find a resource to help pick decent candidates to elect, reward these kinds of decisions...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009
Why? Repeat offender laws are remarkably effective in normal crime control; what makes this different?
Repeat offenders are usually tried and convicted. Not just pointed out in the street and incarcerated. Three strikes in this case means three accusations and no more internet. Not three convictions.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
"Why should society pay to place a criminal in perpetual (until death) incarceration'
As of February 2004, 113 inmates had been found innocent and released from death row. More than half of these have been released in the last 10 years. That means one person has been exonerated for every eight people executed.
A quick Google will show how bad the problem is.
The ACLU also wrote:
A study by Columbia University professor James Liebman examined thousands of capital sentences that had been reviewed by courts in 34 states from 1973 to 1995. ""An astonishing 82 percent of death row inmates did not deserve to receive the death penalty,"" he said in his conclusion. ""One in twenty death row inmates is later found not guilty.""
Enough reasons for you?
Many years ago? Steamboat Willie is still under copyright! The man has been dead for half a century, yet his first work, written when cars needed to be started by hand and antibiotics were even a dream in a doctor's eye, is STILL under copyright! Is there ANYONE here that can stand up and with a straight face say that is fair?
People seem to forget that copyrights are a CONTRACT, one in which we get a richer and more diverse public domain in return for a LIMITED term of copyright But thanks to the outright bribery of politicians all over the globe it has long since quit being a contract and has become instead a way for evil multinational corporations to print money for all eternity. And then the greedy bastards don't even bother to pay the artists they are ripping off! Just look at how Meatloaf had to sue for nearly 20 years because the record company said "Bat out of Hell I", which to this day is still on the top 200 chart, hadn't actually generated a profit! I shit you not! Or for a more recent how Peter Jackson had to sue because they tried to pull the same shit with LoTR.
The simple fact is copyright passed being fair many years ago. Hell it passed obscene and is into disgustingly obscene now. When copyrights exist for longer than most humans lifetimes they cease to be anything more than a complete stranglehold over our entire culture. This is IMHO just disgusting. So frankly I don't feel ANY pity when someone else rips them off, because they have been ripping us ALL off for quite some time now. I don't see how even the most jaded politician can stand up and with a straight face say having a cartoon from 1925 still under copyright is fair and just.
Of course with every country seeming to trip over themselves trying to see why one can become the most fascist the quickest I don't really see anything changing anytime soon. Hell I know things have gotten so corrupt here in the US that CSPAN needs to run under the lawmakers "This politician is bought from you by:" along with the logo of whomever bought him/her off this week. Might as well let the greedy bastards get maximum returns for their dollar!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.