Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

French Senate Passes Anti-Piracy Internet Cut-Off Law

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the trois-coups dept.

Government 225

An anonymous reader writes "The French Senate has approved a three strikes law for Internet users who download copyrighted entertainment media without paying for it. If, after two warnings, a person continues to download pirated music and movies, the internet service providers would cut off access for a year. Quoting: 'The legislation passed with a massive cross-party majority of 297 votes to 15. Only a handful of conservatives, centrists and socialists voted against, while the Communists abstained. In passing the bill, the senators rejected an amendment proposed by senator Bruno Retailleau of the right-wing MPF party replacing internet cut-off with a fine. ... The bill sets up a tussle between France and Brussels. In September, the European Parliament approved by a large majority an amendment outlawing internet cut-off." We discussed the introduction of this legislation several months ago.

cancel ×

225 comments

(Cynacism Alert) Good (5, Funny)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603381)

I'll take the cynical stance and say that this is a good thing. We need fewer people on the Internet. We need to return the 'net to the state it was in circa '92.

Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25603399)

It is a very good idea. But I want due process, not some pissant ISP pulling the plug because I'm using bittorrent to download an Ubuntu ISO.

Anyway, if my internet is disconnected then I'll be forced to do productive stuff like read books and hit the gym...and if I need the internet that badly then I'll get it in my girlfriend's or roommate's name.

Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good (4, Informative)

an.echte.trilingue (1063180) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603791)

Sometimes I think it would be acceptable to sacrifice a certain amount of due process in return for reasonable sanctions. A few people who receive the injustice of losing their internet connections is better than the mockery that the RIAA has perpetrated on the US justice system.

By the way, while I could not find the reference to the parliamentary action noted above, the summary is way off in its assessment of the weight of the European Parliament's action. The EU does not have the power to outlaw these kinds of things, only to issue directives that the member states transpose into their laws. The parliament itself is the weakest of the three European institutions, and if we are in traditional first pillar decision making in this case, its amendments do not really mean anything until the Council has approved them. In many cases, the Council can just reject an amendment and pass the legislation in its original form, or at the very least force the EP into negotiation. Historically, the EP yields to the council as soon as the Council makes an issue of something.

Once a piece of legislation (we'll assume that this is a directive and that the EP's amendment stands) is approved, France still has quite a long time (in general, 3 to 5 years) to transpose the directive. Only once this time limit is reached can any hypothetical tussle between France and the EU begin. These are, however, very rare as the EU is ultimately an inter-state, diplomatic body. It would require that either (a) the Commission place a complaint before the European Court of Justice, (b) that the French courts themselves ask the ECJ to interpret the situation, or (c), that another member state accuses France of not fulfilling its obligations.

None of these situations are very likely over something this insignificant. The Commission is aware that it depends on the good will of the member states to accomplish its duties. The French courts are historically reticent to ask the ECJ for opinions. Member states have attacked each other in front of the ECJ on less than a dozen occasions AKAIK as such actions are politically very sensitive.

In short, I would not hold my breath for a Eurocrat in shining armour to save the French internet users.

Please forgive my misuse of technical vocabulary in this post, my studies are in French.

Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good (1)

Ghubi (1102775) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603861)

Most of the productive stuff I do is on the internet. I get my news from the net. When I need to know something I google it. Recently I've been viewing CS107 [stanford.edu] .

Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25603497)

If you love your gerbil then don't stick it up your butt.

Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good (4, Insightful)

Hojima (1228978) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603589)

It sucks that there seem to be so many people that don't understand how impossible it is to prevent pirating with conventional technology (and it's always them that are in charge). The reason you can't win is because there will always be a way to circumvent the methods implemented, unless you want to utterly eliminate freedom on the internet or the freedom to purchase what technology you want. It's like the war between virus and anti virus, except the "enemy" has a MUCH greater incentive with MUCH more people supporting them. Making drugs illegal has only make an incentive to distribute them more, and pirating has become a market due to its illegality as well. Fighting harder will just make more of an incentive to start a pirating company that fights back more for profit. And fighting harder in this manner usually uses tax money, not money directly from the company.

Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good (4, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603909)

It sucks that we haven't taken the steps to create a citizens mesh network to replace the centrally managed networking we're relying on. Bitching and moaning isn't going to do anything if you're still materially dependent on systems under other peoples control.

Take the steps to build a mesh network by the citizenry for the citizenry, then when they start passing laws to shut it down and sending the police out to force everyone to stop, THAT is when you should be protesting. Well, probably fighting on the defensive rather than protesting, but you get the idea.

At this point, the only thing stopping this from happening is the laziness of a citizenry who would rather demand their rights to be dependent consumers be affirmed than actually take responsibility and take effective steps to remedy their situation.

Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good (3, Interesting)

Fourier404 (1129107) | more than 5 years ago | (#25604217)

That's right, find new ways to circumvent laws, instead of dealing with the actual problem.

Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25604285)

It sucks that we haven't taken the steps to create a citizens mesh network to replace the centrally managed networking we're relying on.

1. You haven't defined what a "citizens mesh network" will be.

2. A citizens mesh isn't going to lay fiber 4,000+ miles (6.400+ km) across the Atlantic Ocean and send out multi-million dollar repair ships whenever it breaks

3. Unless your citizens mesh is running parallel to/separate from the existing internet infrastructure, you've accomplished absolutely nothing. Also, creating a parallel/separate infrastructure is hard: See #2.

