backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 32 comment(s) - last by marvdmartian.. on Dec 3 at 4:08 PM


France is now cleared to proceed with termination of its illegal music downloaders and sharers after it coerced the EU Ministers to scrap the EU's protection against such punishments, which passed resounding in the EU's Parliament.
The EU scraps measure which passed with over 80 percent of votes, which would protect filesharers from termination policies like France's

Both online and off, piracy is at an all time high, as is efforts by national governments to crack down on copyright infringement in its various forms.  While some legal experts say such efforts are making high-tech nations into "nations of lawbreakers", many government and industry officials feel that they are essential.  The gaming industry has moved ahead on aggressive litigation targeting those suspected of sharing games, and offline U.S. and Canadian border patrol agents under ACTA will soon be able to seize and destroy laptops and MP3 players suspected to contain infringed content.

Now one of the most punitive pieces of legislation, France's new plan to terminate file sharers, has been given the green light. 

Just weeks ago, the measure was stalled after being passed resoundingly by the French Senate.  The European Union's European Parliament passed a measure prohibiting internet severance for file sharers, earlier this year by a resounding 88 percent ruling it too punitive.  A week ago, the European Parliament rejected France's pleas to overturn the provision, citing the strong majority it passed by.

Now, in a dramatic reversal the EU has changed its position after pressure from French President Nicolas Sarkozy.  Despite the vast majority supporting a ban on termination, France bullied its way to having the amendment removed from the Telecom Package, a set of EU laws, during a meeting in Brussels last week.

Denmark, Austria, Bulgaria, Poland and Hungary all strongly opposed scrapping the measure, even during the meeting.  However they caved at the last moment as France threatened to hold up the law-making process, putting the other important electronics provisions in the Telecom bill at risk.  In the end France had its way, with three nations abstaining in a show of protest.

The new Telecom Package strips the EU of its authority to regulate file-sharing, instead placing important enforcement decisions in the hands of member nations.  France's conservatives and liberals blasted the decision, with two MEPs – Guy Bono of the Socialists and Daniel Cohn-Bendit of the Greens -- among the vocal protesters.  They say that the French presidency's "dictation" will infringe upon citizens' rights and represents a mockery of European Union democracy.

France is now expected to enact its termination plan, as opposition from the left and right wings seems insufficient to overcome the centrists who dominate the French legislation.  Under the new law, those found sharing files by government agents will receive two warning letters, and on the "third-strike" have their internet terminated.  The government expects to receive monitoring support from internet providers.  A new government body to oversee the anti-piracy efforts will also be created.

Opponents argue that the proposal cuts people off from an integral component of work and society.  France would become the first major nation to adopt such harsh punishments for file-sharers.

While some countries like France and Sweden are moving to take away the rights of citizens who engage in piracy, others are actually adopting softer stances on file sharing.  Italy recently legalized file-sharing, despite strong industry protests.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Boo!
By Maximilian on 12/2/2008 11:58:24 AM , Rating: 5
Glad i dont live in france. Infringement of human rights etc etc, screw that.




RE: Boo!
By kmmatney on 12/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: Boo!
By PWNettle on 12/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: Boo!
By FITCamaro on 12/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: Boo!
By Suntan on 12/2/2008 12:43:56 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
they're their own damn country and can make laws as such.


I believe the issue here is bully the EU to go along with their laws. Not that France has enacted such a law for just its citizns.

It doesn't really matter to me, but doesn't France have more pressing things to be pushing instead of burning bridges in the EU over stuff like this?

-Suntan


RE: Boo!
By jimbojimbo on 12/2/2008 1:19:52 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
doesn't France have more pressing things to be pushing instead of burning bridges in the EU over stuff like this?
I guess they think the rioting's gone down too much so they want people to have yet another reason to riot. You know how when your internet connection is down you suddenly have all this time on your hands? Why not spend it rioting?


