Country’s communication minister Suvi Linden says that “Internet services are no longer just for entertainment,” and that his govt has no plans for a “three-strikes” regime to punish illegal file-sharers with disconnection.
Earlier this month I mused about whether or not Internet access should be a civil right. Finland has made this thought a reality, becoming the first country in the world to make Internet access a fundamental right. As of yesterday, all ISPs in the country are required to ensure that each citizen has access to at least a 1Mbps speed connection.
“We considered the role of the internet in Finns everyday life,” Finland’s communication minister Suvi Linden told the BBC. “Internet services are no longer just for entertainment. Finland has worked hard to develop an information society and a couple of years ago we realized not everyone had access.”
The new law means also means that file-sharers cannot be disconnected per a “three-strikes” regime that copyright holders have been promoting around the globe.
“We will have a policy where operators will send letters to illegal file-sharers but we are not planning on cutting off access,” added Linden.
It’s worth mentioning that France’s Constitutional Council struck down an early version of that country’s “three-strikes” law for being unconstitutional, finding that the Internet is essential for the “free communication of thoughts,” and therefore full civic participation in a democratic society.
If countries make Internet access a fundamental right then anti-piracy efforts will certainly get much more complicated. Critics of the effort say that “it’s a privilege, not a right,” but since when did being able to fully participate in a democratic society and to express ideas and opinions become a “privilege?”
Internet access is a fundamental right in my opinion, and it’s nice to see that at least one country in the world agrees with me.
Stay tuned
jared@zeropaid.com
Spot on!
Agreed! However, if participants in society do not exercise their rights with common sense and in a lawful manner, these rights can/should be taken away. Look at drivers’ licenses as an example.
Internet use is no different, but it can be just as dangerous.
Regards,
You can hardly compare internet access to driving.
I think France’s Constituional Council said it best:
To be deprived of Internet access can mean the end of being able to communicate with the world.
Obtaining a license itself could be considered a right, but driving in itself is a privilege at best, because that license, which can be canceled, grants this privilege.
There is no basis on which you can even compare Internet access and driving, let alone bring about the potential dangerousness of driving.
@ bob, how do you work out that getting hit by a double decker bus at 40mph is the same as downloading? In what way is that dangerous to my health like the said bus would be? Or anything else I do on the net for that matter.
Some people……………………….
Internet killed my father, and RAPED my mother!!!!
EVIL!!!!!!!
Suvi Linden was also was the same politician who brought a censorship law out on February 2008 claiming to protect children but actually was a censorship law. Only 15 sites of the 1700 blocked sites by the government had links to child pornographic material and the Finnish police did nothing to work with law enforcement officials to arrest those uploaders or the very least bring down those websites. I was expressing my opinion back then on February, March 2008 siding with Matti Nikki who exposed the attempt of the Finnish government to censorship the Internet and got a child pornography conviction based on pictures of faces of children or full clothed children in my recycle bin. Add to this that the police took on March 23 2007 our computers inclusive the computer of my son who never was charged with anything on his computer and never got his computer returned. The police as of today is refusing to return my fractal computer work worth 42.000 Euro and even made a forgery to frame me for some Usenet post I never posted. See here the police forgery:
http://karagiozis.007sites.com/forgery_splitz.htm
The case goes to the European Court of Human Rights.
By the way: Finland has more human right violation conviction by ECHR than Germany or the rest of Scandinavia
@Bob S.
That’s where things get to me. A driving license or a license to own a gun is because you can kill people with those items, directly.
If you want the equivalent of the same jurisdiction to apply to the internet, then I, as a system supervisor, demand that first we implement a mandatory license to own a computer. In fact, I’ll heartily approve of that. No one is to own or operate a computer unless they are able to maintain, care, and use it in a proper manner. This should send to /dev/null absolutely every problem the internet ever had.
Sadly though, the RIAA and MPAA won’t be able to file a single case anymore. MS and Apple would go out of business.
Keep the technical illiterates out of computing and no one’s going to care that there are only file-sharers left.
