Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

EU Rejects Law To Cut Pirates Off From Their ISP

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the leave-me-tubes-alone,-arrrr dept.

Networking 210

MJackson writes "Europe has rejected plans to allow ISPs to disconnect users suspected of involvement with illegal file-sharing. In its final vote, the European Parliament chose to retain amendment 46 (138) of the new Telecoms Package by a majority of 407 to 57. Amendment 46 states that restrictions to the fundamental rights and freedoms of Internet users can only be put in place after a decision by judicial authorities. However, network neutrality remains unprotected."

cancel ×

210 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

illegal file-sharing? (5, Informative)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | more than 5 years ago | (#27861755)

As far as I'm aware it's not "illegal" to share files. It may breach someone's copyright, but it's not "illegal".

Re:illegal file-sharing? (1)

think_nix (1467471) | more than 5 years ago | (#27861769)

Hiss the flag Mates !!!!!

Re:illegal file-sharing? (4, Insightful)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#27861841)

You can violate civil OR criminal law, of which both violations would be considered "illegal."

Re:illegal file-sharing? (5, Insightful)

andymadigan (792996) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863057)

There's no such thing as violating civil law. Copyright Law gives the copyright holder the right to sue if someone uses their copyrighted work without permission. It does not state that the act of using a work without permission is in itself a violation.

Civil Law is always stated to give a right to someone, not to deny it to another. The effect of the law may of course be to restrict a right.

Thus, in the absence of a criminal statute, it is disingenuous to say that copyright infringement is "illegal", let alone the mere act of providing a third party access to an electronic file.

Re:illegal file-sharing? (2, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863257)

So my friend, what do you call it when you fail to abide by "Civil NotReallyLaw?"

Illnotreallyegal?

Re:illegal file-sharing? (5, Insightful)

andymadigan (792996) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863417)

The only way you can "fail to abide" by civil law is to file an improper claim, in which case the claim would be rejected by the court. At least, that's the closest I can imagine to "breaking" civil law.

Perhaps you could sue over a copyright you don't really have, in which case the defendant might have the right to countersue. But even then you haven't actually broken a law, you merely created a situation in which the other person has the right to sue you.

Re:illegal file-sharing? (2, Insightful)

navyjeff (900138) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863423)

You don't have to break any civil laws to get sued for divorce, either.

Re:illegal file-sharing? (5, Insightful)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 5 years ago | (#27861849)

Copyright is abused left, right, front and back. It's time for reform - there's no reason why it should be legal to the extent that it's currently standard.

Re:illegal file-sharing? (5, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862329)

Copyright is abused left, right, front and back. It's time for reform - there's no reason why it should be legal to the extent that it's currently standard.

Speed limits are abused left, right, front and back. It's time for reform - there's no reason why they should be legal to the extent that it's currently standard.

Drug prohibitions are abused left, right, front and back. It's time for reform - there's no reason why they should be legal to the extent that it's currently standard.

Your new to the concept of "laws", aren't you?

Re:illegal file-sharing? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27862809)

Laws that people refuse to abide by need to be reconsidered.

Re:illegal file-sharing? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27863723)

Many people commit fraud, so it needs to be reconsidered whether fraud should be illegal.

Many people commit murder, so it needs to be reconsidered whether murder should be illegal. ...

You repeat the typical slashdot answer like the good little mindless drone that you are.

You don't like a law, get into politics and try to get enough votes to change it.
You don't simply break it and say "but the others do it too so it's alright"

Re:illegal file-sharing? (5, Insightful)

mmaniaci (1200061) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862941)

Speed enforcement does need to be reformed. Officers seem to only give tickets as an incentive to keep their jobs. Its not about safety, its about making the quota to satisfy "the higher ups."

Drug prohibition is as dumb as alcohol prohibition (its the same thing, alcohol is a drug). All it does is make criminals out of ordinary citizens and promote organized crime by creating its largest market.

You may understand the concept of "law," but you have no understanding of "justice."

Mod parent up (1)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863183)

Speed enforcement does need to be reformed. Officers seem to only give tickets as an incentive to keep their jobs. Its not about safety, its about making the quota to satisfy "the higher ups."

Damn right. In fact, the majority of the time when a speeding ticket is handed out, the distraction of the police car at the side of the road is more of a safety hazard than the speeding driver was.

And could not agree more with the rest of what you posted as well.

Re:illegal file-sharing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27863215)

"you're" gets abused left, right, front and back...

ok, sorry, I'll go back to my den now.

