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!

French "3 Strikes" Law Returns, In Slightly Altered Form

timothy posted about 5 years ago | from the more-where-that-came-from dept.

The Internet 159

suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica: "The French Senate has once again approved a reworked version of the country's controversial 'three strikes' bill designed to appease the Constitutional Council. Instead of a state-appointed agency cutting off those accused of being repeat offenders, judges will have the final say over punishment. The approval comes exactly one month after the country's Constitutional Council ripped apart the previous version of the Création et Internet law. ... Not content to let the idea die, President Nicolas Sarkozy's administration reworked the law in hopes of making it amenable to the Council — instead of HADOPI deciding on its own to cut off users on the third strike, it will now report offenders to the courts. A judge can then choose to ban the user from the Internet, fine him or her 300,000 (according to the AFP), or hand over a two-year prison sentence."

cancel ×

159 comments

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

So. (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 years ago | (#28664963)

Do they have the internet in French prison?

Carla Bruni (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28666085)

Sarkozy will never give up on this because he's doing it for the love of his wife, Carla Bruni. The two first met at a function where Bruni had come to promote stronger intellectual property legislation. Bruni is an artist/singer who feels that artists are being hurt by copyright violators. She is the real brain behind the law.

Re:Carla Bruni (4, Interesting)

Godwin O'Hitler (205945) | about 5 years ago | (#28666485)

Bruni is an artist/singer.

Please, call her anything but that. She has next to no musical talent.
She's just a model who got the idea into her head she can sing. Her songs are truly sleep inducing.

Could be worse (5, Interesting)

Again (1351325) | about 5 years ago | (#28664965)

At least now it requires a judge to declare guilt. This takes the responsibility away from the ISPs which is also a good thing.

Re:Could be worse (5, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | about 5 years ago | (#28665027)

it's much worse now - before they just kicked you off the internet - now some clueless judge will rubber stamp prison time.

Re:Could be worse (2, Interesting)

Again (1351325) | about 5 years ago | (#28665087)

it's much worse now - before they just kicked you off the internet - now some clueless judge will rubber stamp prison time.

Good point. And switching ISPs after receiving two strikes won't help you out.

Still, I do not like the idea of an ISP having the right to terminate services because they don't like the amount of download that I may be doing.

Re:Could be worse (4, Insightful)

AHuxley (892839) | about 5 years ago | (#28665449)

Yes, linked to your ID card. "Papers please" at any new isp.
You will have some life long HADOPI rating -0,1,2,3 and a * to show "caught but claims was hacked".
Like the "No fly, no buy" in the USA, this will be a database you will not get off.

Re:Could be worse (1)

siloko (1133863) | about 5 years ago | (#28666187)

I do not like the idea of an ISP having the right to terminate services because they don't like the amount of download that I may be doing.

Luckily that's not what was being proposed. ISP's are the good guys here, they tend to fight against **IAA (or their International equivilant) lobbied legislative changes if only to avoid the hassle and cost of becoming the internet's policemen. It is also worth noting that ANY law which requires court time is likely to be quickly changed if there are too many people cited because ultimately the public is not interested in putting alleged copyright infringers behind bars whereas they do want to see violent criminals brought to justice - arguing that there is not enough court time to try Mr Serial Rapist because we are too busy trying Miss Downloaded Britney isn't going to cut it.

Trois grèves indeed!

Re:Could be worse (2, Informative)

Hojima (1228978) | about 5 years ago | (#28665567)

Not entirely. Remember that there is technology to hide what you are truly doing on the internet. ISPs banning you on a whim is easy because they don't have to prove anything. Now you just have to say that you use an encrypted p2p video chat network (with high resolution or some other lie to cover up excessive seeding) and it will make the judge look really bad if he rubber stamps anything. Plus, you might be able to make an appeal. Still, I don't think this law will be tolerated for long if the other wasn't. Really sleazy for them to do this if you ask me.

Re:Could be worse (1, Insightful)

value_added (719364) | about 5 years ago | (#28665617)

it's much worse now - before they just kicked you off the internet - now some clueless judge will rubber stamp prison time.

What part of "can ... choose to ban the user from the Internet, fine him or her 300,000 (according to the AFP), or hand over a two-year prison sentence." didn't you get?

First, I count 3 distinct options, not one mandatory "rubber stamp" option.

Second, technical issues aren't typically relevant during sentencing, so I fail to see how "clueless judge" is anything more than inflammatory rhetoric. The best person to have deciding sentencing issues is someone who does that on a regular basis (i.e. a judge). Granted, technical issues may present difficulties from someone not as knowledgable as yourself, but that can be true in any court case regardless of the subject.

