Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

France Seeks To Push 3-Strikes Law Across Europe

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the vive-l'somethingeruther dept.

The Internet 265

quanticle writes "As you may recall, France previously threatened to cut off broadband access for file sharers. However, after lobbying by the public, the legislation failed in the National Assembly. Now, the government of Nicolas Sarkozy is trying to revive the the measure by pushing it as an amendment to the pan-European Telecoms Package. This amendment has the potential to impose 3-strikes across Europe, not just in France."

cancel ×

265 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

so we can hate the french again? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24057229)

well i doesn't really affect me, im american... damn

Re:so we can hate the french again? (5, Informative)

azgard (461476) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057281)

If you would hate just Sarkozy, it should be quite enough. Most French don't like him either (and no, not just because of filesharing).

Re:so we can hate the french again? (5, Insightful)

discord5 (798235) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057315)

If you would hate just Sarkozy, it should be quite enough. Most French don't like him either (and no, not just because of filesharing).

Oh trust me, the rest of Europe isn't too keen on him either

The worst since Berlusconi (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24057407)

Sarkozy is the worst leader in EU since Berlusconi.

Re:The worst since Berlusconi (2, Informative)

WingedHorse (1308431) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057505)

Aye but well, even though they might seem to have most power in EU, in reality most of Europe doesn't get much worried when they try to push through some idiotic rulings like that. The french and the italians are doing that constantly and it is not often they get something actually through.

Re:The worst since Berlusconi (3, Informative)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057857)

Hate to break it to you, but Berlusconi is still there.

Re:The worst since Berlusconi (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24058063)

Well, because people voted for him. Sorry to break it to you, that's how democracy works. Not to you, but the general impression in this thread is that there's a consideration that electors were stupid or misguided in voting for a certain leader. However, as I said, that's how democracy works. The will of the people, in this sense (no tinfoil hattery, please) is absolute. People are free to criticize governments, but NOT the electors that voted for them.

Re:so we can hate the french again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24057553)

The rest of Europe should have nothing to say with a democratically elected president. Anyone remembers the disgusting Jorg Haider fiasco throughout Europe?

Re:so we can hate the french again? (4, Insightful)

digitig (1056110) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057599)

The rest of Europe (indeed, the rest of the world) should have no say in the democratic election, but is free to have an opinion on the resulting democratically elected official. After all (checking carefully for Godwin), the fact of his initial democratic election did not prevent much of the rest of the world taking a view of Adolf Hitler, did it?

Re:so we can hate the french again? (1)

Urkki (668283) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057619)

The rest of Europe should have nothing to say with a democratically elected president.

But of course they should, if they feel like it! That's freedom of speech and freedom of opinion and all that crap. Being democratically elected, saying something about him becomes saying something about the people that elected him, of course. But all the more reason to say it, and perhaps the voters of that country will think more carefully at the next election!

Re:so we can hate the french again? (1)

audunr (906697) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057451)

Sarkozy is a filesharer?

Re:so we can hate the french again? (5, Interesting)

OrangeSpyderMan (589635) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057533)

Most French don't like him either (and no, not just because of filesharing).

As a brit living in France for the past 12 years or so, this is one of the most annoying traits of the French vox populi. They forget very, very quickly that most of the French actually voted for him. His politics since he's been in power aren't that different from what he announced, and certainly not that different from his opinions in previous government positions. Short memory, and quick to criticise, the French - they did pretty much the same thing when Jacques Chirac got a landslide victory when most of them couldn't be bothered to vote and so Le Pen got to the second round.

Re:so we can hate the french again? (1, Interesting)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057667)

From what I'm told by the few French citizens I know, there are many that call Sarkozy Bush's lapdog. or poodle or something similarly flattering. As far as I know as a US citizen, being politically associated with Bush in any way is an insult. Here it's been something like the kiss of death in the current political circus atmosphere. One thing in Sarkozy's favor is his lack of airtime on Faux News.

I've been trying to figure out lately why it is that the neocons seem hell bent on protecting IP? Or at least that of the entertainment industries. I don't know if it's just a bid to regulate the Internet or something nuttier. Has anyone seen any tinfoil hat links for this?

Re:so we can hate the french again? (1)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057721)

I've been trying to figure out lately why it is that the neocons seem hell bent on protecting IP?

Because doing so is good for the profit of big companies (i.e. big donors).

Has anyone seen any tinfoil hat links for this?

No need for any tinfoil hats ... this is so obvious that no conspiracy is necessary.