Re:illegal file-sharing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27863237)

Copyright is abused left, right, front and back. It's time for reform - there's no reason why it should be legal to the extent that it's currently standard.

Speed limits are abused left, right, front and back. It's time for reform - there's no reason why they should be legal to the extent that it's currently standard.

Drug prohibitions are abused left, right, front and back. It's time for reform - there's no reason why they should be legal to the extent that it's currently standard.

Hah, I find this funny because I think it is correct in almost all points.

Areas with high rates of speeding citations need to be reviewed.

Not exactly making a convincing argument are you? (2, Informative)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863329)

In holland, speed limits HAVE been re-adjusted several times. Raised to 120 a while ago, and then adjusted again to suit local circumstances.

Drugs laws? Well they to have changed as the times have changed.

Your argument, it is made of fail and lose.

Re:Not exactly making a convincing argument are yo (3, Interesting)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863607)

In many ways, the Netherlands is a very enlightened country. Unfortunately, I live in the good ol' USA, where traffic regulations are frequently (but not always) regarded as a revenue source, not a means for promoting safety. For example, the small town of North Plains, Oregon, has the luck that highway 26 (a freeway) runs through a corner of their city limits, so they frequently post one of their half dozen police on the freeway with a radar gun, clocking every car on the freeway as they enter city limits. They then chase everyone going a few mph over the limit, and usually pull them over outside of city limits. Contest you ticket, and you get to deal with a retired judge presiding in the town recreation center who has already decided you are guilty (literally; I asked if I could check the statute cited, and he said he didn't need to bring a copy of the statues to court because he had already reviewed by case and decided I was guilty) and simply rubberstamps whatever the police said. They claim they do this for the "safety of their town residents" but it is obvious that the majority of funding for their police department comes directly from fines issued to motorists on the freeway.

Re:illegal file-sharing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27863717)

Except that I could make legitimate arguments that both speed limits and drug prohibition laws need to be reviewed.

Reviewed != abolishe

When did we decide law was so absolute it should never be subject to scrutiny?

Re:illegal file-sharing? (1)

austin987 (1233720) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863809)

Your new to the concept of "laws", aren't you?

You're new to the concept of English, aren't you?

Re:illegal file-sharing? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863901)

No, just new to the concept of proofreading. My typing rate is 50 WPM, which I suspect is slightly faster than my thinking rate.

Re:illegal file-sharing? (5, Insightful)

DirtyCanuck (1529753) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862333)

Seriously, I think quite the opposite. When the companies Mute peoples personal videos on youtube because they play copyrighted music. Or sue a 12 yr old for downloading mp3's. Up here in Canada I have been paying tax on CDR's despite not using them for actual music in probably 3 years. And then there is the extension of copyrighted material into infinite it seems.

Here is my take on it. If somebody is simply downloading or using copyrighted material for personal consumption then it should not be grounds for criminal action nor should it warrant the disconnection of what is considered a vital utility. On the other hand if you are PROFITING directly from distribution and SALE(Pirate Bay did neither) of copyrighted material then yes, you should be prosecuted, as you are stealing stem cells from the mouths of the starving media industry.

How can Sony honestly cry foul after installing DRM onto my machine without first acknowledging me? I think installing remote software on a machines is FAR more illegal then redistributing sound. I think this alienation of the people that actually fund these companies is only going to lead to more people going out of their way to ensure not a cent ever makes it back to the media companies in retaliation for the lies and broken homes caused by this futile war on progress.

Re:illegal file-sharing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27862859)

Why when a large corp. infringes on another large corps. patents it is a civil case but when an individual on a copyright it becomes a breach of national security requiring the homeland security's intervention?
This sounds like a typical case of all the justice you can afford.

Re:illegal file-sharing? (0, Flamebait)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862089)

You are a Commie and a Pirate!! /sarcasm off

Re:illegal file-sharing? (1)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862139)

Well what does illegal mean in the context of the EU?

Re:illegal file-sharing? (2, Insightful)

robthebloke (1308483) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862249)

quite right. piracy is not theft [questioncopyright.org]

Re:illegal file-sharing? (2, Funny)

cheftw (996831) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862581)

I found this quite ironic when I went to see if they had any other images like that http://questioncopyright.org/cm/images/ [questioncopyright.org]

Re:illegal file-sharing? (2, Insightful)

xouumalperxe (815707) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862255)

It's illegal because it's against the law. What it isn't is criminal.