Third, judges have in the past been known to impose restrictions on internet access here in the US. Kevin Mitnick's case comes to mind, as do the numerous cases of those guilty of possessing child porn. You'd be hard pressed to argue how the judgments in such cases are clueless, unfair, inappopriate or have the quality of a "rubber stamp".

Re:Could be worse (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28666017)

> What part of
> 1. "can ... choose to ban the user from the Internet,
> 2. fine him or her 300,000 (according to the AFP), or
> 3. hand over a two-year prison sentence." didn't you get?

The little bit about

4. realise lack of guilt, and tell accusers to go get more evidence.

Where's that option?

Re:Could be worse (1)

BKX (5066) | about 5 years ago | (#28666233)

That's always an option in court. That's why the judge is there.

Re:Could be worse (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 5 years ago | (#28665639)

Based on my experience and observation of courts, judges won't rubber stamp prison sentences. Instead, they will impose ridiculous fines, with the threat of prison for failure to pay the fines. The economy sucks, counties and parishes are looking for money, so fines will be imposed for spitting in public - or private, for that matter.

It's been all about money for as long as I can remember, and things are getting tighter, and tighter.

Re:Could be worse (4, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 5 years ago | (#28666471)

Note that this is not the USA. Judges in France are not elected and there is much stronger separation between the legislature and the judiciary. There is no incentive for judges to impose fines because their departments do not see the money. That's not to say that they won't make stupid decisions out of ignorance or malice, but greed is unlikely to be a motive.

Re:Could be worse (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | about 5 years ago | (#28665955)

This is why I oppose copyright.

What sort of fucked up world do we live in where you can be jailed because some media company accuses you?

50 years ago this would not even happen in fiction.

Re:Could be worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28666077)

Let me double check this in the history books...
Nope. It didn't change this time around. ;)

Re:Could be worse (4, Insightful)

josiebgoode (754961) | about 5 years ago | (#28665959)

Of course, there will be no prison time but you will not be able to defend yourself. If you say "It's not me. Someone took over my connection without my knowledge..." You will got a 1300 euros fine anyway if you have not installed a spying software that will hinder p2p connection. Even worse: they will try also to spy on e-mails.
--
"La Chine en a reve... Hadopi l'a fait..."

Re:Could be worse (4, Informative)

josiebgoode (754961) | about 5 years ago | (#28665987)

Actually, 3 year prison time and/or 300 000 euros fine are what is already applied since 2006. This is the DADVSI law [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Could be worse (1)

SlashWombat (1227578) | about 5 years ago | (#28666059)

Fair enough, however, any Judges found to have broken the law (even once) should be subject to appropriate penalties ... I think the guillotine would be appropriate for France.

Re:Could be worse (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28666309)

You're an idiot. Please don't post here anymore.

Re:Could be worse (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 5 years ago | (#28665811)

A judge can then choose to ban the user from the Internet, fine him or her 300,000 (according to the AFP), or hand over a two-year prison sentence.

I'm assuming a judge will also have the choice of NOT punishing the victim?

Re:Could be worse (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 years ago | (#28666321)

It's much worse now.

Some EFF'esque group (quadrature de something, forgot what it was, someone help me out here) calculated that a judge would have about 5 minutes, tops, to read the accusation, ponder it and come to a verdict. I'm pretty sure they're already cutting the rubber stamps.

And unlike an ISP, a judge can actually send you to jail.

Re:Could be worse (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28666583)

La Quadrature du Net [laquadrature.net]

Why is there no link in the fine summary? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28664973)

Re:Why is there no link in the fine summary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28665225)

If there is nothing to click, a slashdotter is lost

The court gets all of 3 options, right? (5, Interesting)

vandy1 (568419) | about 5 years ago | (#28664975)

It sounds to me like saying that the defendant doesn't have the option of defending the charge might get it torn up, but I know nothing up French law... I know remarkably little about US law, either, since IANAL.

Since there is no article linked in the summary, how long before someone links one in?

Cheers

Re:The court gets all of 3 options, right? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28665013)

What do your sexual preferences have to do with law?