4. Even if it is parallel/separate, you may have still accomplished nothing if courts and legislatures decide that existing laws still apply.

5. Depending on your response to #1, I reserve this space for a generic argument that an unmanaged mesh network will have bottlenecks that will eventually lead to a managed spoke and hub system like we have now.

Bad. (3, Insightful)

twitter (104583) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603609)

A censored internet will look nothing like the free net of '92. It will look like broadcast TV because the same people who censor that will be deciding who gets kicked off.

Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does (4, Insightful)

Simonetta (207550) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603645)

Passing a law against What everyone does is a risky affair. Sure, legislators have to go along with the concept that recorded media is property. As in the idea that a corporation can actually own a song or a movie, which is quite absurd, although accepted. A slight change in a note makes a different song, a minor re-edit or re-filming of the same plot makes a different movie. Which according to the bizarre theory of corporate ownership of 'intellectual property' creates an entirely new piece of property.

    Add to this strange notion that everyone has the means to quite easily break this so-called law, since computers and telecommunications are ubiquitous, and you have a situation where it is easier to break a law than it is to obey it.

    Which is not a stable situation. The law enforcers must either ignore the law in general, focus its enforcement on a specific minority group, or enforce the law equally against everyone. Enforcing against everyone changes the conditions that law is supposed to protect and is almost never done. Choosing between non-enforcement and selective enforcement is often a matter of culture. I would believe that the French law enforcement will not enforce this law against French citizens, only against foreigners and then only when the foreigners break other laws (or act outside of French cultural norms) and this law becomes one more weapon that can be used to make them conform.

    Americans on the other hand are basically punitive people. Laws like this are specifically focused on targeted minorities for the specific purpose of incarcerating them for profit into private prisons, to steal their property, and to destroy their political clout. An example is the use of the drug possession laws being used to re-enslave the African-American non-middle-class youth. Each year the drug penalties get harsher and more focused on Blacks while White youth are given warnings and probation for the same 'offenses'. In America, copyright laws will be primarily used against young people who protest against any government actions.

    These laws are perfect for that purpose. They can be widely broken with no ill effect to society as a whole (like the marijuana laws), and still be enforced brutally against specific individuals and groups. As long as the mainstream of people can continue to download music and movies without hassle, they will accept harsh punishments for the same downloading activity against young people who demonstrate against the government.

    If McCain is elected, expect the criminalization of file downloading and harsh penalties applied against only the people who actively oppose government policies. This is the American way of doing things and there are many historical precedents for using harsh laws against harmless activities in this manner.

Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does (0)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603715)

Passing a law against What everyone does is a risky affair.

Please be sure to speak for yourself only and not assume that "everyone" does it.

Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does (1, Troll)

Schemat1c (464768) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603885)

Please be sure to speak for yourself only and not assume that "everyone" does it.

Ok, everyone except you. Now take your treat and get back to work obedient citizen.

Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does (4, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603961)

Please be sure to speak for yourself only and not assume that "everyone" does it.

Maybe not everyone, but a majority does in some age / sex brackets. Here's the latest stats [www.ssb.no] from Q2 2008 here in Norway in percent of Internet users (which is 84% of all households, the rest mostly very old people). And they didn't have a category for those under 16 either:

File sharers: 19%

Males: 25%
Females: 12%

16-24: 47%
25-34: 31%
35-44: 13%
45-54: 5%
55-64: 1%
65-74: 0%

While the data isn't on that level, with a 2:1 ratio of males to females and 47% in the 16-24 age bracket overall, I'd estimate about 62% of males and 31% of females 16-24 do file sharing. That's right, if you're a young male and don't file share, you're probably in the minority. Note that this is the "file sharing" numbers, it's NOT the "watched youtube online" numbers. And while there's always the assumption that people will "settle down" when they get older, I think this trend will only continue as today's file sharers grow older.

Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does (3, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25604143)

Grr. And of course the wrong table was in the copy-paste buffer, this [www.ssb.no] is the right one, you'll see the numbers I quoted in the column "Utvekslet musikk, filmer ved fildeling" which directly translated means "Exchanged music, movies by file sharing".

Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does (0, Flamebait)

NetBob57 (955993) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603857)

"...to re-enslave the African-American non-middle-class youth." Are you on crack? Jeez.

Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 5 years ago | (#25604163)

It seems to surprise you but this is an often heard sound in European media and judicial circles.

Knowing the USofA reasonably well I would say that if this isn't a purposely followed policy it at least is one result of present practises in the US.

Your analogy stretches credibility a bit. (1)

an.echte.trilingue (1063180) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603881)

I have heard of filesharing cases being brought against grandma's, mentally disabled dead people, single mothers who had never used a computer, and on and on, but I think that this is the first time that I have seen somebody argue that they were going to be used to target minority youths. Please, do elaborate, perhaps with the help of a real life example or something else resembling evidence.

By the way, although your rhetoric about re-enslaving black people in the US was quite vogue in the 1990's, I like to think that the fact that we are potentially about to elect a half-African president pretty thoroughly debunks that. Drug laws in the US are broken, drug laws do hit poor people unfairly, but they are not a racist conspiracy.