Re:illegal file-sharing? (5, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862761)

It's illegal because it's against the law. What it isn't is criminal.

Unless you hit one of criminal copyright infringement laws. For example, all the people sharing Wolverine before the release date (USC 17506(a)(1)(C) if you wanna look it up). Or everyone distributing more than 1000$ retail value in less than six months, which is easily achieved just by sharing the Adobe CS4 Master Collection once - that's the (B) section. I think if you had perfect knowledge of all file sharing quite a few people would reach criminal standards under current copyright law...

Re:illegal file-sharing? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862343)

Sorry, but how on earth is that (+5, Informative)? Your "awareness" is absolutely, objectively incorrect, and as far as I'm aware, this is true in every nation of the EU.

Copyright infringement is not the same in law as theft, and it is often dealt with by civil rather than criminal law, but it is still against the law. Moreover, even that is not absolute and universal: since the EU Copyright Directive and related laws, many European nations can treat large-scale, commercial copyright infringement a criminal matter, for example.

Re:illegal file-sharing? (2, Insightful)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862933)

This is a rather odd distinction - in most countries copyright infringement is illegal.

Perhaps what you meant is that it's not criminal to share files. Note this is different from illegal: it means it violates criminal law, not civil law; illegal means it violates any law.

Re:illegal file-sharing? (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863333)

Additionally, how do they connect to their ISPs? Via Satellite? Because you know... landline is not available on the high seas [tumblr.com] .

And if you defend the new "definition" that the **AA fed you, then in my book, you are collaborators. Calling us murderers who steal shit on the high seas, just because we did not buy their crap, is insulting.

Re:illegal file-sharing? (1)

mjeffers (61490) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863919)

For electronic and audio-visual media, unauthorized reproduction and distribution is occasionally referred to as piracy (an early reference was made by Daniel Defoe in 1703 when he said of his novel True-born Englishman : "Its being Printed again and again, by Pyrates"[2]). The practice of labeling the act of infringement as "piracy" actually predates copyright itself. Even prior to the 1709 enactment of the Statute of Anne, generally recognized as the first copyright law, the Stationers' Company of London in 1557 received a Royal Charter giving the company a monopoly on publication and tasking it with enforcing the charter. Those who violated the charter were labeled pirates as early as 1603.[3]

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement [wikipedia.org]

That picture is really cute but historically wrong. Piracy existed as a way of describing illegal copying well before the concept of copyright. Go ahead and call me a collaborator but you're the one who's redefining terms to fit your political agenda.

Time to work it into "ACTA" (5, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27861777)

They'll just drop this stinkburger provision into page 923 of the ACTA treaty and ram it down their throats anyway.

Confused notion of "rights" (1, Insightful)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 5 years ago | (#27861779)

There is no "right" to internet access, and any such attempt at asserting such a right must invariably violate actual individual rights - life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness. Likewise, the only proper role of government is to uphold and protect these rights through the courts, police, and military. The government should not be providing internet access.

Re:Confused notion of "rights" (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#27861835)

Hold it right there, constitution-boy, there ain't no such thing in Europe.

Just because you have the right of "pursuit of happiness" doesn't mean it's general. And neither is the lack of other rights. Besides, "rights" is not trademark to the likewise named declaration thereof.

Re:Confused notion of "rights" (5, Insightful)

Burkin (1534829) | more than 5 years ago | (#27861863)

There is no "right" to internet access, and any such attempt at asserting such a right must invariably violate actual individual rights - life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness.

It's amusing to hear someone say that [arbitrary thing] is not a right but [insert list of other arbitrary things] are rights without any actual reasoning for saying so. Other than through agreement from the people being governed there is not some objective standard that says that something is a right or not.

Likewise, the only proper role of government is to uphold and protect these rights through the courts, police, and military.

Why can't they protect these rights through legislation?

The government should not be providing internet access.

Why not? If they can provide it better and cheaper then they should very much do so.

Re:Confused notion of "rights" (4, Funny)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862263)

Why not? If they can provide it better and cheaper then they should very much do so.

Because that would be socialism and, as everyone knows, socialism is bad because socialism is bad, as well as being not good, also.

Re:Confused notion of "rights" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27863113)

Socialism isn't bad. IMHO it's the perfect social-economic model. The problem with socialism is that it requires perfect people to work. I only know of one guy who has ever met that requirement. Kinda hard to have a society with just one guy. Thus we have to adapt to human imperfection and our social-economic model has to be adapted as well. A socialist-republic-dictatorship perhaps?

Re:Confused notion of "rights" (0, Troll)

Tdawgless (1000974) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862303)

What about people who don't want Internet access? When the government provides something, everyone pays.

Re:Confused notion of "rights" (1)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862421)

What about those who don't want power, or water, or telephones?

Re:Confused notion of "rights" (1)

Burkin (1534829) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862513)

What about people who don't want Internet access?

Then they don't have to buy the service. It can be run like that Greenlight, Inc company that is entirely funded through it's subscriptions and not by cross-subsidizing.

When the government provides something, everyone pays.

Which is a good thing in many cases. I'd prefer my property to not have the potential to catch on fire and burn down because the person next to me didn't want to buy the services of the fire department.

Re:Confused notion of "rights" (1)

DirtyCanuck (1529753) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863463)

What about prohibition? When the government provides something everyone pays, in drug war budgets, prisoners, and lies lies lies.

Don't get me started on foreign wars.....

*The Team America Theme has been removed due to copyright infringement*

Re:Confused notion of "rights" (4, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862841)

without any actual reasoning for saying so.

I would have thought that the concept of "natural rights" didn't need any reasoning in the context of a forum post... it's a pretty old conversation.

But that aside, a right cannot be granted by a government - only taken away. In the complete absences of government, you still have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Notice that brian0918 snuck "property" in there, a la John Locke. That's very debatable... I think you could have a communal society that still preserves the natural rights.

If they can provide it better and cheaper then they should very much do so.

I agree that it is a legitimate function of government to provide services, but it shouldn't be confused with having a "right".

Re:Confused notion of "rights" (2, Interesting)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862873)

arbitrary

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Other than through agreement from the people being governed there is not some objective standard that says that something is a right or not.

Quite simple. First you identify human nature - unlike with plants and animals, man's values and goals don't come automatically. Man must think to survive - he must using his reasoning mind to integrate sensory data into concepts and abstract higher concepts from that. So if you choose to live, you *should* use reason to survive. That's the basis of ethics. Ethics applied in the social setting reveals individual rights. If you should use your mind to survive, then you should be free to do so. Your right to your life is primary, and the social application of that is in the right to property - the right to do with the product of your mind as you please. You have values and goals, like any living thing, and therefore should be free to achieve those goals - rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Other than through agreement from the people being governed there is not some objective standard that says that something is a right or not.

This is the notion of Contractarianism, to which I have the simple response: if the contract is the fundamental, why should I follow the contract? Clearly there must be something more fundamental if you can't simply get me, a person who chooses to live and further his values, to take your contract on faith. What you have done is demand reasons for my arguments, while supplanting faith as the reason for your arguments.

Why can't they protect these rights through legislation?

Legislation doesn't protect rights. Legislation sets the laws that are protected and upholded by courts and police/military.

Why not?

See the second sentence of my original post. A "right" that violates another right is a non-right.

If they can provide it better and cheaper then they should very much do so.

This is the idea of "the ends justify the means" - that if something is more convenient, go for it, regardless of the people and rights violated along the way. See above for why that should not be pursued.

Re:Confused notion of "rights" (1)

he-sk (103163) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863391)

Your right to your life is primary, and the social application of that is in the right to property - the right to do with the product of your mind as you please.

I really don't see how the right to property follows from the right to life. Especially with the concept of private property ever expanding (real estate, intellectual property, business property, ...).

Legislation doesn't protect rights. Legislation sets the laws that are protected and upholded by courts and police/military.

That doesn't make much sense to me either. First of all, the US constitution is a legislative act. What is the purpose of the Bill of Rights if not to protect individual's rights by stating the limits of government action? Secondly, I know the Miranda rights were established by SCOTUS, but they could just as easily have been established by Congress. Would they any less protect the right against self-incriminization? These are just two counter-examples to your assertion.

Some counterpoints (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863653)

Why can't [government] protect these rights through legislation?

Because a law book won't actually do anything about the burglar who repeatedly trespasses my apartment and steals my stuff.

Addressing the real issues: in most western societies I know about, the trinity of the legislative, executive and judiciary branches of government protect the citizens' rights by working together.

I believe it's fair to say that your parent pointed out that the police (executive) and the courts are the branches that actually do something about it.

Re:Confused notion of "rights" (0, Troll)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#27861881)

Rights are whatever those with the power to decide, decide they are.
Also TFA isn't about socialised internet access.