Re:so we can hate the french again? (0, Flamebait)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057839)

To say that it is transparent, and the reasoning behind it is that shallow is akin to saying we were duped into war by nearly complete idiots.

Now THAT really would look bad. I prefer to see lizard skin sticking out of a hole in Bush's skin sometime shortly after this next election or something else to give away the secret. Anything but 'The world is full of sheeple and idiots that allowed the monkey to start a war' ?

IP Companies employ people... (1)

cliffski (65094) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057879)

errr... could it be that big companies, by definition, pay a lot of tax to the government, and create a lot of jobs. If a government is not looking after big companies, its likely not looking after the economy either, and not surprisingly, that would be a bad move.
There are people whose jobs depend on IP law. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of them. Those people vote, and pay taxes.

Re:so we can hate the french again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24057707)

Im not one to advocate the violent insertion of a pineapple into ones rectum but in this case, I think Ill make an exception for each French voter

Re:so we can hate the french again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24058009)

Short memory, and quick to criticise, the French

Ahhhh , the french and the british, blaiming each others for doing teh exact same things. At least lately the Brits can excuse their moaning because they didn't vote for Gordon, but it is hardly as if they won't be doing just the same after the next election.

Re:so we can hate the french again? (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057653)

Most French don't like him either (and no, not just because of filesharing)

Geez, he didn't get elected all that long ago. What did he do to piss everyone off so quickly? Or was it a case of George Bush-style "elected, but not really"?

Re:so we can hate the french again? (4, Insightful)

feathersmg (1311045) | more than 6 years ago | (#24058045)

Most French don't like him either (and no, not just because of filesharing)

Geez, he didn't get elected all that long ago. What did he do to piss everyone off so quickly?

Well, he just did what he promised to do : help rich people to earn more money, throw more and more dark skinned people in jail, etc ... Indeed, at least 53% of french people can't read and vote for the candidate most seen on TV. The problem is : all elections are over, president and national assembly are elected and we're stuck with him and all his friends for the next 4 years.

Re:so we can hate the french again? (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057385)

If you're American then surely you'd be hating the Freedoms from that European country called Freedom that's between Germany and Spain?

(This post is a dig at the American tantrum where they changed "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries" and not an implication that France is the nation of Freedom ;) )

Re:so we can hate the french again? (5, Funny)

jessica_alba (1234100) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057437)

that was a press thing, do you really believe we americans would add an extra syllable to our fries, we actually prefer to communicate in grunts as we stuff our faces.

Re:so we can hate the french again? (1, Funny)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057733)

In America, the technically correct and longer name for French Fries is potassium delivery system. Of course, to be effective they must be first heated and saturated with animal fats. Despite the glorious skill used to hone the techniques for loading potassium into the potato strips, 'fries' is all the effort we put in when order... with a 'supersizem' at the end.

I do find that there seems to be a lot of job searching advice that mentions the delicacy, far to often I might add.

Gerr (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24057233)

Dam Cheese eating surrender monkeys

Maybe so, but we saved your asses against the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24057727)

Maybe so, but we saved your asses against the British. So what if we like our cheese and whine ?? So what if our women have armpit hair (is that the monkey reference ??). So what if we surrender now and again ?? You would not be celbrating July 4th if it were not for us, the French.

Re:Gerr (2, Informative)

Candid88 (1292486) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057997)

Kind of ironic to say that on the day that France won the USA's independance.

oh noes (0, Offtopic)

javy_tahu (1045868) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057243)

where's my openssl.conf

Re:oh noes (1, Redundant)

Saint Gerbil (1155665) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057891)

The last I heard they had a way around that in the pipeline. they reckon that up to 60% of the internet using UK is sharing music. I cant see ISP's wanting to kick off 60% of their business.

This and G8... (1)

vilgefortz (1225810) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057271)

I don't like those recent initiatives. First G8 tries to stir things, now France spreads the badness. Not that any of these ideas is going to work, but you never know with those damn politicians. And i do live in Europe, you know.

Re:This and G8... (4, Informative)

azgard (461476) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057303)

There are two kinds of democracies. Representative and direct. They go under the same name, but they are very different. Unfortunately, we are stick with the first type. People need to realize there is a difference between those types, and not rely on honesty of politicians.

There is an excellent book about direct democracy: http://www.democracy-international.org/book-direct-democracy.html [democracy-...tional.org]

Re:This and G8... (4, Insightful)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057459)

Although I think direct democracy would have its own problems too - we'd be under the will of the masses.

There are some things that referendums are appropriate for (issues that affect everyone), but just look at what happens when you put questions like "Should gay people be allowed to marry" to referendums as I believe has happened in some US states.