More and more it is that way with the net and telephone, it’s vital. You could also add privacy from having access at home, rather than a cafe or library.
I don’t know what Finland’s public computer situation is like, but my friends who don’t have access at home for one reason or another, like moving to a new house or not having enough money, they hit up the library.
Until Americans have universal Health care, Dental, childcare & Retirement funds for one & all they do not have a true democracy for the people. What they currently have are corporations essentially paying lobbying dollars to a house full of corrupt Senators to create bogus laws to protect the interests of the very rich. Why should we implement a 3 strikes law to protect the profit margin of a private corporation? Sharing is a basic human response. To declare sharing ‘criminal’ is insane. Modern societies generally regard crimes as offenses against the public or the state, distinguished from torts (offenses against private parties that can give rise to a civil cause of action).
“Until Americans have universal Health care, Dental, childcare & Retirement funds?” Huh? Who will pay for all of that? We will in the form of higher taxes like Europe where the govt takes as much as half of your paycheck.
@ Jared Moya Well I guess we can just keep funding wars in Iraq & Afghanistan huh? They just Ok ed 33 billion more USA tax dollars for Afghanistan. Its a myth that we would have higher taxes. Our taxes are not being spent where they should, namely on us. The US just passed new laws to fight internet piracy.Now Hollywood doesn’t have to pay to hunt us down. This will cost billions more. Why not spend that money on people instead?
? One has nothing to do with the other. If you want dental, retirement, etc., why would you want the govt to forcibly take money from your paycheck each month to pay for it. Why not pay for it yourself? It’s not the govt’s job to play nurse maid in life.
im not sure how something positive for finland, turned to something negative for the us.
but i will partake.
while it is true that we dont have the govt services that alot of the world has, we do have lower taxes, therefore more cash in hand, therefore we buy more shit to make us happy. we are happy.
and guess what. most of the music, movies, tv shows, etc…. that the world govts are fighting over come from here. take it or leave it, we are the glamour that the world needs…eeerrrr, stives to imitate poorly.
@ starwhite
suck my big fat american cock, you jealouse mother fucker. and while you are at it kiss my red white and blue AAAAASSSSS bitch.
@ assmunch3 BTW Genius I’m a born & bred American. Just BC I don’t agree with 2 senseless wars sucking our tax dollars & prefer our resources to be spent on people instead of insane laws to stop sharing. Listening to your rant the only thing you seem to value is material items. I value people more. Until we learn how to create a true democratic society draconian laws like 3 strikes will exist.
@ Jared Mora: Fine. But what about the elderly & disabled & children? ETC. Not everyone has a paycheck you know? The US Government is spending trillions of our tax dollars on things that do not benefit Americans. As I understand it the Senate has recently crafted new Anti Piracy legislation which will spend billions more to look over our shoulder on the net. This is wrong. Our tax dollars should be there to benefit the people. Health care, dental, childcare, retirement funds like social security should be in place. The United Kingdom as an example enjoys all of these things while most Americans suffer needlessly. Obviously you do not have the ability to comprehend what I am saying. Thats a real shame.
Why are we talking about social safety nets, which exist for each of the cases u mentioned? The US wasnt founded so that we could take possessions from one to give to another.
I have found so little with which to disagree on Zeropaid, but it is the disagreements which call me to action. It must be pointed out, if we are to talk about freedoms and government meddling in the affairs of its citizens, that the idea of internet access as a “right” is the same side of the coin that says the citizen should be cut off if he abuses the internet. Where does the government get the right to tell an ISP that they have to supply everyone with access? You say to me, “Oh, but they will be compensated by things like tax incentives or government funding!” This is humbug. It not only becomes a matter of the government telling an ISP how to run their business, it puts every citizen in the position of paying for the internet access of others. Now, even given the lousy reputation of public library computers, we are already paying for our fellow citizens to have this access. So now you tell me I have negated the argument I am making. We already do it, so why not bring the computers to the homes of the citizens who cannot easily make the trek to the library? Well, I have two questions to return in answer. Firstly, how do you give internet access to the homeless man in this manner? Secondly, doesn’t making an ISP reliant on government funding put them in the precarious position of having to collude with that very enemy in order to get their piece of the taxpayer pie? Imagine if you would the expense of running cables and setting up towers and broadband connections to rural areas that the ISP deems unprofitable. The development costs combined with the cost of supporting an area at a loss will make funding or incentives from the government an important part of operations, and is this not just a small step toward government threats to cut off funding if ISPs do not furnish them with information about “potentially dangerous users”?