Re:Confused notion of "rights" (4, Insightful)

Repossessed (1117929) | more than 5 years ago | (#27861989)

Life Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness were dropped for free speech, habeas corpus, and guns, at least in the country you seem to be working from; you're a bit out of date here.

And the 'right' to internet access fall under free speech (and is the only kind of free speech most people can afford). The right not to have it taken away by wild accusations of civil offenses falls under habeas corpus.

Re:Confused notion of "rights" (1, Insightful)

N1AK (864906) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862755)

And the 'right' to internet access fall under free speech (and is the only kind of free speech most people can afford).

No. Internet access is no more a 'right' than international phone call access is. The internet is a tool for sending and receiving information, free speech protects what you say, not access to tools with which to say it. The fact that you can open your mouth and form words without risk of your government persecuting you is free speech, the fact that no one hears you is not.

Re:Confused notion of "rights" (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27863153)

And the 'right' to internet access fall under free speech (and is the only kind of free speech most people can afford).

No. Internet access is no more a 'right' than international phone call access is. The internet is a tool for sending and receiving information, free speech protects what you say, not access to tools with which to say it. The fact that you can open your mouth and form words without risk of your government persecuting you is free speech, the fact that no one hears you is not.

What about freedom of press? Should it be legal to print whatever you want, but not to own a printing press?

Replace "Internet access" with "postal system" in the posts above, if you still believe that there's a hard separation between the freedom of speech and the tools used to propagate your views.

Re:Confused notion of "rights" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27863721)

The fact that you can open your mouth and form words without risk of your government persecuting you is free speech, the fact that no one hears you is not.

If this were true than it is an entirely useless "right." Almost no government I'm aware of gives a flying fuck what some dirt farmer in the boonies is saying. They only care, specifically care enough to infringe free speech, when said speech is being heard.

To clarify:
You do not have a right to being heard.(Can't demand with force of law that you are listened to.)
You do have a right to speak in the public forum, whatever form that forum may take. The forum has taken many forms over the years, from printing presses(which, while you are not guaranteed access to, you cannot be barred from by government, at least in these united states,) to town hall meetings, to posting bills.

To further Clarify: All of this is moot of course because people here only know the first half of the first amendment. Its the second half thats REALLY important. Few if any people really take advantage of it or even understand it. I.E. the petition for the redress of grievances. We have long since lost this right as the people deciding whether my rights were violates are the same people violating my rights.

Re:Confused notion of "rights" (3, Informative)

Nick Ives (317) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862133)

There is no "right" to internet access

Er...

restrictions to the fundamental rights and freedoms of Internet users can only be put in place after a decision by judicial authorities.

Fail at reading comprehension much?

Nope. (1)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863011)

Nope, no fail. What are you even talking about??? The quote asserts a "fundamental right" of Internet users - ie, a right to use other peoples' property (the ISP's). That must violate the actual right to property.

Fail at abstraction?

Re:Confused notion of "rights" (4, Insightful)

vertinox (846076) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862143)

I'm pretty sure that internet access is protected by the 1st amendment in Fredoom of Speech and of the press.

If the government came in and banned you from using the internet, in effect they are preventing you from voicing your dissent and your ability to post on websites that is protected by the first amendment.

Arguably, (and I'm not sure where you got this idea) this is not about the government giving everyone free internet access but rather making a law that can kick people off the internet even if it is through a private company.

I mean you could in theory, make it so that the person could send only but not download anything, but the whole point of the internet was two way communication.

What good is it if you can only send emails and not read them?

Of course it wouldn't really work like that because you'd have to send an outgoing request to your email server to pull them in the first place.

Either way, the Government of any nation should not determine by law who is and who is not allowed to use the internet for that tramples over the whole point of freedom of speech and press.

Re:Confused notion of "rights" (4, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862225)

There is no "right" to internet access

but there is a right to free expression and a right to live life on an equal playing field.

Removing internet access abrogates both these rights.

Go looking for a job today that doesn't involve a hat and nametag, and see how far you get with their personnel office before they tell you to "use the damn website".

Re:Confused notion of "rights" (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862239)

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" [wikipedia.org] [not property] is a purely American construction, found in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. This is Europe; the closest they would have is "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" [wikipedia.org]

Re:Confused notion of "rights" (3, Informative)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862789)

The EU human rights act has a number of fundamental rights built into it. Of course being the EU it isn't anywhere near as succinct as the earlier documents such as the US constitution.

