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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
Three Strikes without due-process was one of the major faults of this bill, tho' comparatively still a minor "smokescreen" to the real issue. Three Strikes was leaked from the secret negotiations, to attract the bulk of protest and citizen lobbying while the real doozy was held in reserve; "global DMCA".
What's the status of those provisions? I wouldn't celebrate too soon.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
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.
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.
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.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
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.
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?