11 Apr 2008
Plans to cut off internet access to people accused of file sharing have hit a hurdle after the EU voted to protect the rights of internet users.
A so-called 'three strikes and you’re out' plan, which is planned in France and proposed in the UK by the British Phonographic Institute (BPI) in this country, will now be much easier to challenge after a narrow vote in the European parliament which states that such bans conflicted with "civil liberties and human rights".
The parliament was voting on the Bono Report on the Cultural Industries, which examined the development of culture and intellectual property in the Union. Swedish MEP Christofer Fjellner and the former Prime Minister of France, Michel Rocard put in a last minute amendment saying that a three strike rule would:
"[conflict] with civil liberties and human rights and with the principles of proportionality, effectiveness and dissuasiveness, such as the interruption of Internet access".
The amended bill squeaked through, 314 in favour to 297 against, against a background of heavy lobbying from both sides.
"The European Parliament's file-sharer friendly statement is well timed," said Karl Sigfrid, a Swedish national MP, in his blog.
"France will soon get the opportunity to chair the EU, and one priority will be to force European ISPs to cut the internet connection of anyone illegally downloading a song or a movie. If insisting on his plans, Sarkozy now faces an uphill battle."
But the copyright lobby has expressed dismay at the move, with the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) expressed its dismay at the defeat of the legislation.
Frances Moore, IFPI executive vice president, said: "Many of the recommendations in this report stress the need to protect intellectual property as a driver of growth in the creative sector."
"However, one badly drafted, rushed through amendment was adopted which is in contradiction to the rest of the text. If the aim of the report is to protect creative content, including in the online environment, we should be looking at all options available in the fight against copyright theft. Instead, this amendment suggested discarding certain options before there is even a proper debate."
The move will also be a boost to Carphone Warehouse and its internet service provider TalkTalk, which is being threatened with legal action by the BPI over its refusal to co-operate and introduce a three strikes policy.
Latest stories from Communications
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
What is the most important IT priority for your company this year?
Connect with V3.co.uk
This paper focuses on a series of best practices and techniques for development teams looking to improve their software development processes
Why good data management at all levels is essential in the modern business (video, 6mins)
Desktop Deployment Support Analyst (Worksite, SQL...
Project Manager is required by Bank in Germany Suitable...
Mobile & Social Media Application Web Developer...
CCVP Consultant - Telecoms Cisco Certified Voice Professional...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
where now
whats next,an ultimate in piracy ,internet mark 2, a pirate version just for illegal file sharers
Posted by: robert cruickshank 05 Jul 2008
Who's Responsibility?
Should the Road Traffic Agency be responsible for impounding the cars of speeding offenders on their third strike? or is THAT a job for the police authority? It is not a needed requirement that users be banned on a three strike basis for copyright infringement by ISPs as there are already laws for this type of illegal activity. What they (relevent authority) should be doing is arresting/prosecuting the culprits, as would be right according to the law both morally and financially, after all why should subject A's little sister be unable to acces the internet for education or leisure purposes just because her elder brother is morally challenged? That smacks of human rghts infringement to me, just as they indicated in their amendment; good job somebody is keeping the eye on the ball in the EU!
Posted by: Lee Brown 14 Apr 2008