I'm not sure how things would work in this case - whilst few people would care about the record industry and most people happily copy CDs/tapes, filesharing is still something only done by a minority of people AFAIK, and most people probably don't see the Internet as some fundamental need, so I fear that a proposal to ban filesharers (especially with a bit of campaigning that associates "filesharing" with not only "stealing", but terrorism and p0rn) would still get passed in a referendum.

Here in the UK, our unelected second house is the only thing that can stop some of the authoritarian measures the Government is pushing through (similarly with the unelected Supreme Court in the US being the thing which protects the Constitution).

Re:This and G8... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24057583)

Although I think direct democracy would have its own problems too - we'd be under the will of the masses.

There are some things that referendums are appropriate for (issues that affect everyone), but just look at what happens when you put questions like "Should gay people be allowed to marry" to referendums as I believe has happened in some US states.

I'm not sure how things would work in this case - whilst few people would care about the record industry and most people happily copy CDs/tapes, filesharing is still something only done by a minority of people AFAIK, and most people probably don't see the Internet as some fundamental need, so I fear that a proposal to ban filesharers (especially with a bit of campaigning that associates "filesharing" with not only "stealing", but terrorism and p0rn) would still get passed in a referendum.

Here in the UK, our unelected second house is the only thing that can stop some of the authoritarian measures the Government is pushing through (similarly with the unelected Supreme Court in the US being the thing which protects the Constitution).

Well if the public think gay people shouldn't marry, then they should not marry. It is not a fundamental human right for anyone to marry. It is determined by law. If the public think we should do away with marriage altogether, then we should.

Re:This and G8... (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057817)

I will resist being dragged into an off-topic gay rights debate - the point is that it's not clear that going by what >50% of the population think is always going to get what you want (or what the OP wants), and anyone in a minority group (including groups that we don't think of as "minorities", such as "people who use filesharing software") may be more likely to lose their rights than in a representative democracy.

One could just as easily refute the OP I replied to's comment by stating "If the elected Government decide such-and-such, then that's what should happen", or in particular, "If the EU decides that filesharers should be banned from the Internet, then that's what should happen. It's not a fundamental right. It is determined by law".

Obviously "It is determined by law" - the law is what is being debated, whether it's gay rights, or being banned from the Internet.

(Shall we take a vote on what rights you should be allowed to have?)

Re:This and G8... (2, Insightful)

azgard (461476) | more than 6 years ago | (#24058081)

I'll give you example from my country (Czech Republic). Most people here (70%) supported gay marriage before politicians supported it. Last year (I believe) it passed, but just so-so.

Anyway, Switzerland has 150 years of experience with this. So there are some empirical results. And they show, for the most part, that voters are very conservative, and usually resist any change. Switzerland had voting rights for women until very recently, for example. On the other hand, they have pretty decent human rights record.

I don't know why you assume that elected government is somehow able to protect minorities better. In fact, I would challenge you to come up with a historic example where the elites protected some (non-elite) minority better than the majority of people would.

Oh, I see why you think that. You believe that politicians protect minorities because they will gain their support. But it's an illusion. If the protection of minorities is unpopular, why would they risk doing something unpopular and lose the majority? If you think about it, there is no way they could support a minority view and gather more support than by supporting majority view. Unless, of course, the majority doesn't really care about the minority, which is in fact most commonly the case.

Re:This and G8... (4, Funny)

Bastard of Subhumani (827601) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057903)

The problem with the public is this.

Think of how stupid the average person is; well, half of the public are stupider than that.

Re:This and G8... (2, Funny)

ultranova (717540) | more than 6 years ago | (#24058047)

Think of how stupid the average person is; well, half of the public are stupider than that.

Yeah. Some of them don't even know the difference between median and average :).

Re:This and G8... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24058077)

And some know that for certain distributions, like the one in question, they are the same.

Re:This and G8... (1)

Eudial (590661) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057789)

Although I think direct democracy would have its own problems too - we'd be under the will of the masses.

I do believe that's pretty much the exact definition of democracy.

Re:This and G8... (1)

Rocketship Underpant (804162) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057941)

And democracy, strictly defined, is a pretty bad idea. Ask anyone who lives in a country where a hostile ethnic majority gets to vote on what happens to minorities it doesn't like.

Re:This and G8... (1)

LEMONedIScream (1111839) | more than 6 years ago | (#24058041)

There are two kinds of democracies. Representative and direct.

