French Parliament Passes Hard Internet Piracy Law

Remove all ads!

What would you trust, a governmental agency or a private group? Civil servants or corporate executives? Perhaps neither... Having to rely on private interests for such a sensitive issue would make me throw away my modem and move to the mountains where I'd start breeding goats and making cheese...

 

I am very happy that the french law was adopted in this form and not a milder one , if they keep pulling people will snap .
I find it a bit funny that so many people are convinced that today copyright laws are the right think , it shows how peoples perception can change and be influenced I can only hope that 50 years from now this laws will look as idiotic as denying women right to vote .
On a side not I am sure that the decision to cut someone Internet can be attacked at the European Court of Human Rights.

 

I think a stance that could be taken here would be that the government doesnt own the internet, its not their territory, like international waters, or telling someone who owns a spaceship that they cant go to the moon.

 

Tal , not if a better system then the current copyright one comes along or maybe the world will swift more towards socialism , etc . All I say is that what you can consider today as great and normal in one day can be considered "barbaric" .

 

You are of course wrong in this, the European Convention of Human Rights has no provisions about the right to use of the internet. Someone can of course try to make a case but it will be thrown out since it is outside of their juristiction.

@Caradhras

To me it makes very little difference to me, of course if it's a private instance there need to be proper laws and supervision in place to make it work. As I mentioned earlier your credit rating is allready probably monitored by some private instance, the damage that could be done by abusing that system are far more extensive than anything a pirate registry could cause.

 

A credit rating is an element of an on-going business transaction between an individual and a bank. It is not tantamount to a criminal record, hence the distinction I make. Criminal records and monitoring criminal activities should be the responsibility of the police and law enforcement agencies not independant private companies which in all logic are looking to make a quick buck.

 

Well perhaps credit ratings work a bit differently there but any disturbance in credit ratings in Finland affect a lot more than your relationship between your bank. The credit card rating can and usually will be checked by your employers and anyone you make any sort of contract with. It basically symbolizes how trustworthy you are, and if there are disturbances the chances are that the deal will be broken and you won't get hired. Losing your credit rating is in Finland second only to getting a criminal record and in some cases even worse.

 

I am sure that in the European Convention of Human Rights there is somewhere at least right to information and besides that i am sure some families's depend on internet for more than entertainment some people might even need an internet conection at home to work, kids are increasingly dependent on the internet for school etc . Of course i could be wrong my knowledge of the law is quite limited .

 

Nope, no right for information in the convention. There is simply no case to be made for the ECHR. Wether or not this law is legal according to the French constitution is of course a completely different matter, allthough I assume the parliament had that checked before they went on and passed the law. Can't say I know how constitutionality is checked in France.

 

I do not know if this protects individual right to information but what i have gathered of this law i suspect its not bullet proof , had problems in France at the constitutional court before and from what i gather here

I think that the decision to cut internet can be attacked in european courts .

 

I cant say about the European convention, but the UK human rights act of 2000 is probably very similar, and if it is it grants the right to liberty

Liberty is the right to act according to one's own will, and I believe that banning someone's internet access could be argued as a breach of individual liberties.

It also grants the freedom of expression.

receiving and imparting information or ideas

Could also be argued as a breach of the right to seek, recieve and impart information.

So, I think a case is very possible under human rights.

 

Constitutional law usually grants all sort of rights, like the right for freedom of speech or right to property yet these laws are restricted on many levels nationally. Constitutional law is rarely subjective and usually require additional laws to specify what is defined as the freedom of speech or individual liberties. If this was not the case all sort of silly cases could be made on the basis of constitutional law. So while I'm not awfully familiar with the praxis of ECHR I'm quite confident that this case would get thrown out, considering how rarely the court has been willing to involve itself in overturning national legistlation in general.

Also the European Parliament is no court, their opinion holds little signifigance. This is outside their juristiction and their involvement in the matter is unnecessary and unwarranted.

 

Morg,
the European Court of Human Rights doesn't overturn laws.

In its verdicts it states that a particular application of national law does or does not violate the European Charter of Human Rights.

They are no super-court. They have in fact a very narrow mandate - judging over complaints about alleged violations of the European Charter of Human Rights. If they find a violation, the verdict blocks enforcement of that particular application of national law in that case, because the state in question as a signatory is compelled to accept their ruling.

That this might force a country to change that law to conform with the European Charter of Human Rights is another matter. But a verdict by the European Court of Human Rights does not have the effect of making the law null and void. But a decision by the court gives people affected by that law a precedent to use to defend against measures based on that law.

 

While technically true the Finnish constitution includes provisions that Finland will follow the constitution and that makes it possible to make a case to overturn the law within Finland. I've no idea how it works in France.