Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Okay, from another wiki page:
Voting list
Compromise amendments to reject : 3, 4, 5, 7
Detailed analysis
Recital 12c (compromise amendment 4) describes the so-called "preventive" phase of the "graduated response".
The recital states that the "relevant" administrative authorities can issues orders to technical intermediaires imposing them to send warning messages in case of "specific problems".
The length of this recital is exceptional for a European directive. It contains provisions that are substantive and should never be included in a recital. It refers to the new drafting of article 33 of the framework directive (compromise amendment 7).
This article 33 installs the prinicple that administrative authorities in charge of regulating Internet usage encourage intermediaries to co-operate with the sectors having interest in "the protection and promotion of lawful contents". It precises that this co-operation will in particular follow the rules defined in article 21(4a) (compromise amendment 3).
This notion of "personal security" echoes directly amendment 69 from Syed Kamal adopted in the LIBE committee, which authorizes any legal or moral person to process personal data when it is done for security purposes. This amendment aims at the authorisation to process connection data without permission from the user and to enable the technical measures described in amendment 76 from Syed Kamal, also adopted in the LIBE committee. The aim is to make possible for compulsory standardised technical systems to intercept, detect et prevent infringements to IPR, circumventing the judidicial authorities role in authorising or completing these functions.
Article 22(3) (compromise amendment 5) plans for the standards of surveillance and filtering to be defined by National regulatory authorities under control from the European Commission. The procedure defined in this article does not meet standards of democratic control.


When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 07:08:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I can find none of this in the draft report.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 07:12:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Here the lay out several amendments they think are critical.  The language used is bit over the top, but still it seams to me as if they have a point.

However, I   did not check the draft report on it, maybe it is also simply not in there.

by rz on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 07:16:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That wiki is a mess.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 07:24:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Uh huh...
As today (July 1st 21:00), we know that some so-called compromise amendments (this is an usual term in European Parliament, although there is no compromise at all, these amendments are pushed by pro-three-strikes-approach lobbyists) are discussed behind closed doors and will be tabled for July 7th, although they are not published yet.


When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 07:25:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They are reading it backwards. The amendment:
...  to ensure that the ability of users to access or distribute lawful content or to run lawful applications and services of their choice is not unreasonably restricted.
I.e., this asks for regulation to prevent restriction to the running of lawful applications.

The commentary:

Free Software is not compatible with standards used to try to restrict the run of a « lawful application »
but trying to restrict the running of a "lawful application" is what the amendment wants to prevent.

The amendment says nothing about preventing the use of unlawful software (including modified lawful software), it only mentions that the use of lawful software should not be restricted.

The amendment:

Member States shall ensure, subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, that no mandatory requirements for specific technical features, including, without limitation, for the purpose of detecting,intercepting or preventing infringement of intellectual property rights by users, are imposed on terminal or other electronic communication equipment
Aren't they asking that no such requirements are imposed?

But I don't know. TBG reacted to this particular text by saying it appeared to by hysterical. Not to speak of the fact that it hasn't been tabled for July 7.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 10:22:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Alright. Thanks for all the information. You are obviously right that at the current stage there is no reason to get particularly excited.  
by rz on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 10:59:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Migeru:
I can find none of this in the draft report.

Indeed.

I'm not sure what they're reading, but it doesn't seem to be the draft.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 07:54:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe the point of this


As today (July 1st 21:00), we know that some so-called compromise amendments (this is an usual term in European Parliament, although there is no compromise at all, these amendments are pushed by pro-three-strikes-approach lobbyists) are discussed behind closed doors and will be tabled for July 7th, although they are not published yet.

is that the amendments are not yet in the report, but will be inserted shortly before the vote next on Monday.

by rz on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 08:05:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You can't debate with a maybe.

Laquadrature have posted interpretations of amendments which seem clearly wrong, so I'm not going to worry - yet - that there are further amendments being dicussed behind closed doors.

As and when something more substantial appears we'll have a good reason to get excited, but that doesn't seem to be happening here.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 10:46:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As and when something more substantial appears we'll have a good reason to get excited, but that doesn't seem to be happening here.

I agree. But thanks for all the information you unearthed.

by rz on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 11:00:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nor in the agenda [PDF]

  • Adoption of draft report
  • Deadline for tabling amendments : 13 May 2008, 12.00">in the agenda


When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 08:11:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series