Re:Your analogy stretches credibility a bit. (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603943)

By the way, although your rhetoric about re-enslaving black people in the US was quite vogue in the 1990's, I like to think that the fact that we are potentially about to elect a half-African president pretty thoroughly debunks that. Drug laws in the US are broken, drug laws do hit poor people unfairly, but they are not a racist conspiracy.

Lead us to freedom, Uncle Tom!!

Re:Your analogy stretches credibility a bit. (2, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603959)

...but they are not a racist conspiracy.

No?? Think again... Here's a few choice words from some who responsible for those laws...

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."

"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."

"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."

-- Harry J. Anslinger

"Was it marijuana, the new Mexican drug, that nerved the murderous arm of Clara Phillips when she hammered out her victim's life in Los Angeles?... THREE-FOURTHS OF THE CRIMES of violence in this country today are committed by DOPE SLAVES -- that is a matter of cold record."

-- William Randolf Hearst

Prison is indeed the new slavery.

Stop living in the past (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25604015)

Those quotes are from the 1930s. Try to develop some link between modern drug policy and racism if you want to make a point.

Re:Stop living in the past (2)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#25604153)

They use code now. We can simply use "us and "them". What you do think "welfare queen" means? Or "crime-ridden neighborhoods"? You might here some people even use the word "Canadian". And of now course you hear the word "dangerous" and "inexperienced" and "real, hard working Americans". The reasons to maintain prohibition have not changed one bit. As it is obvious to any rational person that it's not for public health. Otherwise alcohol and tobacco would be long gone. As the original post said, these laws are targeted. Most laws are. They are designed to provide probable cause to mitigate any tendency to get "uppity" Wake the hell up!

Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does (5, Informative)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603889)

If McCain is elected...

Bla bla bla...The DMCA was signed into law by a democrat. It was a republican, probably more than one, that helped to keep Clipper chips out of your computers. In fact one of the louder voices was McCain's. This is not an endorsement. I dislike him more than most people do. But let's try to remember from who's trough both sides are feeding from. And also don't forget that Joe Lieberman, as a democrat, most likely had the patriot act waiting in the wings long before Bush showed up on the scene. These people from either side are not your friends. We need a serious purge.

Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25603989)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law

Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25604029)

If McCain is elected, expect the criminalization of file downloading...

I thought it was the Democrats who were in the pocket of the record and movie industry.

I must have missed the memo.

Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25604051)

That is a good rant. However, you completely forgot to bash Microsoft Vista.

Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#25604095)

Passing a law against What everyone does is a risky affair.

.

Assuming everyone does it is a risky business - assuming they will continue on with it after being warned twice is also a risky business.

Sure, legislators have to go along with the concept that recorded media is property. As in the idea that a corporation can actually own a song or a movie, which is quite absurd, although accepted.

As absurd as the F/OSS programmer who thinks his GPL license is enforceable?

A slight change in a note makes a different song, a minor re-edit or re-filming of the same plot makes a different movie

No it doesn't.

Infringement means precisely that. The copyright owner holds the rights to the original and all clearly derivative works.

Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25604227)

Hello???? What???? They aren't granted copyright on music/movies because "they managed to make a totally unique thing". They are granted copyright on the *exact* thing they made. Why should someone/a company/a dog/whoever not have rights to something they worked to make? Note to mention the fact that you *could* make a car identical to a ferrari, just change a door handle.. does that mean you then have the right to steal a ferrari? Pretty stupid argument. Music isn't "meant to be free". People pay to make albums. Those people should charge for what they make or stop making them...

 

Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#25604275)

*Ahem* - Sorry if I was picking on you. Because after more thought, it is clear that your post all the way up to the McCain bit was absolutely right on and hit the nail perfectly. But it's very important to point out that this is bipartisan effort. People who believe in freedom can count their friends in government on one hand. In fact they constitute a tiny minority of the general population, and the government does reflect that fairly accurately.

Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25604293)

Play the song using a different note if you can. If people want your song, you have created something of value.

Otherwise pay for the work of others, or just steal it off the internet like everyone else.

Common sense? (1)

Loibisch (964797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603391)

This is akin to if you'd murder someone with a knife for the third time, they'd not let you cut your own bread for a year...err, actually you wouldn't be able to cut your own bread for far longer than a year, seeing that you'd be in a maximum security prison...but anyway.

That really was a horrible example, someone want a car analogy?

Re:Common sense? (3, Insightful)

Matt Perry (793115) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603449)

That really was a horrible example, someone want a car analogy?

Sure. It's like getting caught driving drunk in the US. They'll give you a fine, even though you are putting the lives of all around you at risk. They might even throw you in jail for the evening until you sober up. When you finally end up killing someone because of your drunk driving, the government might maybe, begrudgingly, take your license away.

Re:Common sense? (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603573)

Not quite. I closely know a guy in jail now, for 2 years (3 years probation after that), because of 3 DUI's. He never had a wreck and never killed anyone.

You won't get it taken away the first time, but after the 2nd or 3rd, you will.

Re:Common sense? (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603641)

In Michigan, I believe you lose your license for a year.. the first time.

Re:Common sense? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603795)

Loss of license for from 90 days to a year is typical in the US. Sometimes you get back a restricted license that lets you drive to and from work. Jail time is also typical. Second offense penalties are much more severe. DUI in the US [drivinglaws.org]

Re:Common sense? (1)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603953)

DUI=Arrest, at least here in Idaho. And we be one of dem backword states!

