Slashdot Mirror
French Three-Strikes Law Ruled Unconstitutional
An anonymous reader was one of several to write with this news: "The French 'Conseil Constitutionnel' just ruled that the recently voted 'Hadopi' law, which enforces a 'three strikes and you're out' system, is actually unconstitutional [article in French; here's an English-language article at Ars]. They mainly make two points: 1) They argue that removing Internet access is equivalent to hindering a person's freedom of speech, and as such can only be decided by appointed judges. This removes all punitive power from the administrative body supposed to enforce the three-strikes rule; all it can do now is warn you that 'they're watching you.' 2) When illegal filesharing is detected, users have to prove their innocence. This is obviously contrary to the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence."
With this and the Pirate Party winning and EU seat, great news. Bad week if you are trying to force your failing business model to stay relevant like the RIAA (Sony, Warner Bros, Universal, and EMI).
Sorry Big Media Companies (tm), find another (legal) way to protect your dying business model. Or, better yet, adapt to the new reality...
It sort of makes sense, when you think about it. Why should the courts cede power to a non-judicial "administrative body" to rule against people. Stands to reason the courts would like a monopoly on those types of judgements.
This space left intentionally blank.
lets hope that (the world) takes this further and embraces the right to encrypted speech as well as free speech.
you know what I'm referring to. those that listen in, just because they're too bored or unable to find the real 'bad guys'.
if internet access is a 'right' then the ability to communicate without some 3rd party listening in should also be a right.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
What I find interesting is the spin on privacy. Here in Canada, our privacy law is one of the reasons why file sharing has been hard to crack down on. The ability to remain anonymous and retain your privacy rights blocks most ISP's from packet-sniffing on behalf of 'special interest groups' - it also requires a court order: the judge will ask 'what proof do you have' and then ask these groups to explain how the gathered that proof without violation of Privacy laws. Even the current 'throttling' may be violating my privacy of internet usage as it would prove my ISP is scanning and reading my traffic information - which is a violation of my privacy rights of internet usage.
Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things. - Peter F. Drucker
Yeah, unfortunately our three branches system lacks an entity charged with removing laws with no effect.
The courts won't do it. Congress doesn't care. The executive likes them because they can threaten people with them, or ruin someone's life with them, then drop the case before it gets to the court and is thrown out.
A fourth body, who job it was to review all laws, and propose a list each year (based on criteria like "law on the books for a decade with no convictions based on it" or similar) that would be automatically stripped from US code unless congress and the president specifically re-approved and re-signed them.
That should be one of congress's jobs, but they have no interest in spending time on "old business".
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
The problem with that attitude is that by the time you can start the process of removing a bad law, it's already done damage. I'd prefer the approach where the stupidity isn't allowed to happen in the first place - no-one gets hurt and less resources are spent.
Also, if a law has no effect, then IMO it should be gotten rid of. It will still cause unnecessary overhead by having to be checked for effect in potentially related cases.
Which is a MAJOR problem. You have to knowingly break the bad law and then take it to the Supreme Court on your own dime. If they disagree with you, you go to jail.