Drops “Amendment 138″ from Telcoms Package that would’ve prevented member countries from disconnecting file-sharers from the Internet, replacing it with much weaker provision that opens the door to “three-strikes.”
In a huge blow to the freedoms of European Union citizens and as an apparent gift to the lobbying efforts of multinational entertainment corporations, the EU Parliament decided to drop a crucial amendment (#138) from its much anticipated Telcoms Package that would’ve prevented member countries from disconnecting file-sharers from the Internet.
Amendment 138 read:
Applying the principle that no restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end-users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on freedom of expression and information, save when public security is threatened in which case the ruling may be subsequent.
The new amendment allows for disconnection so long as a judge’s order is obtained beforehand, much as was just the case in France recently, whereby that country’s top court ruled that anything less than a judge’s order to strip a person of such a vital communications tool is unconstitutional.
It states in part:
Measures taken by Member States regarding end-users’ access to or use of services and applications through electronic communications networks shall respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons…
Any such measures liable to restrict those fundamental rights or freedoms may only be taken in exceptional circumstances and imposed if they are necessary, appropriate and proportionate within a democratic society…
…any measures may only be adopted as a result of a prior, fair and impartial procedure ensuring inter alia that the principle of presumption of innocence and the right to be heard of the person or persons concerned be fully respected.
So now at least the right to judicial review is respected, but it still allows for people to be stripped of their ability to fully participate in a democracy over little more than unlawfully obtaining copyrighted material.
For what other crime do we strip people of their ability to communicate with others?
“Ministers of Member States, who want to be able to regulate the Net without interference from the judiciary, were rushing to kill amendment 138 and put an end to the negotiations,” explains Jérémie Zimmermann, spokesperson for La Quadrature du Net, a French advocacy group that promotes the rights and freedoms of citizens on the Internet. ” It is a shame that the Parliament’s delegation, and especially rapporteur Catherine Trautmann, was not determined enough to use the political context to assert its authority in the European lawmaking process in order to protect European citizens. Even though it has been an interesting and constructive discussion, amendment 138 has turned, by the lack of courage of the delegation, into the emblem of the powerlessness of the Parliament.”
It’s a puzzling turn of events considering the mixed messages many officials seem to be sending.
Just this past May EU commissioner Viviane Reding referred to Internet access as a “fundamental right.”
This past June UK prime minister Gordon Brown said that the “Internet is as vital as water and gas.”
“Whether it is to work online, study, learn new skills, pay bills or simply stay in touch with friends and family, a fast internet connection is now seen by most of the public as an essential service, as indispensable as electricity, gas and water,” he said.
The UK’s Digital Britain MP Stephen Timms then said recently that “broadband is no longer considered a luxury – it has become an essential service delivering social, commercial and economic benefits.”
Good thing we can’t disconnect people’s electricity, gas, or water for copyright infringement.
Stay tuned.
jared@zeropaid.com
Related Posts
- European Parliament Rejects Plan to Disconnect File-Sharers
- European Parliament Shuts the Door on Three Strikes Law
- European Parliament Rejects Anti-File-Sharing Proposals
- UK Govt Thinking “Evolves,” Will Disconnect File-Sharers After All
- Lord Mandelson Defends Plan to Disconnect UK File-Sharers
Loading ...
It’s a credit to the EU that it cares about European culture and protects the rights of creative people, artists, composers and filmmakers, and does not bow to the pressure corporate giants of technology (whose lobby is many times bigger than that of a few entertainment companies).
Hmm, yeah because the “technology lobby” is so powerful.
So powerful that it’s been able to defeat things like efforts to ban things like recorded music, radio, VCRs, blank media, etc..
Bastards.
It’s a tragic turn of events because content creators will not be any safer and yet will have sacrificed privacy for false promises.
Even a child could set up a mini wi-fi darknet with his friends and trade content till his hearts content. Third party upload sites are just as easily accessible.
Not to mention emerging BT clients that bounce your connection off random IP addresses before connecting. (http://bitblinder.com/)
All you’re going to do is punish the naive and the problem will continue.
10 years and nothing learned. Guess European culture isn’t as “creative” after all.
It’ll stop a majority of p2p file sharing in France. Most people want to do thing and people will recognize the rights of artists and authors. There will always be the determined few but that’s the nature of the beast, there are people who steal sattelite TV but most would rather pay.
