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."
As far as I'm aware it's not "illegal" to share files. It may breach someone's copyright, but it's not "illegal".
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
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!!
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.
On another note:
"Amendment 138 adopted: internet access is a fundamental right "
http://www.blackouteurope.eu/
Hold it right there, constitution-boy, there ain't no such thing in Europe.
Just because you have the right of "pursuit of happiness" doesn't mean it's general. And neither is the lack of other rights. Besides, "rights" is not trademark to the likewise named declaration thereof.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
Life Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness were dropped for free speech, habeas corpus, and guns, at least in the country you seem to be working from; you're a bit out of date here.
And the 'right' to internet access fall under free speech (and is the only kind of free speech most people can afford). The right not to have it taken away by wild accusations of civil offenses falls under habeas corpus.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
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.
Sigh. "Copyright infringement != Piracy", but I guess this just won't die, so here goes... ... <NO CARRIER>
Arrrr matey!
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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.
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?
Nick
I'm pretty sure that internet access is protected by the 1st amendment in Fredoom of Speech and of the press.
If the government came in and banned you from using the internet, in effect they are preventing you from voicing your dissent and your ability to post on websites that is protected by the first amendment.
Arguably, (and I'm not sure where you got this idea) this is not about the government giving everyone free internet access but rather making a law that can kick people off the internet even if it is through a private company.
I mean you could in theory, make it so that the person could send only but not download anything, but the whole point of the internet was two way communication.
What good is it if you can only send emails and not read them?
Of course it wouldn't really work like that because you'd have to send an outgoing request to your email server to pull them in the first place.
Either way, the Government of any nation should not determine by law who is and who is not allowed to use the internet for that tramples over the whole point of freedom of speech and press.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Don't think so, but at least they can safely use the net now.
Yarrr!!!
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
There is no "right" to internet access
but there is a right to free expression and a right to live life on an equal playing field.
Removing internet access abrogates both these rights.
Go looking for a job today that doesn't involve a hat and nametag, and see how far you get with their personnel office before they tell you to "use the damn website".
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Because that would be socialism and, as everyone knows, socialism is bad because socialism is bad, as well as being not good, also.
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...
I think you're the one twisting words here. "Freedom of the press" does not mean I can go to a publisher and demand my book be printed, but if the government forbade me publishing a book it'd be a violation of my rights. The right to internet access does not mean I can go to an ISP and demand service, but if the government forbade me using the Internet it'd be violation of my rights. Actually, if you don't thinking silencing blogs and discussion forums like the one you're posting to right now would be a violation of the first amendment, you should not be let near a discussion on fundamental rights.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
There is no "right" to internet access
Welcome to the 21st century, glad you could finally make it.
You see, the list of "rights" has changed a lot during the history of mankind. A thousand years ago, "freedom" wasn't on it, nowadays we could not imagine doing without. The "pursuit of happiness" would've sounded like a load of hogwash to most early middle ages peasants, who had a whole load of more pressing matters on their hands, like not starving or how to explain the noble lord that ius primae noctis meant only the first night, no matter how beautiful your new wife is.
So, with the realization that in modern life there's a whole lot you simply can't do very well without Internet, especially now that government have begun to put a lot of their citizen information and public services online as well (and reduced their physical presence to save costs), we've put Internet access on that list. More or less, depending on your country. In most of Europe, for example, you already do have a right of "informational freedom", which guarantees your free access to information such as newspapers, libraries and the Internet.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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
without any actual reasoning for saying so.
I would have thought that the concept of "natural rights" didn't need any reasoning in the context of a forum post... it's a pretty old conversation.
But that aside, a right cannot be granted by a government - only taken away. In the complete absences of government, you still have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Notice that brian0918 snuck "property" in there, a la John Locke. That's very debatable... I think you could have a communal society that still preserves the natural rights.
If they can provide it better and cheaper then they should very much do so.
I agree that it is a legitimate function of government to provide services, but it shouldn't be confused with having a "right".
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
arbitrary
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Other than through agreement from the people being governed there is not some objective standard that says that something is a right or not.
Quite simple. First you identify human nature - unlike with plants and animals, man's values and goals don't come automatically. Man must think to survive - he must using his reasoning mind to integrate sensory data into concepts and abstract higher concepts from that. So if you choose to live, you *should* use reason to survive. That's the basis of ethics. Ethics applied in the social setting reveals individual rights. If you should use your mind to survive, then you should be free to do so. Your right to your life is primary, and the social application of that is in the right to property - the right to do with the product of your mind as you please. You have values and goals, like any living thing, and therefore should be free to achieve those goals - rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Other than through agreement from the people being governed there is not some objective standard that says that something is a right or not.
