Slashdot Mirror
EU Telecom Deal Finished — No Three Strikes
a_n_d_e_r_s writes "The battle was hard, but the final text of the agreement ensures that people in the EU are not disconnected from the Internet without a chance to get a fair and impartial hearing beforehand. The important part is: 'Accordingly, these measures may only be taken with due respect for the principle of presumption of innocence and the right to privacy. A prior fair and impartial procedure shall be guaranteed, including the right to be heard of the person or persons concerned, subject to the need for appropriate conditions and procedural arrangements in duly substantiated cases of urgency in conformity with European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The right to an effective and timely judicial review shall be guaranteed.' This means that if someone is accused of copyright infringement, they can't just be disconnected from Internet. It lets the accused get a chance to disagree and take it to court first. The urgency clause means that a computer can be disconnected if it is part of an ongoing DDoS attack. Next, this has to be implemented into the EU nations' own laws, so the final ruling on how this will be implemented is not out yet. But, overall, it looks like a great success in stopping informal three-strikes disconnections."
I thought the whole idea was internet being an inalienable right that no one can take away from you?
How's this the major victory?
Who decides what "a prior fair and impartial procedure" is?
Now what happens if ACTA gets signed? According to yesterdays article, ACTA may be requiring some form of n-strikes law. Maybe this will prompt the european negotiators to remove the language from ACTA. Naaaaaa, that would be too sensible...
Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
What about setting up people to censor them? Disconnecting shouldn't even be an option. Internet access is to integral to ones communication and freedom of speech. And it can punish others who might not have offended (like other users of that computer). Stupid law and a big loss in my book.
In a word, no. I'd rather have a court determine who is or is not able to access the internet than an ISP or a copyright holder, but forced disconnection from the internet shouldn't be an option at all. If record companies or other copyright owners want to punish someone for illegally sharing content, there are civil remedies for that. They can sue for damages (and I mean actual damages, not ridiculously inflated damages).
This is not a great success. Instead, it appears to be the beginning of a failed policy. Let's hope that internet access is eventually considered to be a fundamental human right, because with our growing dependence on technology, it should be.
Facts have a liberal bias.
The urgency clause means that a computer can be disconnected if it is part of an ongoing DDoS attack.
RIAA Lawyer: But your honour, this person's use of bittorrent is slowing down our tracker but an infinitesimal amount. We need to shut it down.
Judge: No problem. Saves me the trouble of listening to more trials.
A plan by the European Parliament to restrict the power of national governments to disconnect illegal filesharers has been dumped to win agreement on new telecoms competition laws.
Long-running negotiations over the EU Telecoms Package were completed last night when MEPs agreed to drop amendments that would have made internet access a fundamental right.
After months of negotiations, the agreed package now demands only "appropriate, proportionate and necessary" measures can be taken to enforce copyright. There must be a possibility of judicial review for those disconnected, but not automatic court oversight.
If they have to have a hearing for each case, won't this seriously bog down the court system?
Will the industry then be limited to going after only the biggest offenders?
"However, the text only speaks of "a prior fair and impartial procedure" instead of a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, guaranteed by the original "amendment 138", and contains loopholes and ambiguities. The invalidation of freedom-killer measures such as "three strikes policies" will now depend on interpretation by the European Court of Justice and national courts. Moreover, the text only relates to measures taken by Member States and thereby fails to bar telecom operators and entertainment industries from knocking down the founding principle of Net neutrality."
Just wandering, are there any other comparable situations where this is done,
if I get busted 3 times for growing mariuana, do they cut off the electricity ? or water ?
The only thing I can think of is a driving licence, but in that case, lives can be in danger... so it's not really the same thing.
Well, thank you EU, good luck rest of world fighting this nonsense.
Exception Duck - may or may not contain chicken.