Re:Common sense? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25603461)

That really was a horrible example, someone want a car analogy?

A car analogy would be; If they catch you speeding for the third time, They revoke your privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a year. ...I would know, turns out this is the law here in Oregon -- that's why I'm posting on /. on a Sunday morning.

Re:Common sense? (4, Insightful)

kramerd (1227006) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603635)

Car analogy:

You are a truck driver. You are caught on 3 occasions driving your truck through a gas station to skip a traffic light, regardless of whether or not you actually stopped to buy gas (in some states in the US, this is considered an illegal use of private property). As a result, you are prohibited from using public roads. Whether for driving your truck or your bicycle or even taking the public city bus, you are not allowed to do so for 1 year, because you didnt pay for something you may have had the right to access.

Seems only 15 out of 312+ members of the French Senate have managed to keep their heads out of their asses long enough to realize how much this law stinks.

Never mind that the government of a country should not be using its resources to protect private businesses from their own failing business model.

The internet has become an essential service for most people in today's world.

The law doesnt address how to resolve an issue of employees using the internet to download copyrighted material at work, if 4 employees do it at once, the entire business would lose internet for a year.

The law doesnt even specify that the downloading of copyrighted material must be illegal. If I go to cnn.com and download a podcast, I have downloaded copyrighted material from the internet and have not paid for it.

On the other hand, in many cases the validity of whether material is copyrighted is not apparent. If I download a torrent that contains copyrighted material that is not labeled as such, I have permission to do so from whoever uploads the material. If the source material is in fact copyrighted, I could lose my internet for downloading it from someone who downloaded from someone who downloaded it from the original host. I would have no way of knowing that the material was copyrighted. And thousands of people could lose internet access because of one person's actions.

This is a slippery slope that ends in transfer of information without a fee or a EULA impossible, which in the long run, turns the internet from the information superhighway into the worlds biggest electronic shopping mall.

Its not like we didnt have reasons to hate France before, but if this passes the lower house of the senate, I for one will be boycotting all things French (admittedly, that means I have to give up bottled water, but still, thats about 2/3 of France's economy, right?)

Re:Common sense? (1)

Ghubi (1102775) | more than 5 years ago | (#25604057)

Oh no! Give up bottled water [nrdc.org] ?

Re:Common sense? (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#25604189)

The law doesnt even specify that the downloading of copyrighted material must be illegal.

Citation needed.

Here's what the article says:

Under the so-called three strikes or "graduated response" legislation - which still needs approval by the lower house before it becomes French law - illegal downloaders are first sent an email warning them of their infraction. They are subsequently sent a warning letter in the post.

If after this second warning they continue to illegally download copyrighted content, the internet service provider will cut off access to the internet for a year.

Who's got anything better to go by?

Re:Common sense? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25604295)

Fly carefully. Northwest seems to buy a lot of their planes from France.

Also, it would probably pay to get a dictionary that had decent etymology, so you could avoid using words that are borrowed from French.

How would they know? (3, Insightful)

Matt Perry (793115) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603401)

The article is short on details. How will they know that the downloader didn't have permission to download the copyrighted work? There are movies, music, and video games that are copyrighted but freely available. Does French law require that copyrighted works be paid for rather than distributed at no charge?

Re:How would they know? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603493)

They don't really care if you have permission. What is in it for them to do their research?

Re:How would they know? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25603591)

Eh we didn't need France on the internet anyway. I seem to remember France having their own private little french-only internet in their country a while back. If that still exists does this cut off also apply to THAT one, or just the big nasty mostly non-french one that everyone else uses? If not, then it might explain why they're in favor of this.

Re:How would they know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25603519)

Hmm, they also don't say anything about books, or anything else for that matter besides films, music, and video games.
(Or they have, and the article just doesn't mention it)

As for the paid argument, maybe saying that the cost is the address of the file itself, and by receiving that, you can receive the file?

Random thoughts related to this then: (I want to guess these cases have been covered, but who knows)
Does that mean if I say that instead of a movie(film), it is a series of pictures that are meant to be viewed at 24/25/30 pictures per second I am immune? And the dialog w/o any of the music? (or just subtitles? Or dialog in audio, just the lyrics as subtitles? )

How about TV shows? TV Show != movie. Following that idea, if a movie is entirely digital and is direct to home video, it might have never even been on film. Does that still make it a film?

End of Random Thoughts

Re:How would they know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25603581)

It tells you about the mindset of the people who drafted the legislation.

i.e. they want you to pay for everything you download.

And they are the ones you pay, of course.

Re:How would they know? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603587)

Unless they've thrown all ISP privacy laws over board, I guess it means every C&D letter (in the US you'd call it a DMCA notice, but it's not the US) will be counted towards the limit, three letters and you're offline for a year. The ISP probably won't do any fact-checking at all...

Re:How would they know? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603683)

> I gueI guess it means every C&D letter (in the US you'd call it a DMCA notice, but it's
> not the US)

No. I'd call it a C&D letter, because that is what it would be. It would have nothing to do with the DMCA.

Re:How would they know? (2, Funny)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603667)

How will they know that the downloader didn't have permission to download the copyrighted work? There are movies, music, and video games that are copyrighted but freely available.