You’re comparing an activity that requires a large amount of physical hardware technology insight and an acitivty that requires a few more clicks of a mouse.
As already mentioned, there is the issues of WiFi hacking which, in some cases, only requires a laptop and Wifi capabilities (think unsecured Linksys routers). That, I don’t think, is really that hard. When the neigbor with 9 cats get’s a third strike, it’s off to her neighbours house who keeps revving the engine at 11:300 at night with little more than another click of a mouse. All the end-user will see is the routers available only gradually getting weaker in reception.
Don’t think innocent people will be fine. The RIAA in the US sued a dead person once for copyright infringement.
FUD. That’s what the judge is for. Also, maybe people in France know how to use passwords.
I haven’t looked into stealing sattelite TV lately but a few years ago all you needed was $100 and willingness to use it.
“FUD. That’s what the judge is for. Also, maybe people in France know how to use passwords.”
You conveniently forget that the judge is expected to carry out 20 minutes of work in a 5 minute time limit in France. It’s hard to see this as anything but a breeding ground for corruption. It’s impossible for the judge to carry out his/her duty under that kind of stress.
Maybe, maybe not. If there’s a logistical problem it can be fixed.
Look, all the people have to do is stop taking media they aren’t paying to use, so they have to get their entertainment from outlets with a price tag, I just don’t see it as an infringement of liberty.
Whereas sharing copyrughted media on p2p, which is very much like publishing is a pretty clear cut infingement of the legal and moral rights of the author under French law.
“… sharing copyrughted media on p2p, which is very much like publishing …”
I keep killing that false statement, but yet you keep trying to revive it.
A credit? No it’s not. It’s a disgrace that the media industry has been allowed to bully and harrass governments worldwide in order to preserve and improve it’s own profit margin AGAINST the will of the vast majority of it’s customers.
So you can have your Internet connection disabled for *SHOCK* *HORROR* breach of copyright regulations, but not for planning terrorist attacks, distribution of illegal filth or any other far more realistically damaging crimes – and let’s not forget that copyright laws were initially intended as protect from other businesses, not by private individuals.
It is a fact that the present day media industry has misused these laws in order to preserve it’s own failing business model, alienating customers, about whom it blatantly does not give a damn.
“not bow to the pressure corporate giants of technology (whose lobby is many times bigger than that of a few entertainment companies).”
Of all the steaming hypocritical bullshit, not to mention blatantly FALSE, statements, that one is up there with the worst of them. This has got nothing to do with media industry v IT/comms industry, it is all to do with the media v individuals.
I haven’t got a clue who you are, but by Christ you’re full of shit.
I’m an individual and I own copyrights. I choose to not give you the right to make copies. That’s my right as the individual author. I’m waiting for the day when my legal system, like that of France, will protect my individual rights from the greedy, self righteous and ridiculous mob.
It IS about tech companies and their self-serving ideology that you seem to have bought into lock stock and barrel. Follow the money and you will understand.
You have the right to not share your works. If you don’t want them pirated, take all your works and shove them in a vault and let it never see the light of day ever again.
“I’m waiting for the day when my legal system, like that of France, will protect my individual rights from the greedy, self righteous and ridiculous mob.”
As opposed to the greedy self-serving copyright industry who rakes in all the cash and leaves artists with mountains of debt.
As a content creator myself, I look at this three strikes law with a sense of despare. When people get disconnected, that means less people will be able to have access to my works. I’m an artist who is more concerned about exposure rather than profits and if everyone get’s disconnected from the internet, that means no one will get exposed to my work. No exposure to my work, no audience. No audience means it is literally impossible to make any long term revenue. This three strikes law is killing the marketplace and the only thing it serves is a few top copyright industry execs who knows damn well the internet is competition to their stranglehold on the marketplace.
“It IS about tech companies and their self-serving ideology that you seem to have bought into lock stock and barrel.”
You forgot artists, creators, businesses, politicians, tutors, anti-government corruption watch dogs… oh I could go on and on. It’s not just about tech companies as you so ademantly falsely presume. It’s about a central cultural endpoint that anyone from around the world can access that is gradually being snuffed out by billionairs and CEO’s.
“ou have the right to not share your works”
more than that, I have the copyright – you don’t.
“As opposed to the greedy self-serving copyright industry who rakes in all the cash and leaves artists with mountains of debt”
What the hell is a ‘copyright industry’?