Re:The court gets all of 3 options, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28665677)

IANAL == I Am Not A Lawyer

Re:The court gets all of 3 options, right? (5, Informative)

Arkan (24212) | about 5 years ago | (#28665745)

The reality is bit uglier than what the article might say. When your IP will be caught exchanging one of the 10.000 referenced files on a p2p network - the HADOPI being the one who will be monitoring the p2p networks - this addendum to the three-strikes law will trigger the following events:
  - under a special, fast track process akin to the one followed for a speed ticket, the judge might order your ISP to cut your connexion, or (logical OR, not XOR) have you pay 1.500â. This is not a trial, it's a judge statement, and you'll have to go to court to defend yourself, but not before having your connexion cut and the fine paid. Btw, you'll still pay for the connexion that have been cut. You can get protection from this though: you need to install a (today inexistant) HADOPI-certified spyware (read network packet scanning, email reading spyware) on your - Windows - computer. This will magically make you not liable of this part of the law
  - you're still liable under the DADVSI (counterfeiting) law which can, on another judgment, get you up to 300.000â fine or (logical OR...) 3 years in prison
  - and then I don't see anything in the words of the proposed law that would prevent the copyright owner from suing you for lost revenue

For the smart among you all, you'd have already noticed that everything is trigger by just one thing: an IP on a p2p network. The IP. Something absolutely, positively unfalsifiable, that can't be spoofed. Right?

And soon, if LOPPSI goes through and you've used an encrypting bittorrent client, you'll also be sued under the premise that you're planning terrorist actions.

The most fun part is that this addendum in it's current state allows for the HADOPI commission to "read" your - and I quote - "electronic communications". Not "p2p connexions", not "bittorrent connexions": "electronic communications". Email, web, IM, VOIP: it's electronic, it's scanned. The french government is just passing a law to get a legal eavedropping right on all national internet communications.

I love being french those days...

Re:The court gets all of 3 options, right? (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | about 5 years ago | (#28666091)

There's always Quebéc (if you want to stay in a francophone area, otherwise there's the world). Seriously, with that kind of laws I'd really think about skipping town.

Re:The court gets all of 3 options, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28666465)

Or you can simply go to Switzerland (if you don't want to cross the atlantic).

Two years prison time. Lovely (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28664985)

I'm wondering if the gambit is being done of pressing for Draconian lesligation repeatedly, so something that is "moderate" ends up getting passed like how the DMCA got passed (original bills would lock someone up for 20 years if they possessed "cracking tools" like a debugger or the strings command). First, it was three strikes, now prison time. France doesn't have the percentage of population the US does that is locked up, but all this would do is put non violent people in prison, and remove potential tax revenue (people in prison are not earning taxable income, especially for something that is a white coller issue).

Re:Two years prison time. Lovely (4, Funny)

Alsee (515537) | about 5 years ago | (#28665563)

and remove potential tax revenue (people in prison are not earning taxable income

Duh, haven't you read the financial impact studies from music industry? Putting these people in prison will prevent six hundred trillion dollars in piracy, which means eighty two hundred trillion in extra tax revenue to the government.

-

Re:Two years prison time. Lovely (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 years ago | (#28666359)

Probably. But can you buy content in prison?

I know your comment is in jest, but the content industry seems to think just that. The problem is, though, that the people copying are wholly a subset of the set "people who might buy content". Because, well, if they didn't want content (yes, such people exist), they wouldn't copy it either. Now, not everyone engaging in filesharing bought or would buy content (yes, there are people who refuse to buy anything), but the majority did, does and will do it. There are actually people doing both, buying and p2p'ing.

Those people will not buy anything when you lock them up or sue their pants off. Either way they can't buy anything from you.

Re:Two years prison time. Lovely (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 years ago | (#28666339)

According to a recent, anonymous study done in my country, if they catch everyone they'd have to lock up about 2/3 of the population between the age of 16 and 25.

Time to build some more prisons, France. And get used to a lack of people knowing anything about computers at all.

Un, Deux, Trois........Zoot Alors! (4, Funny)

Bob_Who (926234) | about 5 years ago | (#28665043)

As Robin Williams said in a great comedy routine, "So There! You Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys!" Or Monty Python's "Your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries" Well at least they are willing to put up with our merde.

Re:Un, Deux, Trois........Zoot Alors! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28665357)

I am pretty sure it was Groundskeeper Willie that first said that cheese eating surrender monkeys line.

Re:Un, Deux, Trois........Zoot Alors! (1)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | about 5 years ago | (#28665581)

Cheese eating surrender monkeys, who surrendered to the RIAA (and the French equivalent).

No due process, just a rubber stamp (5, Informative)

Husgaard (858362) | about 5 years ago | (#28665075)

This new legislation may also be declared unconstitutional.

