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.
On another note:
"Amendment 138 adopted: internet access is a fundamental right "
http://www.blackouteurope.eu/
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dropped for free speech, habeas corpus, and guns, at least in the country you seem to be working from; you're a bit out of date here.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)
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)
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!!
"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.
Because that would be socialism and, as everyone knows, socialism is bad because socialism is bad, as well as being not good, also.
You mean this isn't about preventing pirates from coordinating their attacks via twitter?
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
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.
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 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?
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!