I’ve explained to you how the business works. Royalties held against an advance is not the same thing as debt in the way you’d owe to a bank or financier. Say you get an advance for 100k for a record and it only earns out 80k – that’s only that one record, it doesn;t carry over, and you still made 100,000. but the record company probably lost money. They get to say you ‘owe’ them 20,000 for their balance sheet, but it’s bullshit, and when the deal goes away so does the fake debt. It’s just against future earnings, it’s not like real debt. Get it now? Some people have taken smaller advances in exchange for bigger royalties, so it earns through quicker.
I don’t think many people will get cut off because first of all they aren’t stupid, and most people will cut the 90’s era ideological BS and do the decent thing. Especially in a country where they value art and artists more than other places.
You can still license your work however you see fit and try whatever business model you think you can succeed with. That’s your work and it is your right. Preserving the rights of creative individuals means you get to make those decisions.
““ou have the right to not share your works”
more than that, I have the copyright – you don’t.”
If you want to deliberately misinterpret what I said, you are free to do so. I’ll simply reiterate the argument that I have a right to distribute my work as I see fit. Disconnecting people from the internet and painting p2p as an illegitimate method of distribution strips my right of what I can do with my work. After three strikes is passed, my method of distributing my music will be painted as illegitimate and many more will simply be cut off. The government shouldn’t dictate how I can and cannot distribute my work.
“I’ve explained to you how the business works. Royalties held against an advance is not the same thing as debt in the way you’d owe to a bank or financier. Say you get an advance for 100k for a record and it only earns out 80k – that’s only that one record, it doesn;t carry over, and you still made 100,000. but the record company probably lost money. They get to say you ‘owe’ them 20,000 for their balance sheet, but it’s bullshit, and when the deal goes away so does the fake debt. It’s just against future earnings, it’s not like real debt. Get it now? Some people have taken smaller advances in exchange for bigger royalties, so it earns through quicker.”
OK, let’s pretend for a second that this is how it really works in the industry (I personally call BS, but let’s see where the system is flawed even if what you say is true)
An artist spends a year creating an album and signs away his rights to the record company. They go on tour and, if you really are a music creator, you should know this fact: very few artists are lucky enough to break even while on tour. Meanwhile, the record sells for 80,000 and the advance is 100,000. So the artist goes on tour for 6 months and somehow manages to break even. So this artist spends a year and a half doing all of this for what? Zero, zip, zilch. All the money from the record deal is siphoned away from the artist, the tour yielded nothing. How is the artist suppose to earn a living? High fives? I don’t think high fives pays the bills at the end of the day. The artist is in mountains of debt at some point or another. Either way, they are screwed. If the artist didn’t sign the record contract and sold 1,000 on self promotion, they may not be living high off the hog, but it’s better than being completely flat broke. This isn’t even getting into the 360 deals that are floating about on contracts these days.
“You can still license your work however you see fit and try whatever business model you think you can succeed with. That’s your work and it is your right. Preserving the rights of creative individuals means you get to make those decisions.”
I think you fail to understand the consequences of this law. If three strikes is implemented, then some people may think, “file-sharing isn’t legit, so I think I’ll stop listening to music altogether because artists are mean greedy people.” Either way, right now, file-sharing has a massive pool of music fans and this law paves the way to drying up that pool as much as possible. It deprives me, as an artist, of choice. I want to distribute my music on p2p, but some fans suddenly think it’s not cool even though I gave them permission in the first place. If I want to use my works differently, why should the government tell me that my method is somehow illegitimate? That’s not protecting artists such as myself, that’s harming them.
I think your fears are unfounded.
“After three strikes is passed, my method of distributing my music will be painted as illegitimate and many more will simply be cut off”
If they wanted to do that, they’d just do application filtering. And if anything, getting all the copyrighted stuff off mainstream p2p will strengthen the community, and people will know they can look for freely shared stuff where he artists are aware of it and everyone is doing something positve, it removes the negativity snd uncertainty and leaves the idealism intact.
As far as the music business is concerned, what you described can happen too. The fact that the industry is in such dire straits because of file sharing makes it even harder for artists to negotiate better deals, the deals keep getting worse – indies and majors.
The thing is, p2p already has a shady rep, the reason being that it was created for music swapping without a system to compensate the creators. Gnutella was created to swap people’s music without permission when the Napster thing went down. People pretty much know artists aren’t being compensated, and have different ways of thinking about that. Like I said in under another article, you could really spin this as positve and if the sketch factor is gone from p2p you can promote it as something positive.
