Slashdot Mirror
French "Three Strikes" Law Gets New Life
Kjella writes "A little over a week ago we discussed the EU's forbidding of disconnecting users from the Internet. But even after having passed with an 88% approval in the European Parliament, and passing through the European Commission, it was all undone last week. The European Council, led by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, removed the amendment before passing the Telecom package. This means that there's now nothing stopping France's controversial 'three strikes' law from going into effect. What hope is there for a 'parliament' where near-unanimous agreement can be completely undone so easily?"
The EU is a great idfea but the execution is terrible. The council should be destroyed, stricken from the legislature.
That anyone on the council thought that this was even remotely conscionable tells you just how undemocratic the people on it are. The fact that they could then go and do this tells you how undemocratic the council system is.
Get rid of it. It's sick.
The European parliament in Strassbourg (France): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Institutions_europeennes_IMG_4292.jpg
I see my country's flag. Yet my voice can not be heard.
This French law is stupid, but to what extent should the badly-run shady organization in Brussels overturn by fiat laws made by the National Assembly?
The European Union executive runs roughshod over the European Parliament; there is much backroom dealing and invisible lobbying. Under such conditions I don't think the laws passed have much legitimacy, even if they achieve good results (they rarely do). Depending on the dictators from Brussels to enforce freedom in France is a contradiction in terms.
\end{rant}
The EU is something of the worst parts of a government and a diplomatic organization. It wants to pretend to be the unified European government, but it really isn't. It also isn't democratically elected or directly accountable to it's constituents.
The basic problem is that the European nations wanted to create a union that was along the lines of the United States (which as the name implies is a union of independent states). However they half-assed it. The reason the United States is so powerful is because of the united nature. While the states are independent, the laws of one do not affect the laws of another, they are all a lesser part of the whole. The states have to do as the federal government says and there is no leaving the union (that was what the civil war was actually about, can you leave the union). Though separate, they act as a whole.
Now this means two important things on a governmental level:
1) The federal government has real power. It can make laws, treaties and so on that the several states are required to abide by (within the bounds allowed in the Constitution). There isn't any weaseling out of it or leaving. Thus the government can speak for the US as a whole.
2) The government is directly accountable to the people. The federal government is elected by the citizens of the states, and thus is accountable to them. If they behave in a way the citizens don't like, they can be ousted as happened in this most recent election. Though it is a republic, not a democracy, it is still a democratic process where the people in the states say who will lead, not the leaders of the states.
Well unless the EU is willing to do this sort of thing, then crap like this ruling will happen. It isn't a real government. It has some trappings of a government, and some authority like it, but it isn't really a government.
I really think the EU needs to change. They either need to go all the way, become a unified nation fully, or they need to scale back, and basically become a trading bloc. This "We're a European government but not really and you don't get to elect us," is just bad news IMO.
There's no good reason to think New Zealand won't have this by the end of February.
No wonder I've seen so many French people describe Sarkozy as a French version of President Bush. I remember many people protested his election, too, saying he was only elected due to playing off of people's prejudice.
... from dragging this issue to the European Court of Justice and therefore forcing a definite decision? The support for striking down any such restrictions on internet access for copyright infringements seems to be broadly available.
Hmmm?
"French" and "Three" and, ooohhh , "Strikes"... in the same sentence? I mean ... come on!
Never mind. I need to be alone with my computer now.
Well here is my opinion about the three strikes law. France is very steeped in taking their time, they take long lunches and dinners, have more conversations in person over dinner I bet than in an online forum. Repeated illegal file sharing is not a good thing IMHO. I guess they are just trying to weed out the people online that keep it up after being warned. Maybe their thought process is, well people spend a lot of time online, why not treat it in the same way that you would in a real life situation. Also, the French are not enforcers, their dogs poop everywhere, they don't have dog parks like we do, and people smoke everywhere there, even if it is prohibited, and not too much happens. The three strikes deal sounds like a panacea or a band aid to me.
Hey, you ain't telling me nothing new. here in AR We, The People, have voted like 4 times for a damned lotto. And so far the bible thumpers have found some legal BS way to weasel out of listening to us 3 times. This past election yet again we voted for a lotto, this time by nearly 3 to 1. The profits will ensure that all the children of AR can have a free college education if they keep up their grades.
