Slashdot Log In
French "Three Strikes" Law Gets New Life
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Dec 01, 2008 07:54 PM
from the batter-batter-batter dept.
from the batter-batter-batter dept.
Kjella writes "A little over a week ago we discussed the EU's forbidding of disconnecting users from the Internet. But even after having passed with an 88% approval in the European Parliament, and passing through the European Commission, it was all undone last week. The European Council, led by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, removed the amendment before passing the Telecom package. This means that there's now nothing stopping France's controversial 'three strikes' law from going into effect. What hope is there for a 'parliament' where near-unanimous agreement can be completely undone so easily?"
Related Stories
[+]
EU Strikes Down French "3 Strikes" Copyright Infringement Law 271 comments
Erris writes "Opendotdotdot has good news about laws in the EU: 'EU culture ministers yesterday (20 November) rejected French proposals to curb online piracy through compulsory measures against free downloading ... [and instead pushed] for "a fair balance between the various fundamental rights" while fighting online piracy, first listing "the right to personal data protection," then "the freedom of information" and only lastly "the protection of intellectual property." [This] indicates that the culture ministers and their advisers are beginning to understand the dynamics of the Net, that throttling its use through crude instruments like the "three strikes and you're out" is exactly the wrong thing to do.'"
[+]
News: French President Busted For Copyright Violation 317 comments
An anonymous reader writes "ZeroPaid has an interesting take on the story of Nicolas Sarkozy being accused of copyright infringement. The irony, of course, is Sarkozy's pushing of a 3-strikes law — disconnecting from the Internet those accused of file sharing — in France and across the EU. The French president had apparently offered to settle the copyright infringement accusation for one Euro, but the band rejected the offer, calling it an insult. The article notes that each year since 2006, a high-profile anti-piracy entity has been on the wrong end of a copyright infringement notice. In 2008, Sony BMG was sued for software piracy. In 2007, anti-piracy outfit BASCAP received a cease and desist order related to pirated software. And in 2006, the MPAA was accused of pirating 'This Film is Not Yet Rated'."
[+]
South Korea Joins the "Three Strikes" Ranks 278 comments
Glyn Moody writes "For years, the content industries having been trying to get laws passed that would stop people sharing files. For years they failed. Then they came up with the 'three strikes and you're out' idea — and it is starting to be put into law around the world. First we had France, followed by countries like Italy, Ireland — and now South Korea: 'On March 3, 2009, the National Assembly's Committee on Culture, Sports, Tourism, Broadcasting & Communications (CCSTB&C) passed a bill to revise the Copyright Law. The bill includes the so called, "three strikes out" or "graduated response" provision.' Why has the 'three strikes' idea caught on where others have failed? And what is the best way to stop it spreading further?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
None, not without massive reform (Score:5, Interesting)
The EU is a great idfea but the execution is terrible. The council should be destroyed, stricken from the legislature.
That anyone on the council thought that this was even remotely conscionable tells you just how undemocratic the people on it are. The fact that they could then go and do this tells you how undemocratic the council system is.
Get rid of it. It's sick.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's all about thinking you are in a democracy, not actually being in one. Happy people are easier to control.
Lordy, I think all this
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, and Florida.
And a Nobel prize.
Re:None, not without massive reform (Score:4, Insightful)
And an Oscar. I'm pretty sure he won a few Senate elections too.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Bullshit.
All voting machines have a margin of error - accounting for the likelihood of a misread, a data entry error (someone hitting the wrong button), or other malfunctions.
The voting machines used across the USA have an average margin of error of at least 1.5%, sometimes more depending on whose analysis you are using.
Al Gore "won" the popular vote by less than 1% nationwide. That means that all you can say is he had a statistical dead heat in the popular vote. If you wanted to have a national recount, th
Re:None, not without massive reform (Score:5, Informative)
Well, if the council changes it, the new proposal has to pass through the parliament again (they cannot just change the directive and be done with it (they could in the 80s, but the world have changed since then and the EP have a lot more power)):
Look at: http://ec.europa.eu/codecision/stepbystep/diagram_en.htm [europa.eu]
I think that they just finished point 9. This means that the EP must take the councils amendments and their common position into account and vote again, the parliament have all the rights to reintroduce the amendment that was dropped by the council.