Is a democracy "what the people want, the people get?" Your assumption is yes however, consider how you put people into power; you vote for someone who is representative of your needs and in general takes the same stance as you on views. Unfortunately this politician won't be 100% agreeable upon and will have some fringe policies which you can't control.

This is the only level at which the people can really control, the further away you get through other assemblies the less direct control the people have. For instance, you won't vote in the EU bodies but your MP will vote on your behalf.

The real reason why being "under the [direct] will of the masses" is not necessarily a good thing is because, while voting for gay marriages a large portion will vote with regard to their religious inclination not whether it's needed or unfair to those unable for it. On the other hand I would personally probably vote for it but also purely out of my principles. Essentially we would both be disregarding the facts/real arguments at hand here. Is this really a good thing? Is this really what democracy is about? Shouldn't we be making more educated decisions?

You could probably write many many theses on this subject, however.

Re:This and G8... (1)

azgard (461476) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057795)

Read the book. These issues are addressed there.

I don't know why are people so afraid of "will of the masses". That's exactly what democracy is about. If you don't like it, then you expect, by definition, that someone else will act in your interest. You have to trust that someone else, but you have no veto power over his decision. This is the difference between direct and representative democracy.

I am not saying direct democracy will solve all the world's problems, but I am saying it is gives better outcome over the time then representative government. It may happen that the interests of government (or some part, as you show in the second example) are aligned with your interests, and then it will decide in your interest. But that's no reason to give up the power of veto over the government's actions.

Re:This and G8... (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057853)

Well, there's more scope for allowing a "veto" of some kind - whether that's a veto to remove politicans from power, or a veto for new laws. That would be better than simply putting full control of every issue into the hands of a popular vote.

I don't know why are people so afraid of "will of the masses". That's exactly what democracy is about.

This is not an argument. I might as well say "I don't know why are people so afraid of elected politicians. That's exactly what [representative] democracy is about".

You have to trust that someone else, but you have no veto power over his decision.

My veto power in a direct democracy is little more than in a representative one where I can choose to vote for someone else - it's one-in-however-many-millions.

Re:This and G8... (1)

andyh3930 (605873) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057561)

The trouble is that people in power are there because they have pushed there way to the top, To quote Mr Adams "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job".
As the ruling classes with only ever allow the 'right' people to put themselves forward as candidates for the people to vote on and so the situation will continue.
When the people are allowed to vote they make the 'wrong' decisions, take the Irish EU, vote they, voted no and from polling the majority of the rest of Europe would vote it down, but to the leaders this is the wrong decision and they are madly trying to spin the vote so it doesn't look so bad. Another tactic used to keep the ruling classes in power is fear, Terrorists, communists paedophiles, and further back in time in England catholics or protestants.
These power structures are nothing new, the Christian church has had the same power structure with only priests being able to spread God's word, but other religions such as paganism have been called evil as they allow individual communion and knowledge from the elements.
       

Re:This and G8... (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057597)

Politician and honest - I thought that they were mutually exclusive attributes.

And shutting of people from broadband for one type of offense will also shut them off also from a lot of other services. We are going toward a society of people with broadband access versus people lacking that access - and the people lacking broadband access are becoming second-grade citizens with less ability to get information, access bank services and communicate with friends and family.

Essentially - the penalty of the 21'st century will be to get disconnected instead of imprisoned.

And if you aren't disconnected all your traffic is being monitored. Eric Arthur Blair [wikipedia.org] was right - just a little premature. We just have to wait for the all-seeing cameras in our homes and the TV screens that can't be shut off (as in Max Headroom [maxheadroom.com] ).

It seems to me that the darker Science Fiction that we can see and read is more likely to come true than the more utopic of Star Trek and likewise.

Re:This and G8... (1)

azgard (461476) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057709)

I am not saying that politicians are honest, I am saying that most people rely on their honesty. They expect someone to come in and solve their problem.

I like Linus Torvalds' quote: "People can trust me because they don't have to." With (semi)direct democracy, you wouldn't have to trust politicians, because you could decide the issue directly.

Re:This and G8... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24057753)

True, republics are horrible, inefficient systems that rely on some mythical, honest human. (Many of them, in fact.) Before you go telling the world to go direct, however, you should worry about the size of a lot of countries; direct Democracy just doesn't scale well enough. I'm thinking of something the size of a large city.
Also, there should be some limits on what can be voted on. (For example. no one should have a say in what color I paint my living room and no laws should specifically apply to one person or group, to prevent vote lynching.)

tl;dr: Republics are horrible and Democracy is a pipe dream.

