EU vote opens the way to 3 strikes law
p2pnet news view P2P | Politics:- The bitter war between online communities and the entertainment cartels has just been escalated.
With the EU parliament scheduled to vote on a controversial EU telecom reform package, member states agreed to add a new paragraph, “prohibiting national authorities from excluding users from the internet without a court order,” p2pnet reported in May.
However, in a move that in political doublespeak is being hailed as a ‘victory’ for consumers, and at the 11th hour, the clause, which would have protected people from the depredations of the Hollyood and the major record labels, has been drastically watered down.
Now, the package will “entitle users in all 27 EU states to be put through a ‘fair and impartial procedure’ before being disconnected,” says the BBC, going on »»»
The outcome is a compromise agreed during all night negotiations.
Some members of the European Parliament felt nobody should lose their connection until after they had been prosecuted in a court for illegally downloading content.
“The new rules take the form of an amendment to a much wider revision of all Europe’s telecoms regulations,” says the story, continuing:
“But they also represent a compromise between those who want greater protection for consumers and those who argue that copyright law is still being flagrantly disregarded by millions of computer users.
“So far it is also less than clear exactly what will constitute a ‘fair and impartial’ procedure.”
A ‘very last resort’
Britain and France have been the focal points of the corporate Three Strikes and You’re Off The Net scheme under which governments would act as a taxpayer funded copyright agencies on behalf of the corporate entertainment industry, and local ISPs would enforce disconnection of ‘illegal file sharers’.
In an interview with culture secretary Ben Bradshaw, “do you think that those people [file sharers] deserve to prove their innocence in a court of law?” – asked Labour MP Tom Watson.
Bradshaw responded »»»
Yes, absolutely. The suspension to which you refer – which would be as a very last resort for serial and serious infringement – would be subject to a strict two-stage process. It would not just happen on the basis of an accusation as you seem to suggest in your question. Firstly there would need to be court order for any of the technical measures that we are discussing in the consultation document to be implemented. Secondly, there would be a right of appeal to a tier one tribunal. I hope that you would not go away with the impression that innocent teenagers are going to be cut off willy-nilly on the basis of an accusation; that is not our intention or is not the effect of what we will propose when we come to publish the bill.
Q23 Mr Watson: I think that is actually new.
Mr Bradshaw: It is new; I have announced it to you today, Mr Watson.
‘3 strikes rule could harm the music industry’
The BEUC, the European Consumers’ Organisation, “is calling for a ‘fundamental re-examination and overall assessment’ about what constitutes illegal downloading — “and an evaluation of the economic harm to the music and film industry,” says the BBC.
”People who illegally download music from the internet also spend more money on music than anyone else,” said a new study recently.
Those who “admit illegally downloading music spent an average of £77 a year on music – £33 more than those who claim that they never download music dishonestly,” the Independent.
This suggests “plans by the Secretary of State for Business, Peter Mandelson, to crack down on illegal downloaders by threatening to cut their internet connections with a ‘three strikes and you’re out’ rule could harm the music industry by punishing its core customers”.
However, the war between the cartels and the people who keep them alive isn’t about money.
It’s about dominance.
Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music, and Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom, NBC Universal and Sony Pictures, believe they, and only they, must have complete control of the Internet as their exclusive marketing, sales and distribution channel.
Stay tuned.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
p2pnet – 3-strikes plan suffers new blow, May 5, 2009
BBC – EU offers hope to file-sharer,, November 5, 2009
prove their innocence – ‘Innocent UK teens’ safe under 3 strikes plan, November 2, 2009
more money on music – File sharers ’spend the most on music’: poll, November 1, 2009
Independent – Illegal downloaders ’spend the most on music’, says poll, November 1, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
| Archives | |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| Add real-time p2pnet headlines to YOUR site ! Click here to download our newsfeed code |
File sharers ’spend the most on music’: poll
November 5th, 2009 at 11:45 am
What is needed is not a hearing to determine if a person actually downloaded a file. What is needed is a ruling that file trading for personal and non-commercial purposes is not a crime in the first place. A hearing that results in disconnection anyway is kind of like a visit with the principal before you get expelled for a trivial reason. Which is pretty much what they do today.
November 5th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
How about a ruling that no individual can be subject to prosecution for copyright infringement, EVER, no ifs, no buts?
Just because you’ve drunk the kool-aid that says no-one can make money selling copies, or that you can’t imagine how anyone could, that doesn’t mean you deserve prosecution because someone liked your podcast so much they sent you a cheque.
Everyone deserves exemption from bankruptcy, not just lazy file-sharers, but hard working reviewers, DJs and remix artists too.
Would you have Kutiman strung up by the cartel the moment you found out he’d received a payment from a fan?
Where the heck did people get the idea that it’s evil to share or remix if you make any money out of it?
November 5th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
You are WRONG !!!! And it’s disgraceful that you shoud publish this kind of nonsense.
Read this for the truth, EU Breaks Deadlock in Debate Over Right to Internet Access http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/181472/eu_breaks_deadlock_in_debate_over_right_to_internet_access.html
After months of often bitter debate, European Union lawmakers reached agreement on how to preserve citizen’s rights to Internet access in a meeting that ended in the early hours of Thursday morning.
The issue, which pits citizens’ civil liberties against the rights of content owners such as record and movie companies to protect creative works on the Internet, has blocked the passage of a wide range of laws collectively dubbed the telecoms package.
Although the compromise reached by representatives of the European Parliament, the 27 national governments and the European Commission has still to be confirmed, it is seen as a watershed moment for the proposed laws, which aim to enhance competition among telecoms providers and to adapt users’ rights to better suit the Internet age.
The text of the telecoms package now contains a new Internet freedom provision that states that access to the Internet is a human right of every E.U. citizen, and that if authorities take away that right people must have the opportunity to defend themselves; citizens also have an automatic right to mount a legal challenge.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
@ EU Citizen.
The item you quote goes on, “However, the text does not demand that authorities in the 27 countries of the E.U. obtain a court order before cutting off someone’s Internet connection … ”
That’s freedom?
Cheers!
November 5th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Is this the same sort of “fair and impartial procedure” that they used to force Ireland to sign the Lisbon Treaty?
November 6th, 2009 at 3:01 am
No Justice no peace.