If they do, they are putting a clear message to them that the amendment is critical and the directive will not pass without it.
This is why you have a bicameral system. You cannot just remove the points by the other camber and be done with it.
Although the EU legislative system has it's flaws, it is often criticized today for how it worked in the 80's at which point it was still an international organisation (and a lot of the critics believe it still works as in the 80s).
There are problems for sure, such as that the council is not appointed as a separate body, but it consists of the member states governments (i.e. it would be better with senators that do not have a foot in the member states' governments since the council would then be accountable to Europe and you could in theory fire the entire council, but any way... I am drifting of my main points now).
I do not like the council, but it is not really as bad as you think. Please write your parliamentarian and ask them what they will do for the second reading.
Parent
Re:None, not without massive reform (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry I'm wrong. The commission is like that, the council is the way you described it.
Parent
Re:None, not without massive reform (Score:5, Informative)
The commission is appointed by the council, but subject to the scrutiny and approval / disproval by the parliament.
The commission does not have lawmaking rights in general (they do in two small areas, but have basically only used that power twice in 30 years or so).
From wikipedia:
-------------------
The Commission can adopt laws on its own initiative concerning monopolies and concessions granted to companies by Member States (Article 86(3)) and concerning the right of workers to remain in a Member State after having been employed there (Article 39(3)(d)). Two directives have been adopted using this procedure: one on transparency between Member States and companies[16] and another on competition in the telecommunications sector.
-------------------
So, two cases where the commission unilaterally did something in 30 years or so.
The telecom directive in question here is probably the capping of roaming fees, but that is typically not something that would go under law, but rather regulation of law (which is not necessarily handled by an elected body anyway) in the member states, so I cannot really see that they stepped over the line in that case, but yeah... in theory they have the power.
The important thing from the start of this post, is that the commission needs the approval of the EP, if the loose that approval, they can no longer remain in office.
No one in Europe elects their government directly, typically the prime minister is appointed by the head of state that may or may not be elected, but this is only a rubber stamp and the head of state has to appoint a prime minister that in term will name his ministers and then get the approval of the parliament for his government.
So I really cannot see the difference between how the commission is appointed and how each member states government is appointed. So blaming the commission for being unelected is a bit strange I think if you at the same time does not criticise all the parliamentary systems in Europe for having the same flaw.
The main problem as said is the council, but in many cases, the system of the Union gets a lot more critique than it has earned, and for the commission this is certainly so. Because, people does not really bother about checking the facts about how things work. If you criticise something, then make sure that you know how things actually work and you can make some concrete suggestions for improvements.
Parent
Re:None, not without massive reform (Score:4, Interesting)
The commission is completely unelected. Part of their rules of conduct is to NOT act with any favour towards those who picked them. The commission isn't a political body, but it has extensive political powers, including being the only body who can actually propose new laws.
The government isn't elected directly in most European countries, but parliament gets to pick the prime minister, and they can vote them out again. In contrast, the European parliament is a squabbling mess who doesn't accomplish anything. They could in theory dissolve the commission, but it didn't happen even when the commission became so obviously corrupt that it had to step down.
If the commission was abolished, I'd have fewer reservations about the EU. I still don't believe that you can actually have a well-functioning democracy the size of EU, and India and USA don't particularly challenge that belief.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The EU is going to remain a mess until support for a federal model gets strong enough. However, the populations in most member states are for the time being more likely to support
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't they want people copying music? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is all about the music industry trying to disconnect people from the internet who copy music. What is their problem? Turn on the radio, there's some of their precious music playing. Turn on the TV, you can hear their music. Go into a shop, it's playing there too. They even have special shows on TV, just about commercial music. Even special TV channels about commercial music.
Record companies pay radio stations to play their songs so that people can hear it. They put a lot of effort into making video clips so that the song can get on TV so that people can hear it. Do they care if you record music off the radio? Nope. Do they care if you record a video clip on TV? Nope. Do they want you to hear their music? They say they do, and they act like they do.
But if you copy a song on the internet because you want to hear it, suddenly they are all screaming "Cut them off from the internet! We're going to sue those illegal downloaders who tried to hear our music! We'll sue them for thousands of dollars per song!" Why? Don't they want people to hear their music? Isn't that why they pay radio stations to play their songs? Isn't that why they make expensive video clips?
Why do they want to cut people off from the internet? Why aren't they saying "This is a great way to get people to listen to our music! And we don't even have to pay, unlike the radio and TV stations"? Why are they trying to kick people off the internet, sue them, bankrupt them, wreck their lives? But if you listen to a song on the radio, they're really happy about it. Listen to it on the internet, you're dead meat.
Sure they don't make money from downloads, but they don't make money from radio or TV either. It costs them money. What's the real problem?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
The French healthcare system is good, but it's certainly not the greatest system in the world. The US system has the benefit of it's not a system so much as a free market, enabling those with the cash to buy the most advanced healthcare in the world. If only everyone was rich, then the US system would be perfect. But I digress and cease this route because it seems very offtopic.
The French people fought hard and once the war was over pretty much murdered in cold blood anyone who cooperated with the Germany.
Usually I'm rather pro-European (Score:3, Insightful)
The European parliament in Strassbourg (France): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Institutions_europeennes_IMG_4292.jpg [wikimedia.org]
I see my country's flag. Yet my voice can not be heard.
The parliament is GREAT (Score:3, Interesting)
They're mostly on the side of angels. Seriously. Maybe the fact that they don't have that much actual power forces them to act more responsibly. I don't know. But they usually side with the good guys.
Re: (Score:2)
As was I (and still am now) with a political scientist, thank you :)
No standing anyway (Score:4, Interesting)
This French law is stupid, but to what extent should the badly-run shady organization in Brussels overturn by fiat laws made by the National Assembly?
The European Union executive runs roughshod over the European Parliament; there is much backroom dealing and invisible lobbying. Under such conditions I don't think the laws passed have much legitimacy, even if they achieve good results (they rarely do). Depending on the dictators from Brussels to enforce freedom in France is a contradiction in terms.
\end{rant}
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the problem, the dictators in Brussels.
The parliament also needs reform, greater visibilty and greater accountability. The reason they can ride roughshod over national laws is because member states lead by France gave them that power. It's perfectly legitimate, or at least it would be without the damned comission.
Re:No standing anyway (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You miss a point: The whole concept of europe is based on the concept that some selfappointed burocrats run everything while the elected MEPs have absolutely no power, the parlament "rubberstamps" decisions taken by others... Nations can't decide anymore what's legal nor how to regulate the invasion from north africa even inside their borders. New laws against "xenofobia" are coming into effect whose aim is to suppress free speech.
The problem, or good part of it, is that Sarko is such a id..t that he makes
Re:No standing anyway (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah that plan you had to deposed him was sublime in its genius. Getting rid of him by letting him serve his full term of office was a masterstroke.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No standing anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
It is relatively new. And it is a force of good. But it has much to improve. We shouldn't call for destruction of the EU but rather better mechanisms.
Parent
Not a contradiction, that's what happens (Score:3, Informative)
The European Court of Human Rights (which is not an EU institution, but close enough) acts as a last measure in many cases, much like the SCOTUS but w/o Adolf, err Antonin Scalia. They forced many positive changes in our disturbingly creepy judicial practices.
In other matters the Commission forced the break up of the former telecom monopoly, which resulted in one of the highest broadband penetration in the world. They might next save us from the current oligopoly in the mobile phone network industry, which
Well that's what you get (Score:5, Insightful)
The EU is something of the worst parts of a government and a diplomatic organization. It wants to pretend to be the unified European government, but it really isn't. It also isn't democratically elected or directly accountable to it's constituents.
The basic problem is that the European nations wanted to create a union that was along the lines of the United States (which as the name implies is a union of independent states). However they half-assed it. The reason the United States is so powerful is because of the united nature. While the states are independent, the laws of one do not affect the laws of another, they are all a lesser part of the whole. The states have to do as the federal government says and there is no leaving the union (that was what the civil war was actually about, can you leave the union). Though separate, they act as a whole.