Re:This and G8... (2, Interesting)

azgard (461476) | more than 6 years ago | (#24058025)

Do you have any particular reason why you think it wouldn't scale? I don't see any reason why it wouldn't, it works in Switzerland pretty well, and there are 7 million people (I suspect that you chose large city exactly for that reason). I would, for example, say that some human institution won't scale if it relies on bounded number of humans somewhere, or if the people cannot meet or know each other personally. But none if this is relevant in Switzerland.

I agree that not everything should be voted on, and I agree that voting should be about rules that hold for everybody (or everybody who has a particular behavior), and not a specific group or person.

Second, I also believe that very important and overlooked property of democracy should be reversibility, i.e. we can change the law back if we don't like the outcome. This is not a bad thing. People do learn by mistakes, and human societies are no different. This by itself prevents voting out some group of people.

Third, I think that competition of law systems is important. Switzerland has a rule that every law gets decided on the relevant level (federal, canton or local). That way some new law can be tested on small scale first and then, once the result is known, it can be (if people wish so) applied on the larger scale.

Re:This and G8... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24057985)

Does this mean freedom fries are back on the menu?

EU != Europe (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24057291)

Guys, I know it might be hard for people who think that USA is America and for the French, but EU is not Europe.

Europe is a continent. EU is an undemocratic institution used national governments to impose unwanted legislation onto their citizens. Please do not use the two interchangably.

Re:EU != Europe (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057579)

Semantics,

France Seeks To Push 3-Strikes Law Across Europe ...pushing it as an amendment to the pan -European Telecoms Package. This amendment has the potential to impose 3-strikes across Europe, not just in France.

Across, doesn't mean all of Europe, it simply means it stretches across Europe, sorta like the Trans-Canada Highway [tc.gc.ca] ... goes across Canada, however, it doesn't reach all the Provinces, and actually only covers a really small area of it land-wise.

Re:EU != Europe (1)

EnglishSteve (834757) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057771)

Not ALL EU legislation is "unwanted". For example, the laws that allow me (as a British citizen) the RIGHT to live and work wherever I please within the EU (right now I happen to be in Sweden) are pretty sweet.

F*** is for French (-1, Troll)

g0dsp33d (849253) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057323)

Three strikes and they'll surrender.

Well, this is why France is not the United States. (5, Interesting)

Ryan1984 (1316783) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057329)

Lobbying from the PUBLIC seems to have an effect there.

Re:Well, this is why France is not the United Stat (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24057731)

And the public generally supports Protectionist policies, which any one who knows anything about economics (or a takes a brief look at history) knows doesn't work.

Re:Well, this is why France is not the United Stat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24057751)

no to mention that in france leaders apparently have the common decency to tell you that your being screwed.

For fuck's sake (5, Insightful)

Yahweh Doesn't Exist (906833) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057333)

Why are politicians so retarded?

You are there to represent the people and your country. If you find yourself having to subvert the will of your public, your constitution, your own justice system etc., then take that as a big fucking clue that YOU ARE WRONG and the best way for you to help is to STFU.

Re:For fuck's sake (4, Insightful)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057365)

They represent whoever pays for their election campaign, they don't give a damn about people as long as it doesn't affect their vote too much.

Re:For fuck's sake (5, Informative)

Lafeek (1213360) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057423)

In France, the money for presidential campaigns comes from taxes, is limited, and of the same amount for every candidate. But if you got less than 5% of votes, you have to give back this money to the government (this can be painful).

Re:For fuck's sake (4, Informative)

Lafeek (1213360) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057453)

Oh, and I forgot to say that they all have the right to the same amount of time on TV. And all of this is controlled and enforced.

(Well, that is in theory.)

Re:For fuck's sake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24057475)

Wow!

That sounds like a really good idea! I wonder why we don't follow that as well......

Re:For fuck's sake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24057483)

Don't be so goddamn naive. You're in a public forum.

Re:For fuck's sake (4, Insightful)

digitig (1056110) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057695)

And there is no way that lobbyists could get around this by lobbying the opinion formers (eg, the press) rather than by directly funding the political campaigns, is there?

Re:For fuck's sake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24057439)

So true... And unfortunately, it's relevant to France too. Sarkozy has well-known links to the big media and industrial corporations. In many ways, he's the French counterpart of G.W.Bush. In many ways, the French tend to look a lot like the Americans, which might explain why they can't stand each other.

