[pp.int.general] La Quadrature du Net: Amendment 138 dead by lack of courage of the Parliament
Glenn Kerbein
glenn.kerbein at pirate-party.us
Tue Oct 27 17:23:08 CET 2009
I think that you're misinterpreting what the document is stipulating. Al
Franken, during a summit with the Future of Music Coalition, elaborated
on the subject (as did Mike Mills of REM):
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/10/05/HP/A/23996/The+Future+of+Music+Policy+Summit+2009.aspx
. It's 50 minutes long, but it's a great watch.
However, the inverse is being pushed through congress (mostly by
Republican Senators). The inappropriately named "Internet freedom act"
[S.1836] would prohibit the FCC from proposing regulations on ISPs to
/not/ favor one type or source of traffic over another. The law must be
upheld, and the FCC is making that clear: illicit activity (like willful
copyright infringement) must not be sanctioned.
Nicolas Sahlqvist wrote:
> I did a further analyze of the US standpoint towards net neutrality and
> in the 2nd FCC document I found a interesting playing with the word
> "lawful":
>
> "-The draft nondiscrimination principle would require that, subject to
> reasonable
> network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service must
> treat
> lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner."
>
> "– Prevent unlawful transfers of content
> (copyright infringement)"
>
> http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/fcc-presentation.pdf?tag=col1;post-26475
>
> We (PPUS etc.) could argue that checking if something is "lawful" or not
> requires breaking net neutrality and privacy.
>
>
> - Nicolas
> PPI / PPSE member
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:02 AM, Nicolas Sahlqvist <nicco77 at gmail.com
> <mailto:nicco77 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Ok, trying to get back to topic, it seems like US are more open in
> there ideas towards net neutrality:
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=26475
>
> And the spokes (MI5 etc.) does not seem to be interested in
> Political ideas of shutting down internet connections etc. since
> that would even make their work harder, people tend to enable
> encryption then..
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6885923.ece
>
> So there are some bright light at the tunnel it seems with support
> from the strangest places.
>
>
> - Nicolas
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Nicolas Sahlqvist
> <nicco77 at gmail.com <mailto:nicco77 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Ahh, OpenEurope (the think-tank) has a 40 pages report I missed
> to link here:
>
> http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/howtheeuiswatchingyou.pdf
>
> Seems interesting, need to read it through..
>
>
> - Nicolas
> PPI / PPSE member
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Nicolas Sahlqvist
> <nicco77 at gmail.com <mailto:nicco77 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> A UK think-thank has a somewhat gloomier picture:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6440812/Lisbon-Treaty-will-usher-in-European-surveillance-state.html
>
> I am sure the other governments follows UK's example..
>
>
> - Nicolas
> PPI / PPSE member
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Amelia Andersdotter
> <teirdes at gmail.com <mailto:teirdes at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> 2009/10/23 Nicolas Sahlqvist <nicco77 at gmail.com
> <mailto:nicco77 at gmail.com>>
>
> Does the treaty of Lisbon have any effect on this?
>
>
>
> For the UK in particular, the EU at large has meant a
> massive influx of legislation. Up until the early 1990s
> the UK government passed about 18 legislative acts per
> year, after 1997 more than a thousand.
>
> But this is because of the clash between
> Napoleonic/Germanic law and the Common Law systems:
> Common Law is based on case law, whereas the rest of
> Europe relies on legislative acts (that are of course
> also interpreted in case law).
>
> The Lisbon Treaty will likely force the UK to continue
> passing legislative acts, unless they give directives
> direct effect (presumably) in UK courts. However,
> legislative acts aren't necessarily a bad thing: for
> one, it is easier for me as a citizen to look of the
> state regulations on sewers than try to locate
> sewer-related case law in the official journal of the
> high court.
>
>
>
>
> - Nicolas
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:22 AM, El Tres
> <pirat at eltres.de <mailto:pirat at eltres.de>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 23.10.2009 um 00:16 schrieb Eric Priezkalns
> <eric.priezkalns at pirateparty.org.uk
> <mailto:eric.priezkalns at pirateparty.org.uk>>:
>
>
> [UK] A constitution may exist, even if it
> is unwritten. Such a constitution may be
> stronger than one written on a piece of
> paper, but where people don't do what the
> words on the paper say.
>
>
> Hear, Hear!
>
> El Tres
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
>
>
> --
> Amelia Andersdotter
> Kommunikationansvarig UPF
> Lissabon-MEP
> +46 738436779
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
--
Glenn "Channel6" Kerbein
United States Pirate Party
"Burn, Hollywood, Burn"
http://www.pirate-party.us/
More information about the pp.international.general
mailing list