EU Parliament Member Asks EU Commission What It Will Do If Italy Approves One Strike Copyright Law
from the good-for-her dept
We recently wrote about a ridiculous copyright law being proposed in Italy, that could ban people from using the internet based on a single accusation of infringement. As we noted, the law did not appear to agree with overall EU law. Some in the EU Parliament are taking notice. MEP Marietje Schaake has now officially posed a Parliamentary question to the EU Commission questioning how it would respond to such a law:Via the press it has come to my attention that the Italian Parliament is currently considering a draft law by which internet users can be disconnected and blacklisted if they have been accused on an intellectual property infringement. The accusation does not necessarily need to originate from the rights holder of the work in question.While it will be interesting to see how the EU Commission responds, just the fact that such questions are being asked should hopefully generate some attention to this awful proposal.
The draft law as it is proposed, violates several EU laws and principles, including:
- Article 1(3a) of the telecoms package, amending the Framework Directive 2002/21/EC,
- Article 6 ECHR concerning a fair trail
- Article 10 ECHR concerning the freedom to seek, receive and impart information,
- The principles of necessity and proportionality, and,
- Depending on implementation, the exemptions of intermediary liability in E-Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC,
Does the Commission agree the Italian proposal is in violation with EU laws and principles? If not, why not? What concrete action will the Commission undertake to put a halt to measures being implemented by Member States by which citizens may be disconnected from the internet?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: eu, eu commission, eu parliament, italy, marietje schaake
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
2) Accuse of infringement
3) ?
4) Law gets removed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The reason I ask is that like the movie the law shall be written with a hidden exception that can only be seen by moon light with a special set of lenses. It will exempt all EU government members from having to abide by this overreaching law.
It is similar to how the US Congress exempted themselves from the universal health care law passed a couple years ago.
"Its good enough for the rest of you, but I think we will sit this one out."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I also don't think that an EU article, such as article 10, can be construed to suggest that the transmission of pirated material is encouraged or supported.
I would also have to say that this politician, while a member of another party, seems to agree with the pirate party people a lot. So perhaps her "call" isn't anything more than grandstanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The trial part would be referring to the fact that a mere accusation would be enough to remove internet access under this proposal. This is counter to every principle of free speech, due process and liberty.
"I also don't think that an EU article, such as article 10, can be construed to suggest that the transmission of pirated material is encouraged or supported."
That wouldn't be what it would be used to defend, it's to defend the access to perfectly legal speech that would be removed under this proposal.
"I would also have to say that this politician, while a member of another party, seems to agree with the pirate party people a lot"
You are aware, of course, that the "pirate parties" have a lot more policies than the one you might assume from their name? There's nothing wrong with agreeing with them, and you can agree with them on a lot of things that don't involve piracy.
"So perhaps her "call" isn't anything more than grandstanding."
Perhaps, but since you seem to have misunderstood every proposal here, perhaps not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is no trial, so how can article 6 apply?
There should be no protection for illegally sharing files (movies etc), so how can article 10 apply?
How can one claim the action (removal of internet service) is out of proportion with the use made of it?
I cannot see how this is "misunderstanding", it's more wondering why she suddenly thinks they apply to illegal or bad acts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wow! You really think that?
You need to come into the 21st century and realise just how central the internet is to the lives of many ordinary people these days. It is at least as disproportionate as a driving ban on the basis of one accusation by a private individual of a parking offence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It applies precisely because there is no trial you dork!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Pull the other one, it's got pirates on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Since we all know that you a-holes can't even find the correct people to accuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope.
Moron.
(oh and yes, your post proves it, have a nice day).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
do you?
You did a nice job of re-inforcing the comment that you answered!
Well done!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Surely if you are asking for proof others can be extended the same courtesy no?
Why? because you are a pedo and they are pirates?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No proof would be needed as "based on a single accusation of infringement" or in the above statement based on a single accusation of infringement pedophilia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Both situations are punishment and revocation of rights without a trial, just an unsupported accusation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"There is no trial, so how can article 6 apply?"
The whole problem is that there is not a trial, genius. Article 6 begins:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing "
This is NOT happening under these proposals, hence the issue. If not a criminal charge, the punishment is vastly disproportionate and should not be sought.
"There should be no protection for illegally sharing files (movies etc), so how can article 10 apply?"
I take it you just chose to ignore my explanation above. I'll repeat: the proposals remove the right to ALL speech online, not simply what has been deemed infringing (with litte evidence other than an accusation, outside of a court of law). Most activity online is not infringing. It's like crushing someone's car because they jumped a stop sign.
"How can one claim the action (removal of internet service) is out of proportion with the use made of it?"
Very easily, we have someone who MAY (unproven) have committed an action that MAY (unproven) have caused financial loss to a company.
In return the person gets their internet cut off without warning, which usually provide access to some or more of: communication with friends or family, telephony service, news source, platform to exercise free speech and participate in political process, banking, even business and/or their source of income (if home working or self employed from home), and a whole host more.
How the hell is this not disproportionate?
"I cannot see how this is "misunderstanding", it's more wondering why she suddenly thinks they apply to illegal or bad acts."
She doesn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And that is exactly the reason why article 6 applies: the fact that there is no trial, only one single accusation.
Maybe not to infringing content, but article 10 certainly applies to all the other ways that the person in question would use the internet to seek, receive and impart information. She's saying (and I agree) that ban without trial and based on one accusation (not conviction!) would violate article 10.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And you can't see why doing this to anyone at all is punishment without trial?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now if I get this right it is obvious that they would not bother with this law unless unfringing content was available. Therefore the existence of this law leads people to believe that infringing content might be available. Therefore this law is in violation of itself!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Phonebook
#2. Report infringement against the person at the beginning, continue on until the end
#3. ???
#4. profit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Phonebook
#2. Report infringement against the person at the beginning, continue on until the end
#3. ???
#4. profit
There, FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also for the Italian law, can you really even call it a strike anymore if you get severely punished for the first accusation of breaking the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because they all incorporate some kind of "trial" in the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Problem is the judge gets 5 minutes to judge the case.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090704/1607575444.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suggest we push for this law approved
send infringement notifications on MPAA, RIAA and their political supportes sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scare of the week?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please Please Please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
an apology
"one strike" refers to the number of times Berlusconi is allowed to bitchslap any woman he considers "uppity" or threatens to sell their story to the media (unless he makes her vice president....VICE...you see?...oh never mind)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]