Cheers,

An Anonymous, Cowardly Frenchman

Re:For fuck's sake (1)

Alibaba10100 (1296289) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057725)

Its a consequence of the fact that people are to god damn lazy to research anything themselves, so they get all their information from campaign ads. Why bother doing things your constituents would like if they will never know about them? Whether you're a perfect democratic angel or a complete douche, your campaign ads will look pretty much the same. But when it comes to paying for them, if you kiss the asses of people and organizations with money to spare, you can afford a hell of a lot more of that wonderfully educational TV time.

Re:For fuck's sake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24057411)

They're not retarded. Like any good dog they know exactly who their masters are.

Re:For fuck's sake (1)

incabulos (55835) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057503)

On the other hand, there will be a certain malicious delight in seeing this proto-fascist slimeball force this law through backed by hefty bribes from media companies, only to watch Frances economy shut down. When all DNS records become illegal to serve up for access, when all index.htmls and the servers they live on become illegal, and essentially the internet in France is switched off over night.

Its nearly as silly as mandating CPUs lacking CPY or MOV, or operating systems that cannot open or copy files. Staggeringly retarded, yet so typical of politicans in general who know their own precious snowflakes will never be arrested for modded playstations or burned cdrs full of music regardless of how illegal its made.

Re:For fuck's sake (1)

eulernet (1132389) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057543)

They are not retarded: they try to make a profit, and they don't care about the consumers.

Sarkozy never hid his friendship with the big bosses in France (Bollore, Arnault, Lagardere, etc...), and his own brother is vice-president of MEDEF.

In France, we have some systems to avoid corruption, but the politicians always find a way to bypass them.

France has two big political parties: UMP and PS. UMP is rightist and PS is leftist.
They both are pushing for these regulations.

There are some other parties that tend to better protect the consumers, but they don't have enough political weight.

Re:For fuck's sake (3, Interesting)

Therefore I am (1284262) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057577)

You just don't get it do you? These days politics is all about getting brownie points for when you are out of office. Three or four directorships of big companies will rapidly make up for the less than stellar political earnings. Some might look at this as a just reward - Why not see it as it is. It is bribery of a public official. The significant difference is that the pay-day is deferred some years and comes disguised as a seat on a board.....Usually with a bunch of crooks who have taken the same bait.

Re:For fuck's sake (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057661)

Why are politicians so retarded?

You are there to represent the people and your country. If you find yourself having to subvert the will of your public, your constitution, your own justice system etc., then take that as a big fucking clue that YOU ARE WRONG and the best way for you to help is to STFU.

Wrong.

De jure they are there to represent the people. De facto they are there to represent their own self-interest. When these come into conflict (which is the normal state), de facto will win. The politicians are not "retarted" or "wrong", they're doing exactly what is built into the system. No, I don't know of a better system, but at least regognising that this behaviour is built-in leads to less political surprises, and gives (some) politicians credit for intelligence if not honour.

Re:For fuck's sake (1)

Luke_22 (1296823) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057739)

If you find yourself having to subvert the will of your public, your constitution...
Hey, this is not against the constitution.
If you want to see something against the costitution you have to come here in Italy. We're just discussing 2 laws for that.

One would make 5 people in our country _totally_ "immune" to the law, the other is against press: nothing of a trial can be published in newspaper, not even the subject of the trial, not even who is involved.

Oh, and we're about to make telephone bugging (don't know how to translate, sry) illegal for almost everything...
And, obviously, the recording can not be used in trials others than the one you're facing....
So if they're bugging you for mafia, and you confess a homicide, you don't have to worry!
Great, uh?

Re:For fuck's sake (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057855)

You are there to represent the people and your country.

That's correct.

If you find yourself having to subvert the will of your public...

This is where you go off the rails. The job of a politician is NOT -- repeat, NOT -- to implement the "will of the people". That's because they can't. Everyone has a different opinion on what should be done. For example, you think your opinion on filesharing should supersede everyone else's. Believe it or not, a LOT of people think sharing copyrighted material should be illegal (probably even a majority).

A politician's job, in theory (rarely in reality), is to totally ignore what the idiotic public thinks they want. He/she's job is to study each issue in more detail than the public has time for, and to vote in the *best interests* of the public. This may or may not match what public opinion polls say.

Where are the Nazis when you need them?? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24057359)

Hitler... can't say I appreciated his views on world domination, extermination of jews, or his taste in wallpaper, but at least he knew how to sort out those pesky French!

Re:Where are the Nazis when you need them?? (1)

Bastard of Subhumani (827601) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057949)

And he made the trains run on time!

this can't possibly work (1)

m0llusk (789903) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057433)

At a technical level this appears similar to China's Internet meddling in that it will always be defeatable and the chances of being caught are never going to be especially high. Given that, what is the point?

