a_n_d_e_r_s writes "The battle was hard, but the final text of the agreement ensures that people in the EU are not disconnected from the Internet without a chance to get a fair and impartial hearing beforehand. The important part is: 'Accordingly, these measures may only be taken with due respect for the principle of presumption of innocence and the right to privacy. A prior fair and impartial procedure shall be guaranteed, including the right to be heard of the person or persons concerned, subject to the need for appropriate conditions and procedural arrangements in duly substantiated cases of urgency in conformity with European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The right to an effective and timely judicial review shall be guaranteed.' This means that if someone is accused of copyright infringement, they can't just be disconnected from Internet. It lets the accused get a chance to disagree and take it to court first. The urgency clause means that a computer can be disconnected if it is part of an ongoing DDoS attack. Next, this has to be implemented into the EU nations' own laws, so the final ruling on how this will be implemented is not out yet. But, overall, it looks like a great success in stopping informal three-strikes disconnections."
Who decides what "a prior fair and impartial procedure" is?
- The member states, when they pass the laws intended to implement this.
- The member states courts, when ruling and setting precedent on those laws.
- The European Court, should someone challenge whether the implementation is within the bounds of the directive.
"However, the text only speaks of "a prior fair and impartial procedure" instead of a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, guaranteed by the original "amendment 138", and contains loopholes and ambiguities. The invalidation of freedom-killer measures such as "three strikes policies" will now depend on interpretation by the European Court of Justice and national courts. Moreover, the text only relates to measures taken by Member States and thereby fails to bar telecom operators and entertainment industries from knocking down the founding principle of Net neutrality."
According to my law guidebook "a prior fair and impartial procedure" involves an adversarial legal setup with two legal teams. Each team drains its client's bank account as fast as money transfer technology makes possible and the first client to go bankrupt loses the case.
Now what happens if ACTA gets signed? According to yesterdays article [slashdot.org], ACTA may be requiring some form of n-strikes law. Maybe this will prompt the european negotiators to remove the language from ACTA. Naaaaaa, that would be too sensible...
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday November 05, @12:20PM (#29996612)
Now what happens if ACTA gets signed? According to yesterdays article [slashdot.org], ACTA may be requiring some form of n-strikes law. Maybe this will prompt the european negotiators to remove the language from ACTA. Naaaaaa, that would be too sensible...
From the article,
A prior fair and impartial procedure shall be guaranteed, including the right to be heard of the person or persons concerned, subject to the need for appropriate conditions and procedural arrangements in duly substantiated cases of urgency in conformity with European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. and The right to an effective and timely judicial review shall be guaranteed.
I think this pretty much makes ACTA, as we know it (and you have to keep in mind that no-one around here knows the exact text of the treaty) invalid and impossible to sign if it has the rumored provisions.
In a word, no. I'd rather have a court determine who is or is not able to access the internet than an ISP or a copyright holder, but forced disconnection from the internet shouldn't be an option at all. If record companies or other copyright owners want to punish someone for illegally sharing content, there are civil remedies for that. They can sue for damages (and I mean actual damages, not ridiculously inflated damages).
This is not a great success. Instead, it appears to be the beginning of a failed policy. Let's hope that internet access is eventually considered to be a fundamental human right, because with our growing dependence on technology, it should be.
This is not a great success. Instead, it appears to be the beginning of a failed policy.
If the intention is to assert further unreasonable power over a population that isn't likely to do anything about it, then all policies fitting that description (Internet-related or not) have been a resounding success. They're more successful still when each generation grows up conditioned to it because it's "just the way things are" with little appreciation for how they came to be that way. Then it's so much easier to add just a tiny extra restriction here and there, which doesn't seem so bad at the time, except that anyone who takes a long view would quickly realize that over time these things add up to a tremendous transfer of power away from the people.
It's only a failure if reasonable honest government that truly represents the people was ever the goal.
A plan by the European Parliament to restrict the power of national governments to disconnect illegal filesharers has been dumped to win agreement on new telecoms competition laws.
Long-running negotiations over the EU Telecoms Package were completed last night when MEPs agreed to drop amendments that would have made internet access a fundamental right.
