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.'"
Nothing, if the rule is no more internets after 3 convictions, not after 3 complaints from a private third party?
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Because the weight of "evidence" required is normally zero.
*drafts 3 fake copyright complaints to stonecyphers ISP*
Go back a decade or 2 and a crafted packet "ping of death" could knock someone using windows 95 off the net for a few minutes, now 3 specially crafted packets encapsulated inside envelopes can knock someone off the net for weeks or months no matter their ISP.
The complete lack of due process probably had something to do with it.
Depending on how technically inclined they are, the realization that things would swiftly move to encryption only (if only because nobody not using encryption would be left online), and that even with due process the courts would be relying on the assumption that all P2P is piracy may have played a part as well.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
Why? In this case, at least, the EU has shown its worth. I think the EU can be the voice of reason, much like the British house of Lords. It may introduce bureaucracy, but I will take that for protection of my human rights, privacy and a more open Europe.
Nothing to see here.
* Seek culture, but not at the expense of liberty
* Seek liberty, but not at the expense of truth
* Seek truth, but not at the expense of privacy
* Seek privacy, but not at the expense of life
* Seek life, and enjoy free culture.
Any business model that depends on preventing what people can do easily in the privacy of their own home is (1) impossible to maintain and (2) detrimental to freedom as it requires an oppressive legal infrastructure and a brutal enforcement mentality.
Like all civilised countries, Australia does not have the death penalty.
To me it is the touchstone of civilization that the state does not kill its citizens.
You've shown a great number of U.S. citizens are in jail, that's it. Unless you're going to bring concrete numbers regarding the % of people in U.S. prisons who are, in fact, there because of 3-strikes laws, you might as well vomit random numbers--what you're saying is meaningless in the context of this conversation.
Say we have a vastly more effective police force: That could account for it.
Say we have stricter (draconian?) drug laws: That could account for it.
Say we have slower due-process and the majority are merely pass-throughs: That could account for it.
I could name any one of hundreds of reasons why the U.S. prison population is so high. Yet, without demonstrating the % of those attributed to any one factor, I'm not going to jump around calling 3-strikes laws crude on the basis of that.
Digital Sailor
I expect the ACTA process to include the 3-strikes again, both for the US and the EU. Trade policy is completely different and shielded against democratic influence.
The EU is roughly the size of the USA in population and area.
Perhaps it is not so different to think of the EU as a large country with a number of member states?
The EU doesn't have jurisdiction over every elements of members' law, but safekeeping democracy and liberties in all of its member states is part of its charter.
This is good, no? Recently, even in highly technical areas like patents and telecommunications, European representatives have erred on the side of preserving liberties. This is amazing, not?
Unfortunately, the facts are that the death penalty does not work as a a deterrant as you claim.
Take for example terrorists, they would rather die and go to heaven than live in a jail.
I cant be bothered looking up the figures, but there have been many cases where DNA has taken someone out of death row. How many innocent people should be allowed to die so you can feel good about the death penalty being applied?
Executing even ONE innocent is intolerable.
In a deeply flawed justice system it is unfogiveable.
Basicly you have no clue how death penalty works out in reality.
The Soviet Union in the late '70ies introduced the death penalty for rape. What was the result? The number of rapes did not go down. But the number of rapes where the victim got murdered afterwards shot up.
People defending the death penalty often seem to be under the impression that crime in the most cases is carried out because of lenghty thoughts and careful weighing of the pros and cons. It is not. And that makes the whole "deterrence" idea void.
The death penalty does not deterr crime. Period.
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?
I think you've managed to ignore a far more important point. Why should government enforce the rights of creators? If they don't like what people are doing with their creations, then sue them. Oh, people are doing it by the millions and there's no practical way to sue them all? Tough ... time for societies and content creators to adjust to a new reality, and not try to force the old one upon the vast majority of the world's citizens: people that don't want it.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The difference between this and road regulations, is that breaking the road rules can result in people being killed or seriously injured, as well as significant costs to individuals.