Re:this can't possibly work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24057655)

Not strictly true. If China or anyone else widely deploys flow analysis hardware, then effective evasion becomes difficult; even for encrypted darknet links, they can see that your traffic patterns are suspicious. The only solutions to this are a steganography arms race or going off-grid altogether with covert wifi links or sneakernet.

Currently the costs of doing this are considered prohibitive, but if someone wants the capability badly enough that's likely to change.

Re:this can't possibly work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24057737)

control and power, what else ?

Re:this can't possibly work (1)

JustKidding (591117) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057769)

This is just going to be yet another arms race, although the stakes are quite a bit higher for the consumers this time.

So stupid it can be improved. (1)

kanweg (771128) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057481)

Given that it appears to be a way of judgment without a court involved, I cannot say I'm a fan. In any case, life without Internet is not really possible (you may even be required to do it in dealings with the government), so third strike should be no more severe than throttling speeds to near 14 k modem speeds. Enough to be major nuisance, but not cut off completely

Bert

Wrong. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24057487)

The french law project which establishes an independant authority with power to ban users from the Internet (by cutting the Internet access) after three strikes has not failed to pass in the National Assembly : IT STILL HASN'T BEEN EXAMINED THERE !

It is scheduled to be examined soon by the Senate first and then eventually by the National Assembly. You can read it there in french : http://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl07-405.html

What is true is that right now the French ISP association (including every french ISP), the web services association (including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo! and such), the commission in charge of regulating telecommunications, the commission in charge of the defense of privacy and several others have all said they were against this law.

Besides, even though I can imagine Nicolas Sarkozy being pleased if there were european legislation copying his ideas, I don't see any particular lobbying from his part in the European Parliament. Just look at the amendments and who wrote them (in the IMCO, ITRE or LIBE committee).

http://www.laquadrature.net/files/amendements-compromis_ITRE-IMCO_7juil/

And I'm not even speaking of the usual fierce independance of MEP toward national governments. They're much nicer with regular lobbying groups, in this case the music and movie industries.

Re:Wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24057735)

All French ISP are against it? Well, then I would love if the ISP serving the French parliament, or even Sarkozy's home, told them "sorry, but you are unwelcome customers to us. Your contract will be terminated within one month and your already paid services will be refund". That would send a hell of a message.

Re:Wrong. (1)

yada21 (1042762) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057967)

You can read it there in french : http://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl07-405.html [senat.fr]

Sir, i am an american. Let me categorically assure you that i most definatley can not.

Why do Politicians actually care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24057495)

Ok, so there are lobby groups and I can even understand that the *AA need to protect their rights to some degree.

But how the hell did they convince Nick Sarkozy to make it his mission to get this law passed across Europe?

What irritates me the most is that I'm sitting here in Germany, NOT France and there's a good reason for that. They're a bunch of bureaucratic, cheese crazed socialists and that's not the sort of place I want to live in.

I'm sure the whole damn country (of France) would go on some idiotic strike if another european country (England comes to mind) tried to enforce one of their laws over there.

Viva la resistance!

Re:Why do Politicians actually care? (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057717)

They're a bunch of bureaucratic, cheese crazed socialists and that's not the sort of place I want to live in.

To anyone who's had their financial life destroyed by medical bills here in the US, I bet it sounds pretty good, actually.

Write your congresscritter, EU-style! (4, Informative)

PacoCheezdom (615361) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057541)

This rule would still have to be approved by the European Parliament for it to become law. If you're an EU citizen, do like the FA says and write your MEP:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members.do?language=EN [europa.eu]

drill down the map until you get to the member page; there are three postal addresses at the bottom of page. I'd either write to them in Brussels or their constituency address, since they're only usually in Strasbourg once a month. There's an email contact too, at the top.

On a side note, I've actually been in the mailroom at the EP building in Brussels, and it's really nice. It's in a prominent position right on one of the main corridors between the offices and the hemicycle.

Hypocrite... (1)

Kentari (1265084) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057615)

Pfff, we don't take laws from that hypocrite. He's had more that 3 strikes on his neck because of his reforms and he's still in office...

Ireland (1)

inamorty (1227366) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057625)

Being Irish I wasn't too proud of the results of the referendum we had for the recent Lisbon Treaty [wikipedia.org] .
I hope that we can redeem ourselves by scuppering that twat's plans again but for the right reasons this time round..
Sarkozy should stick to diddling his wife and not with our affairs.
How about enforcing stricter bathing laws at home? Or roll out general guidelines for grooming [blogspot.com] ?
(tongue firmly in cheek)

Re:Ireland (1)

Von Helmet (727753) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057837)

Get back to your potato fields, Paddy!

