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."

Comments

Impartial?

[DinDaddy]

Who decides what "a prior fair and impartial procedure" is?

Re:Impartial?

[Smegly]

Hopefully, a Judge.

Re:Impartial?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who decides what "a prior fair and impartial procedure" is?

If you keep disagreeing with the judges: The European Court For Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Re:Impartial?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and all religious people are so crooked and twisted that they need to be screwed into their pants every morning.

Fixed it.

manipulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:manipulation?

[RAMMS EIN]

I really wonder how they think to go about cutting off someone's Internet access, too. I access the Internet through various networks, most of them not on my name. Most of these networks are used by multiple people. I am sure the situation is similar for many other people.

This raises two important questions:

1. How does one go about proving that a specific individual committed copyright infringement?

2. How does one cut off that person's Internet access, without cutting off various networks that are used by a lot of people beside that individual?

Of course, they might just disconnect every network that is found to be infringing ... but then they can pretty much just shut down the entire Internet right away. I don't think that's really the intent of this directive, but even if it is, I guarantee you that it's not going to fly.

a "great success?"

[grahamsaa]

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.

Re:a "great success?"

[causality]

This is not a great success. Instead, it appears to be the beginning of a failed policy.

If the intention is to assert further unreasonable power over a population that isn't likely to do anything about it, then all policies fitting that description (Internet-related or not) have been a resounding success. They're more successful still when each generation grows up conditioned to it because it's "just the way things are" with little appreciation for how they came to be that way. Then it's so much easier to add just a tiny extra restriction here and there, which doesn't seem so bad at the time, except that anyone who takes a long view would quickly realize that over time these things add up to a tremendous transfer of power away from the people.

It's only a failure if reasonable honest government that truly represents the people was ever the goal.

Electricity

[Exception Duck]

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.

Re:Electricity

[spun]

You can get water from a stream, collect if from your roof, or buy it in little plastic bottles. You can heat your home by burning wood. You don't need piped water or electricity any more or less than you need the Internet. They are all luxuries. However, piped water and electricity have become so ubiquitous, and so important for normal everyday tasks that they aren't really considered luxuries, they are considered basic necessities. Some people consider the Internet in the same light. That is the view the gp was basing his argument on.

You haven't refuted it. All you've done is to essentially state, "I consider water and electricity to be necessities, but not the Internet." Which is fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but you haven't really shown why water and electricity piped from a central utility are necessities, and you certainly haven't shown that the Internet isn't, so all you have done is presented your own opinion unsupported by any facts.

Re:Electricity

[spun]

You are different from other people. For instance, some people live off the grid and do not have municipal electricity or water. Their lives would not change at all without these things, as they don't have them to begin with.

Some people, such as software developers or website owners, depend on the Internet as much as you depend on municipal utilities. More so, in fact, because you have options. You can heat your house by burning wood, or using propane delivered by truck. You can dig a well for water. There is no alternative to the Internet.

You may think people who use the Internet 'have no life,' as you said, but some people actually use the Internet for their livelihood. It is their life and you have no standing to judge them.

In 'this century' (It's the twenty first century! did you know that?) some people depend on the Internet as much as people in the last century depended on municipal electricity and water. They depend on the Internet for their 'current mode of life.'

Now, in order to prove you are more than just an angry prick who has just had his ass handed to him in a debate, perhaps you could back up your ad hominems? How am I 'overly optimistic?' How, exactly, is my argument 'baseless' or 'hypothetical?'

Well played. The noobs think they got something.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

European Council

[SwedishPenguin]

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.

Re:ACTA

[Conchobair]

Or this might be why they are not pushing harder for the strikes rule. It's coming soon anyways.

Re:Court System Strain

[MozeeToby]

If they have to have a hearing for each case, won't this seriously bog down the court system?

Tough tooties. If 90% of your population is criminalized as a result of legislation you pass, perhaps you should reconsider that legislation? But that isn't what will happen. The people this law was written for (the content holders) will kick and scream until the government agrees to 'streamline' the process. And we'll be right back to DMCA or 3 strikes style laws.

Re:Well played. The noobs think they got something

[davegravy]

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.

Re:ACTA

[Exception Duck]

I don't think ACTA will trump European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom.

Basic premise in the EU is Human Rights>Corporations which is not always the case but hopefully this time.

This is not a victory

[tkrotchko]

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.

Re:No great victory

[Dragonslicer]

I thought the whole idea was internet being an inalienable right that no one can take away from you?

So is freedom, but the government can still imprison you if you violate the law. The problem wasn't that you could have your Internet connection cut, but that it could happen completely outside the regular justice system and contrary to the principles of the justice system, especially presumption of innocence.

Communication is a privilege, not a right

[mykos]

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?