Copyright infringement on the other hand, typically only harms large corporations, and the actual level of harm it does is often massively overstated (most people would never have bought all the media they copied, simply due to cost if nothing else).
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
> Secondly, the ability to sue file transfer software editor is just ridiculous. It violates the principle that software is neutral and that it is individuals that perform the acts.
With some regret I must point out that in the EU, this is not without precedent. Germany has banned 'hacking tools':
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/31/1629259
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/13/0218246
It would appear not everyone agrees about the 'software is neutral' thing.
Your ideas about about ten years ahead of where most people are and they will sound extremist to them. Many politicians still see copyright as property and therefore infringement as theft. Copyright as a government granted monopoly to create scarcity is far too complex for them. They see redressing copyright in favour of fair use as being government intervention in a free market of creativity rather than appropriate regulation of a resource to encourage economy and free speech. They still see it as balancing the majority rule with minority rights, and that copyright infringement is minority rights infringement as the mob seek to steal and in response civil rights must be suspended.
Instead it's much better to talk about fairness and the right to trial, and due process being removed by 3 strikes than anything you're talking about. Your ideas are too extreme and are not persuasive right now.
The best communication builds upon existing ideas and directs them in compelling ways. Communication is about having a sensitivity for your audience and where they're coming from. Understanding the law makers and the public is the difficult part and going too far at once will scare them off.
Be smarter.
I think it's worse than that, most information these days is transferred over the internet.
It would be the same as prohibiting someone who made a bomb threat from ever possessing a phone or a pen again. Freedom of expression is not something that should be so trivially and easily revoked.
No, the problem lies somewhat deeper.
For a deterrence to work, you have to be able to imagine the penalty to you. It's no problem to imagine paying a penalty of $1000 (and also to imagine the stuff you can't buy instead). It's also no problem to imagine being locked in a prison for a certain amount of time and not being able to walk where you want or get up when you want and choose the clothing you want etc.pp.
But it is psychologically impossible to imagine being killed. Because then you would have to imagine not being able to imagine anymore. So the death penalty is just a big abstractum to you. It has no touchable meaning for you. As long as you can remember, you were always there, and as long as you will be able to remember, you will be there. From your experience, you seem to have eternal life.
If you actually fear the afterlife, if you really fear being in Hell or Eternal Damnation or whatever your religion defines as the Big Bad Thing that gets the evildoers, death penalty might actually work work as a deterrence. But that requires you to be deeply religious and devout. And then it can work also in reverse: You just have to imagine that your planned deed is somehow holy and just. And then instead of a deterrence, sure death might even look positive.
That's for instance why the Taliban can muster so many suicide bombers. Probably not many of them are ready to go to prison for life. But confronting them with the big abstractum works, because you can fill the nothingness that is death with anything you want, also with 72 virgins. Instead of a deterrence the death is actually attractive to them.
So if a person lives to be 90, which is quite doable with today's tech, we are talking 90+50 for Canada, or 90+70 for the US. And a century and a half+ is actually fair to you? I'm sorry, but are you high? And as for the "children and grandchildren" I have a concept for them: It is called WORK! I know,it is amazing, what a concept! Give me a break!
Look, just because your grandpa did something in 1938 that didn't suck doesn't give you the right to sponge of it today, anymore than I get to sit on my ass because my grandpa built the bridges that you drive on. And in case you didn't know we already have a way to pass that legacy on to your children and grandchildren: It is called inheritance! But the simple fact is this is NOT about the artist, and you know this. A good 90+% of the artists don't have the rights to their works, because the cartels make you sign those away if you want access to their media outlet monopoly. So I am sorry, but a law that was written to be abused is an abusive law. And I am sorry but you can't honestly think 150+ years is a "fair and reasonable" term for copyrights, can you? I'm willing to bet the vast majority of the population would disagree with you. And if the public refuses to play your little copyright game then it kind of becomes moot, doesn't it?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.