Slashdot Mirror
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."
They'll just drop this stinkburger provision into page 923 of the ACTA treaty and ram it down their throats anyway.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
There is no "right" to internet access, and any such attempt at asserting such a right must invariably violate actual individual rights - life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness. Likewise, the only proper role of government is to uphold and protect these rights through the courts, police, and military. The government should not be providing internet access.
Don't think this is off the table yet. Wait 'til the elections are over.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Innocent Until proven guilty. Granted it doesn't always work properly and it sometimes lets the bad guys go Scott free. But it really is a good idea. As it is better for the Bad Guys to go free then the Good guys to be locked up. Also this could lead to abuse say for this case you are just using a lot of bandwidth legally, They could kick you off and say you were probably pirating just so they don't need to improve their infrastructure.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You can violate civil OR criminal law, of which both violations would be considered "illegal."
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Copyright is abused left, right, front and back. It's time for reform - there's no reason why it should be legal to the extent that it's currently standard.
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
Where's the "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense" tag when you need it? Just because they THINK someone is committing a crime doesn't mean they have the evidence. This should've been a no-brainer from the start.
quite right. piracy is not theft
It's illegal because it's against the law. What it isn't is criminal.
Seriously, I think quite the opposite. When the companies Mute peoples personal videos on youtube because they play copyrighted music. Or sue a 12 yr old for downloading mp3's. Up here in Canada I have been paying tax on CDR's despite not using them for actual music in probably 3 years. And then there is the extension of copyrighted material into infinite it seems.
Here is my take on it. If somebody is simply downloading or using copyrighted material for personal consumption then it should not be grounds for criminal action nor should it warrant the disconnection of what is considered a vital utility. On the other hand if you are PROFITING directly from distribution and SALE(Pirate Bay did neither) of copyrighted material then yes, you should be prosecuted, as you are stealing stem cells from the mouths of the starving media industry.
How can Sony honestly cry foul after installing DRM onto my machine without first acknowledging me? I think installing remote software on a machines is FAR more illegal then redistributing sound. I think this alienation of the people that actually fund these companies is only going to lead to more people going out of their way to ensure not a cent ever makes it back to the media companies in retaliation for the lies and broken homes caused by this futile war on progress.
It really does drive home how stupid it is to call copyright infringers "pirates" when we have real pirates on the high seas.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Laws that people refuse to abide by need to be reconsidered.
This is a rather odd distinction - in most countries copyright infringement is illegal.
Perhaps what you meant is that it's not criminal to share files. Note this is different from illegal: it means it violates criminal law, not civil law; illegal means it violates any law.
Speed enforcement does need to be reformed. Officers seem to only give tickets as an incentive to keep their jobs. Its not about safety, its about making the quota to satisfy "the higher ups."
Drug prohibition is as dumb as alcohol prohibition (its the same thing, alcohol is a drug). All it does is make criminals out of ordinary citizens and promote organized crime by creating its largest market.
You may understand the concept of "law," but you have no understanding of "justice."
There's no such thing as violating civil law. Copyright Law gives the copyright holder the right to sue if someone uses their copyrighted work without permission. It does not state that the act of using a work without permission is in itself a violation.
Civil Law is always stated to give a right to someone, not to deny it to another. The effect of the law may of course be to restrict a right.
Thus, in the absence of a criminal statute, it is disingenuous to say that copyright infringement is "illegal", let alone the mere act of providing a third party access to an electronic file.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
This reject from EU won't avoid our lovely French president to enact the HADOPI law... So in few days in France, if you "share" copyrighted data, you could be cut off from your ISP....
The only way you can "fail to abide" by civil law is to file an improper claim, in which case the claim would be rejected by the court. At least, that's the closest I can imagine to "breaking" civil law.
Perhaps you could sue over a copyright you don't really have, in which case the defendant might have the right to countersue. But even then you haven't actually broken a law, you merely created a situation in which the other person has the right to sue you.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
You don't have to break any civil laws to get sued for divorce, either.
Drug prohibitions are abused left, right, front and back. It's time for reform - there's no reason why they should be legal to the extent that it's currently standard.
I agree. Any law such that just about everyone who has run for president since the passing of the law has violated it is a bad law. This includes speeding, drugs (ask Bush Jr. about his cocaine use, or Clinton and marijuana) and such. Not to mention that making drugs illegal funds terrorists and organized crime. Prohibition didn't work in the 20s, so why would people think it would work now?
Learn to love Alaska
I take it you haven't heard of the Everything Clause: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
Not that I'm saying I disagree with you, just that the constitution is easily twisted by those who don't give a shit about it to say what they want it to.
I respect your point, but you need to give credit where credit is due. Laws that people refuse to obey should be reconsidered. However, the mere fact that people refuse to obey them is not nearly enough to sink the law unilaterally. We have to show that it's not just a case of people saying "But I don't wanna obey the law!"; it's truly a law we don't need. The problem with copyright specifically is that people disobeying the law is evidence that we need what the law protects, so by getting rid of it, we run the very serious risk that the people driving us to get rid of the law, will actually be unhappier once it's gone.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
"Of course, I'm not familiar with EU law or member state law in this area. I admit I was speaking from an American POV. However our own media has a tendency to conflate infringement with theft."
Even more, it has the tendency, even on official claims to think that USA law is "world's law", for instance on statistics about "piracy" which doesn't go into the consideration that what is called "piracy" in the USA happens not to be so elsewhere.