Although you know I think p2p is not really the best way to go for an artist, client-server is better IMO, everyone can try something different. We all have the same goals here (find a way to make technology work for our music without bending over a log) and if files that are traded without the creator’s permission just gets in the way of that.
“I think your fears are unfounded.”
Fear is definitely not the correct term. It would be called anticipation, more than anything.
“If they wanted to do that, they’d just do application filtering.”
In another circle you will go….
“And if anything, getting all the copyrighted stuff off mainstream p2p will strengthen the community, and people will know they can look for freely shared stuff where he artists are aware of it and everyone is doing something positve, it removes the negativity snd uncertainty and leaves the idealism intact.”
Another speculation, and a nonsensical one at that.
“As far as the music business is concerned, [...] The fact that the industry is in such dire straits because of file sharing makes it even harder for artists to negotiate better deals, ….”
All you are doing is alleging P2P as the cause of these irrelevant hypothetical cases.
“The thing is, p2p already has a shady rep, …”
Legitimate companies/sites use P2P, so that statement is illogical.
“…the reason being that it was created for music swapping without a system to compensate the creators.”
BS.
“People pretty much know artists aren’t being compensated, and have different ways of thinking about that.”
You neglect the fact that many people actually buy the release.
“Like I said in under another article, you could really spin this as positve and if the sketch factor is gone from p2p you can promote it as something positive.”
You never stated such a thing, so try not to lie and also state something nonsensical simultaneously.
“Although you know I think p2p is not really the best way to go for an artist, client-server is better IMO, everyone can try something different.”
Actually, we all know that you think P2P is the worst way to go for an artist. The only thing you know is to create and host a high-cost web site.
“We all have the same goals here (find a way to make technology work for our music without bending over a log)”
Except that you think technology is the source of all problems.
“… and if files that are traded without the creator’s permission just gets in the way of that.”
In reality, it doesn’t. Get with it.
“I choose to not give you the right to make copies.”
Define “copy” and its functions. You have no right to control other people; thus you have not the power to restrict people from performing an ambiguous activity such as “making copies”.
“It IS about tech companies and their self-serving ideology …”
BS.
“Follow the money ….”
Just another demonstration that all you are conscious about is money. Give it up, moron.
Also, I’d like to point out that some people call this a matter of choice. I choose to put my works online for free. What gives you the right to tell me that my distribution model is invalid and that I must distribute in ways YOU say I should distribute my works. This three strikes law will also block anyone who disagrees with a 90’s disitribution model in the late 2000’s. Don’t you dare tell me that distributing my works on file-sharing is illegitimate. This law is saying precisely that.
How does it stop you from doing it? It;s not about using a p2p application, it’s about what you are making copies of. It doesn’t stop you from following whatever ideology you want, attaching whatever license to your work that you want, that’s the whole point. I think you misunderstand the law.
What a dumb-ass response. This is about P2P, hence the “disconnect file-sharers” in the headline. With judges being pressured to make hasty decisions given insufficient evidence, their judgments would be as good as an average citizen’s, which is what judges must avoid in the first place.
I agree that this is going to be the very symbol of how the European Parliament is completely incapable of protecting it’s own citizens. A very dark day indeed.
They are protecting their culture. Without artists, there is no art.
Actually, they are destroying their culture. No access to the internet, significantly less access to culture. There have already been entire coalition of artists that have come out to speak out against three strikes. Meanwhile, proponents are continually record or movie execs who take no part in the creative process who also happen to be mainly from foreign entities. That, in and of itself, speaks volumes to the way the debate has shaped out today.
‘foreign entitiies’? You mean like French?
I suppose I could be overestimating people’s intelligence, but it’s not like there will be a huge number of disconnections. Most people will stop right away if they think there is a risk, and if not, they’ll stop after the first warning.
There was a letter campaign that happened in Britain where thousands of internet subscribers got a letter saying that they were caught downloading unauthorized content on p2p. The problem was that these people were looking at the letters and saying, “What? What’s Pee-too-pee?”
The fatal problem in all of this is the fact that false accusations happen all the time. People unfairly get a legal threat on a regular basis.