After months of negotiations, the agreed package now demands only "appropriate, proportionate and necessary" measures can be taken to enforce copyright. There must be a possibility of judicial review for those disconnected, but not automatic court oversight.
What's been done is that the three strikes part has been removed from the EU directive. However, previously there was language in that directive that would forbid any country from implementing a 3 strikes law on their own (remember, the EU passes some laws, but member countries can still pass their own)
The removal of this text now makes it possible for member countries to implement their own three strikes laws.
I believe that's the point. Courts are fed up with this. There needs to be a new system for IPR, this is just their way of saying "You deal with it, you caused it".
If they have to have a hearing for each case, won't this seriously bog down the court system?
Tough tooties. If 90% of your population is criminalized as a result of legislation you pass, perhaps you should reconsider that legislation? But that isn't what will happen. The people this law was written for (the content holders) will kick and scream until the government agrees to 'streamline' the process. And we'll be right back to DMCA or 3 strikes style laws.
Tough tooties. If 90% of your population is criminalized as a result of legislation you pass, perhaps you should reconsider that legislation? But that isn't what will happen. The people this law was written for (the content holders) will kick and scream until the government agrees to 'streamline' the process. And we'll be right back to DMCA or 3 strikes style laws.
Sounds remarkably like the behaviour of a 2 year old.
And what happens when a 2 year old gets their own way all the time? That's right, they become spokesmen for the world's recording and movie industry.
Just wandering, are there any other comparable situations where this is done, if I get busted 3 times for growing mariuana, do they cut off the electricity ? or water ?
The only thing I can think of is a driving licence, but in that case, lives can be in danger... so it's not really the same thing.
Well, thank you EU, good luck rest of world fighting this nonsense.
No, the first such laws were for felonies - after the third felony (murder, armed robbery, rape, etc.) you got life in prison.
It should be clear to some what is going on when it takes getting convicted three times of such crimes to put someone away for 20+ years. Because at a state level, "life" isn't until you die in prison. It is a lot closer to 20 years or so.
Even so, some folks really got tired of dealing with revolving door prisons and some guy convicted of a fifth armed robbery.
You can get water from a stream, collect if from your roof, or buy it in little plastic bottles. You can heat your home by burning wood. You don't need piped water or electricity any more or less than you need the Internet. They are all luxuries. However, piped water and electricity have become so ubiquitous, and so important for normal everyday tasks that they aren't really considered luxuries, they are considered basic necessities. Some people consider the Internet in the same light. That is the view the gp was basing his argument on.
You haven't refuted it. All you've done is to essentially state, "I consider water and electricity to be necessities, but not the Internet." Which is fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but you haven't really shown why water and electricity piped from a central utility are necessities, and you certainly haven't shown that the Internet isn't, so all you have done is presented your own opinion unsupported by any facts.
You are different from other people. For instance, some people live off the grid and do not have municipal electricity or water. Their lives would not change at all without these things, as they don't have them to begin with.
Some people, such as software developers or website owners, depend on the Internet as much as you depend on municipal utilities. More so, in fact, because you have options. You can heat your house by burning wood, or using propane delivered by truck. You can dig a well for water. There is no alternative to the Internet.
You may think people who use the Internet 'have no life,' as you said, but some people actually use the Internet for their livelihood. It is their life and you have no standing to judge them.
In 'this century' (It's the twenty first century! did you know that?) some people depend on the Internet as much as people in the last century depended on municipal electricity and water. They depend on the Internet for their 'current mode of life.'
Now, in order to prove you are more than just an angry prick who has just had his ass handed to him in a debate, perhaps you could back up your ad hominems? How am I 'overly optimistic?' How, exactly, is my argument 'baseless' or 'hypothetical?'
A discussion, hmmmm? Well, lets' dissect your posts for some clue as to why you've been treated the way you were.
In your original post, you said: "I think the difference is that you don't need the internet to live a normal life." You haven't qualified that by stating 'for most people' as you finally did after being slapped down, twice.
You went on to say, "Infact it usually contributes to leading an abnormal life or even not having a life to start with. " This is not self deprecating humor. You made no attempt to show this applies to you. Perhaps you wrote that with all intention of being humorous, perhaps you were just being a dick, the point is, we don't know your intention because it wasn't made clear, all we have to go on are your words, and your words are derogatory, not humorous.
Finally, you say, "Water is needed to drink and bathe and electricty is needed for at least heating homes." which is simply a non sequiter. We weren't talking about water and electricity, we were talking about municipal water and electricity.
You weren't modded down for being anti-Internet. You were modded down because, a.) you presented a poorly constructed argument unsupported by facts, and b.) you sounded, intentionally or not, like a condescending asshole.
Let me remind you that I didn't call you a prick, or a condescending asshole. I said you could prove you weren't a prick. And I said you sounded like a condescending asshole. See the difference?
Finally, let's demolish the smoking rubble that is all that is left of your argument, to whit, your statement, "I don't think the majority of people depend on thier home internet connection for thier livihood. Get me soem numbers if you have proof, otherwise you are just talking out of your ass like me. Those that do, should have a buisness type account and really should not be doing illegal things with it."
It doesn't matter if there are (currently) a majority of people who depend on the Internet. The question is, are there any? Yes, I think we both agree there are. So, shutting off their Internet would have at least the same impact as shutting off your electricity.
We can't simply make exceptions for people who's job depends on the Internet. That is not fair or equitable. It is not fair to say, "Well, business users shouldn't be doing bad things on the Internet anyway," as you did. How do we know they were? This whole thing is very extra-judicial, anyone could be falsely accused and have very little recourse to defend themselves, and no options for rebuilding their lives after their Internet connections were permanently shut off.
In short, it appears that you support and defend this three strikes legislation, and do not think of a permanent injunction barring people from using the Internet as any sort of cruel and unusual punishment because only dweebs and weirdos with no life use the Internet. That is why you were modded down, and why I was modded up for refuting your specious reasoning.
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday November 05, @12:34PM (#29996762)
This compromise was reached with the votes of the Pirate Party member of the EU parliament, who touts it as "more than they had hoped for". He doesn't realize that they got nothing. Here's how three-strikes will be implemented: Have you ever gotten a speeding ticket? Did you pay without going to trial? Why? People will get a notification of copyright infringement, another one and a third one. Each comes with an explanation that they have the right to contest the notification. They will not contest it. After the third strike, their internet access will be cut off, and they will again have the guaranteed, irrevocable right to a fair trial before that happens. All it takes is for them to say "I didn't do it." But just like traffic violations, few will contest the charges and therefore it will be possible to actually do these trials. No more "they can't put us all in jail". The entertainment industry is only up against the few who dare to use their right to a fair trial. The rest gets the "just" punishment without so much as a hearing, and it will be perfectly in line with this "victory" for the civil liberties groups.
I don't contest speeding tickets, because it is not cost effective for most minor offenses. In my country, one has to take a whole day off work to fight a ticket and it's cheaper to just pay the damn thing plus the insurance hit.
Losing my right to an internet connection has a value to me that is much higher than a day of work. I would be guaranteed to take the trial option, and I suspect most people feel similarly.
In the UK, you can (or could, not sure if it's still true) often get off a speeding ticket because they won't bother chasing any more than six months old. There are a number of things you can do, such as request copies of the camera pictures and so on that take a good 9-12 months to complete before they take you to court and if you delay these as long as possible the system becomes so backlogged that they drop you and just go after people who will pay immediately. Maybe this kind of law will get the same treatment...
1/ I understand the fair hearing clause is sufficient to invalidate the horrible HADOPI law in France. In fact, I suspect it was put in there specifically for this purpose. The Sarkozy government tried to make Internet access termination automatic by hammering it into the same simplified, no-hearing judiciary subsystem that handles traffic fines, and this clause explicitly disallows that.
2/ The clause of due respect for presumption of innocence means that the onus will
If you read his blog [wordpress.com] (in swedish), you will know that he knows the fight isn't yet over, and that the compromise isn't the best possible solution.
But compare with what the Council of Ministers wanted before the compromise: They wanted to be able to cut off people from the net without any evidence of illegal activity, only accusations. Without any judicial intervention, and presuming that people are guilty until they prove their innocence (if possible).
This is the first major international political vic
Seriously, does anyone techy wait for programs they want to watch to be broadcasted in their country?