I do not suggest that the idea of a three-strikes rule is a good prospect. I merely ask, “Why does the government have to be involved at all? Whether to dictate terms for the consumer or the ISP?” We do not need the leaders of the world saying who should and shouldn’t have access to the internet. If you consider the rate of technological process in the last thirty years, is it entirely unforeseeable that we may in only ten years see internet access covering the globe, via new communications technologies, internet cafes, or whatever means presents itself? Is it laughable that rural areas will very soon have the same access enjoyed by highly populated areas? The question of internet access as a right is frivolous in this sense. If we respect the right of a citizen to run a business or decide on their own what service to pay for, we have nothing to worry about. The important thing is that the government should not make laws dictating who can and can’t use the internet.
We’re talking about Internet access period, not whether the govt is forced to provide it or not.
So many words pointing to nothing.
@Mr. Valject
“Internet Access” as a fundamental rights does NOT mean that every citizen should be supplied with computers, a broadband connection et cetera. Just as the second amendment does not in the US mean that the government is legally obliged to give every citizen a gun, and the first amendment does not mean the government is obligated to make every citizen speak his piece.
Very few people want the government to run the internet. And so, most of your points don’t even need to be raised.
The only reason a government should interfere at all in the market is to ensure impartiality. Governmental intervention when a company monopolizes the market and employs unfair trade practice is a necessary evil (as in AT&T). This is where the idea of net neutrality comes from – without that very necessary piece of legislation, internet turns from being a global road network to a series of gated communities where you’ll need to pay admission fees and obtain permits for each one.
Thus, a foundation of putting internet access forth as a basic right on the same level as free speech is the minimum requirement to ensure that free speech and right of assembly are actually observed in a society which relies to an ever-increasing amount on the internet backbone.
Well, I hate to beat a dead horse, but I would at least like to make the position I have clear, since it seems to have failed to come across. First, the quote that caused me to comment in the first place:
“As of yesterday, all ISPs in the country are required to ensure that each citizen has access to at least a 1Mbps speed connection.”
I can form two assumptions here. Either the ISPs are forced to supply current customers with that speed, or this sentence means it is their responsibility to provide each and every citizen with a means to connect at these speeds. Either way the rights of the provider have been invariably encroached upon. It is by these very methods that a cartel can form. Imagine if you will that I am running a hot dog stand. I am the small businessman and I am in a city, making a modest living, surrounded by lavish restaurants that also serve hot dogs. Now the government decides that hot dogs are a right that every citizen has, and it is up to the hot dog suppliers to make sure every citizen has a hot dog. The larger franchises might be able to absorb the cost of giving out hot dogs by either raising prices to those who are sucker enough to pay for something that’s free, or maybe they receive funding from a public trust. In the former case, I must close up shop, for how can I afford to give away free hot dogs when I am scraping by? The same would apply to small ISPs. Small-time competition closes up, and everyone must choose between a smaller pool of competitors.
