Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Telecom Deal Finished — No Three Strikes

Posted by Soulskill on from the infield-fly-rule-still-applies-though dept.

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."

7 of 109 comments (clear)

  1. a "great success?" by grahamsaa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:a "great success?" by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  2. Re:ACTA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

    From the article,

    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. and The right to an effective and timely judicial review shall be guaranteed.

    I think this pretty much makes ACTA, as we know it (and you have to keep in mind that no-one around here knows the exact text of the treaty) invalid and impossible to sign if it has the rumored provisions.

  3. Re:Impartial? by zmollusc · · Score: 5, Funny

    According to my law guidebook "a prior fair and impartial procedure" involves an adversarial legal setup with two legal teams. Each team drains its client's bank account as fast as money transfer technology makes possible and the first client to go bankrupt loses the case.

    --
    They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
  4. Well played. The noobs think they got something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Well played. The noobs think they got something by davegravy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. This is not a victory by tkrotchko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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