So now I am just waiting on those God Damned bible thumpers to find yet ANOTHER way of screwing us out of what we voted for. You know, it really is a shame we can't have a "thump a bible thumper" day, as that would be something I would look forward to like Xmas and 4th of July all wrapped together.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Why is Sarkozy so keen on draconian copyright laws and punishments for people breaking it? Could it be that his latest wife is a singer, composer and model?
I mean, most politicians are pretty self centered and don't give a rat's ass about their subjects, but I have rarely seen it used with such bluntness.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This is all about the music industry trying to disconnect people from the internet who copy music. What is their problem? Turn on the radio, there's some of their precious music playing. Turn on the TV, you can hear their music. Go into a shop, it's playing there too. They even have special shows on TV, just about commercial music. Even special TV channels about commercial music.
Record companies pay radio stations to play their songs so that people can hear it. They put a lot of effort into making video clips so that the song can get on TV so that people can hear it. Do they care if you record music off the radio? Nope. Do they care if you record a video clip on TV? Nope. Do they want you to hear their music? They say they do, and they act like they do.
But if you copy a song on the internet because you want to hear it, suddenly they are all screaming "Cut them off from the internet! We're going to sue those illegal downloaders who tried to hear our music! We'll sue them for thousands of dollars per song!" Why? Don't they want people to hear their music? Isn't that why they pay radio stations to play their songs? Isn't that why they make expensive video clips?
Why do they want to cut people off from the internet? Why aren't they saying "This is a great way to get people to listen to our music! And we don't even have to pay, unlike the radio and TV stations"? Why are they trying to kick people off the internet, sue them, bankrupt them, wreck their lives? But if you listen to a song on the radio, they're really happy about it. Listen to it on the internet, you're dead meat.
Sure they don't make money from downloads, but they don't make money from radio or TV either. It costs them money. What's the real problem?
What was the European Council doing passing legislation? They are not supposed to have legislative powers, they get together a couple of times a year to propose policy direction for the Parliament and Commission to follow.
The French healthcare system is good, but it's certainly not the greatest system in the world. The US system has the benefit of it's not a system so much as a free market, enabling those with the cash to buy the most advanced healthcare in the world. If only everyone was rich, then the US system would be perfect. But I digress and cease this route because it seems very offtopic.
The French people fought hard and once the war was over pretty much murdered in cold blood anyone who cooperated with the Germany. I'm not sure if the French should feel pride or shame for what happened after the war, but it is what it is. France gets a bad rap for what went on in WWII, but one could just point to how long the Americans took before entering. But really, I would place most of the blame on Germany and more specifically the Nazis for starting the whole thing or at least keeping it going.
Also France is not socialist by any textbook definition of the term, nor it is communist. Those terms, when applied to EU members, are pure hyperbole as an attempt to show widely contrasting ideologies where the difference in actuality is relatively small.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
We are speaking here about the Council of the EU, which owns co-decision power along with the Parliament of the EU (with historically more power to the Council until the Lisbon treaty is ratified). There is a lesser known "European Council" which gives orientations, but it is not the subject of this article.
And yet the same idiots keep getting re-elected.
Who's fault is that?
-- Will program for bandwidth
Well not exactly.
First of all, this is the Council of the European Union, not the European Council. Everybody confuses them (and also with the Council of Europe, with is not related with European Union. Someone even mixed up with the European Commission some comments above). Some people argue that people make things hard (like similar names hard to remember), so that it's harder to fight (you can't fight what you don't understand).
Also, the Council wasn't led by Sarkozy, but by Luc Chatel, secretary of State for Consumer affairs and Industry. But it's true that nobody in the French government would have the guts to make Sarkozy unhappy on purpose. They are totally devoted to him. So incidentally we can indeed say that Sarkozy led the Council even if he wasn't here.
Laquadrature published something more accurate : Citizen safeguards striked out in EU Council
Woa, kinda alarmist, don't you think ?
