[A2k] A small historical turning point

[Philippe Aigrain]

This is only the start of a long process, but what a good start!

Philippe Aigrain

See also :
http://www.laquadrature.net/en/european-parliament-rejects-graduated-respon=
se

---------------------
A small historical turning point
http://paigrain.debatpublic.net/?p=3D134

Historical turning points are often discrete. One such has occured today in
the European Parliament. For the first time, the Parliament has taken a
position on the relationship between Internet and culture that goes against
the traditional views of the large right holders lobbies. The Parliament ha=
s
already arbitrated with courage between the scope and enforcement of some I=
PR
and fundamental rights or innovation. For instance it rejected scope
extensions of patents to genetic sequences (in 1995 between a fierce lobbyi=
ng
convinced it to change its mind in 1998) and to software/software-based
information processing methods (in 2003 and 2005). However, for subjects
where one could invoke the rights of creators (even in contradiction to
reality), a majority was found to adopt texts that showed insufficient
respect for freedoms, the due process of law or user rights. This was the
case for instance with the adoption of the IPR enforcement directive in 200=
4,
which created a presumption of guilt and extreme preventive measures agains=
t
the non-commercial usage of information and works.

Today, the Parliament has demonstrated that there are limits to the regress=
ion
into absurdity. It did it at the occasion of the plenary vote on a report o=
f
Guy Bono on the cultural industry in Europe. The Parliament adopted the
following amendment:

    Calls on the Commission and the Member States to recognise that the
Internet is a vast platform for cultural expression, access to knowledge, a=
nd
democratic participation in European creativity, bringing generations
together through the information society; calls on the Commission and the
Member States, therefore, to avoid adopting measures conflicting with civil
liberties and human rights and with the principles of proportionality,
effectiveness and dissuasiveness, such as the interruption of Internet
access.

As with every truly important vote in the EP, it did not follow party lines=
.
Two identical versions of the amendement were tabled by progressive and
conservative MEPs and votes for the amendment came from all across the
political spectrum. One event made the vote more remarkable: a political
group called for a split vote separating the principles part of the amendme=
nt
from the last sentence =E2=80=9C, such as the interruption of Internet acce=
ss.=E2=80=9D But
the Parliament adopted both parts (with a close vote on the second), thus
demonstrating that it knew what it was doing when it rejected the very
principle of the three-strike approach and its culmination in suspending
access to the Internet.

Is is now for the French government, who wrote to every French MEP to call
them to reject the amendement, to decide if it wants to go on pushing in
France and in Europe for the adoption of the Olivennes law proposal (or a
European equivalent) when a majority of the European democratic
representation has declared it incompatible with fundamental rights.