Everyone techy (and more of the young are techy), at least that I know, watches what they want, when they want. Some old stuff I watch I don't think you can even legally get hold of! Streaming cuts it for some, but not myself as I like to watch in my media player of choice, streaming doesn't fit into my net use and I'm damned if I'll download it again to watch it again.
The fact that the European Council (Swede's take note, this includes our own infrastructure minister, from a party that officially claims to be supporting our rights but in practice has done the opposite) even argued for suspending the right to a fair trial indicates that there is something seriously wrong with the entire system. How can these people be allowed to reign free? We need to realize that the council consists of our own governments and hold them responsible for whatever the council does. The council is not a democratic institution, they conduct negotiations in secret, they advocate draconian measures, they frequently force the European Parliament, the only elected body of the EU, to bend down to it's will. We need to get rid of these people NOW! They are a very dangerous bunch of people. Even with this wording, some, including many parliaments, will interpret the text as not requiring a court hearing, and implement it as such.
The council is not a democratic institution, they conduct negotiations in secret, they advocate draconian measures, they frequently force the European Parliament, the only elected body of the EU, to bend down to it's will. We need to get rid of these people NOW! They are a very dangerous bunch of people.
The European Council is indeed a democratic institution: it's comprised of the heads of state or government of the member states, all of whom are elected (in the case of monarchies, the Prime Minister sits on the Council).
The European Commission is the non-democratic farce comprised of appointed, unelected bureaucrats who do things like try and push through software patents in a fisheries bill and ignore demands made by our elected representatives in the European Parliament.
I know the council consists of our own governments. The main reason they are not a democratic institution however is the severe lack of transparency and the utterly non-democratic laws. I am also of the opinion that they are much to far removed from the people to have any deciding power. I can't speak for all governments, but the Swedish government does not vote in parliament, it can propose laws, but it cannot vote on them, this is left to the elected body, the parliament.
It's not the lack of democracy that's the problem, it's the lack of transparency. Even in the directly elected European Parliament, voting records are secret so you can't tell whether your representatives are representing you at all. Contrast that with the other tiers of government in the UK where I can get detailed reports about any of my representatives [theyworkforyou.com]. I'm tempted to stand in the next European election on a platform of greater transparency - you can't have democracy without accountability and the Eur
They can't in the long run as long as democracy works.
Christian Engström was elected into the EU-Parliament because of the actions of the Swedish government.
And next year the Swedish government is going to loose their power, according to the polls. Their demolition of citizen's rights is probably one of the main reasons. And with a bit of luck, the Pirate Party is going to enter the Swedish parliament next year.
"Accordingly, these measures may only be taken with due respect for the principle of presumption of innocence and the right to privacy."
-
This is a win for intelligence agencies and other organizations who want to be able to inspect every packet. This decision has reduced the likelihood we will get real privacy by the development of encrypted anonymizing p2p systems.
Yes, but European laws are really treaty obligations too (e.g. to the Treaty of European Union) and so it's a question of whether one treaty trumps another.
Three Strikes without due-process was one of the major faults of this bill, tho' comparatively still a minor "smokescreen" to the real issue. Three Strikes was leaked from the secret negotiations, to attract the bulk of protest and citizen lobbying while the real doozy was held in reserve; "global DMCA".
What's the status of those provisions? I wouldn't celebrate too soon.
I thought the whole idea was internet being an inalienable right that no one can take away from you?
So is freedom, but the government can still imprison you if you violate the law. The problem wasn't that you could have your Internet connection cut, but that it could happen completely outside the regular justice system and contrary to the principles of the justice system, especially presumption of innocence.
I really wonder how they think to go about cutting off someone's Internet access, too. I access the Internet through various networks, most of them not on my name. Most of these networks are used by multiple people. I am sure the situation is similar for many other people.
This raises two important questions:
1. How does one go about proving that a specific individual committed copyright infringement?
2. How does one cut off that person's Internet access, without cutting off various networks that are used by a lot of people beside that individual?
Of course, they might just disconnect every network that is found to be infringing... but then they can pretty much just shut down the entire Internet right away. I don't think that's really the intent of this directive, but even if it is, I guarantee you that it's not going to fly.
Impartial? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who decides what "a prior fair and impartial procedure" is?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Impartial? (Score:5, Informative)
The European Court of Human Rights [coe.int].