The text hasn't been adopted yet. You can fin a nice diagram describing where we are in the current procedure. The step described in this article is the point #4=>#9. The next step will be #11. But first, there will be a tripartite meeting (Council + MEPs + commission) and probably a #10 as commission and council doesn't agree.
So there will be a second reading by the EP. So please stop saying that UE is a dictatorship. There are a lot of things to notice before we can say that :
Again, nobody says that EU is perfect. Of course it isn't. But saying that "The EU is a great idea but the execution is terrible.", or other thing I read in the comments, seems disproportionated to me. It's probably due to the fact that the article was mis
A third time ? There have been more than two conflicts between German and French people. Have you forgotten about the 1870 war, which was also quite bloody ?
They're mostly on the side of angels. Seriously. Maybe the fact that they don't have that much actual power forces them to act more responsibly. I don't know. But they usually side with the good guys.
The European Court of Human Rights (which is not an EU institution, but close enough) acts as a last measure in many cases, much like the SCOTUS but w/o Adolf, err Antonin Scalia. They forced many positive changes in our disturbingly creepy judicial practices.
In other matters the Commission forced the break up of the former telecom monopoly, which resulted in one of the highest broadband penetration in the world. They might next save us from the current oligopoly in the mobile phone network industry, which holds firmly in place because corrupt motherfucker Sarkozy is best buddies with many a stakeholder.
... is largely symbolic. It only gives more exposure, not more power, and no way it gives a "free hand." That's just nonsense.
But here it is: the parent post is unfair to President Bush. To misquote Obelix apropros the last French presidential election, "ils sont fous ces francais".
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Good news actually.
The french love to break the law.
I am french.
I have a dozen weakly WEP-protected WiFi equipped neighbours within range (wepcrackable within 10 minutes average).
It will be a lot of fun to download plenty of stuff through their connections and have *them* punished.
The French started it with their ethnic cleansing campaign against German people in the late 17th century (google for 'Burn the Palatinate')
Or you could say it started with the 30 years war, which killed about a fifth to a quarter of the German population. Before 1870, France was the big bully superpower that always threatened to beat people up.
However, that constitution was still better than nothing.
As it also lowers the threshold for most council votes I'm not so sure. It could end up actually being worse than nothing.
The parliament should be strengthened, without a doubt, but while I'm generally pro-EU, the suggested constitution is flawed, and the way it's getting rammed down the unions throat anyway is deeply undemocratic.
Barroso's comment about 'the people who matter in the UK' is fairly indicative of the mindset currently in power in the EU. I wonder if anything but an outright refusal by the parliament to pass anything at all will have a chance to reinstate a democratic mindset in the EU core.
It doesn't exactly require great courage to settle a few scores after the Anglo-Saxons have chased the boches away.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Due to the huge profit they make out of the CAP, France will never do anything to upset the status quo.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The French started it with their ethnic cleansing campaign against German people in the late 17th century (google for 'Burn the Palatinate')
It's not a good sign when the 5th such link points back to your own post ! (damn Google is fast nowadays). Disgusting excesses of war, certainly. Relevant ? Who knows. Anyway, I didn't know about it.
Or you could say it started with the 30 years war, which killed about a fifth to a quarter of the German population. Before 1870, France was the big bully superpower that always threatened to beat people up.
I agree with you on the last point, but how is France to blame for the first one ? Sure, Richelieu took opportunities during that dark period, but the blame falls first on stupid and greedy religions, and also on the little known facts that 1/3 of the german population at the time were nobles (it was hereditary to _all_ offsprings) and that nobility didn't pay taxes... If you think that Bush's tax cuts for the rich was back, take a look at Germany during the 30 years war.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
In a country with "public health care" people with money can also have the finest medical assistance. There are private medics and no one stops you from going to a private hospital/clinic instead of the public service. Those countries only ask you (well, makes you :P) contribute maintaining a public system to those who can't afford such clinics.
Dilbert RSS feed
That's not entirely true. In many countries with public healthcare you're only allowed to pay for better quality to a small extent or not at all. In the Netherlands you can't pay to receive treatment earlier.