This time they try with a special court consisting of one judge to decide cases. The judge may not hear the parties involved, but is only allowed to give his decision solely based on a report from the new state antipiracy office. He is supposed to work expediently and not use more than 45 minutes per case.

Also language has been changed in the new law text possibly making it legal to eavesdrop private communications like email for antipiracy purposes.

The law text passed the senate wednesday, and is expected to pass the national assembly soon.

Links in french: Numerama [numerama.com] Le Monde [lemonde.fr]

Re:No due process, just a rubber stamp (1)

rastilin (752802) | about 5 years ago | (#28665461)

Also language has been changed in the new law text possibly making it legal to eavesdrop private communications like email for antipiracy purposes.

On that note, how much effort is required to get a license to eavesdrop without the police looking over your shoulder, it sounds like someone could get into the e-mail of the people behind this relatively easily. Would be a great PR boost.

Re:No due process, just a rubber stamp (4, Insightful)

Alsee (515537) | about 5 years ago | (#28665603)

Here I sit thinking the US legislature is kinda like an elementary school teacher that's been fucking all the students in his class, and along comes your post about how your kid's elementary school teach has been fucking all his students *and* he's got crabs.

It makes me feel ever-so-slightly better about our own legislature, in a nauseatingly sad way.

-

Re:No due process, just a rubber stamp (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28666393)

It's time to wake up. What's happening over there is happening all over the world. It is now a race against time.

Re:No due process, just a rubber stamp (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | about 5 years ago | (#28665831)

If it fails this time they will probably try to change the constitution.

Re:No due process, just a rubber stamp (2, Insightful)

Godwin O'Hitler (205945) | about 5 years ago | (#28666527)

And if it succeeds this time the whole of Europe is going to use it as a pretext to do the same. Mark my words.

It'll soon be time to emigrate to somewhere sensible. I hear some countries manage to get along fine with very few laws.

An astute comment from Le Monde (Google Translate) (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | about 5 years ago | (#28665977)

How better to sum up in few words the 2 major socio-economic trends, growth sectors of the 21st century: entertainment and security. Navel feed our complacency and our fear of others. All excuses will be good to better enslave us. We will accept, even desire the loss of freedom to better satisfy our desire for pleasure, our narcissism, our brainless. But n'incriminons person, our own consumerist decadence us for this purpose

I suppose I could touch up the grammar mistakes made by an automated translator, but the message comes across quite clearly and eloquently as is.

Still have to make it in front of constitutionnal (5, Funny)

mad flyer (589291) | about 5 years ago | (#28665077)

This parody of a law Still have to make it in front of constitutionnal council.

Naboleon Sarkozy is playing a "W Bush" card... constitution... that's just a piece of paper...

I wonder why politician who purposefully push -illegal- laws don't end up in jail...

Re:Still have to make it in front of constitutionn (5, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | about 5 years ago | (#28665139)

atleast the french are likely to riot and turn over a few police cars to show their displeasure. american's will form a few facebook groups and register to show their outrage...

Re:Still have to make it in front of constitutionn (-1, Flamebait)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | about 5 years ago | (#28665501)

Those are only the Muslim French. And they do it because they are 1st generation, second-class savages who want to see all of those infidel whores in Burqas.

Funny thing about Islamic savages immigrating to Europe is, why?! If the muzzies are so pissed off about this and that, then why do they willingly choose to live in the land of the infidels? Why not just stay in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan where there are 2 AK's and 4 wives for every man? Are Muslims masochists? Do Muslim immigrants enjoy being pissed off all the time or are they just used to it?!

Maybe there's an explanation for the madness. After all, the American and European governments can only envy the Arab governments' control over their citizens.

Re:Still have to make it in front of constitutionn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28665591)

Maybe there's an explanation for the madness.

They want to have their cake and kill it too.

Re:Still have to make it in front of constitutionn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28666083)

Those are only the Muslim French

If that is true, then we need more more muslims in Europe to defend our civil rights.

No it is far simpler (4, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 5 years ago | (#28666303)

It is home sickness. If you ever lived abroad you will know just how strong the desire can become to have something familiar.

I have lived abroad in several cultures where I was welcome. Nobody looked overly down on me. Oh they might think I was a crazy foreigner and a bit akward but nobody wanted me deported. And still the desire for even something as simple as a "boterham met pindakaas" can become overwhelming. No, peanut butter is NOT the same thing. That american stuff is disgusting.

It is also sometimes a great relief to read or hear something in your mother tongue. Almost all media to me is english even in Holland but when I am abroad for a while, it is comforting to hear something in dutch. I never follow soccer at home but when I am abroad and read something about Oranje, then it... well it feels like a bit of home.

No greater patriot then those abroad.

If your new enviroment is not accepting you and you are unwilling/incapable of fitting in then this desire can become extreem. People want to belong to something. Gangs work on this principle as does religion (the institution, not the faith). It becomes a downwards spiral. The (often second generation) immigrant (is a second generation still an immigrant?) rejects the new culture he is in by having differently from that culture. His new culture sees this behavior and becomes more resistant. He feels more rejected and starts to rebel more and try to find a group that does welcome him. Voila, an extremist is born.

Both sides are at fault here. Europe has two choices, keep immigrants out or accept them into their culture. You can't want the cheap labor immigrants supply and not give them some space to life their own lives. On the other hand, immigrants should realize that it was their choice to move to a new enviroment and that the price for that is giving up part of your identiy and adopt to a new culture. Naomi Campbell does not walk around in her native costume does she?

The original turkish immigrants were NOT pissed off. But new immigrants are arriving in an enviroment where they are resented for the problems caused by others and there are subcultures willing to accept them and give them a home.

This is similar to the reborn christians with their holier then thou attitude. Alienation is a ripe breeding ground for extremism. Wether that is gangs, religion or politics. White kids who feel alienated by society join extreme enviromental groups or become neo-nazi's. Muslims become members of extremist muslim groups. Simply because those groups give them a home.

Re:No it is far simpler (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about 5 years ago | (#28666491)

Naomi Campbell does not walk around in her native costume does she?

I think she does, but if you mean she doesn't walk around naked, I hardly think that is an acceptable state of affairs. Death to assimilation!

Re:Still have to make it in front of constitutionn (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 5 years ago | (#28666497)

Let me guess, you're from the USA. Got to love that spin your media puts on international news. French demonstrating in the streets (happens every few months / years when the government does something stupid): no coverage. French Muslims demonstrating in the streets: 'OMG, teh Islamists are destroying western society!!11eleventyone'

Re:Still have to make it in front of constitutionn (1, Insightful)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | about 5 years ago | (#28665783)

Perhaps it is not the Europeans who are more civilized after all.

Re:Still have to make it in front of constitutionn (1, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | about 5 years ago | (#28665869)

Perhaps it is not the Europeans who are more courageous after all.

if I might also suggest this is true.

Re:Still have to make it in front of constitutionn (2, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | about 5 years ago | (#28665873)

whoops, forgot to remove the "not"

Perhaps it isthe Europeans who are more courageous after all.

Re:Still have to make it in front of constitutionn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28666235)

Oh really? Find out who exactly it was that was rioting and turning over cars/setting them on fire. It wasn't mainly the french though it happened in france.

Re:Still have to make it in front of constitutionn (1)

Godwin O'Hitler (205945) | about 5 years ago | (#28666547)

Nearly all those big French demonstrations you see are motivated by unions or by the left wing parties. I'd be surprised if they gave a shit about this law, and I'm not sure there'll be a big enough public outcry for people to do so spontaneously.

Hopefully (for France AND Europe's sake) I'm mistaken.

Re:Still have to make it in front of constitutionn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28666587)

Oh the French riot/protest/strike if the wind changes direction. Does it make any actual difference? Not really but somehow every time they do it seems to cost the UK money.

Re:Still have to make it in front of constitutionn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28665333)

I wonder why politician who purposefully push -illegal- laws don't end up in jail...

Because they are politicians. They have root access to the laws. Therefore, everything that they do is legal.

Time to Mention Roman Polanski? (0, Offtopic)

BBCWatcher (900486) | about 5 years ago | (#28665085)

Rape a 13 year old girl [wikipedia.org] and that's no problem. Downloading three Roman Polanski films could mean two years in prison.

Re:Time to Mention Roman Polanski? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28665185)

> Rape a 13 year old girl and that's no problem.

BRB France...

Worry about Okinawa rapists instead of Polanski (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28665465)

Worry more about GI's on the hundreds and hundreds of US bases on foreign soil and that cant be prosecuted by the local authorities.

THEN worry about Polanski.

Calling Dr. Guliotine (0, Flamebait)

fast turtle (1118037) | about 5 years ago | (#28665101)

Should soon be heard around France in response to this law.

but "three strikes" is such an American concept (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28665119)

And "American" is defined as "imbecile" in French dictionaries.

Shouldn't it be something like "five free kicks", instead?

When did france... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28665127)

... become so bourgeois?

This provides the "out" for politicians. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28665129)

Guaranteed anyone in power will not have to actually be found guilty of it. Sarkozy can violate this all he wants, he'll never have to answer for it. For those in power the judge will always find the charge was unwarranted. If you're a commoner, well too bad. Let them eat dialup!

When bribed, politicans go stupid. (0)

unity100 (970058) | about 5 years ago | (#28665141)

what difference 'banning from internet by judges' does make compared to 'banning from internet through a privately sponsored decereipt govt. instutition' in regard to freedom of speech and information. can you ban people from free speech ? can you ban them from getting information ? are french lawmakers THAT stupid not to be able to establish the correlation ? no. therefore, we can only conclude that the bribes fucking RIAA dogs have expended in france are SO big that lawmakers dont hesitate to even ridicule themselves by their own hands.

observe the power of money. if you let 'businesses be', like that moron alan greenspan preached us in the last 30 years and put on mouths of EVERY goddamn economist everywhere, this happens. they start to buy laws through the money they made from you.

another medieval experience brought to you by the church of holistic economy. enjoy.

A war of attrition... (5, Interesting)

syncrotic (828809) | about 5 years ago | (#28665187)

Every time you think you've defeated a bad law, it just comes back in time for the next legislative cycle. Politicians and the interests that control them are patient and persistent, while regular people can only take so much time and energy from their lives to fight these causes. Especially today, when five or six examples of gross injustice come across your average news feed every single day.

And thus corruption and greed prevail; this is how we can all belong to something that nobody wants any part of.

Re:A war of attrition... (5, Insightful)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 5 years ago | (#28665213)

Those gross injustices have ALWAYS been going on, we just hear more about it with the rise in global comms. THis has ben going on for a VERY long time. I have no doubt that when Mickey Mouse comes up for public domain again that they will buy more politicians and set the time limit even longer.

Re:A war of attrition... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28665885)

Mickey Mouse was never at risk, and never will be, to fall in the public domain. Mickey Mouse is not a character, it is a trademark (like Nike's "banana", the curvy Coca Cola writing, or the apple in Apple. Trademark legislation is still part of copyright, but it does not expire as for creative works.

Re:A war of attrition... (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about 5 years ago | (#28665321)

This is why all political decisions should be confined to a small enough region that any citizen in the area is close enough to conveniently go and flatten the responsible politicians nose.

Re:A war of attrition... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28665531)

That'd be a start. But as an anarchist, might I suggest that it would be better for all if politicians were retrained to do actual, valuable work as say, plumbers, or, considering their intelligence, ditch diggers?
  We've got a lot of good ideas on that front, mon frere. Think about it! :D

Re:A war of attrition... (3, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | about 5 years ago | (#28665951)

This is why all political decisions should be confined to a small enough region that any citizen in the area is close enough to conveniently go and flatten the responsible politicians nose.

You can tell that the geek is a big city boy.

In the small town it is the dissenter who gets flattened.

Would be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28665209)

This would be the ultimate ban hammer.

Offtopic...... (3, Informative)

ZiakII (829432) | about 5 years ago | (#28665219)

I know this is offtopic, but is anyone else having problems getting the comment slider all the way down to show comments -1 and below with Firefox 3.5?

Re:Offtopic...... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28665351)

I have this problem with Firefox 3.0.11 too.

Re:Offtopic...... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28665647)

Not just that. I always wonder what an Anonymous Cowardon is. Is it like a simpleton aka Slashdot programmer, or what?

Have you tried getting _all_ comments to show with a single click without being logged in? As in, don't drag a slider and click dozens of times on "More". That would really help on a mobile device.

But whatever, fucking Slashdot is unusable on anything under 2GHz anyway. Seriously, has anyone tried using /. on Opera mobile? Rendering takes fucking ages.

QUIT FUCKING AROUND YOU WANNABE SLASHDOT CRACK WHORES AND HIRE SOME PROS TO FIX THE FUCKING SITE.

I really ask myself (1)

santax (1541065) | about 5 years ago | (#28665223)

How much do these top guys get payed for this, by whom... This has noting to do with fair businesses or upholding the law... This has everything to do with same very rich influencial people who can buy everything. Even a profit on a lousy businessmodel. It's the same as me, making steamengines and getting a hefy reward for every combustion engine that is being sold. Those combustion engines are stealing money away from the steamengine afterall... When will people finally stand up to this abuse? (everything is so clear after a good bottle of whiskey, I can recommend it to anyone here)

Re:I really ask myself (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 years ago | (#28666381)

It's far easier this time, Sarkozy's wife is Carla Bruni, a singer and songwriter. It's all a family matter.

