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 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.
"Effective" does not mean that it's not crude. Thanks in part to the "3-strikes-you're-out" rule, The US has the highest prison population (in percentage) among developed countries. The latest figures indicate that more than 1 in 100 American men or women are in jail.
That's 10 times more people in jail than Germany, for instance. Hell, it even leads Russia on that turf. So much for the "land of the free"...
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
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.
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.
Yes I think I understand how this works
* Seek rock, but not at the expense of scissors
* Seek scissors, but not at the expense of paper
* Seek paper, but not at the expense of rock
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
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.
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?
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
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
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?
In New Zealand the minister responsible for this, Judth Tizard, was kicked out the parliament after losing in the recent NZ election. Many people in the IT community worked against her.
Getting kicked out didn't stop her from going on a radio tirade about how it was necessary to remove due process and oversight by cutting off people who *might* be infringing. Yes, she even says "might". She actually believes she's doing this for the good of New Zealand and many other people in power do too.
The law will come into effect in February 2009 after a parliamentary vote so we've got until then to change minds. People against these parts of the law should join the groups working against this such as Internet NZ and the NZOSS.
The Labour party (which she was part of) lost the last election and now the National party are in power. It remains to be seen whether they're going to do better but we can only try.
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.
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.
Or, you just have more crime due to vast inequality caused by unfettered capitalism. But don't suggest that to Republican voters.