Victory for EU Citizens! Amendment 138 was voted again.

[Ea]

Edit, more links:
EU Deals Blow to Three-Strikes Broadband ISP User Cut-Off Plans
Euro-MPs Again Vote Against Three-Strikes Piracy Measure

From La Quadrature du Net (the only English language source I could find right now)

"Strasbourg, April 21 2009 - Once again, the European Parliament has demonstrated it can resist pressure and stand for the rights and freedoms of citizens. Amendment 138 (now renumbered amendment 46) was adopted today in ITRE committe, in Strasbourg.

Amendement 138/46-135 states that restrictions to the fundamental rights and freedoms of Internet users can only be put in place after a decision by judicial authorities (save when public security is threatened in which case the ruling may be subsequent). It was adopted last September by an overwhelming majority of the European Parliament, and approved by the European Commission despite explicit requests from the French Presidency to reject it. The European Council has rejected it further to pressure of the French government and some disinformation by in-house Council lawyers on its claimed contradiction with existing National law.

Despite strong pressure to reach a compromise on the framework directive of the Telecoms Package, the ITRE committee of the European Parliament has today adopted again amendment 138/46, by a strong majority of 40 against 4. One will have to monitor closely further proceedings to be sure that this vote is confirmed in plenary, but it is a strong and clear signal.

..." Read more

[HarryT]

What is the "force" of this ruling? Does it automatically apply in all EU countries, or is it up to each country to decide whether or not to implement it in national law?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Ea

Edit, more links:
EU Deals Blow to Three-Strikes Broadband ISP User Cut-Off Plans
Euro-MPs Again Vote Against Three-Strikes Piracy Measure

From La Quadrature du Net (the only English language source I could find right now)

"Strasbourg, April 21 2009 - Once again, the European Parliament has demonstrated it can resist pressure and stand for the rights and freedoms of citizens. Amendment 138 (now renumbered amendment 46) was adopted today in ITRE committe, in Strasbourg.

Amendement 138/46-135 states that restrictions to the fundamental rights and freedoms of Internet users can only be put in place after a decision by judicial authorities (save when public security is threatened in which case the ruling may be subsequent). It was adopted last September by an overwhelming majority of the European Parliament, and approved by the European Commission despite explicit requests from the French Presidency to reject it. The European Council has rejected it further to pressure of the French government and some disinformation by in-house Council lawyers on its claimed contradiction with existing National law.

Despite strong pressure to reach a compromise on the framework directive of the Telecoms Package, the ITRE committee of the European Parliament has today adopted again amendment 138/46, by a strong majority of 40 against 4. One will have to monitor closely further proceedings to be sure that this vote is confirmed in plenary, but it is a strong and clear signal.

..." Read more

Excellent news The 3-strikes policy was absurd and unworkable. I'm glad common sense has prevailed.

[zelda_pinwheel]

this is unsurprising (since they already had made their feelings known on the subject) but nonetheless very encouraging. i'm really glad to see that there is at least one authority who is thinking clearly on this subject ! hopefully the result will be that sarko will not be allowed to implement such a law in france, no matter how much he wants to... good for them for standing up to him !!!

[HarryT]

Can anyone answer my question?

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Can anyone answer my question?

EU Law is *extremely* complicated and I can offer no expert opinion. However, I believe that since this is part of the Telecoms Packages, which is a *directive* rather than a *regulation*, member states still have to pass laws to implement this decision. According to Wikipedia:

Regulations have direct effect, i.e. they are binding in and of themselves as part of national law, while directives require implementation by national legislation to be effective. However, states that fail or refuse to implement directives as part of national law can be fined by the European Court of Justice.

In any case, this amendment is not fully passed through the EU yet.

[HarryT]

Thank you, sirbruce; that's very helpful.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What is the "force" of this ruling? Does it automatically apply in all EU countries, or is it up to each country to decide whether or not to implement it in national law?

I'm not sure, and I have been looking... I found one quote here from the 31st of March, which may indicate that this might not only be a recommendation, but actually legally binding. As far as I can find out the bill is not completely settled yet.

"Europe’s trio of political institutions reached agreement Monday night on several components of wide-ranging telecoms reforms - but the legality of the proposed “three strikes” proposal to tackle illegal downloads is still unlikely to be settled until May. The European Commission’s media portfolio spokesperson told reporters today the commission, parliament and council had done a deal on plans including the following…

—New regulatory powers for EC: The commission, which until now has guided media and telco policy only through recommendations for implementation by member states’ own national regulators, will now get to foist “legally-binding decisions” on the states if their regulators do not implement those recommendations after two years."

[zerospinboson]

I'm sad to say it looks as though we've been shafted.
There are currently very few sources to be found, and the articles on secuobs are almost unreadable the way they are worded, but it looks as though a prediction made in the Guardian a few days ago has come true.

It looked like European parliament was making a genuine stand for citizens' rights.

But, over the last few days, as negotiations proceed between the parliament and council – the member states – disturbing news of a cave-in has started to emerge. First, an analysis was leaked from parliament's legal service supporting the council's position, and rubbishing their own, seemingly in order to pave the way for a capitulation.

Now, support is being given by parliament's negotiators for a proposed "compromise" amendment 138, which threatens to give EU citizens no protection at all. The new amendment says that a member state may determine:

Appropriate procedural safeguards assuring due process. This may include requirements of a judicial decision authorising the measures to be taken and may take account of the need to adopt urgent measures in order to assure national security, defence, public security, and the prevention, investigation, detection, and prosecution of criminal offences.

In other words, member states can do what they like, and disconnect or restrict whoever they like, on more or less any "urgent" law-and-order grounds they define, no matter how trivial the offence.

This likely capitulation by EU parliamentarians is very serious: not just for online citizens, who will find their ability to enforce their rights much more difficult, but for anyone looking to the parliament to protect their rights in the future.

[Ea]

Ouch! Doesn't look good at all.

[JayCeeEll]

...the prevention, investigation, detection, and prosecution of criminal offences.

The only bit of hope may lie in the fact that (in general) copyright infringement is a civil rather than criminal offence.

I am probably being too optimistic.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by JayCeeEll

The only bit of hope may lie in the fact that (in general) copyright infringement is a civil rather than criminal offence.

I am probably being too optimistic.

not in france. (and they've recently changed it to make it criminal)

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

not in france. (and they've recently changed it to make it criminal)

Disappointing, but not entirely surprising since Sarko is basically owned by France's version of the RIAA.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Disappointing, but not entirely surprising since Sarko is basically owned by France's version of the RIAA.

"disappointing" ? i'd call it scandalous, personally.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

"disappointing" ? i'd call it scandalous, personally.

I was trying to be nice, but yes, scandalous. Maybe disgusting and/or offensive as well.