One would hope the law says "unlicensed" rather than "not paid for". One would fear that the law is made by lawyers (just because we don't like lawyers). A fortunate side effect is that they probably know to distinguish the two.

If not, then because due to the fact that

There are [...] video games that are copyrighted but freely available

We would have that apt-get is a tool for software piracy: nexuiz, openarena, wesnoth; that's three strikes. Be sure to add the music to your playlist (dpkg -L $pkg; unzip the pk3s).

The french are trying to outlaw Linux? They're probably still angry at the Germans (who are adopting it, as we have all read) ;)

Or they're pissed at the freedom fries thing and want software frenchness rather than software freedom... ;)

Re:How would they know? (3, Informative)

Beretta Vexe (535187) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603719)

First, the French copyright law "droit d'auteur" ( author's rights ) are significantly different of US copyright law.

Second, the article isn't accurate. The HADOPI (Haute Autorité pour la diffusion des Å"uvres et la protection des droits sur Internet, " hight authority of protection of broadcasting right on internet" approximative translation ) only investigate cases after copyright holder request.
So it's pretty unlikely that the author or the copyright owner request intervention of the hadopi for a work he distributed for free by himself.

They don't know / don't care (2, Interesting)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25604083)

All those objections have been raised. I know personally the people at the main advocacy group opposing this nonsense [laquadrature.net] , and from what they tell me, they are in complete in denial. They are impervious to the technical arguments. The entertainment industry feeds them their talking points, and that's good enough for them.
But the technical aspect is just a part of the whole problem; constitutionnally, it's on grounds just as weak. And the European Parliament, backed by the Commission, has shot it down premptively.
It doesn't make any fucking sense.

Will they do the same to business & government (1)

theodp (442580) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603433)

Seems only fair, eh? :-)

fair? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25604151)

Seems only fair, eh?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Thanks, I needed that.

Heh....fair.....

297 votes to 15 (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603477)

So now you know who in your government was willing to sell out, and who wasn't ( or had a higher price then the industry was willing to pay ).

What if not necessarily illegal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25603495)

"The French Senate has approved a three strikes law for Internet users who download copyrighted entertainment media without paying for it"

So, if I download entertainment media that's A) copyrighted, and B) released for free by the author/owner, I'm breaking the law?

Okay, the law can't be that ridiculous, but in practice how exactly do the ISPs tell the difference between legal and illegally used content? It doesn't sound very practical from a technical standpoint. Either they're going to cut off all traffic for certain protocols, throwing out legitimate content with illegitimate, the filter process is going to bog down everything, or false positives are going to be numerous. Then what?

It may be easy for French legislators to write a magical "copyright infringement" filter that categorizes all data reliably and efficiently, but it doesn't exist, especially because you can't really assess whether something is infringing unless you consider the end use (e.g., how do you determine whether "fair use" applies?).

Worse, imagine the repercussions if you get rickrolled more than 3 times.

Re:What if not necessarily illegal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25603717)

So, if I download entertainment media that's A) copyrighted, and B) released for free by the author/owner, I'm breaking the law?

Well, what do you think?

Okay, the law can't be that ridiculous,

No shit, Sherlock! You must be some sort of genius.

Worse, imagine the repercussions if you get rickrolled more than 3 times.

Totally utterly ridiculous. And I fear you're being serious. *rollseyes*

Good idea and no one gets rich. (1)

Carson Napier (1045596) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603527)

I like this idea. Wouldn't it be a good thing if we had a law like that here in the USA?? Putting aside the issues of what would constitute a download of a copywritten material, what I really like is it takes away costly litigation and disproportionate settlements a la RIAA!!

All they need(ed) was a Reichstagtd fire (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25603529)

A fire which they started to justfiy Internet2. I'm not a music studient, though I attend a college with a music class and department. A friend of mine were practicing with our "violent axe" (a homemade quasi 8-string guitar half-violin we made). We have a synthesizer arm we made for our robotics class that we have strum the guitar with songs that would not strain a man's hand if he tried to recite the same without robotics. A principals assistant, hearing the music, thought we were running copyrighted sheet music through OUR instrument. We dprogrammed the thing directly, and don't have any "paper" to show so they get the dean on me. This happeneded at a California University in Long Beach.

I am absolutely sick of unqualified people makin dertmations on our work. I've been listening to Alex Jones a bit because a friend said my favorite Willie Nelson has been talking alot on there. Even Jesse Ventura was on their of many times just two days ago. They all say the same thing: it's a criminal govenment inspiring people nag and mis-report events to spread jurisdiction determinied by all these lobbying of corporations. Even Jesse Ventura said all of them just need to be voted out, but I don't think that's possible. What really caughy my ear from Alex Jones about Internet2 is that he can't get his SYNDICATED station to and website to qualify for Internet2! He's selling inexpensive FM micro-repeaters for shortwave re-transmit, but that is only so far a dated ancient method. Is the FCC mad? Is the music recording companies mad? What is going on here?

First time on Slashdot. Thanks for the replies for me to read about.
Jenny

Yes it's bad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25603753)

That's funny. Back in my highschool in Huntington Beach UHSD, Westminster HS teachers would only delete off their computers non-study music. If anything unapproved, they hold it until end of class if it interrupted their teaching. Biology 101 teacher of mine always copied classical orchestra music he recorded live, and played it low durring class; all of it reworks of public domain sheets. I wonder how that works when somone replays an exact rework of Beethoven, without anything added or taken from it, and not distinguished from the original. They wouldn't tribute family heirs, so carpetbagger musician companies would sue you I suppose.

I got on Alex Jones a couple times. Mostly listen to World Wide First Amendment Radio, and they said a long time ago that no independent stations qualify. Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh, and Phil Hendrie wil get their sites and allowed to stream on Internet2. I heard that Howard Stern moved to Sirious/XM and is getting the non-legislated restrictions imposed on him early. No way will anyone allow Alex Jones' prisonplanet and infowars on Internet2. Back on Googl Video and YouTube, his free videos get up in top-10 for views (Terrorstorm and Loose Change) and they get reset and deleted by somone working in Google despite reaching over 15 million views each within 1 week).

If it can't be lobbied, they throw their Service and Privacy Terms at you in court. We are sold down the river since 1871, by the second Organic Act to creat United States inclusive to District of Columbia, and separate from these United States.

Re:All they need(ed) was a Reichstagtd fire (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603775)

So.. You programmed the thing, right?

Just write your own sheet music that corresponds to what you did. For bonus points, get a graphic artist to design you a "robot clef" for the machine parts.

Assuming, of course, that what you did corresponds well enough to the standard scales.

Welcome to /., btw.

(also, you might wanna get a free account, even if you just post anonymously. Lock in your user-number today, they're only going to go up!)

I'm just here for the day. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25604125)

It's raining a little, so I'm just looking through some websites. //(also, you might wanna get a free account, even if you just post anonymously. Lock in your user-number today, they're only going to go up!)//

I used a C stamp and this is programmed by how we think it should sound. A wormdrive and servo to hold on the neck, and a robotic hand that is set for hitting a string is all it does. It is about 3 notes per second, nothing like Zakk Wylde, cowboy. :p. Can't control the rate well, and it sounds more like the slow mood of a renaisance fair. We have it tuned properly, but wouldn't no what chords we were hitting. It plays by our ear.

Jenny

PS: I would only register if Slashdot has a Personals section. 130lb SWF-24y, longhair-brown. Maybe someone could meet me to talk about programming and other things.

University in Long Beach? Robots? Jenny? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25603993)

I've been through Long Beach, even Wilmington! There are NO girls named Jenny. They are either Quatisha, Lafonda, Chevilon, or Bitch. Poster is a liar! Niggertown doesn't have music or even robotics classes! WTF! Can't fool me, jiggaboo. Maybe Jenny is the name of the mule that Farachan reparationed to your daddy.

never get to France (1)

redcaboodle (622288) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603541)

So for every 3 comments you read on Slashdot, your access gets cut of for a year? Each comment is copyrighted and you never paid the copyright holder.

And who says you have downloaded something in the first place? This would be the perfect moment for all big media to branch out into webdesign and similar as they can effectively wipe out all competition be declaring the filesharers 3 times.

Heh (3, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603561)

Some people should release some 'copyrighted' material they created then lure some of the political figures to download it. Once a couple of people get banned from the net, that law will disappear quickly.

Re:Heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25603669)

If politicians followed the law, this law would never have existed.

The law is only for people that are to stupid to think for them selfs.

Re:Heh (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603699)

Do you seriously believe that such people would ever be banned?

Re:Heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25603713)

haha do you seriously believe they would let this law be applied to themselves?

they are POLITICIANS

Re:Heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25603741)

The fatal flaw in your plan is your assumption that a politician would know how to use a computer. However, you could probably trap their children in it.

Re:Heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25603771)

What, you think laws apply to everyone equally? You must be new here.

Better way... (1)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603773)

I'd release my stuff as freeware with a EULA that said that politicians weren't allowed to use it, then go after only them. Nobody reads EULAs if they can help it.

Re:Heh (1)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603831)

I'd be surprised if political figures downloaded content from the intertubes much less used it. Keep in mind that most people who are in political office were alive before computers became ubiquitous and over their lifetime, never had to learn how to use it out of necessity. That's why these laws get passed. It doesn't effect those voting for it. If it did, it would have been shot down much faster.

Re:Heh (1)

Loibisch (964797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603839)

Seeing how far removed some of those figures are from reality, you'd probably have to teach them what a download is, let alone how to download something.

Sneakernet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25603565)

works too.

Blackmail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25603621)

I'm going to blackmail all the IPs from france that I share with on utorrent.

The worst part.. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25603649)

The worst part is that this doesn't really require any evidence. It's "three warnings", not "three convictions". There's no due process.

Also, cutting people off the Internet is a way disproportionate punishment. For me, this would mean:
- Not being able to participate in the work of my political party of choice (The Swedish Pirate Party, if you're wondering..)
- Heck, it will cut me off from lots of vital information that I need to practice my democratic rights.
- Not being able to pay my bills without going to the bank regularly.
- Not being able to make phone calls (I use Skype as my home phone)
- Not being able to check my school schedule
- Not being able to check my school assignments.. or hand them in.
- Even if I could get a friend to print the assignments for me or something, I'd have a hard time programming without access to online documentation.

And those are only the ones I could think of in two minutes.