Now this means two important things on a governmental level:
1) The federal government has real power. It can make laws, treaties and so on that the several states are required to abide by (within the bounds allowed in the Constitution). There isn't any weaseling out of it or leaving. Thus the government can speak for the US as a whole.
2) The government is directly accountable to the people. The federal government is elected by the citizens of the states, and thus is accountable to them. If they behave in a way the citizens don't like, they can be ousted as happened in this most recent election. Though it is a republic, not a democracy, it is still a democratic process where the people in the states say who will lead, not the leaders of the states.
Well unless the EU is willing to do this sort of thing, then crap like this ruling will happen. It isn't a real government. It has some trappings of a government, and some authority like it, but it isn't really a government.
I really think the EU needs to change. They either need to go all the way, become a unified nation fully, or they need to scale back, and basically become a trading bloc. This "We're a European government but not really and you don't get to elect us," is just bad news IMO.
Re:Well that's what you get (Score:5, Insightful)
We elect the european parliament.
Just not the commission. This must change, starting with the scrapping of the commission.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well that's what you get (Score:5, Informative)
Indirect voting is just another form of democracy, a bit like the electoral vote in the USofA.
The real problem are France and the UK, they form an axis of evil that refuses to grant the European Parliament full rights.
This is especially cynical when you see and hear how the British press is always going on about the so-called non-elected bureaucrats in Brussels, I believe the British scandal press is part of the European problem not getting solved.
Parent
Re:Well that's what you get (Score:5, Insightful)
> This is especially cynical when you see and hear how the British press is always going on about the so-called non-elected bureaucrats in Brussels,
It always makes me laugh when I read this kind of stuff in the press: coming from a country with a non-elected 2nd house, and a non-elected *head of state* (who can dissolve parliament, declare war etc!!).
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
this would be the state judiciaries? No - the federal judiciary overturned a decision taken by the federal government. However the mechanism actually works, the GP's point, that the federal government actually runs the country that the rest of the world sees, is still valid.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6QmH-7fu68 [youtube.com] > this is how they are building the uberstate: violating the rules
Re:Well that's what you get (Score:5, Informative)
I really think the EU needs to change. They either need to go all the way, become a unified nation fully, or they need to scale back, and basically become a trading bloc. This "We're a European government but not really and you don't get to elect us," is just bad news IMO.
There is strong sentiment within several of the member states of the EU to withdraw from the organization. The European Parliament and Commission is seen, by many, as weak and/or corrupt (depending on who you ask); and the rest don't really know who they are or what they do.
The Governments of England, France and Germany do not wish to give away more of their own sovereignty or power, yet they wish to maintain or increase their influence upon the management and direction of the EU itself. At the same time as they want to remain as much a part from it as possible. If the EU were to become a proper union it would drastically reduce the power of some of the founding states, while increasing the influence of economically weaker nations (such as Poland).
Cultural, economical and political factors ensure that the EU as it stands today will never become a Union and if the governing body of the EU tried to do anything that seemed to pull towards such a scenario the Union would dissolve in a heart beat. It has no military power, and none of the member states wish to give their military, or security, forces over to EU control. Not to mention the fact that some member states are a member of NATO while others are not.
In practical terms as it today the EU drafts various trade laws that it tries to enforce upon weaker nations while the stronger nations decide if they want to implement, ignore, claim to lack the resources to implement, really lack the resources to implement or simply decide that it is not in their best interest to implement.
Then there is the EEA (European Economic Area) which binds the signing Nations to parts of the EU laws. EEA is the members of EU and Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway. Oh and Switzerland isn't part of the EEA because they got a special deal with the EU (since their constitution requires them to vote upon ever part of the "Deal" offered by EU membership). These nations gets free trade within the EU (kinda, but not really); but they have to follow parts of EU law (those outside the EU gets no say or influence upon those laws).
If you are confused by any of this, or don't get how this really is supposed to work in practice; then don't worry; most of us Europeans don't get it either. For the most part we refuse or neglect to do any sort of personal research on the subject; much rather we listen to our own national politicians who have a real self interest (as I mentioned earlier) in keeping what power they have within their own Nation.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is strong sentiment within several of the member states of the EU to withdraw from the organization.
