AfterDawn: Tech news

'Three strikes' plan is struck down

Written by Andre Yoskowitz @ 27 Sep 2008 10:31 User comments (8)

'Three strikes' plan is struck down The European Parliament has once again voted against the proposed "three strikes" plan on unauthorized files sharers that would ban three time offenders from the Internet.
Earlier this year MEPs backed an amendment to the Bono Report on the Cultural Industries in which EU members were asked to "avoid adopting measures conflicting with civil liberties and human rights... such as the interruption of internet access".

This time, the vote was a landslide however, 573-74 in favor of the amendment and the killing of the "three strikes" plan.

"You don't play with individual freedoms like that,"
added Guy Bono, the MEP who originally proposed the amendment. Bono believes France should revoke their current "three strikes" plan.

Earlier this week the BPI said that there was "no way" that UK ISPs would cut off file sharers from the Internet.

Previous Next  

8 user comments

128.9.2008 00:02

Common sense is back !

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 28 Sep 2008 @ 7:20

The IFPI Are: The same anti consumer lot as listed above!

228.9.2008 06:36

Well, sometimes they get it right, but lets wait to see what the ACTA Treaty brings.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 28 Sep 2008 @ 6:37

328.9.2008 11:58

Yeah probably 90% of the European Parliaments kids at home
fileshare anyway..

what would you say if your kids got you banned for filesharing.

stupid idea!!

428.9.2008 13:37

Fortunately for us, we're not really at the "Mark of the Beast" stage yet in our society, so they wouldn't be able to implement this by killing us on the spot.

Again, fortunately for us!

528.9.2008 14:55

You pay for internet... you have the right to download anything and share files.

628.9.2008 22:31

Originally posted by nitrolagy:
You pay for internet... you have the right to download anything and share files.
Well not really. Say you worked hard on an album, and it took you about a year's worth of solid work to complete it and you released it under a music label and people just refused to pay for it and downloaded it. Doesn't really seem right does it? I mean sure, the record companies get a bigger cut, but it's always been like that, the labels pay for recording time and advertisement and the music labels have to make that money back though the artists, else the artists owe them money.

Just because you have access to the internet doesn't mean you can use it to download whatever you want, if this were true, then ISPs would charge you more for your subscription and pay the labels royalties.

I am not one to speak, though I do buy music that I like after downloading.

729.9.2008 07:57

I agree that the record industry need to make money, but I don't like their methods. Every customer is treated like a criminal. Just look at the Wallmart case. They're shutting down DRM servers and leaving paying customers out in the cold with worthless downloads. RIAA also wants compansation through taxes on CD-R, removable memmory and so on. Which means that if you buy yourself a camera with a memory stick, SD card or what ever, the record industry will earn mony from that sale.

Everyone who uses CD-R's don't necessarily use it to copy music.

829.9.2008 20:49

the bands make money from touring not cd sales.
on another note.
ive spent over the years more than 2 years of my life producing and creating music. i was happy to release it on the internet for free, why?
well the process of making art in any form is good for you, money is not everything. i pity the people who try to make a living out of something that is essentially a joyful thing for ones self.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive