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?

[binarylarry]

You can violate civil OR criminal law, of which both violations would be considered "illegal."

Re:illegal file-sharing?

[elashish14]

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.

Re:illegal file-sharing?

[Locke2005]

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.

Speed limits 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.

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.

Your new to the concept of "laws", aren't you?

Re:illegal file-sharing?

[DirtyCanuck]

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.

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...

Re:illegal file-sharing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Laws that people refuse to abide by need to be reconsidered.

Re:illegal file-sharing?

[mmaniaci]

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."

Re:illegal file-sharing?

[andymadigan]

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.

Re:illegal file-sharing?

[andymadigan]

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.

Re:illegal file-sharing?

[thegoldenear]

As I understand it in the UK, though I could be wrong, breaching criminal law is called illegal, where as breaching civil law is called unlawful.

Time to work it into "ACTA"

[plasmacutter]

They'll just drop this stinkburger provision into page 923 of the ACTA treaty and ram it down their throats anyway.

Elections upcoming

[Opportunist]

Don't think this is off the table yet. Wait 'til the elections are over.

Amendmant 138 adopted

[think_nix]

On another note:

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

http://www.blackouteurope.eu/

Re:Confused notion of "rights"

[Burkin]

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.

Re:Confused notion of "rights"

[Repossessed]

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.

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"

[vertinox]

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.

Re:Confused notion of "rights"

[plasmacutter]

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".

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"

[Reality Master 201]

Why not? If they can provide it better and cheaper then they should very much do so.

Because that would be socialism and, as everyone knows, socialism is bad because socialism is bad, as well as being not good, also.

Re:Cut Pirates Off From Their ISP

[compro01]

You mean this isn't about preventing pirates from coordinating their attacks via twitter?

Re:Confused notion of "rights"

[Kjella]

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.

Re:Confused notion of "rights"

[Tom]

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.

Re:Confused notion of "rights"

[MightyYar]

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".