But none of them is a key member.
The Governments of England, France and Germany do not wish to give away more of their own sovereignty or power, yet they wish to maintain or increase their influence upon the management and direction of the EU itself.
You are wrong about Germany, historically it's only the UK and France that limit the rights of the European Parliament.
At the same time as they want to remain as much a part from it as possible. If the EU were to become a proper union it would drastically reduce the power of some of the founding states, while increasing the influence of economically weaker nations (such as Poland).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nepotism at work (Score:2)
Why is Sarkozy so keen on draconian copyright laws and punishments for people breaking it? Could it be that his latest wife is a singer, composer and model?
I mean, most politicians are pretty self centered and don't give a rat's ass about their subjects, but I have rarely seen it used with such bluntness.
European Council does not have legislative powers (Score:2)
Re:European Council does not have legislative powe (Score:2)
EU - Dictatorship or Democracy ? (Score:5, Informative)
Well not exactly.
First of all, this is the Council of the European Union [wikipedia.org], not the European Council [wikipedia.org]. Everybody confuses them (and also with the Council of Europe [wikipedia.org], with is not related with European Union. Someone even mixed up with the European Commission [wikipedia.org] some comments above). Some people argue that people make things hard (like similar names hard to remember), so that it's harder to fight (you can't fight what you don't understand).
Also, the Council wasn't led by Sarkozy, but by Luc Chatel [wikipedia.org], secretary of State for Consumer affairs and Industry. But it's true that nobody in the French government would have the guts to make Sarkozy unhappy on purpose. They are totally devoted to him. So incidentally we can indeed say that Sarkozy led the Council even if he wasn't here.
Laquadrature published something more accurate : Citizen safeguards striked out in EU Council [laquadrature.net]
Woa, kinda alarmist, don't you think ?
The text hasn't been adopted yet. You can fin a nice diagram [laquadrature.net] describing where we are in the current procedure. The step described in this article is the point #4=>#9. The next step will be #11. But first, there will be a tripartite meeting (Council + MEPs + commission) and probably a #10 as commission and council doesn't agree.
So there will be a second reading by the EP. So please stop saying that UE is a dictatorship. There are a lot of things to notice before we can say that :
Again, nobody says that EU is perfect. Of course it isn't. But saying that "The EU is a great idea but the execution is terrible.", or other thing I read in the comments, seems disproportionated to me. It's probably due to the fact that the article was mis
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't such a focus weaken the 88% agreement of the European Parliament ? The amendment was previously written in general terms, which seemed like a good idea in order to make it relevant to the whole European Union. I fear that if it becomes too obvious that some MEP are fighting at the European Parliament level a national battle, the support might van
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, you ain't telling me nothing new. here in AR We, The People, have voted like 4 times for a damned lotto. And so far the bible thumpers have found some legal BS way to weasel out of listening to us 3 times. This past election yet again we voted for a lotto, this time by nearly 3 to 1. The profits will ensure that all the children of AR can have a free college education if they keep up their grades.
So now I am just waiting on those God Damned bible thumpers to find yet ANOTHER way of screwing us out
Re: (Score:2)
And yet the same idiots keep getting re-elected.
Who's fault is that?
Re:The French (Score:5, Informative)
Time for another line from yes minister (about a compulsory European ID card): "The Germans will love it, the French will ignore it and the Italians will be too disorganised to implement it; it's only the British who will resent it"
While 'Let the French do what the Fench think is good for France' is a good sentiment, the way it works is that the EU presidency rotates around every 6 months, and during those 6 months, whichever country hold the presidency has a completely free hand to try and force the craziest nonsense from their law books onto the rest of Europe.
The UK forced 2 years retention of electronic communications particulars through, for instance. (Which I suspect that they did because they wouldn't have got enough support for the measure at home)
Parent
The EU Presidency (Score:2)
... is largely symbolic. It only gives more exposure, not more power, and no way it gives a "free hand." That's just nonsense.