This compromise was reached with the votes of the Pirate Party member of the EU parliament, who touts it as "more than they had hoped for". He doesn't realize that they got nothing. Here's how three-strikes will be implemented: Have you ever gotten a speeding ticket? Did you pay without going to trial? Why? People will get a notification of copyright infringement, another one and a third one. Each comes with an explanation that they have the right to contest the notification. They will not contest it. After the third strike, their internet access will be cut off, and they will again have the guaranteed, irrevocable right to a fair trial before that happens. All it takes is for them to say "I didn't do it." But just like traffic violations, few will contest the charges and therefore it will be possible to actually do these trials. No more "they can't put us all in jail". The entertainment industry is only up against the few who dare to use their right to a fair trial. The rest gets the "just" punishment without so much as a hearing, and it will be perfectly in line with this "victory" for the civil liberties groups.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1720068211869162779#
Seriously, does anyone techy wait for programs they want to watch to be broadcasted in their country? Everyone techy (and more of the young are techy), at least that I know, watches what they want, when they want. Some old stuff I watch I don't think you can even legally get hold of! Streaming cuts it for some, but not myself as I like to watch in my media player of choice, streaming doesn't fit into my net use and I'm damned if I'll download it again to watch it again.
The fact that the European Council (Swede's take note, this includes our own infrastructure minister, from a party that officially claims to be supporting our rights but in practice has done the opposite) even argued for suspending the right to a fair trial indicates that there is something seriously wrong with the entire system. How can these people be allowed to reign free? We need to realize that the council consists of our own governments and hold them responsible for whatever the council does. The council is not a democratic institution, they conduct negotiations in secret, they advocate draconian measures, they frequently force the European Parliament, the only elected body of the EU, to bend down to it's will. We need to get rid of these people NOW! They are a very dangerous bunch of people.
Even with this wording, some, including many parliaments, will interpret the text as not requiring a court hearing, and implement it as such.
This is exactly what is going to happen.
I don't contest speeding tickets, because it is not cost effective for most minor offenses. In my country, one has to take a whole day off work to fight a ticket and it's cheaper to just pay the damn thing plus the insurance hit.
Losing my right to an internet connection has a value to me that is much higher than a day of work. I would be guaranteed to take the trial option, and I suspect most people feel similarly.
-
This is a win for intelligence agencies and other organizations who want to be able to inspect every packet. This decision has reduced the likelihood we will get real privacy by the development of encrypted anonymizing p2p systems.
Nah.
It's becoming apparent that copyright industries trump any rights organizations. You have the right to be made fun of in a juicy revue.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
They asked for everything including the kitchen sink.
They got everything except the kitchen sink, and you're trumpeting this as a success of rights?
This was the plan all along. Ask for everything settle for half. Except they got about 80% of what they wanted and they gave up nothing in exchange.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Don't treaties like ACTA trump national laws? Isn't that really the whole point of the evil that is ACTA?
I, on the other hand, think that most people would indeed be willing to fight an accusation that could take away their internet access for the rest of their lives.
In the UK, you can (or could, not sure if it's still true) often get off a speeding ticket because they won't bother chasing any more than six months old. There are a number of things you can do, such as request copies of the camera pictures and so on that take a good 9-12 months to complete before they take you to court and if you delay these as long as possible the system becomes so backlogged that they drop you and just go after people who will pay immediately. Maybe this kind of law will get the same treatment...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
To re-use your analogy, the 3rd offense is equivalent to having your driving license annulled. I'll bet most people are willing to contest the charges for *that*.
I hear your point, but I beg to differ.
1/ I understand the fair hearing clause is sufficient to invalidate the horrible HADOPI law in France. In fact, I suspect it was put in there specifically for this purpose. The Sarkozy government tried to make Internet access termination automatic by hammering it into the same simplified, no-hearing judiciary subsystem that handles traffic fines, and this clause explicitly disallows that.
2/ The clause of due respect for presumption of innocence means that the onus will be on the recording industry representative to prove that it was you who downloaded, so suing on the basis of the IP address alone may not be sufficient anymore. The HADOPI law tried to make the owner of the account associated with the IP automatically guilty for anything that happened on that IP. This may not fly anymore.
3/ If a standard judiciary procedure is required, then it means a judge will have to decide of your sentence fairly. Making Internet termination an option, not an obligation. And judges don't tend to apply the maximal sentence without good reason. That, and French judges aren't exactly fond of the Sarkozy government, as a whole.
