17 novembro 2009

A pior (mas correcta) interpretação

Quanto às dúvidas (?) levantadas relativamente ao acordo obtido entre Parlamento Europeu e o Conselho, assunto já discutido aqui e aqui, as más notícias continuam. O PITI interpretou o referido acordo como abrindo a porta aos 3 avisos com corte de Internet prévio a qualquer decisão judicial. A mesma interpretação tem vindo a prevalecer, deste feita relativamente à situação britânica.

A OUT-LAW vem reportar que o acordo obtido não vai colidir com a opção britânica, que passa pela opção dos 3 avisos e em que poderá haver corte de Internet sem a decisão de um juiz. Refere o artigo:

"The wording has been celebrated by some as an obstacle to controversial plans put forward by the UK Government for dealing with file-sharing. But John MacKenzie (...) warned that this interpretation is flawed.
"The Directive if passed will require a process to be followed before disconnection takes place," he said. "That gives Member States a lot of flexibility for policies like three-strikes-and-you're-out. It doesn't demand a right to a trial before disconnection takes place."
(...)
"When you look at the detail of the UK proposal, and you compare it with the EU's compromise wording, you find that they're compatible," he said. "Consumers and ISPs may not like the Government's approach in the slightest, but its plan to allow disconnections without a court hearing is neither blocked by the EU's proposal nor without precedent. It's a legal process, it's just not one that requires any court hearing.
"

Ler artigo completo da OUT-LAW.

Sem comentários: