Re: No agreement on reform of telecom legislation in EU

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Seth Johnson" <seth.johnson () realmeasures dyndns org>
Date: May 6, 2009 10:19:12 PM EDT
To: "David Farber" <dave () farber net>, "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] No agreement on reform of telecom legislation in EU


(Dave -- for IP, as you wish)

My comments:

I believe this is exactly the sort of victory we need. The EU Parliament
has stood up for the sovereignty of the many states within the EU, and
the sovereignty of the people in those states, by standing up for their
fundamental rights, over the supercession of those rights by
transnational bodies dedicated in general to principles of market
efficiency, without appropriate regard for the well from whence just law
derives.

While the rest of this law was problematic to say the least, I believe
the resistance on the one principle of not allowing invasions of privacy
without judicial findings of cause, held back the key thing that those
pursuing the overall law sought, as a means of strengthening the
principle that their purposes may dominate the proceedings when enacting
these kinds of rules. I can't help but believe this shows the magnitude
of what the software patent fight achieved -- the EU Parliament
apparently now recognizes that whatever their appropriate role must be,
they serve the people.

I don't believe the term "fundamental rights" necessarily clearly
describes for all the true nature of the issue. The argument for
government of, by and for the people -- which is largely the same as the
basic argument against tyranny -- is the argument that we hold rights by
our nature as humans, before we enact governments to assure such rights
that we cannot perfect in our individual capacities. When we stand up
for fundamental rights, we assure our capacity to govern ourselves.

Note that the first Supreme Court copyright case in the United States,
Wheaton vs. Peters, made clear that copyright, as given by the US
Federal Constitution, is statutory, not a reflection of common law
traditions inherited from England within the several original colonies,
which differed in any case among them [in particular, Pennsylvania had
no concept of perpetual copyright]. The case is well worth reviewing in
the present context of multinational treaty-making for so-called
"intellectual property" rules [Wheaton v. Peters:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/33/591/case.html].

The historical import of the United States's revolution is unique for
originally making the cause of fundamental rights [properly understood
as rights that are inherent to human beings by their nature, prior to
the governments they institute on earth], the very argument for
rebellion against a government that does not recognize those rights.
This must be held before our eyes in the present context. It doesn't
apply, for that matter, to copyright alone.


Seth Johnson
(speaking in an individual capacity)


-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
To: "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 17:02:45 -0400
Subject: [IP] No agreement on reform of telecom legislation in EU

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Sandra Keegan <sandra.keegan () gmail com>
> Date: May 6, 2009 12:29:25 PM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: No agreement on reform of telecom legislation in EU
>
> Dave,
>
> For IP if you wish.
>
> Below are two reports of today's rejection by the European Parliament
>
> of the telecoms package under negotiation.
> The draft legislation will go back to the Council now that the EP has
>
> completed its second reading and re-instated its earlier amendments
> introduced during its first reading.  The Parliament is currently in
> its last plenary session before recessing to hold Europe-wide
> elections in June.
> The next step in the legislative process is a conciliation procedure
> which will likely be triggered once the Parliament reconvenes in
> July.
>
> Sandra Keegan
>
>
> Wide-ranging reforms of European Union telecom laws were rejected by
> the European Parliament on Wednesday because of one clause that would
>
> have compromised citizens' rights of access to the Internet.
> http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=16272025-1A64-6A71-CE42CECA725771BA
>
>
> A user's Internet access cannot be restricted without prior ruling by
>
> the judicial authorities, insists the European Parliament reinstating
>
> one of its first-reading amendments. By amending an informal
> agreement
> reached with Council, MEPs send the whole "telecom package" to
> conciliation. The EP does, however, agree with the Council on
> investments in new communications infrastructure, the reform of radio
>
> spectrum use, clear consumer rights and privacy protection.   MEPs
> amend a political agreement reached with the Council on the reform of
>
> the regulatory framework for electronic communications - including
> mobile and fixed telephones, broadcasting, wireless and fixed
> internet. Therefore, the whole "telecom package" is likely to be
> subject to conciliation in Parliament's next legislative term after
> the European elections when the EP reconvenes in July.
>
> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/058-55086-12
> 4-05-19-909-20090505IPR55085-04-05-2009-2009-true/default_en.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com





-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com