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who decides what "a prior fair and impartial procedure" is?
If you keep disagreeing with the judges: The European Court For Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Re:Impartial? (Score:5, Informative)
- The member states, when they pass the laws intended to implement this.
- The member states courts, when ruling and setting precedent on those laws.
- The European Court, should someone challenge whether the implementation is within the bounds of the directive.
Parent
Telecom Deal Still Up for Grabs-3Strikes Possible! (Score:3, Informative)
"However, the text only speaks of "a prior fair and impartial procedure" instead of a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, guaranteed by the original "amendment 138", and contains loopholes and ambiguities. The invalidation of freedom-killer measures such as "three strikes policies" will now depend on interpretation by the European Court of Justice and national courts. Moreover, the text only relates to measures taken by Member States and thereby fails to bar telecom operators and entertainment industries from knocking down the founding principle of Net neutrality."
Re:Impartial? (Score:5, Funny)
According to my law guidebook "a prior fair and impartial procedure" involves an adversarial legal setup with two legal teams. Each team drains its client's bank account as fast as money transfer technology makes possible and the first client to go bankrupt loses the case.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
hmm, i wonder if ruthless.com will work in wine...
ACTA (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:ACTA (Score:5, Interesting)
Now what happens if ACTA gets signed? According to yesterdays article [slashdot.org], ACTA may be requiring some form of n-strikes law. Maybe this will prompt the european negotiators to remove the language from ACTA. Naaaaaa, that would be too sensible...
From the article,
A prior fair and impartial procedure shall be guaranteed, including the right to be heard of the person or persons concerned, subject to the need for appropriate conditions and procedural arrangements in duly substantiated cases of urgency in conformity with European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. and The right to an effective and timely judicial review shall be guaranteed.
I think this pretty much makes ACTA, as we know it (and you have to keep in mind that no-one around here knows the exact text of the treaty) invalid and impossible to sign if it has the rumored provisions.
Parent
Re:the right to... (Score:2)
Nah.
It's becoming apparent that copyright industries trump any rights organizations. You have the right to be made fun of in a juicy revue.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think ACTA will trump European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom.
Basic premise in the EU is Human Rights>Corporations which is not always the case but hopefully this time.
a "great success?" (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a great success. Instead, it appears to be the beginning of a failed policy. Let's hope that internet access is eventually considered to be a fundamental human right, because with our growing dependence on technology, it should be.
Re:a "great success?" (Score:5, Insightful)
If the intention is to assert further unreasonable power over a population that isn't likely to do anything about it, then all policies fitting that description (Internet-related or not) have been a resounding success. They're more successful still when each generation grows up conditioned to it because it's "just the way things are" with little appreciation for how they came to be that way. Then it's so much easier to add just a tiny extra restriction here and there, which doesn't seem so bad at the time, except that anyone who takes a long view would quickly realize that over time these things add up to a tremendous transfer of power away from the people.
It's only a failure if reasonable honest government that truly represents the people was ever the goal.
Parent
But I thought that 3 Strikes had been kept (Score:5, Informative)
A plan by the European Parliament to restrict the power of national governments to disconnect illegal filesharers has been dumped to win agreement on new telecoms competition laws.
Long-running negotiations over the EU Telecoms Package were completed last night when MEPs agreed to drop amendments that would have made internet access a fundamental right.
After months of negotiations, the agreed package now demands only "appropriate, proportionate and necessary" measures can be taken to enforce copyright. There must be a possibility of judicial review for those disconnected, but not automatic court oversight.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What's been done is that the three strikes part has been removed from the EU directive. However, previously there was language in that directive that would forbid any country from implementing a 3 strikes law on their own (remember, the EU passes some laws, but member countries can still pass their own)
The removal of this text now makes it possible for member countries to implement their own three strikes laws.
Court System Strain (Score:4, Interesting)
If they have to have a hearing for each case, won't this seriously bog down the court system?
Will the industry then be limited to going after only the biggest offenders?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they have to have a hearing for each case, won't this seriously bog down the court system?
Tough tooties. If 90% of your population is criminalized as a result of legislation you pass, perhaps you should reconsider that legislation? But that isn't what will happen. The people this law was written for (the content holders) will kick and scream until the government agrees to 'streamline' the process. And we'll be right back to DMCA or 3 strikes style laws.