In other words, it takes nepotism to a whole new level.

The Joy of Dimensionless Quantities (4, Funny)

pushing-robot (1037830) | about 5 years ago | (#28665261)

fine him or her 300,000 (according to the AFP)

"Your honor, on the slight chance that this court does not accept either the termite mound or the truck-load of bottlecaps, I have also brought this bag containing a sufficient quantity of dead skin cells."

Re:The Joy of Dimensionless Quantities (1)

RedWizzard (192002) | about 5 years ago | (#28665765)

fine him or her 300,000 (according to the AFP)

"Your honor, on the slight chance that this court does not accept either the termite mound or the truck-load of bottlecaps, I have also brought this bag containing a sufficient quantity of dead skin cells."

You'd be found in contempt. They're clearly looking for "300,000" written on a piece of paper.

Re:The Joy of Dimensionless Quantities (1)

arkhan_jg (618674) | about 5 years ago | (#28665867)

Don't be silly! They're after 300â.

3 strikes for congress criters taking money? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28665265)

Funny how no new laws protect us from really BIG crimes - the government and corporate crimes of willful destruction of the planet, waging illegal war, torture, etc.

Re:3 strikes for congress criters taking money? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 5 years ago | (#28665497)

Exactly, when was the last time you heard about heavy metals?
Just another law to reach into the home life and make you fear the internet, or turn it off for political activists.
Be fun for the French version of the "Forward Intelligence Teams" (UK police forces that use cameras, camcorders and audio recorders to conduct overt surveillance of the public) to turn off your net too.
Back from a protest and you get your first warning email.
A week later the next, then no more net for you.

Test (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28665309)

Hi, just testing something. Ignore ignore ignore ignore.

3 strikes law for unpassed laws (5, Interesting)

youn (1516637) | about 5 years ago | (#28665509)

I wonder if they shouldnt work on a 3 strikes law for the executive office where every time they resend the same law for vote, they have a gradual disconnection of powers to prevent abuse... that way way we'd do away with frivolous passing of laws, wasting tons of debate time in the parliament, where the whole country's legislative body is mobilized just so that a bunch of crying failing record industry stop crying wolf... especially when their apetite is not helping creativity (the original goal of copyright) because authors will continue to publish whatever the laws... and they stop increasing penalties for hypothetical loss of revenues when taxes already exist on empty media... if nothing is done, it'll be more easy to get away with murder than to download a song.

Seriously something is wrong with the system. Maybe the anti trust laws should be ammended to prevent continuous abuse from record labels on systems worldwide. Among deceptive practices that should be punished..
1) rootkits
2) region locking ... damn it if I buy a cd, I should be able to play it any way I want
3) RIAA trials - justice system flooding, racketeering like practices, deception, borderline illegal detective work , manipulation of laws, waste of public/ defendant ressource, unfair trials ....
4) Law keeps changing, increasingly detrimental to consumers
5) Copyright laws keep getting extended... the original idea of 10 years was good... but damn it, life + 70... wtf? if someone makes a hit which derives continuous profit 50 years after... they have no incentive to keep creating. ....

Re:3 strikes law for unpassed laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28666027)

I think it's life+90 now in Europe (and France). So watch out you 90 year old children of copyright holders, you may have to find a real job soon!

Any Three Strikes Law Should Unconstitutional (4, Interesting)

carlzum (832868) | about 5 years ago | (#28665661)

The idea of a "3 strikes" law makes me irate. Murders', rapists', and child molesters' past offenses are assessed during sentencing, but someone selling small quantities of pot is treated like a drug lord for their third offense. Of course, someone with two murder convictions will be sentenced appropriately in most cases. If you need a law that mandates outrageous sentences against the will of judges and juries, the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

Re:Any Three Strikes Law Should Unconstitutional (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28665815)

You're thinking of the US (Californinan?) 3 convictions = life sentence laws. This 'three strikes' is nothing to do with that, and bears no similarity except the term used by the media to describe it. This is purely to do with accusations of intellectual property theft (ie, piracy) made by a third party against a particular IP via the ISP hosting that IP. Several laws which have free trade agreements with the US are being pressured to bringing in 'three strike' laws, and here's how it works. Someone accuses your IP of piracy. Your ISP sends you an infringement notice and asks you to stop. "Someone" again accuses your IP of piracy. Your ISP sends you a 'final warning'. The third time anybody out there (eg, the RIAA or relevant parties who'll be filing these complaints like there's no tomorrorow) accuses you, your internet connection gets severed and your name is blacklisted, meaning you can't sign up with another ISP.