In a real legitimate legal system, if you are tried for murder, the burden of proof is on prosecutors to say that individual committed that crime. In what many have already dubbed as “Kangaroo” courts – that is the thre strikes law, the accused has to prove their innocence. That tells me there is something fatally wrong with the system. If you want any further proof that the evidence being provided is flimsy, the MPAA did argue in a US court that the burden of proof is too great and, therefore, shouldn’t be required to prove someone’s guilt (Re: “MPAA – What do you mean we need evidence?”) The question I have is, why is such paper-thin evidence enough to push the burden of proof onto the accused?
“it’s not like there will be a huge number of disconnections”
The problem with copyright maximalists have always been the fact that the facts have regularly shown otherwise.
Earlier this year, a French minister remarked that the French three strikes law would see 1000 disconnections per day: http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86288/french-minister-three-strikes-law-would-see-1000-disconnections-daily/
That is a significant amount. After at most 40 days, there’ll be more disconnections in France then there would be lawsuits ever sent out by the RIAA in the US. Give it two years and a tenth of the countries population would have been disconnected. This is not a small figure by any stretch of the imagination.
There’s a right of appeal. I think your fears are unfounded becuase most people will just stop after one strike, and go buy what they want instead.
“There’s a right of appeal. I think your fears are unfounded becuase most people will just stop after one strike, and go buy what they want instead.”
That assumes that everyone had the intention of buying it in the first place otherwise. More often than not, it’s simply not the case because it relies on the hugely discreditted “one download = one lost sale”. More often then not, it’s actually try before you buy anyway.
If the content wasn’t available for free, people would not have heard of it. If they have not heard of it, they are fare more unlikely to not take a risk and pay for it. You can’t judge the quality of the music based on cover art and a tracklist.
Additionally, the fact that a minister said that they actively INTEND to have 1000 disconnections per day means they will simply have an appeals process just as a formality at best. The judge system is structured so that it’s impossible to really do more than gloss over the facts. So the system is definitely going to be rigged against the accused in at least one way. The politician’s intent is a very good indication that the deck will be stacked against an accused in far more ways than what is on the surface.
Does the evidence they typically collect count as sufficient evidence to convince an alleged file sharer? That is extremely rare. I think that in the Jammie Thomas case, they may have, but that is actually an anomoly rather than the norm. This is one of the biggest reason the current set-up to catch alleged file-sharers has been deemed as unreliable/corrupt.
Additionally, in the UK, the minister who is trying to push similar legislation through activiely said they intend on disconnecting a vast majority of people. Not even as deterrents or anything, just disconnecting people. Everyone else who is observing this realizes the three strikes laws – including the police and secret services – realizes this is a really bad idea.
Besides, to a politician, disconnecting “x thousands of filesharers this month” sounds like they are doing a great job to their bosses at the RIAA/MPAA. It’s not about warning people at this point, so I wouldn’t be at all surprised to hear stories in the future (if these laws are passed) that “so and so recieves all three strikes in the span of 3 hours and was only notified 24 hours after the fact.”
Well, you can paint it as a disaster scenario if you want, but time will tell. No matter what one member of the House of Lords says, the UK will most likely wait to see what happens in France.
“… but time will tell. [...] the UK will most likely wait to see what happens ….”
It seems that you would prefer to do nothing but wait for a disaster to happen to you rather than anticipate and prepare for it, assuming you are competent enough anticipate things in general.
“There’s a right of appeal.”
What will replace the lost time on pointless work and stress? Why should anyone waste their time on BS?
“I think your fears are unfounded becuase most people will just stop after one strike, and go buy what they want instead.”
I get the feeling that you are getting this “most people” out of a biased sample of about three or fewer people. Not only would people actually not stop, but there is certainly no increased chance of having those people buying anything.
“I suppose I could be overestimating people’s intelligence”
Including yourself.
“Most people will stop right away if they think there is a risk, and if not, they’ll stop after the first warning.”
Non-technologically savvy people will just discard the warning as a misaddressing. Those who do monitor their own activities will call BS on any false accusation and discard the warning. The risk is undefined as stupid people are artificially creating it, so don’t try to mix up real intelligence with believing BS.
“… and not bow to the pressure corporate giants of technology (whose lobby is many times bigger than that of a few entertainment companies).”
What moronically coughed-up trash.
Just give it up, malgre.
people should stop buying music and films, and also stop going to the cinema, the see how the big power hungry mogels like that,
hit them where it hurts , – there doing the same to us, give them a taste of there own medicine