Life, Liberty and the pursit of Happiness would be written as,

"Article 2, Article 6, and the pursuit of Article 9" (there's no reference to happiness in the HRA, but "Right to marry and right to found a family" is close enough).

source: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf [europa.eu]

Re:Confused notion of "rights" (3, Informative)

ponos (122721) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862359)

This does not mean that a government has to provide internet access. It implies the inverse: that a government (see for example, French "HADOPI" law) or third party cannot terminate your internet access on the suspicion that you are infringing copyright, without legal recourse and due process. Seems quite reasonable...

Re:Confused notion of "rights" (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862467)

I think you're the one twisting words here. "Freedom of the press" does not mean I can go to a publisher and demand my book be printed, but if the government forbade me publishing a book it'd be a violation of my rights. The right to internet access does not mean I can go to an ISP and demand service, but if the government forbade me using the Internet it'd be violation of my rights. Actually, if you don't thinking silencing blogs and discussion forums like the one you're posting to right now would be a violation of the first amendment, you should not be let near a discussion on fundamental rights.

Hilarious. (0)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863059)

We're talking about private entities cutting off users of their services, not about the government doing so. Obviously I'm against the latter. Yeesh...

Re:Hilarious. (3, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863665)

We're talking about private entities cutting off users of their services, not about the government doing so. Obviously I'm against the latter. Yeesh...

So you're not stupid, just blissfully ignorant. Great. Let me give you the brief summary of the French HADOPI law which is the reason this is a hot EU topic: The french MAFIAA accuse you of copyright infringement. Guilty until proven innocent. Three strikes, then the ISP is instructed by the government to cut you off. The ISP never needed a law, they have their terms of service which contains a million reason to terminate service including none at all.

Re:Hilarious. (3, Informative)

schon (31600) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863761)

We're talking about private entities cutting off users of their services, not about the government doing so.

So if the government tells an ISP to cut someone off (by passing one of those, you know, law thingies), and the ISP does it (because it's the law), then you're claiming that it's not really the government doing it?

What colour is the sky in your world?

Re:Confused notion of "rights" (1)

pmontra (738736) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862483)

I feel that accessing the Internet is one of the things that allow me to pursue my right to liberty and happiness. It's no different than access to air and water. If governments want to give free Internet access to the people of the world I won't oppose that. Just allow me to chose a different ISP if I like so.

Re:Confused notion of "rights" (1)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862541)

Reality Talk [newintellectuals.org]

newintellectuals.org, like oldintellectuals.org but now with less intellect.

Re:Confused notion of "rights" (4, Interesting)

Tom (822) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862617)

There is no "right" to internet access

Welcome to the 21st century, glad you could finally make it.

You see, the list of "rights" has changed a lot during the history of mankind. A thousand years ago, "freedom" wasn't on it, nowadays we could not imagine doing without. The "pursuit of happiness" would've sounded like a load of hogwash to most early middle ages peasants, who had a whole load of more pressing matters on their hands, like not starving or how to explain the noble lord that ius primae noctis meant only the first night, no matter how beautiful your new wife is.

So, with the realization that in modern life there's a whole lot you simply can't do very well without Internet, especially now that government have begun to put a lot of their citizen information and public services online as well (and reduced their physical presence to save costs), we've put Internet access on that list. More or less, depending on your country. In most of Europe, for example, you already do have a right of "informational freedom", which guarantees your free access to information such as newspapers, libraries and the Internet.

Re:Confused notion of "rights" (1)

just fiddling around (636818) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862647)

Free speech?
Freedom of the press?

See, Internet access is a tool to exert these rights.

Anyway, your list of basic rights is truncated, check your database logs to find who did it.

Elections upcoming (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#27861787)

Don't think this is off the table yet. Wait 'til the elections are over.

An American Concept (2, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#27861799)

Innocent Until proven guilty. Granted it doesn't always work properly and it sometimes lets the bad guys go Scott free. But it really is a good idea. As it is better for the Bad Guys to go free then the Good guys to be locked up. Also this could lead to abuse say for this case you are just using a lot of bandwidth legally, They could kick you off and say you were probably pirating just so they don't need to improve their infrastructure.

Re:An American Concept (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27862099)

...like in Guantanamo ?

Re:An American Concept (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27862261)

"Innocent until proven guilty" is not an American concept. America's legal system was derived wholesale from the British legal system. The criminal burden of proof was established long before America was even its own country.