Re:Court System Strain (Score:5, Funny)
Tough tooties. If 90% of your population is criminalized as a result of legislation you pass, perhaps you should reconsider that legislation? But that isn't what will happen. The people this law was written for (the content holders) will kick and scream until the government agrees to 'streamline' the process. And we'll be right back to DMCA or 3 strikes style laws.
Sounds remarkably like the behaviour of a 2 year old.
And what happens when a 2 year old gets their own way all the time? That's right, they become spokesmen for the world's recording and movie industry.
Parent
Electricity (Score:2, Insightful)
Just wandering, are there any other comparable situations where this is done,
if I get busted 3 times for growing mariuana, do they cut off the electricity ? or water ?
The only thing I can think of is a driving licence, but in that case, lives can be in danger... so it's not really the same thing.
Well, thank you EU, good luck rest of world fighting this nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Weren't the original 3-strikes laws for drug convictions, mandating prison time for the 3rd offense?
Probably worse than having your electricity shut off.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the first such laws were for felonies - after the third felony (murder, armed robbery, rape, etc.) you got life in prison.
It should be clear to some what is going on when it takes getting convicted three times of such crimes to put someone away for 20+ years. Because at a state level, "life" isn't until you die in prison. It is a lot closer to 20 years or so.
Even so, some folks really got tired of dealing with revolving door prisons and some guy convicted of a fifth armed robbery.
Re:Electricity (Score:5, Insightful)
You can get water from a stream, collect if from your roof, or buy it in little plastic bottles. You can heat your home by burning wood. You don't need piped water or electricity any more or less than you need the Internet. They are all luxuries. However, piped water and electricity have become so ubiquitous, and so important for normal everyday tasks that they aren't really considered luxuries, they are considered basic necessities. Some people consider the Internet in the same light. That is the view the gp was basing his argument on.
You haven't refuted it. All you've done is to essentially state, "I consider water and electricity to be necessities, but not the Internet." Which is fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but you haven't really shown why water and electricity piped from a central utility are necessities, and you certainly haven't shown that the Internet isn't, so all you have done is presented your own opinion unsupported by any facts.
Parent
Re:Electricity (Score:5, Insightful)
You are different from other people. For instance, some people live off the grid and do not have municipal electricity or water. Their lives would not change at all without these things, as they don't have them to begin with.
Some people, such as software developers or website owners, depend on the Internet as much as you depend on municipal utilities. More so, in fact, because you have options. You can heat your house by burning wood, or using propane delivered by truck. You can dig a well for water. There is no alternative to the Internet.
You may think people who use the Internet 'have no life,' as you said, but some people actually use the Internet for their livelihood. It is their life and you have no standing to judge them.
In 'this century' (It's the twenty first century! did you know that?) some people depend on the Internet as much as people in the last century depended on municipal electricity and water. They depend on the Internet for their 'current mode of life.'
Now, in order to prove you are more than just an angry prick who has just had his ass handed to him in a debate, perhaps you could back up your ad hominems? How am I 'overly optimistic?' How, exactly, is my argument 'baseless' or 'hypothetical?'
Parent
Re:Electricity (Score:4, Interesting)
A discussion, hmmmm? Well, lets' dissect your posts for some clue as to why you've been treated the way you were.
In your original post, you said: "I think the difference is that you don't need the internet to live a normal life." You haven't qualified that by stating 'for most people' as you finally did after being slapped down, twice.
You went on to say, "Infact it usually contributes to leading an abnormal life or even not having a life to start with. " This is not self deprecating humor. You made no attempt to show this applies to you. Perhaps you wrote that with all intention of being humorous, perhaps you were just being a dick, the point is, we don't know your intention because it wasn't made clear, all we have to go on are your words, and your words are derogatory, not humorous.
Finally, you say, "Water is needed to drink and bathe and electricty is needed for at least heating homes." which is simply a non sequiter. We weren't talking about water and electricity, we were talking about municipal water and electricity.
You weren't modded down for being anti-Internet. You were modded down because, a.) you presented a poorly constructed argument unsupported by facts, and b.) you sounded, intentionally or not, like a condescending asshole.