RE: Boo!
By foolsgambit11 on 12/2/2008 1:50:29 PM , Rating: 2
To me, the exact issue here is unimportant. The interesting thing about this story is what it says about the EU as a governing body. I can't believe they laid down solely because Sarkozy told them to. Either there was some dirty dealing going on, or this was more a vote for "states' rights" than specifically on this issue. Granted, the EU isn't as cohesive as the US, but still, could you imagine a single US state forcing the federal government to allow it to set its own rules for, say, car emissions? Oh. Wait. No. Could you imagine a US state deciding whether they could implement the death penalty? Oh. Wait.... Damn. Could you imagine a US state deciding its own rules for corporate accountability? What? Gargh! What the heck does the central government do?

But in all seriousness, the only problem I would have with France's termination legislation is a matter of enforceability. I can't see this as being able to be enforced very easily. In the end, are your costs in enforcement (setting up a 'banned' database that the ISP would have to check before giving you internet, for instance) warranted by the benefits gained? Could those benefits be gained, or at least approximated, in a cheaper or less intrusive manner?


RE: Boo!
By Solandri on 12/2/2008 4:49:21 PM , Rating: 2
(Gonna skip a lot of U.S. history regarding the Articles of Confederation to keep this short - read up on it if you're interested.) The States of the U.S. are more like government subdivisions than full-fledged countries. The Federal government has certain powers and duties. Powers and duties not assigned to the Feds then fall to the States.

The EU is kind of the opposite. It's a group of independent nations who decided to group together. In theory their agreement to join the EU should mean that they ceded power to the EU's governance. But in reality they're still a bunch of independent nations that have certain powers and duties. Powers and duties that they decide to give up then get transferred to the EU's governing body.

Even if they had decided to ignore France's protests and pass the ban, there's not much the EU could do to stop France from doing it anyway. It is still a sovereign country (c.f. Articles of Confederation I mentioned above and why it failed).


RE: Boo!
By stroudma on 12/2/2008 2:58:20 PM , Rating: 3
Filesharing wasn't mentioned in the constitution therefore it is not a right... that's just genius.

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

-Alexander Hamilton was afraid of people like you


RE: Boo!
By nycromes on 12/2/2008 3:26:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Filesharing wasn't mentioned in the constitution therefore it is not a right... that's just genius.


I missed the part where this was said...But he is right. The internet isn't a right. Rights and privileges are confused almost as much as needs and wants. There are distinct lines between them and they should not be confused. You don't have a right to drive a car, your ability to do so can be taken away if you abuse the power that comes along with operating a vehicle. Everyone has rights and privileges, rights cannot be taken away while privileges can. Don't confuse the two.


RE: Boo!
By stroudma on 12/2/2008 4:17:23 PM , Rating: 4
I think the internet is a right.

I cite the 9th amendment.


RE: Boo!
By Solandri on 12/2/2008 4:37:12 PM , Rating: 2
You have the right to drive a car. What can be taken away from you is the privilege to drive said car on public roads. If you want to let your unlicensed 5 year old drive your car on your property or on a private racetrack, you're completely free to do so (provided the racetrack doesn't object).

Don't confuse the right to use the Internet with the privilege to access it. The latter is usually conferred by paying a monthly access fee to an ISP. If you can secure a means of access, the 9th Amendment says you have a right to use the Internet. If the Internet were a public resource, then the government could restrict access to it. But it's not; it's privately funded and operated (albeit it began as a government military project). The government can no more restrict your right to access it than it can restrict your right to go shopping at the mall.

Filesharing of copyrighted material however is not a right (unless you own the copyright). The same Constitution which contains the 9th Amendment also grants copyright holders temporary exclusive rights to distribution. So by filesharing copyrighted material, you are actually denying other people their rights. So the government is free to shut down your filesharing. They cannot, however, take away your ability to access the Internet as punishment for excessive filesharing


RE: Boo!
By FITCamaro on 12/2/2008 3:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
And our country is being destroyed by people like you. Human rights are considered things required to stay alive and have the freedom to make your own choices. Using the internet and filesharing are not such a right. The freedom to choose to use the internet in an illegal way is. But then you get to suffer the consequences.

