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!!
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.
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.
It's amusing to hear someone say that [arbitrary thing] is not a right but [insert list of other arbitrary things] are rights without any actual reasoning for saying so. Other than through agreement from the people being governed there is not some objective standard that says that something is a right or not.
Likewise, the only proper role of government is to uphold and protect these rights through the courts, police, and military.
Why can't they protect these rights through legislation?
The government should not be providing internet access.
Why not? If they can provide it better and cheaper then they should very much do so.
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.
Laws that people refuse to abide by need to be reconsidered.
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.
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.