European Parliament Rejects IFPI Plan To Make ISPs Copyright Cops
from the good-for-them dept
There’s been a huge lobbying campaign going on throughout much of the world to get local governments to put pressure on ISPs to require them to kick those accused of file sharing off of the internet. It had been worrisome that these efforts actually seemed to be getting some traction in both France and the UK despite vehement opposition from many people. It appears that the opposition has started to get its point of view across. The EU Parliament has now rejected a plan to criminalize file sharing and to implement a “three strikes and you’re off the internet” policy. The vote itself isn’t binding, but suggests how the EU Parliament feels. While France has already put in place such a law, there was some feeling that France would push to make similar laws enforced European-wide. This vote should put a damper on those plans.
Filed Under: copyright cops, europe, european parliament, france, ifpi, isps
Companies: ifpi
Comments on “European Parliament Rejects IFPI Plan To Make ISPs Copyright Cops”
Not Yet
No, the law’s not in place in France yet. They plan to pass it by June, I think.
You have no clue...
These new laws are not for as you would say “those accused of file sharing” but for those accused of sharing illegal files…BIG DIFFERENCE. Thankfully France and England both get it…and they rarely agree on anything! The EU rejecting a plan to make (stealing) or (illegal file sharing) illegal means nothing because they have no legal authority. Australia, Germany, Canada, Japan and the United States are soon to follow. This should only be worrisome those who steal…and probably you.
Re: You have no clue...
These new laws are not for as you would say “those accused of file sharing” but for those accused of sharing illegal files…
True. But note the important part is “accused”. There’s no trial. There’s no way to prove your innocence. There’s no way to note that an IP address does not denote the user and is often incorrectly identified.
The EU rejecting a plan to make (stealing) or (illegal file sharing) illegal means nothing because they have no legal authority.
Infringement is not stealing, but anyway… I’m not sure what the rest of your sentence means. Are you implying the vote itself was meaningless?
Australia, Germany, Canada, Japan and the United States are soon to follow
While there’s lobbying going on to that effect, so far there’s been tremendous pushback in most of those countries (have you been paying attention to what’s going on in Canada?) Also there’s almost no chance that such a law would get anywhere in the US.
This should only be worrisome those who steal…and probably you.
Well, first of all, I do not do any unauthorized file sharing. Second of all, stealing and infringement are two different things.
But, most importantly, you are wrong. This should be worrisome to anyone who believes in fairness and due process. The problem with this system is that people are not allowed due process to prove their innocence in a court of law. People should also be worried because it’s misplaced effort. It would be ISPs having to do extra work to protect an obsolete business model for the entertainment industry. That would set an awful precedent that will likely lead to higher bills and less connectivity.
That’s a huge problem.
Re: Re: You have no clue...
Important points
1) There’s no trial.
2) people are not allowed due process
Considering the above, it is obvious that this propoasal is contrary to existing law in this country.
Re: Re: Re: You have no clue...
Possibly. But if a new law trumps an old one.
It might be contrary to the constitution though, but if so, it can only be challenged by members of parliament right after it’s passed (which happened with the latest law on that subject, by the way, and might very well happen with this one). Once it’s part of the legal system, it can no longer be challenged before a court, though that might change in the coming months with a planned constitutionnal reform.
innocent?
As a Vietnam vet who had a high security clearance…
“True. But note the important part is “accused”. There’s no trial. There’s no way to prove your innocence. There’s no way to note that an IP address does not denote the user and is often incorrectly identified.”
First of all, the government isn’t interested in ‘actual’ innocence. Secondly, we’re all guilty to a degree, just as economy rests on faith not fact.
And secondly, I’m a criminal (misdemeanor) thankfully, for being epileptic. I was driving. I’d taken my medication properly. Something changed. Innocence is as much point of view as is value, I fear. (And I already was paranoid. Oh well.)
–Glenn
Even if this is used… there will be loop holes. Just like people do with credit cards and debt. This effectively does nothing except for waste our time with a pretend solution to a problem that isn’t going to go away over night.
More and more record labels and others realize the need to change their business models… its not our fault they are still trying to sell us a pretty package when a majority of us want it digitalized…
Anyway, back to the topic… Stop wasting our money and come up with a real solution.
EU "laws"
“The EU rejecting a plan to make (stealing) or (illegal file sharing) illegal means nothing because they have no legal authority.
Infringement is not stealing, but anyway… I’m not sure what the rest of your sentence means. Are you implying the vote itself was meaningless?”
That’s what he means. The EU Parliament cannot pass laws, they can only vote resolutions, such as this one. They are not legally binding.
So, to sum it up: France is planning to pass this law and the EU Parliament has passed a non-binding resolution against it.