The Internet is a vital part of participating in modern society. Even if you're a supporter of current copyright law, you can't allow alleged copyright infringement to interfere with people's access to information.

The lawmakers don't understand the importance of the Internet. There is no way they would ever even consider banning someone from the phone networks.

This is a non-story... for now (5, Informative)

Cochonou (576531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603657)

In France, a law has to be examined by the higher chamber (senate) and the lower chamber (national assembly) before it can be enforced. The national assembly has not yet examined this law. That means that the law which has been approved by the senate is not yet in its final form, and might undergo deep revisions before it is enforced.

Re:This is a non-story... for now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25603921)

Right. The Assemblée Nationale hasn't validated this law yet. According to http://www.clubic.com/actualite-175246-hadopi-albanel-felicite-vote-senat.html, it will be reviewed by the Assemblée Nationale in January/February 2009.

According to http://www.01net.com/editorial/394347/la-loi-antipiratage-sera-votee-en-urgence/, the law will only be reviewed once by the Assemblée Nationale because of urgence déclarée (emergency). It will then pass through a commission mixte paritaire (with members of both the Assemblée Nationale and the Sénat).

Re:This is a non-story... for now (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603999)

That means that the law which has been approved by the senate is not yet in its final form, and might undergo deep revisions before it is enforced.

In theory. How often does it happen with a law that flies through 295-16? Everyone has clearly bought into this.

punishing illegal downloaders is good, but... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25603661)

I'm against illegal download of copyrighted content.
But this legislation is a shame. And in clear violation of European law.

The warnings are in fact optional.
Once again, the punishment is overkill. I don't think they understand all the implications in today's society.
With this law, if your internet is cut-off, then you can't do anything about it.
Oh, my bad, yes you can contest. But if you do so and can't convince the judge that you're innocent, then you face a fine of 300000â and 3 years of prison.
And of course, everyone who use your connection are impacted, you have to continue to pay for your lost connexion, and you are referenced in a database so that every ISP knows that you can't subscribe to an internet access.

Fulfilling Prophecy (1)

Poseiden (575105) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603687)

So now the gears are turning to cut us off from the internet if we break the law, just as the internet is becoming important to the point we would individually suffer without it. Next, our interactions on the internet become more important than the ones offline because we will be interacting with electronic devices wherever we go through RFID chips, and being cut off from that internet would be just horrible. Later, mind virtualization, The Matrix, you can dig it. But people never believe that silly stuff...

The new ISP dilemmna... (2, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603689)

If I obey the law and send a letter the customer won't need my bandwidth any more...

Re:The new ISP dilemmna... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25603923)

No worry for them : even when the customer is cut-off the internet, this law requires the customer to continue to pay the bill.

(note: mod me informative)

Re:The new ISP dilemmna... (1)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 5 years ago | (#25604181)

Your post just made me think of a positive use for this insane 'allegation=conviction' law:

You're in a 12 month lock-in contract with your ISP and a cheaper, better alternative has just come to market. You send 3 allegations of copyright infringement, accusing yourself. Voilla! New ISP. :)

Uh lala (1)

meist3r (1061628) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603691)

Liberte ... mon derriere!

The Vivendi law (4, Interesting)

pieterh (196118) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603695)

This law was mainly pushed by Vivendi but there are powerful backers from all across the spectrum:

* Telecoms firms that want a mandate to filter all Internet traffic so that they can block all P2P, and then VoIP, and then video streaming and then anything which competes with their monopoly products.
* Large ISPs, because these are now all owned by the telecoms firms.
* Vendors like Cisco because they want to sell loads and loads of expensive filtering equipment.
* The music industry, because it still thinks it's going to sue its way back onto the right side of history. Stupid kloten, when will they learn?
* The movie industry, because they've drunk the music industry koolaid.
* The TV industry, because they want to sell more DVDs and because their distributors in the digital age are, of course, the ISPs.
* And finally, certain software firms, because the only way to implement this law, finally, is to use a fully locked down operating system that only runs authorized software, so no Linux.

The French tried so hard to get this same law pushed through the European Parliament, but that seems to be saner.

There are similar legislative pushes all around Europe, at the national level, and for the same reasons.

The Internet is, really, under attack from concerted and powerful forces that hate what those free packets represent.

Extra penalties (4, Funny)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603723)

I heard there will be extra penalties if the downloads weren't in French...

"tech support? my net doesn't work.." (1)

ypctx (1324269) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603737)

"well you have been warned 2 times son, good bye!"

"But I haven't received any warnings! Plus, my WiFi router only supports WEP, easy to crack and ..." BEEP BEEP (hangup tone)

Danish politician wants to legalise filesharing (3, Interesting)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603761)

Let's compare this with a danish politician (I'm from Denmark).

http://www.computerworld.dk/art/42432?a=newsletter&i=1393 [computerworld.dk] says (my translation from danish)

"Enhedslistens"* candidate for the parliament, Johanne Schmidt-Nielsen, thinks tha file sharing should be legal, and digital rights management, DRM, illegal

"I think it's an illusion to believe that it's possible to stop copying. I amounts to sticking one's head in the sand. The politicians have to realize the necessity of forming a committee that will address the question of how artists can be compensated for their work."