Let me remind you that I didn't call you a prick, or a condescending asshole. I said you could prove you weren't a prick. And I said you sounded like a condescending asshole. See the difference?
Finally, let's demolish the smoking rubble that is all that is left of your argument, to whit, your statement, "I don't think the majority of people depend on thier home internet connection for thier livihood. Get me soem numbers if you have proof, otherwise you are just talking out of your ass like me. Those that do, should have a buisness type account and really should not be doing illegal things with it."
It doesn't matter if there are (currently) a majority of people who depend on the Internet. The question is, are there any? Yes, I think we both agree there are. So, shutting off their Internet would have at least the same impact as shutting off your electricity.
We can't simply make exceptions for people who's job depends on the Internet. That is not fair or equitable. It is not fair to say, "Well, business users shouldn't be doing bad things on the Internet anyway," as you did. How do we know they were? This whole thing is very extra-judicial, anyone could be falsely accused and have very little recourse to defend themselves, and no options for rebuilding their lives after their Internet connections were permanently shut off.
In short, it appears that you support and defend this three strikes legislation, and do not think of a permanent injunction barring people from using the Internet as any sort of cruel and unusual punishment because only dweebs and weirdos with no life use the Internet. That is why you were modded down, and why I was modded up for refuting your specious reasoning.
Parent
Re:Electricity (Score:4, Funny)
You can pull the holier than thou act all you like, but you were the one that started the insults, so it rings a bit false. Allow me to remind you:
"Let me know when you join us in this century and come back from the land of overly optimistic baseless hypotheticals."
I said nothing remotely insulting before that point. So, I also forgive you and hope you resolve your girlish passive aggressive tendencies, princess.
Parent
Well played. The noobs think they got something. (Score:5, Insightful)
This compromise was reached with the votes of the Pirate Party member of the EU parliament, who touts it as "more than they had hoped for". He doesn't realize that they got nothing. Here's how three-strikes will be implemented: Have you ever gotten a speeding ticket? Did you pay without going to trial? Why? People will get a notification of copyright infringement, another one and a third one. Each comes with an explanation that they have the right to contest the notification. They will not contest it. After the third strike, their internet access will be cut off, and they will again have the guaranteed, irrevocable right to a fair trial before that happens. All it takes is for them to say "I didn't do it." But just like traffic violations, few will contest the charges and therefore it will be possible to actually do these trials. No more "they can't put us all in jail". The entertainment industry is only up against the few who dare to use their right to a fair trial. The rest gets the "just" punishment without so much as a hearing, and it will be perfectly in line with this "victory" for the civil liberties groups.
Mod parent up (Score:2)
This is exactly what is going to happen.
Re:Well played. The noobs think they got something (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't contest speeding tickets, because it is not cost effective for most minor offenses. In my country, one has to take a whole day off work to fight a ticket and it's cheaper to just pay the damn thing plus the insurance hit.
Losing my right to an internet connection has a value to me that is much higher than a day of work. I would be guaranteed to take the trial option, and I suspect most people feel similarly.
Parent
Re:Well played. The noobs think they got something (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Differing opinion. (Score:3, Interesting)
I hear your point, but I beg to differ.
1/ I understand the fair hearing clause is sufficient to invalidate the horrible HADOPI law in France. In fact, I suspect it was put in there specifically for this purpose. The Sarkozy government tried to make Internet access termination automatic by hammering it into the same simplified, no-hearing judiciary subsystem that handles traffic fines, and this clause explicitly disallows that.
2/ The clause of due respect for presumption of innocence means that the onus will
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you read his blog [wordpress.com] (in swedish), you will know that he knows the fight isn't yet over, and that the compromise isn't the best possible solution.
But compare with what the Council of Ministers wanted before the compromise: They wanted to be able to cut off people from the net without any evidence of illegal activity, only accusations. Without any judicial intervention, and presuming that people are guilty until they prove their innocence (if possible).
This is the first major international political vic
Just legalize downloading already (Score:4, Informative)
Seriously, does anyone techy wait for programs they want to watch to be broadcasted in their country? Everyone techy (and more of the young are techy), at least that I know, watches what they want, when they want. Some old stuff I watch I don't think you can even legally get hold of! Streaming cuts it for some, but not myself as I like to watch in my media player of choice, streaming doesn't fit into my net use and I'm damned if I'll download it again to watch it again.