Demand that your countries council representative be directly elected. This exactly how the US Senate became democratic early last century: Campaigns in Oregon and Nevada forced those states to elect their Senators, and once they had, the rest had eventually to follow suit.
Once a large EU member or a few small ones do this, the same will happen in the EU.
Another reason why this is the best way to reform the EU is that doing it this way does not threaten further integration: the representative would be a creature of national law, not EU law. A 'Top down' reform like the proposed constitution is always difficult because raises the spectre of further integration, but this would not require a change to the treaties.
No, the commission is not elected they are appointed, and here's some more bad news, on the same basis neither are the cabinets of the majority of the governments of the European nations elected.
Democracies hold elections, the send representatives to parliaments, they elect a group to govern and then they appoint a cabinet. There's that word again - cabinets are appointed and EU commissioners are appointed both by the governments they represent. You trying to suggest that the commission just walked in off the street and were given the job because the security guard like the cut of their jib is typically disingenuous in the grand traditions of euroskepticism.
And then you complain that the commission must act apolitically. Exactly the way ministers of state are supposed to act - in best interest of the country, not their constituencies. What would happen if Gordon Brown decided not to act on the current financial crisis because some landlord in Scotland wanted people to lose their houses? Madness!
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
> However, that constitution was still better than nothing.
I'd rather we give them 5 more years to come up with a proper 'constitution' than accept that piece of crap. I'm Dutch and we Dutchies said 'No' to that treaty. Our 'democratic' government has since decided that, should our country try to ratify the 'constitution' again, there will be no need for a referedum. Assholes.
Which is why many come to the U.S. Also we have socialized government schooling in the U.S., and in theory people can go to private schools to earn a better education, but because of the high School tax, there's no money left for the private option.
There are many middle class parents who would love to send their kids to a private school, but after Uncle Sam has collected his school tax, there's nothing less to pay the private tuition.* The same flaw exists with a government healthcare system.
*(IMHO people who go to private school should be exempted from paying the school tax for that year.)
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
No you miss the point
Most of us european don't speak french, but it's because we don't care or are too lazy to learn it or some combination of those reasons
This guy has been denied the joy/privilege of learning french because of google !!!
(he said 'blame google' not 'thank google' so I guess he takes it as something bad where, again, most of us european would be most thankful for it).
This is yet again google doing evil !!! (although it probably started with the best of intentions).
sad times, sad times
Also it would translate better as "Un changement en lequel nous pouvons croire"
There has been a push to create a system of school vouchers. Where the government takes the money allocated for your child's education and gives it to the private school instead of the public school. This is more fair because generally schools are paid through property tax because it is one of the easier taxes for a county to collect. Everyone who lives there gets to pay the tax, based on the value of their property. Rich people pay more, poor people pay less. And under the voucher system, everyone would get the same amount out of the system no matter what they put into it. It might sound like an unfair socialized system, but I think there is value to the wealthy to have the poor educated. People without children have to pay for the schools, I just think of it as the price I have to pay to live in a place where people get at least a basic education.
Personally I think children who are above average and below average would fair far better at a private school. And sending them to a private school would improve the the quality of education at public schools because (hopefully) they could begin to teach groups of kids who are operating at the same level instead of thrashing about like they do now. There are so many things that public schools try to do at once, that they now seem to be mediocre at everything.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
NOTE: Ireland ALSO voted no.
And feels mislead and regrets it.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Coming to think of it, copyright (or more precisely copydeny) was a european idea in the first place. It's just funny that while attributed as having originated in the U.K., it's the French right now who act as its most rabid supporters (at least sarkoficcially).
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
You were asking for that, to be honest. Wait a minute...
What is next, insightful for a flippant 1 line response?
Relevant ? Who knows. Anyway, I didn't know about it.
Your past military escapades have been a major factor in establishing the widespread, deep antipathy towards France felt in most European countries.
Wasn't aware that baseball was so influential in France that they write laws based on its rules. I thought that was something we only did here.
In your humble opinion, those people with money to spare should be taxed less.
Yeah, fuck that.
Those with money to spare should be contributing more to society to bring those with less into line with 'a reasonable standard of living' which all human beings deserve.