Now take the latter case. I can get money from the government as a small hot dog business, in order to ensure that my hot dogs are getting to as many mouths as possible. I can now lower my prices because the burden is shifted to the tax-payer. At the same time, larger hot dog franchises are getting their cut, and probably a much larger cut at that since it is perceived that they are more capable of filling the demand. In both these cases, I and the franchise owner will want to make a profit. I have several options, as does my larger competitor. I can perform the bare minimum when it comes to my “free” hot dogs, doing everything I can to make them less appealing than the hot dogs that I charge for, and try to profit both from the funding I will receive and my own stock. However, I could also do the opposite, and focus on the hot dogs that will be given out at no charge, and when I run out of supplies as I undoubtedly will, and fast, I lobby my government, telling them the funding is not enough, and it is a detriment to small business if I do not receive more. The hot dog franchises, of course, may do the exact same. The next thing you know, politicians have to look at these affairs and decide whether to raise taxes, which is never a good thing for them as far as voters are concerned, or they have to start going around and saying “We can’t fund YOU or YOU or YOU anymore.” Probably they will claim you have not held yourself up to a certain standard. Only that hot dog supplier which is approved by the government is allowed to exist, and the government need only say “Look, we have supplied the people with free food. Oh, we are short on supply, but one day if we persevere we shall all be eating hot dogs!” Then the government hot dog vendor is allowed his space to operate, but I am thrown to the curb, for how could I supply so many hot dogs? And I cannot think of reopening, because the government has required of me to hand out free hot dogs, and they will no long give me funds to do so. It is precisely these so-called “necessary” evils that create monopolies in the market.
As far as AT&T is concerned, I am amazed at how many people do not know that it was the company that lobbied the government to pass an act which made them the monopoly in the first place, but in a world with an infinite amount of knowledge to be passed around, I suppose it should not surprise me so much. I believe AT&T has a company history on their own website which discusses what happened and how they became a monopoly for decades.
I agree wholly that we should have a right to exercise our free speech using the venue of the internet. I merely disagree that anyone but myself shoulders the responsibility for gaining access to that venue. I certainly make no claim that anyone is forcing the government’s hand. I quite openly and passionately said the opposite; they supplied the force. As far as the internet becoming a gated community…I do not see where it ceases to be a global road network simply because I have to pay for a service. I pay for my connection, for subscriptions to things that I want, and for the conveniences I find attractive on the internet. I would love to not have to pay for those things, but who is going to provide them if there is no profit to be had? If, in some fantasy world, a small group of people are the only ones using the internet, who is hearing their voices? The argument that we would be cut off and unheard is ridiculous taken at face value, because the internet would become a useless piece of technology to the masses, and they would be heard in other ways. Businessman would be stuck in their big offices with an internet and zero content other than what other businessman had to see. Since running a business requires feedback from customers, I don’t see how such a situation would last very long at all.
I don’t really know if my viewpoint is of interest to anyone or not. Already someone has shrugged off a previous post as saying nothing, which is his right. But this is what I am doing. I am using my voice on the venue of the internet. Not everyone cares. Possibly no one cares. Possibly, the site administrator will become furious at the idea that I dare to even make my silly argument, and he will erase my posts and block my IP. This is also fine by me. My viewpoint is precisely that: In there interest of making sure my voice is heard, do I have the government pass a law forcing Zeropaid to not remove my posts? I suggest that this would be absurd, and a violation of Zeropaid’s rights. It is the difference between copying a digital song, (which is absurdly called theft even though the song is not removed from the possession of the creator) and telling the artist how to sing, how often to sing, what he can and can’t sing, etc. It would have been enough for Finland’s legislature to say, “Hey, we aren’t going to get in the way of people using the internet.”
I hope I made my position a little more clear this time around. My apologies for being so wordy.
Naw I don’t think the Government should pay for our internet no way! In places like public library’s yes. What I am saying is that in a true democracy a people’s elected officials put the people number one, not corporate monsters like AT&T or the MPAA or RIAA. People are taken care of so they can have the freedom to really live. AGAIN, people should have the right to Medical, dental, child care, and a retirement pension. Many countries enjoy this now, UK, France, Canada. We Americans suffer needlessly! Go check out filmmaker Michael Moore’s newest movie Capitalism: A Love Story. We need a 2nd American revolution literally to oust these incumbent a$$holes! In a true democracy these things are easily provided leaving people with plenty of money to live on! I’ve seen it in action. Our senate Just Oked 33 billion more taxpayer dollars for the so called war in Afghanistan! It is insane! This money should have been spent on the America people! Then they passed another bill supposedly going to cost Billions to crack down on P2P sharing! What a waste!! Hollywood can buy off politicians to make corrupt paws BC they have plenty of money to for lobbying efforts! How corrupt!