NB: I'm mostly Finnish, so you may require the services of a Swede, Norwegian or Russian to stereotype me.

Re:Ireland (1)

inamorty (1227366) | more than 6 years ago | (#24058069)

I'm not walking into that one.
From the little history i remember, the last time the Finns were attacked, the Russians were left red-faced to put it mildly. However, at the risk of beginning a summer war i'll leave you with a quote from Jacques Chirac: "After Finland, [Britain] is the country with the worst food."
I'll stick to my potatoes thank you :)

you fAIL it (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24057651)

dim. Due t0 t4e I have a life to

Shamed of being French right now (5, Insightful)

fgaliegue (1137441) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057713)

Because I am.

Curiously, some French politicians are brilliant, but they're not part of the French government.

A French "European deputy" (for lack of a better name) has opposed this three-strike legislation, arguing (rightly so imho) that "an industry that is not able to make do with new consumer habits [the Internet]" shouldn't impose its rules to the government. The French government hasn't listened.

Michel Rocard is famous for opposing software patents. The French government hasn't listened.

French automobile club leaders, the least of which is not the president of the ACO (Automobile Club de l'Ouest, supervising the 24 hours of Le Mans) said that the pollution tax is a mistake, because one already exists and that's the TIPP (Taxe Intérieure sur les Produits Pétroliers, Internal Tax on Petrol-derived Goods, for lack of a batter name) that one pays for each centilitre of gasoline/Diesel in the tank, and that there's no reason than a guy driving only 3000 miles a year in his Ferrari should pay more than one driving ten times that in his Diesel Renault Logan. The French government doesn't listen.

Just, where has common sense gone?

so we all got 10 mbit at home we can't use... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24057749)

blah

Hopefully this will improve my karma... (0, Troll)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057763)

Fuck you, Nicolas Sarkozy!

In france..... (1)

JokkVahl (702631) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057773)

In france politicians push laws, In soviet russia the law push politicians !

You people better not be sharing... (1)

jskline (301574) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057821)

You people had better not be sharing that illegal copy of Linux distro on your file sharing software!!! Three times you share that and we'll shut you down and ban you from any Internet connections for the rest of your life!!!

Nicolas Sarkozy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24057847)

... is a lot like a George W. Bush where the fundie bits would have been replaced with actual smarts. Which possibly makes him a more dangerous man still.

People, American or French, British or German or Finnish or Chinese or Brazilian, whoever you are: this might be our clue that the game stopped being this country against that country. In the new game, it's us all against the self-selected elites that would rule us. And we may only make progress if we stand together. Not that I expect to see it happen in my lifestyle, mind you, but here's to hope.

11 pirate party's are the only hope left. (1)

coretx (529515) | more than 6 years ago | (#24057923)

82 % of the college students is against the current copyright system. Exactly the same group, are supposed to be the rulers of the world, by "Tomorrow"

Almost all EU country's have a so called Pirate Party, their target is something i probably don't need to explain.

Towards the US citicens i would like to say, that their leaders are a bunch of hypocrits. & I can tell you why !

I quote from your constitution : "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

This is a contradiction since exclusive rights no longer promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, or atleast not always do.
What this means is, that the current US copyright laws are against their own constitution.

How is that legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24057953)

How is that legal? How can someone who's a representative of his people legally push an agenda thats already been shot down by the people?

Is there a word for that?

Is 'violating the public trust' a crime if your an elected official?

If this was already shot down by their assembly, dudes got a big set of brass ones to try this stunt.

Guess who's not getting reelected!

mod 0p (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24057983)

Collect any spilled Took precedence fly...don't fear DO AND DOING WHAT Of the old going population as well [idge.net] includes where you may be hurting the Software lawyers NEED TO JOIN THE However I don't blue, rubfber appeared...saying interest in having AMERICA) might be case you want to violated. In the but I'd rather hear percent of the *BSD website Third, you tossers, went out teeth into when others what to also dead, its One common goal - WORLD. GNNA MEMBERS operating systems Centralized models operating systems, FUCKING CONFIRMED: sadness And it was

I got a better idea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24058003)

How about if a french "youth" burns 3 cars, they actually get sent to jail?

France has been suffering from a wave of "youths" burning cars. Last new year's eve, there was around 300 cars burned. French police were happy, since that is quite a drop from previous years.

Anonymous filesharing then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24058021)

There's http://www.i2p2.de , http://gnunet.org and others. Why should anyone worry?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>