Did The EU Accidentally Support A '3 Strikes' Policy For Internet Users?

from the not-at-all-clear dept

There was talk earlier this week that, despite an earlier rejection in the EU of a “three strikes” plan that would effectively turn ISPs into copyright cops, a new vote might backdoor in the same results. The proposal was approved, but there appears to be considerable confusion over what it actually means. The text says that European regulators should provide “cooperation” between ISPs and those who are “interested in the protection and promotion of lawful content.” To many, that sounds like turning the ISPs into copyright cops. But, the politicians who approved it claim it has nothing at all to do with copyright, saying that it’s all about providing easier access to services:

“It is about new provisions so that users can find out about new services. It will make price comparison sites easier to set up, it will force regulators to give equivalent access to disabled users and enhance emergency services with caller location.”

If that’s actually the case, then the wording should be clarified, because you can pretty much bet that the entertainment industry will jump on the wording, along with claims of “international treaties” and demand that regulators force ISPs to comply with their every demand.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Did The EU Accidentally Support A '3 Strikes' Policy For Internet Users?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Matt (profile) says:

not the intention= intentional oversight

I don’t even give it 48 hours before the entertainment industry takes advantage of this. Stating that he is shocked,appalled etc that this could be taken the wrong way (per the register). Really, “interested in the protection and promotion of lawful content”. Since when is disabled or emergency services ever placed into the question of “lawful” or not? Suddenly disabled access has to be lawful? This is if the register’s quote here is taken as verbatim. I wouldn’t even believe that phrase relating to disabled or emergency under any circumstance. If it does, that would also mean it applies to military as military is usually deemed “lawful”.

The man referenced, Malcolm Harbour, has some semi-questionable ties to MS at least per the wikipedia and his extreme software patent support (again supposedly wikipedia). I don’t know what I think of the guy who tried to call it off as trying to help disabled, but I don’t see that wording at all.

Smells like doublespeak.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...