EU Says No To Three Strikes On Accusation Only; Requires Court Order
from the that's-a-start dept
One of the biggest problems with most of the proposed “three strikes” laws out there (the entertainment industry likes to call them “graduated response laws,” but I prefer Bill Patry’s recent description of calling them “the digital guillotine”) is that it works based on accusations rather than actual conviction. This is a pretty significant issue if you believe in innocent until proven guilty — combined with the rather long and detailed history of the entertainment industry falsely accusing people of file sharing. The EU Parliament has rejected the various three strikes laws as civil rights violations in the past, but the issue keeps coming up again (especially considering France is still insisting such a law is necessary. However, in the latest vote, the EU Parliament has said that no one should be kicked offline without a court order, meaning that a court would need to review any accusation, rather than just the ISP being told to kick those accused of file sharing offline.
No restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities ? save when public security is threatened…
Your move, France.
Filed Under: eu, three strikes
Comments on “EU Says No To Three Strikes On Accusation Only; Requires Court Order”
May I be the first
May I be the first to say ITS ABOUT G*D DAMN TIME these idiots who make laws get a FRICKIN CLUE about the rights of people.
Correction
French gouvernment insists to make this law, not french people.
What the world have to know is that Napoléon (the current french président) is “dating” the whole music industry (in addition to the media and “classic” industry).
And so, he’s just protecting his friends interests, by “giving birth” to laws fitting what they want and what they need. So he doesn’t even give a damm on what people have to say.
In conclusion, these people (and my président first) want to control people. They’re freaking out that people get liberties like that. They just can’t permit it, cause under their republicans “clothes” they are dictators.
-=Resist=-
rights
Hats off to The EU Parliament for making the right call
You can see what's coming
Will this end up like the wire tap laws here?
Where they don’t need the actual court order right away, just get one later.
Democratic right
It’s not only about proof of guilt. Even if the accusations can be proven to be true in a court denying someone internet access from any ISP is completely unproportional. Internet lets people follow the flow of news, connect with people and try to affect public opinion and reach the politicians in charge. Cutting off access to the best way of influencing public policy and participating in the democratic discussions is just wrong. There’s a reason we don’t limit people’s access to the telephone network or postal service, but instead give them fines or prison time when they commit crimes.
Btw. since the Telecoms package was not passed I suppose France is now free to introduce its three strikes laws anyway. At least it’s my impression that they will have a couple of months before the Telecoms package gets passed.
The debate about the Telecoms package hasn’t been only about the three strikes law, but has also revolved a lot around the question of net neutrality.
This quote by Malcom Harbour has upset a lot of people who have been fighting for net neutrality provisions:
Five Euros says Sarkozy claims piracy threatens the public security…
But...
Think of the Children!!!!!
angry user
helpdesk@phxhs.k12.az.us
helpdesk@phxhs.k12.az.us
helpdesk@phxhs.k12.az.us
Try me:)
[quote]save when public security is threatened… [/quote]
[dinosaur] “But it is a threat, if people can do this, what else will they be doing – first piracy, then terrorism”.
I can see it now
property seizure in US
What about in the US where many districts have laws allowing cops to seize and sell your property and keep the proceeds based ONLY on accusation? This has happened to many people who were ACQUITTED in court!!! So, who ARE the criminals?