European Council (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that the European Council (Swede's take note, this includes our own infrastructure minister, from a party that officially claims to be supporting our rights but in practice has done the opposite) even argued for suspending the right to a fair trial indicates that there is something seriously wrong with the entire system. How can these people be allowed to reign free? We need to realize that the council consists of our own governments and hold them responsible for whatever the council does. The council is not a democratic institution, they conduct negotiations in secret, they advocate draconian measures, they frequently force the European Parliament, the only elected body of the EU, to bend down to it's will. We need to get rid of these people NOW! They are a very dangerous bunch of people.
Even with this wording, some, including many parliaments, will interpret the text as not requiring a court hearing, and implement it as such.
Re:European Council (Score:4, Informative)
The council is not a democratic institution, they conduct negotiations in secret, they advocate draconian measures, they frequently force the European Parliament, the only elected body of the EU, to bend down to it's will. We need to get rid of these people NOW! They are a very dangerous bunch of people.
The European Council is indeed a democratic institution: it's comprised of the heads of state or government of the member states, all of whom are elected (in the case of monarchies, the Prime Minister sits on the Council).
The European Commission is the non-democratic farce comprised of appointed, unelected bureaucrats who do things like try and push through software patents in a fisheries bill and ignore demands made by our elected representatives in the European Parliament.
I think you may have got the two confused.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I know the council consists of our own governments.
The main reason they are not a democratic institution however is the severe lack of transparency and the utterly non-democratic laws.
I am also of the opinion that they are much to far removed from the people to have any deciding power. I can't speak for all governments, but the Swedish government does not vote in parliament, it can propose laws, but it cannot vote on them, this is left to the elected body, the parliament.
The commission is also not very demo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> How can these people be allowed to reign free?
The Rome treaty.
I understand the balance of power will be shifting back in favor of the Parliament when the Lisbon treaty goes into effect.
So elect your representatives wisely, good folks.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How can these people be allowed to reign free?
They can't in the long run as long as democracy works.
Christian Engström was elected into the EU-Parliament because of the actions of the Swedish government.
And next year the Swedish government is going to loose their power, according to the polls. Their demolition of citizen's rights is probably one of the main reasons. And with a bit of luck, the Pirate Party is going to enter the Swedish parliament next year.
win for cops and intelligence agencies (Score:2, Interesting)
-
This is a win for intelligence agencies and other organizations who want to be able to inspect every packet. This decision has reduced the likelihood we will get real privacy by the development of encrypted anonymizing p2p systems.
This is not a victory (Score:5, Insightful)
They asked for everything including the kitchen sink.
They got everything except the kitchen sink, and you're trumpeting this as a success of rights?
This was the plan all along. Ask for everything settle for half. Except they got about 80% of what they wanted and they gave up nothing in exchange.
Treaties (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No great victory (Score:4, Interesting)
Three Strikes without due-process was one of the major faults of this bill, tho' comparatively still a minor "smokescreen" to the real issue. Three Strikes was leaked from the secret negotiations, to attract the bulk of protest and citizen lobbying while the real doozy was held in reserve; "global DMCA".
What's the status of those provisions? I wouldn't celebrate too soon.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought the whole idea was internet being an inalienable right that no one can take away from you?
So is freedom, but the government can still imprison you if you violate the law. The problem wasn't that you could have your Internet connection cut, but that it could happen completely outside the regular justice system and contrary to the principles of the justice system, especially presumption of innocence.
Re:manipulation? (Score:5, Insightful)
I really wonder how they think to go about cutting off someone's Internet access, too. I access the Internet through various networks, most of them not on my name. Most of these networks are used by multiple people. I am sure the situation is similar for many other people.
This raises two important questions:
1. How does one go about proving that a specific individual committed copyright infringement?
2. How does one cut off that person's Internet access, without cutting off various networks that are used by a lot of people beside that individual?
Of course, they might just disconnect every network that is found to be infringing ... but then they can pretty much just shut down the entire Internet right away. I don't think that's really the intent of this directive, but even if it is, I guarantee you that it's not going to fly.
Parent