Just as I should be able to choose to own a gun. What I do with that gun is my decision. And I bear the responsibility for my actions with it. The problem with liberals is they want to skip the choice to use something improperly and just prevent you from making the decision altogether by not giving you the means to. Because they know whats best for you better than you do.


RE: Boo!
By Director on 12/2/2008 3:52:47 PM , Rating: 3
Oh really?

When I pony up my hard earned money for something then the use of that thing IS MY RIGHT! If the internet was provided for free then you might have a point about it being a privilege. That greedy mega corporations can influence governments into protecting their obscene profits is even further proof that democracy and freedom are merely illusions. As for doing 'illegal' things, given the amount of stupid and frivolous legislation that exists in the world these days I don't know of anyone who ISN'T a criminal in some way or another. As to the topic of pirating movies and music, the answer is simple: Start making a product that isn't crap and (most)people will be happy to pay for the quality and peace of mind that comes with the legitimate product. Lets face it, if you buy a CD or a DVD and it isn't up to expectation you should be able to return it given that you can't actually check it out before you buy it like you would a shirt or a pair of shoes.

All of this reminds of that quote from 1984, "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever."

The future is almost here.


RE: Boo!
By sprockkets on 12/2/2008 10:33:00 PM , Rating: 1
I'm surprised France fought and won, instead of surrendering.


RE: Boo!
By marvdmartian on 12/3/2008 4:08:56 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the serving of borscht and sourkraut every so often!! ;)


The hand writing is on the wall
By Beenthere on 12/2/2008 12:53:20 PM , Rating: 2
It should be obvious that governments worldwide are not going to stand by and allow piracy. At least the French decision is a first step. Prosecution of all pirates with minimum fines of $10K per copy and minimum 6 months jail/prison time, is a good deterrent.

If an entire generation makes a conscious choice to become criminals, then they should be willing to accept the punishment for their crimes. Just because youth can rationaize crime, doesn't make it acceptable to the rest of society.




RE: The hand writing is on the wall
By Suntan on 12/2/2008 1:07:22 PM , Rating: 2
Meh, I see “crime” happen in lots of different forms.

I see it being just as criminal when an “old” car salesman lies to a customer (even a little white one) to make a sale as it is to obtain a copy of a song you hear being played 50 times a day on any of 6 or 7 different radio stations.

I see 90% of what realtors do as criminal. And most of them are “old” people.

Good “old” boys in the local unions threatening to walk out of work, leaving their non-union colleges in the lurch is more criminal in my book.

Anyway, let’s not make this a young vs old debate. There is a whole lot of socially reprehensible activities that were completely normal for all generations (not even talking about the good old times when ladies where drowned to prove they weren’t witches or blacks were hung in the city square because they looked cross eyed at a girl… those certainly aren’t activities that today’s young do.)

-Suntan


RE: The hand writing is on the wall
By foolsgambit11 on 12/2/2008 2:22:08 PM , Rating: 2
How many colleges have unions anyway?

But seriously, I don't think that copyright enforcement should be an area of government investment. Enforcement should be limited to courts open for hearing civil cases of infringement. The court costs would be covered by the losing side. That is sufficient for the US Congress to fulfill its Constitutional power "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries".

But I do agree in principle with what you were getting at. There are laws that have an obvious basis in common morality - for instance, murder, theft, arson, and to some extent damages for malfeasance or neglect - and then there are laws that are more abstract, created in an attempt to improve society by channeling personal efforts in 'positive' directions. Laws in the second category, like anti-miscegenation laws, Jim Crow laws, either a stem cell research ban or stem cell research, &c., are historically transient in nature. They are usually created to protect the status quo, and to advance the interests of the enfranchised more than to actually advance the society as a whole.

But I don't condemn all second-order laws - things like social welfare programs and copyright law would fall in this category, and I support both in principle, although they are difficult in practice because the government frequently screws up the implementation. Copyright protections have grown in scope and duration well beyond the point of diminishing returns. How is society bettered by keeping Hemmingway's works restricted under copyright law? In my opinion, an author shouldn't expect his works to continue to su