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.'"
Why? Repeat offender laws are remarkably effective in normal crime control; what makes this different?
StoneCypher is Full of BS
I wish Australia was part of the EU. Perhaps this firewall business would disappear.
.
You mean organizations like ... USA ?
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.
You know, there is no need to be a member of the EU. That's what was democratically decided in those countries.
This is also the reason why Switzerland isn't a member of the EU - it was declined in votes (by the people). One of the big advantages of the half-direct democracy we have here.
I think the EU can be the voice of reason, much like the British house of Lords.
ah hahahahahaha
*wipes tears*
heh..
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.
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.
does this mean that fair and balanced is good now?
Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
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 mean come on, it should be struck down on the basis that France doesn't even play Baseball so a "3 strikes" rule is just the American Imperialism that they are always railing against.
Now a "7 Course Meal and you are out" sounds a much more French rule to have.
On the copyright side of course its quite odd that France, which has a set of music that only the French want to listen to (Manau excepted) is worried about piracy, hell if more people listen to some of their artists they should be glad.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
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?
Besides, France is still free to leave at any point if they feal that EU membership obligations are too burdensome. It's not like with the US states...
Countries can't make laws contradicting treaties they've signed up to, or laws they've helped bring into being across the whole EU.
What exactly is the problem with this? It's the EU doing what it was supposed to do.
Perhaps they rejected it simply because Europeans didn't understand the "3 strikes" baseball metaphor. They should adopt a "three yellow cards leads to a red card" policy.
Airplane Photos, Airline News, Planespotting Guides
At the moment there is a EU directive in place that is contrary to the French proposal. This is not stopping the French government from going ahead with their proposal though. It can still become French law within a few short months.
Eventually it will be struck down through citizen's actions (suit to the European Court resulting in fines) or through a change of government. Governments can be very very stubborn.
The only hope in France is to convince a majority of French representatives that this is a bad proposal before it is voted in.
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?
Because you can't be sent to prison without some kind of judicial process, usually requiring evidence and such like. That wasn't the case with the French law. If you were identified (by whom? with what level of proof? what about facing your accusers?) to be downloading copyrighted material you would be warned twice and the third time be disconnected. Ubuntu is copyrighted material - can I no longer download it using a torrent? I distribute photographs that I have taken via torrents. They are copyrighted material - I own the copyright! Should my family be forbidden to download them because they contravene this proposed law? How would anyone know that I was downloading copyrighted material. It is illegal for ISPs or any other organisation to monitor communications without judicial consent and oversight. It might not be the case in the US, but it is still the law in all EU countries (admittedly, there are a few who are now bending this law to suit themselves but that doesn't change the fact that they ought not to be doing so).
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
Don't be so sure. France relies so heavily on farming subsidies from the EU they'd be a far weaker nation than they are now otherwise.
France is in a situation like Britain was in the 70s and 80s, back then Britain had a massive mining industry but it simply wasn't profitable, it was held up by subsidies and it was holding the country back. Thatcher realised this and whilst it was immensly unpopular, she let the mines close. It resulted in large amounts of job losses but the country was better for it. France is in the same position but has no politicians with the balls to commit political suicide for the good of the country and accept that their farming industry simply doesn't make sense anymore.
Of course, yes this means France could do without the EU if it had any politicians with the balls to do whats right for the country but it doesn't and even when it does it'll take a decade to fix up the damage done by these subsidies and start moving these farmers into jobs that actually benefit the country.
"Anyone who surreptitiously installs a rootkit in anyone else's computers thrice shall be kicked out of business"
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
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!
So the wrong side won the US civil war? Just checking. You're allowed to say 'yes,' I know it wasn't really about slavery (though you have to ask yourself whether the revolution wasn't, given the timing).
(PS: Flamebait or not? It's an interesting and slightly worrisome fact that when I say something cynical about America I have no way to predict whether I'll be modded "flamebait" or "insightful." I swear, I can use the exact same words on two different days and get opposite moderation. Maybe it depends on timezones—am I posting while Europe is awake?)
> 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.
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.
Which is ironic, given that the big decisions made at EU level are made by politicians who are not directly elected to those posts (and not infrequently, they are those who could not credibly remain in government in their own countries after the mess they made of things back home). Because of this, the EU is often used by national governments who want to push an unpopular agenda that they can't credibly do locally, by driving it through in Europe where there is no popular vote, and then claiming back home that they have to implement things because "European rules say so". Moreover, the EU takes a staggering amount of money from some of its member states to subsidise the others, but this direct financial support does not seem to result in any greater bargaining power for those states, and the EU hasn't managed to get its accounts audited and signed off for 14 years.