This is the notion of Contractarianism, to which I have the simple response: if the contract is the fundamental, why should I follow the contract? Clearly there must be something more fundamental if you can't simply get me, a person who chooses to live and further his values, to take your contract on faith. What you have done is demand reasons for my arguments, while supplanting faith as the reason for your arguments.
Why can't they protect these rights through legislation?
Legislation doesn't protect rights. Legislation sets the laws that are protected and upholded by courts and police/military.
Why not?
See the second sentence of my original post. A "right" that violates another right is a non-right.
If they can provide it better and cheaper then they should very much do so.
This is the idea of "the ends justify the means" - that if something is more convenient, go for it, regardless of the people and rights violated along the way. See above for why that should not be pursued.
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....
No. Internet access is no more a 'right' than international phone call access is. The internet is a tool for sending and receiving information, free speech protects what you say, not access to tools with which to say it. The fact that you can open your mouth and form words without risk of your government persecuting you is free speech, the fact that no one hears you is not.
What about freedom of press? Should it be legal to print whatever you want, but not to own a printing press?
Replace "Internet access" with "postal system" in the posts above, if you still believe that there's a hard separation between the freedom of speech and the tools used to propagate your views.
In holland, speed limits HAVE been re-adjusted several times. Raised to 120 a while ago, and then adjusted again to suit local circumstances.
Drugs laws? Well they to have changed as the times have changed.
Your argument, it is made of fail and lose.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
In many ways, the Netherlands is a very enlightened country. Unfortunately, I live in the good ol' USA, where traffic regulations are frequently (but not always) regarded as a revenue source, not a means for promoting safety. For example, the small town of North Plains, Oregon, has the luck that highway 26 (a freeway) runs through a corner of their city limits, so they frequently post one of their half dozen police on the freeway with a radar gun, clocking every car on the freeway as they enter city limits. They then chase everyone going a few mph over the limit, and usually pull them over outside of city limits. Contest you ticket, and you get to deal with a retired judge presiding in the town recreation center who has already decided you are guilty (literally; I asked if I could check the statute cited, and he said he didn't need to bring a copy of the statues to court because he had already reviewed by case and decided I was guilty) and simply rubberstamps whatever the police said. They claim they do this for the "safety of their town residents" but it is obvious that the majority of funding for their police department comes directly from fines issued to motorists on the freeway.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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?
I really don't see how the right to property follows from the right to life. Especially with the concept of private property ever expanding (real estate, intellectual property, business property, ...).
To sustain his life, a man must be free to use the product of his mind and effort as he sees fit. If he is not free to do so, then he cannot sustain his life as a human being - he would be a slave.
Whether or not people know their rights does not mean those rights don't exist. It's not that rights are expanding, but that they're being realized.
What is the purpose of the Bill of Rights if not to protect individual's rights by stating the limits of government action?
The Bill of Rights is a great document, but if the government founded on such legislation doesn't recognize the rights in that legislation, then the legislation itself is moot. This is a side issue. It basically comes down to: we need military/police to protect us from eachother and from foreign threats, and we need courts to decide contractual violations. The rest is not necessary, though it may be preferable (e.g., a legislature elected by the people).
The problem with socialism is that it requires perfect people to work. I only know of one guy who has ever met that requirement.
I appreciate your honesty, but because you have chosen to remain anonymous I won't be able to remember when/where you met me.
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
HADOPI-like laws will be banned thanks to a different amendment:
http://www.blackouteurope.eu/blog/amendment-13846-adopted-again.-internet-is-a-fundamental-right-in-europe..html
(thanks for think_nix)
Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
Actually, piracy has long been used to refer to copyright (and patent) infringement. "Long" as in, long before the RIAA existed. Look it up.
If you don't like Wikipedia, here are historical examples from the OED:
1654 J. MENNES Recreation for Ingenious Head-peeces clxxvi, All the wealth, Of wit and learning, not by stealth, Or Piracy, but purchase got.]
1700 E. WARD Journey to Hell II. vii. 14 Piracy, Piracy, they cry'd aloud, What made you print my Copy, Sir, says one, You're a meer Knave, 'tis very basely done.
1770 P. LUCKOMBE Conc. Hist. Printing 76 They..would suffer by this act of piracy, since it was likely to prove a very bad edition.
1855 D. BREWSTER Mem. Life I. Newton (new ed.) I. iv. 71 With the view of securing his invention of the telescope from foreign piracy.
1886 Cent. Mag. Feb. 629/1 That there are many publishers who despise such piracy..does not remove the presumption that publishers and papermakers have been influential opponents of an equitable arrangement.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
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.
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!