European Parliament Rejects IFPI Plan To Make ISPs Copyright Cops

from the good-for-them dept

There's been a huge lobbying campaign going on throughout much of the world to get local governments to put pressure on ISPs to require them to kick those accused of file sharing off of the internet. It had been worrisome that these efforts actually seemed to be getting some traction in both France and the UK despite vehement opposition from many people. It appears that the opposition has started to get its point of view across. The EU Parliament has now rejected a plan to criminalize file sharing and to implement a "three strikes and you're off the internet" policy. The vote itself isn't binding, but suggests how the EU Parliament feels. While France has already put in place such a law, there was some feeling that France would push to make similar laws enforced European-wide. This vote should put a damper on those plans.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    anonymous frogman, Apr 10th, 2008 @ 11:25pm

    Not Yet

    No, the law's not in place in France yet. They plan to pass it by June, I think.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Mike Bergin, Apr 11th, 2008 @ 12:03am

    You have no clue...

    These new laws are not for as you would say "those accused of file sharing" but for those accused of sharing illegal files...BIG DIFFERENCE. Thankfully France and England both get it...and they rarely agree on anything! The EU rejecting a plan to make (stealing) or (illegal file sharing) illegal means nothing because they have no legal authority. Australia, Germany, Canada, Japan and the United States are soon to follow. This should only be worrisome those who steal...and probably you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Apr 11th, 2008 @ 12:21am

    Re: You have no clue...

    These new laws are not for as you would say "those accused of file sharing" but for those accused of sharing illegal files...

    True. But note the important part is "accused". There's no trial. There's no way to prove your innocence. There's no way to note that an IP address does not denote the user and is often incorrectly identified.

    The EU rejecting a plan to make (stealing) or (illegal file sharing) illegal means nothing because they have no legal authority.

    Infringement is not stealing, but anyway... I'm not sure what the rest of your sentence means. Are you implying the vote itself was meaningless?

    Australia, Germany, Canada, Japan and the United States are soon to follow

    While there's lobbying going on to that effect, so far there's been tremendous pushback in most of those countries (have you been paying attention to what's going on in Canada?) Also there's almost no chance that such a law would get anywhere in the US.

    This should only be worrisome those who steal...and probably you.

    Well, first of all, I do not do any unauthorized file sharing. Second of all, stealing and infringement are two different things.

    But, most importantly, you are wrong. This should be worrisome to anyone who believes in fairness and due process. The problem with this system is that people are not allowed due process to prove their innocence in a court of law. People should also be worried because it's misplaced effort. It would be ISPs having to do extra work to protect an obsolete business model for the entertainment industry. That would set an awful precedent that will likely lead to higher bills and less connectivity.

    That's a huge problem.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Glenn Charles, Apr 11th, 2008 @ 4:25am

    innocent?

    As a Vietnam vet who had a high security clearance...
    "True. But note the important part is "accused". There's no trial. There's no way to prove your innocence. There's no way to note that an IP address does not denote the user and is often incorrectly identified."

    First of all, the government isn't interested in 'actual' innocence. Secondly, we're all guilty to a degree, just as economy rests on faith not fact.

    And secondly, I'm a criminal (misdemeanor) thankfully, for being epileptic. I was driving. I'd taken my medication properly. Something changed. Innocence is as much point of view as is value, I fear. (And I already was paranoid. Oh well.)
    --Glenn

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Powerkor, Apr 11th, 2008 @ 5:10am

    Even if this is used... there will be loop holes. Just like people do with credit cards and debt. This effectively does nothing except for waste our time with a pretend solution to a problem that isn't going to go away over night.

    More and more record labels and others realize the need to change their business models... its not our fault they are still trying to sell us a pretty package when a majority of us want it digitalized...

    Anyway, back to the topic... Stop wasting our money and come up with a real solution.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous frog coward, Apr 11th, 2008 @ 9:43am

    EU "laws"

    "The EU rejecting a plan to make (stealing) or (illegal file sharing) illegal means nothing because they have no legal authority.

    Infringement is not stealing, but anyway... I'm not sure what the rest of your sentence means. Are you implying the vote itself was meaningless?"

    That's what he means. The EU Parliament cannot pass laws, they can only vote resolutions, such as this one. They are not legally binding.

    So, to sum it up: France is planning to pass this law and the EU Parliament has passed a non-binding resolution against it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Perry Masonary, Apr 12th, 2008 @ 8:03am

    Re: Re: You have no clue...

    Important points

    1) There's no trial.
    2) people are not allowed due process

    Considering the above, it is obvious that this propoasal is contrary to existing law in this country.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous frog coward, Apr 14th, 2008 @ 2:19am

    Re: Re: Re: You have no clue...

    Possibly. But if a new law trumps an old one.
    It might be contrary to the constitution though, but if so, it can only be challenged by members of parliament right after it's passed (which happened with the latest law on that subject, by the way, and might very well happen with this one). Once it's part of the legal system, it can no longer be challenged before a court, though that might change in the coming months with a planned constitutionnal reform.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This