Now, don't you worry, I'm pretty sure that the Sarkozy government will (once again) rewrite their broken law to be just about as bad as the EU will let them get away with. But this is still a step up from the current state of things.
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
If you read his blog (in swedish), you will know that he knows the fight isn't yet over, and that the compromise isn't the best possible solution.
But compare with what the Council of Ministers wanted before the compromise: They wanted to be able to cut off people from the net without any evidence of illegal activity, only accusations. Without any judicial intervention, and presuming that people are guilty until they prove their innocence (if possible).
This is the first major international political victory of the Pirate Party.
Now it is required that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is required that a juridical entity rules on the matter before people are punished by cutting them off the net.
We pirates may still be on the defence, but our defence works great.
Did you hear this in the pub?
In other words you're presumed guilty, and your internet cutoff immediately, without trial.
Why the hell do we Americans, Europeans, and Australians put-up with this bullshit? Why aren't we rising-up and terminating with extreme prejudice our governmental employees?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I think most people are missing the point. Yes, you'll obviously contest the one that denies you internet, but if you don't contest the two before it the system essentially becomes a one strike system with the two previous counts being used as evidence to make it seem more likely that you also committed the third offense.
Why aren't we rising-up and terminating with extreme prejudice our governmental employees?
We are. Haven't you seen the Pirate Parties gaining wind?
Remember: communication is a privilege, not a right. Commit slander, libel, or insider trading verbally? Lose your tongue and lips. Commit them via writing? Lose your hands. Is this where we're going?
GROUPAMA was caught in a software PIRACY case of $200m and has made an unofficial affidavit (claiming that it was not guilty) to divert Police investigators from the evidences officially collected one month ago at a different office.
In its affidavit, GROUPAMA argued that bank secrecy entitled it to limit the scope of Police investigations to a building that was not the place where evidences about the infraction were officially collected.
After the Police falsification of criminal records was discovered and denounced by the victim, GROUPAMA managed to have the General Prosecutor of Paris to state that Police was 'right' to remove the criminal file and focus only on the irrelevant information provided by GROUPAMA itself.
As a consequence, FINAMA and GROUPAMA have reported false information to the markets regarding their own accounts (where the fraud describbed below has never been reported).
This unfortunate event is more than likely to compromize the confidence ratings of French (bank and insurance) regulated markets on the proven basis that the numbers cannot be trusted.
It will also make it harder for EU States to pretend that leaving the law in the hands of national authorities is something that can be considered reliable.
All the details, including the General Prosecutor reply, the BEFTI investigation file and the unofficial affidavit cooked by GROUPAMA have been made publicly available:
http://remoteanything.com/archives/groupama.pdf
OTOH, in Poland they have a backlog of overdue payments for traffic tickets as long as 5 years, and they keep the queue progressing as if nothing happened, calling people to court for 5 years old traffic offenses.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Alas, the member state in the UK is listening to industry slave Voldemort, er, Mandelson on this one. Of course he'll also be out of a job in a few months, so it's not all bad.
I have every confidence in the entertainment industry finding a Tory to continue his efforts.
-- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as
In my country (Spain), everybody contests speeding tickets. It's done through lawyer groups who contest all your fines for between 50 and 250 per year.
More than 80% never pay (I swear you can find the real statistic on the web).
The power of the lawyers mainly consists in taking all the thousands upon thousands of fines and sending then simultaneously throught the slowest and most complex legal path.
You can even use this personally without being a lawyer. I just contested and won 18 different 90 fines. In that case, I was not right, I just contested it in a propper way.
From what I understand thats because EU don't have the right to mandate legislation except when it concerns internal free trade or the movement of goods and/or people.
The urgency clause means that a computer can be disconnected if it is part of an ongoing DDoS attack.
Or "That rule would never be used. It's only there for extreme emergencies. Don't worry!"
To which I answer with a quote:
“Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.”
cf: DMCA, Patriot Act, Prevention of Terrorism Act (UK), Enabling Act (Weimar Germany)...
— meringuoid (568297) @ 2005-11-24 16:40 (#14107454)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
The French will find someway to frack it up again - they always do.