Re:An American Concept (2, Informative)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862677)

American legal scholars, at least, claim that presumption of innocence was an established concept in ancient Rome, ancient Greece, and in the Old Testament (in addition to its present in England).

America was its own country, long before it was in (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863377)

America was its own country, long before it was invaded by europeans. History, those who do not know it somehow keep on repeating it.

A Controversial Concept (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27862295)

The counterargument goes, "if it prevents a single criminal from committing another crime then it's worth it." This is the standard tough-on-crime position we see in politics a lot. It is what led us down the road of torture and extraordinary rendition.

Re:An American Concept (1)

Yokaze (70883) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863205)

Actually, a Greek/Roman concept. First codified after the Middle Ages in 1789, France. In the US, it took a case before the Supreme Court [wikipedia.org] to establish that principle. In 1895.

I hope, I don't have to clarify, that this principle is also enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights.

This is news, because it reiterates that, because some country already named here in a totally opposite direction ignored that.

It's called due process (-1, Flamebait)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#27861805)

Americans, like me, have this concept of due process enshrined in our Constitution.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/ [findlaw.com]

Watching the EU try to stumble its way into the 19th century is amusing, but also disheartening. These are the same people who gave us the Magna Carta. However, I do admit the possibility that all the smart people migrated to the U.S. and left the authoritarians in the Old World.

Re:It's called due process (-1, Flamebait)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#27861971)

However, I do admit the possibility that all the smart people will migrate to Europe and leave the authoritarians in America.

Fixed that for 'ya. Give it a few years, you'll see. Funny how history repeats itself!

Re:It's called due process (4, Informative)

pmontra (738736) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862097)

It's not only an American thing. We've got the same in Italy, Europe. Check Article 27 at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Italy [wikisource.org]

The defendant is not considered guilty until final judgment is passed.

I expect every democratic county to have the same statement in its constitutional chart even if governments (US included) sometimes find ways to work around those principles.

Re:It's called due process (1)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862353)

I expect every democratic county

Well, I live in the County of Lincolnshire, we've got an original copy of the Magna Carta, but no constitutional chart. What should I do?

Re:It's called due process (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27862497)

Go and cry at the base of Boston Stump.

Re:It's called due process (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27862167)

Not another person banging on about Magna Carta. MC simply gave the barons a right to challenge the authority of the king, a damn good step in the right direction I'll grant you, but the peasants and middling-sort were still pretty much screwed until the plague more or less wiped half the work force of England off the map! It allowed the surfs to finally tell their landlords to get stuffed and get decent conditions and pay.

MC was an important step towards the ideas of democracy, but it wasn't until people like Thomas Payne finally started to lay ideas down that later formed the US constitution, that democracy and all it's attendant "interests", started to look like something that people could finally attain.

EU Rejects Law To Cut "Pirates Off From Their ISP (1)

Tei (520358) | more than 5 years ago | (#27861821)

Alternate title:

"EU return back to re-send a law to spy users communications, and let the ISP ban users based on his habits"

Amendmant 138 adopted (4, Informative)

think_nix (1467471) | more than 5 years ago | (#27861823)

On another note:

"Amendment 138 adopted: internet access is a fundamental right "

http://www.blackouteurope.eu/ [blackouteurope.eu]

Wait a minute... (1, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#27861999)

The Somali pirates have web sites now?!?

Re:Wait a minute... (2, Funny)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862221)

Don't think so, but at least they can safely use the net now.

Yarrr!!!

why was this even on the table? (2, Insightful)

DeskLazer (699263) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862009)

Where's the "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense" tag when you need it? Just because they THINK someone is committing a crime doesn't mean they have the evidence. This should've been a no-brainer from the start.

Cut Pirates Off From Their ISP (2, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862073)

Sigh. "Copyright infringement != Piracy", but I guess this just won't die, so here goes...
Arrrr matey! ... <NO CARRIER>

Re:Cut Pirates Off From Their ISP (4, Funny)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862355)

You mean this isn't about preventing pirates from coordinating their attacks via twitter?

conditional expression evaluates to false (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27862545)

no, Copyright infringement = Piracy.

why should it die? You, your parents, your grandparents, your great-grandparents, and several -generations- of your family before hadn't even been BORN by the time 'pirate' was used to describe those committing copyright infringement.

Also... you probably meant to write: "Copyright infringement = !Piracy"

Arrrrgh Pirates (0)

old7 (564621) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862173)

My first thought was 'how are they going to cut off the Somali pirate's Internet connection from Europe,' then I remembered this is Slashdot, where not all pirates are real pirates.