*"Enhedslisten" is the leftmost party in danish politics, left of The Socialist People's Party. I'd guess they compare with the greens; the environment is also one of their big issues, they're all for taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

I remember them branding themselves as the Robin Hood party one time, but I don't recall them using that term again. If they get into parliament, they often hold around four seats out of 179, which is the smallest possible amount (less than 2% of the votes and you don't get in).

Be aware that this statement was during election season.

I hope this gives you nutrition for cognition :)

Military vs. Music (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25603769)

Communication with citizens is very important. Imagine that somebody prohibited you to have TV and radio - when your country is invaded by foreign army, radio and TV always have been the most important source of information for the citizens. In the future, internet will replace this strategical role and the people who don't have access to it will be in serious danger. It's stupid to prohibit somebody to connect only because the stupid/shallow movie/music industry has to protect Britney's copyright property.

Of course, for the French this isn't a real problem, since the actions of French army are pretty predictable and the public can automatically assume that they surrendered.

lol, here is a thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25603811)

What if someone's computer got a virus, which then downloaded pirated content to no fault of their own? Oops! Strike three! You lost your internet to a virus. :) GENIUS!

Politics and governments don't know jack about the interweb and how it works and they need to leave it the hell alone.

Re:lol, here is a thought (1)

WTF Chuck (1369665) | more than 5 years ago | (#25604011)

What if someone's computer got a virus, which then downloaded pirated content to no fault of their own? Oops! Strike three! You lost your internet to a virus. :) GENIUS!

Sounds like a great way to reduce spam.
1. Install proxy server on vulnerable spambot.
2. Download all the copyrighted material you want through the spambot.
3. Move to new spambot when the old one gets removed from the internet.
4. Profit

Some precisions about the vote (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25603919)

'The legislation passed with a massive cross-party majority of 297 votes to 15. Only a handful of conservatives, centrists and socialists voted against, while the Communists abstained.

Actually the 297 against 15 wasn't the actual vote, it was just an amendment trying to substitute the disconnection with a fine. The final vote for the law was unanimous, every political group voted "for" except the communists who preferred the abstention.
That was a sad day.

See the report from the advocacy group LaQuadrature:
http://www.laquadrature.net/en/graduated-response-will-france-disconnect-europe [laquadrature.net]

Money / ISP income (1)

theReal-Hp_Sauce (1030010) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603991)

From the article, I get the impression that it's the ISP who does all the decision making here. "That person is downloading illegally, cancel his service." "This person is not, allow him to continue", etc.

So, does the person who's internet has just been cut off still have to pay? If so, then what a scam, I'm not even going to go there.

I assume that the person who's internet was just cut of does not have to pay for the service any longer. But this means that the ISP's will be deciding to lower their own revenue... which is not good business in my opinion.

How long until the ISP's start turning a blind eye to rule breakers in favor of keeping their books in the black?

-hps

Unanimous vote! No handful against... (1)

jeremie_z_ (639708) | more than 5 years ago | (#25603997)

The pure bullcrap law was voted *unanimously* by all the political groups of the senate who expressed their vote (right wing, socialist, centrist). Only the communist group abstained (*sic*). There wasn't even *one* courageous senator to vote against! Let's hope the same won't happen in the National Assembly, which members are directly elected (which is not the case for the senators) The author probably messed the score for the final vote with the public record vote for Retailleau's amendement, the only one published on the French Senate website (where 15 persons voted for after the executive branch felt it could easily pass, suspended the exam and made a few phonecalls). Look at http://www.laquadrature.net/en [laquadrature.net] for more details about the vote, and soon a translation of the most disturbing parts of the law (help needed ;). Be also aware that Nicolas Sarkozy's plan is to spread such a mechanism to the European level! Every European shall take action on his Member State's government, so Bono/Cohn-Bendit/Roithova's amendement to Telecoms Package remains into the Council's position! (more infos soon)

Well then its irelevant (3, Interesting)

Alterion (925335) | more than 5 years ago | (#25604061)

"The bill sets up a tussle between France and Brussels. In September, the European Parliament approved by a large majority an amendment outlawing internet cut-off."" If this does conlfict with the EU amendment/directive then this will be thrown out by the ECJ whe it comes before them, simple.

Re:Well then its irelevant (1)

muadda (962050) | more than 5 years ago | (#25604139)

The French law is not yet passed. The EU directive neither. This is a race: which law/directive will pass first?

Cry for "la belle france" (1)

redelm (54142) | more than 5 years ago | (#25604169)

It is a crying shame the people who gave the world "The Rights of Man" must now seek protection against their own lords from foreigners in Brussels.

For make no mistake -- corporations are merely updated feudal lords. For they have gathered power and exercise it for profit. And now they wish to enforce it by ritual excommunication.

Re:Cry for "la belle france" (1)

muadda (962050) | more than 5 years ago | (#25604195)

Our Brussels lords are not foreigners. In fact the amendment 138 which forbid this three strikes law has been brought by French Members of the European Parlement.

Re:Cry for "la belle france" (1)

redelm (54142) | more than 5 years ago | (#25604263)

Thank you. So then this looks most like a court intrique -- a factional fight where dominance is the only thing which counts, and the subject is irrelevant.

How to fight this (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 5 years ago | (#25604301)

Just say that this is great to protect all the American music and movies. In about 20 seconds it will not stop the law, it will be a requirement to at least download 1 movie per week, wether you have Internet or not.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...