EU Rejects Law To Cut Pirates Off From Their ISP

MJackson writes "Europe has rejected plans to allow ISPs to disconnect users suspected of involvement with illegal file-sharing. In its final vote, the European Parliament chose to retain amendment 46 (138) of the new Telecoms Package by a majority of 407 to 57. Amendment 46 states that restrictions to the fundamental rights and freedoms of Internet users can only be put in place after a decision by judicial authorities. However, network neutrality remains unprotected."

Comments

illegal file-sharing?

[Finallyjoined!!!]

As far as I'm aware it's not "illegal" to share files. It may breach someone's copyright, but it's not "illegal".

Re:illegal file-sharing?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Sorry, but how on earth is that (+5, Informative)? Your "awareness" is absolutely, objectively incorrect, and as far as I'm aware, this is true in every nation of the EU.

Copyright infringement is not the same in law as theft, and it is often dealt with by civil rather than criminal law, but it is still against the law. Moreover, even that is not absolute and universal: since the EU Copyright Directive and related laws, many European nations can treat large-scale, commercial copyright infringement a criminal matter, for example.

Re:illegal file-sharing?

[Kjella]

It's illegal because it's against the law. What it isn't is criminal.

Unless you hit one of criminal copyright infringement laws. For example, all the people sharing Wolverine before the release date (USC 17506(a)(1)(C) if you wanna look it up). Or everyone distributing more than 1000$ retail value in less than six months, which is easily achieved just by sharing the Adobe CS4 Master Collection once - that's the (B) section. I think if you had perfect knowledge of all file sharing quite a few people would reach criminal standards under current copyright law...

Amendmant 138 adopted

[think_nix]

On another note:

"Amendment 138 adopted: internet access is a fundamental right "

http://www.blackouteurope.eu/

Re:It's called due process

[pmontra]

It's not only an American thing. We've got the same in Italy, Europe. Check Article 27 at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Italy

The defendant is not considered guilty until final judgment is passed.

I expect every democratic county to have the same statement in its constitutional chart even if governments (US included) sometimes find ways to work around those principles.

Re:Confused notion of "rights"

[Nick Ives]

There is no "right" to internet access

Er...

restrictions to the fundamental rights and freedoms of Internet users can only be put in place after a decision by judicial authorities.

Fail at reading comprehension much?

Re:An American Concept

[Anonymous Coward]

"Innocent until proven guilty" is not an American concept. America's legal system was derived wholesale from the British legal system. The criminal burden of proof was established long before America was even its own country.

Re:Confused notion of "rights"

[ponos]

This does not mean that a government has to provide internet access. It implies the inverse: that a government (see for example, French "HADOPI" law) or third party cannot terminate your internet access on the suspicion that you are infringing copyright, without legal recourse and due process. Seems quite reasonable...

Re:Confused notion of "rights"

[Tony Hoyle]

The EU human rights act has a number of fundamental rights built into it. Of course being the EU it isn't anywhere near as succinct as the earlier documents such as the US constitution.

Life, Liberty and the pursit of Happiness would be written as,

"Article 2, Article 6, and the pursuit of Article 9" (there's no reference to happiness in the HRA, but "Right to marry and right to found a family" is close enough).

source: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

Re:Hilarious.

[Kjella]

We're talking about private entities cutting off users of their services, not about the government doing so. Obviously I'm against the latter. Yeesh...

So you're not stupid, just blissfully ignorant. Great. Let me give you the brief summary of the French HADOPI law which is the reason this is a hot EU topic: The french MAFIAA accuse you of copyright infringement. Guilty until proven innocent. Three strikes, then the ISP is instructed by the government to cut you off. The ISP never needed a law, they have their terms of service which contains a million reason to terminate service including none at all.

Re:Hilarious.

[schon]

We're talking about private entities cutting off users of their services, not about the government doing so.

So if the government tells an ISP to cut someone off (by passing one of those, you know, law thingies), and the ISP does it (because it's the law), then you're claiming that it's not really the government doing it?

What colour is the sky in your world?

Re:America was its own country, long before it was

[shutdown -p now]

America was its own country, long before it was invaded by europeans.

While North America definitely was there before it was invaded by Europeans, there wasn't a single country or state called "America", or anything similar under a different name, before Europeans established one. A bunch of independent nomadic tribes spread over a large territory and constantly quarreling between each other, with no higher authority, does not make a country.

Re:America was its own country, long before it was

[McDutchie]

No, it wasn't. Native Americans were divided in tribes. They didn't even have the concept of land ownership, let alone of nation states. Talk about not knowing history!