Wow, Somali pirates share files (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27862435)

Hijacking boats is one thing, but now the Somali pirates have the nerve to share files? Time for some more special ops.

They don't understand what a terrible crime sharing files is. In the US, sharing files can get you a $500,000 fine and 5 years in prison. Compare that for the penalty for robbing a liquor store. There is good reason why file sharing has such a penalty. The media industry is a $4-trillion industry. With file sharing that industry increases to $5 trillion. That's a difference of $1 trillion dollar. The actual loss or gain is not important. The important thing is that it is great deal of money, and it is important that the right people control that money. Also, someone needs to control the flow of information. Right now there is already too much information on the "internet". Does there really need to be more information available?

Re:Wow, Somali pirates share files (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862705)

aww, I can't believe you posted that AC. That should have been owned up to. Completely awesome satire.

i cant be the only one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27862447)

who read this and thought that the EU was debating the isp rights of somali pirates.

and here I thought this was about Somalia (1, Insightful)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862455)

It really does drive home how stupid it is to call copyright infringers "pirates" when we have real pirates on the high seas.

What use would it be? (1)

iris-n (1276146) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862465)

Yes, some action has to be taken against piracy. It has gotten to a point where no nation in the world is capable of enforcing their laws.

There were some pirates that were caugh, most notably by the US, but they are very few comparing to the whole, and piracy is just growing. And to try them... it's just useless. The laws aren't adequate, jurisdiction is confused, a mess.

We need some serious legislative action. But what do we see? France comes with a baseball law. Why??? Although I don't defend pirates' access to the internet, I fail to see the connection. They use mostly radio signals to locate their victims.

Now EU has come and said that internet is a fundamental right. I agree wholeheartdly. It's hard to see how a modern persion would function economically without teh tubes. But it worries me that they are trying to become the US, in this very bad habit of overstepping its jurisdiction. Why the hell would the EU have a say in Somalia?

How do they get Internet service anyway (1, Interesting)

The Cisco Kid (31490) | more than 5 years ago | (#27862725)

I wasn't aware there were any ISP's that offered service in the middle of the Indian Ocean anyway.

Do they use their Internet access to notify the ship owners what their ransom is?

Ooh. I see, you were using the wrong term, which lead to my confusion.

"Piracy" is the act of attacking ships with weapons and either stealing their cargo, or the whole ship, and "pirates" is what people who do that are called. Lately its in fashion to ransom the ships.

Assuming you don't agree that 'making copies of music files' is a crime on par with attacking ships and ransoming them, maybe a different term would be more appropriate. Try one of the ones mentioned at:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy [gnu.org]

won't avoid HADOPI (2, Insightful)

pleymort (1462659) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863107)

This reject from EU won't avoid our lovely French president to enact the HADOPI law... So in few days in France, if you "share" copyrighted data, you could be cut off from your ISP....

File-sharing is not illegal (0, Redundant)

Y2KDragon (525979) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863161)

However, any distribution of copyrighted material is. By simply taking away access from someone who is sharing files, you take away fair use of something properly owned. I can make my own music, make an MP3 file, and share it with anyone I want. That's not illegal. Neither is sharing any open-source material that may be of use or interest to others. I think the rule allowing IPSs to terminate based on file sharing may have been too general to protect the rights of people who aren't doing anything illegal.

Cinemagraphic Darwinism. (1)

senorpoco (1396603) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863203)

Movie revenues are up over the year, piracy doesn't cost the movie industry money it just prevents them releasing as many terrible films. Many people will buy a movie they download if it is good, but not a bad one. Eventually movie houses will have to produce less dross and more higher quality films.

IT manager gets fired over his private opinion (1)

Guillaume Castel (1002740) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863227)

In other news, an IT manager at the largest french TV network got fired [google.com] over sending (from his private account) an e-mail to his local representative, in which he argued against HADOPI (the french anti-piracy bill).

Think about what this says (1)

xanthos (73578) | more than 5 years ago | (#27863247)

"can only be put in place after a decision by judicial authorities"

This statement is pretty generic. Its intent appears to be to acknowledge the issue without doing anything specific and to delegate final authority to the courts. That of course means that the ISP can pretty much do whatever they want. If your Terms of Service says that they can drop you for any reason they want, well you agreed to that. They probably (IANAL) just need to go to court once and have then validate that it all was agreed to in the TOS and then it applies to any of their customers.

Xanthos

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>