In other words, if you think the EU has anything to do with democracy, I'm afraid you're completely delusional. It happens to have produced one or two useful sets of rules on areas like human rights, but it's produced a whole heap of bad laws on just about everything else, and charged us a pretty penny for the privilege. It was never supposed to be a United States of Europe, just an economic agreement for mutual benefit, but the vested interests and empire builders at its heart have turned it into far more than that. The fact that the only thing that stopped the EU Constitution^WReform Treaty going through was the Irish no vote in a referendum, because no other member states' national governments would actually allow their people a referendum with the negative (for them) outcome so clearly predictable, tells us all we need to know of European democracy.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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.
the french gov is still planning to force feed hadopi despite the EU... more info here (there are more tags for it but this is the latest stuff from my blg) http://kruhm.org/tag/christine-albanel/
If AU is going with a firewall, sounds like they may be looking to merge with China.
You can see those controlling tendencies expressed through Rupert's Media outlets in USA. 'Conservative' (exploitive) capitalists in the US and AU have more in common with the dictatorship in China than most EU countries, right now. Capitalists always look to flourish where they can exploit human capital. It's not clear that capitalism can flourish if it doesn't have some underclass to exploit.
A lot of half-truths here...
"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?"
I'll take that action. Here in Canada it's life plus 50 years - that's long enough for the children and grandchildren - in short, the family members who knew the creator in life - to enjoy the legacy. Then it is turned over to the public domain. And it is fair for your children and grandchildren to enjoy the fruits of your labour.
In the United States, it's life plus 70 years, if I remember correctly (it could be life plus 75). That was put into place to account for the increased lifespan...well, not quite true. It was put in place in Europe to account for the increased lifespan. It was put in place in the United States because European legislation stated that length of copyright would be determined by country of origin, and that meant that any American intellectual property would go out of copyright sooner, and make it harder for Europeans to invest into American IP (such as a movie, etc.).
"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."
You've fallen into a common trap here - you're mistaking abuse of a law for the law itself. They are not the same thing. You're also misunderstanding the importance of copyright. So, I'll explain it here.
Copyright is a set of laws that provide a legal framework that allow creative artists to negotiate with those who would distribute their work, providing protection to both sides to prevent one from screwing over the other before a contract is signed. However, if a creative artist signs all of their rights away, they lose that protection. Hence the ability for abuse by the RIAA, etc. It's a horrifying situation, I agree, but it is not endemic to copyright. It is far more endemic to sociopathic corporations, and copyright is only one of many laws that get abused.
"When copyrights exist for longer than most humans lifetimes they cease to be anything more than a complete stranglehold over our entire culture."
Very wrong, particularly when looking at the Internet, of all places. We are drowning in content. And once something is under copyright, such as a book, or play, painting, song, etc., it is always in the best interests of the copyright holder to keep that work available as long as possible. A book that is out of print cannot generate any revenue.
What determines the availability of a book, song, film, etc., is nothing more than simple economics. It costs money to produce and publish a book (I know - I own a small publishing company). So long as the sales of the book will make money, the book will stay in print. Once the book stops making money, it comes out of print. In fact, if you go to your local bookstore and look at all of those new books, most of them will have an in-print lifespan of less than ten years.
In fact, the technology that has done more than anything else to maintain culture in the literary world and keep books available is print-on-demand technology, which means that a book can be kept available for sale without requiring warehouse space. That revolutionized the book industry. And it had very little to do with either copyright or the Internet.
To misquote Serenity, when it comes to the alarmist views of the copyright debate, nothing is as it seems. Copyright is not the grand arena, the pirates are not scrappy heroes against terrible odds, and our culture, far from being under a stranglehold, is bursting at the seams. We are drowning in content, and never has it been so easy to create. The copyright abolitionists and reformers keep referring to some mythical golden
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
Actually most of the European directives go in the direction of ensuring free trade, freedom and democracy. Just look at them. All these directives need to go before the European parliament which is democratically elected. The European council is indeed made of national ministers which are not necessarily elected, however they represent the majority in their country of origin.
The proposed constitution would have given more weight to the parliament and less to the council, which is probably good. This is not the reason it was rejected.
Your post illustrates the fact that in Europe member states like to blame Europe for all the ills of their economy. One day it's the Euro being too expensive, another the rules about government spending, some other time it's a rule that say a member cannot locally optimise its fishing laws to the detriment of another neighboring state. You name it. If you repeat something enough time it become "true", so people are starting to blame Europe for everything.
In fact recently the president of Europe, currently Nicolas Sarkozy, complained loudly that Europe was preventing him from doing "politics".
However in crisis times everyone thinks the Euro and its stability is grand and the necessity to harmonize financial policies is a definite bonus. Without the European framework it would be a free-for-all, fuck-your-neighbour disaster.
STRIKE THREE! France, you're out! :D
I am the lawn!
Why should government enforce the rights of creators
Here's one big reason: Because in many of the countries in-question, they've buggered things up so badly that the majority of their exports are now "virtual" goods. All the physical stuff is for the most part produced in places such as China, India, etc.
The domestic markets that *do* product goods, such as the auto-industry and others, have driven into the ground by piss-poor management.
So really, these collective governments have about two choices:
(a) Start pushing to start *producing* quality physical products domestically again.
(b) Push idiotic laws upon your own citizens, and through foreign citizens through treaties, to prop up a model which treats virtual goods the same as physical.