Most countries that have tried to put in these laws (eg, France, New Zealand, etc) have had them roundly rejected because a) the ISP isn't a judicial entity and it's not up them to act on legal directives, and b) it gave the person being accused no right of defense, and no actual proof was required.

After the first draft law in France (as in NZ) got rejected, France is trying to put through new legislature saying that rather than the ISP cutting the user off at the 'third strike', it'll be up to a judge to order the user cut off. There still doesn't seem to be any right of reply, or defense, or evidential inquiry though.

Re:Any Three Strikes Law Should Unconstitutional (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 5 years ago | (#28666355)

These laws exist for a reason and the reason is simple. To stop the career criminals. The entire point of jail is to STOP you from commiting the crime again.

The idea with the 3 strikes rule is that you had 1 warning and 2nd warning and now it is enough. You had 3 changes to obey the law, now the patience of society is up.

Your kind seems to think that people should be able to continue to break the same law all their lifes.

Tell me something, after how many times must a drunk driver be fined before his driving license is revoked? How many times can I break into your house before I should get more then community service?

In the US selling drugs is illegal. You are NOT supposed to do it. So if you do it, you get a sentence. That sentence is NOT payment for your cime. It is not the price for being a drug seller. It is your warning, DO NOT DO THIS AGAIN. How many times should you be told this? American society has decided 2 times. 3rd time is life.

I do not agree with the french law, but the three strikes principle seems an awfully good way to get habitual offenders out of society. The alternative is revolving door criminals.

Re:Any Three Strikes Law Should Unconstitutional (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 years ago | (#28666389)

Dunno about your country, in mine a murder sentence is already "for life" (only possible guilty verdict for murder 1st, too). So the first strike is already enough to make sure you won't get a second.

And, despite being the liberal that I am, I somehow don't think it's excessive...

text of law (2, Informative)

belmolis (702863) | about 5 years ago | (#28665697)

For those who read French, here [senat.fr] is the actual text of the law.

Dilemma (2, Funny)

mr100percent (57156) | about 5 years ago | (#28665837)

Which would you rather have, be banned from the internet for life, or serve two years in prison? I figure nearly all the /.ers will go for the prison jumpsuit.

Re:Dilemma (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 years ago | (#28666395)

If they have internet in prison...

It wouldn't really change a lot of the average geek, would it? I mean, it's not like we'd spend a lot of time out of the apartment anyway, if we didn't have to go to work.

Details (4, Interesting)

uffe_nordholm (1187961) | about 5 years ago | (#28666169)

Like so often before, the devil is in the details.

While I have no major principal objections to copyright infringers being kicked off internet (if they use internet for the infringement), I would want to know more of the details before making my mind up.

For starters, I would want everybody to be given a fair trial, and only when they have been found guilty three times should they be kicked off internet. I get the impression that with the present suggestion it's enough to be accused of copyright infringement three times to be kicked off. That is taking other people's right too easily: it should require a trial according to the country's requirements.

Secondly, I think there should be a time limit to how long you are banned from internet. I see no reason why a mere copyright infringer should be banned from internet for life. It's not like you can use copyright infringement to kill someone...

Thirdly, I would like to know what provisions the law provides to protect the technically challenged. Suppose my neighbour hacks into my WLAN, and starts sharing files. I suppose the recording industry would like to hold me responsible, but should they be able to do so? In my opinion, no. Granted, the recording industry will not like the "I am an idiot with technology"-defence, but this kind of trial should be held to the same standards as all others: the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable (or similar) doubt.

Fourthly, what of family members? Suppose I get kicked off internet for copyright infringement. What of my wife and my children? As far as I know, no modern democracy allows collective punishment, so it should be acceptable for my wife and children to get internet access at home. So why then bother with banning me, if the effect is that the internet connection is simply passed to my wife?



For an interesting comparison, move the "getting banned from internet for copyright infringement" to the world of printed matter: any person or company thrice accused of copyright infringement gets banned (for a short period of time, eg a year) from reading and writing. The effects would be quite devastating... You would have to have somebody read the bus timetable to you, you would have to have somebody write your checks for you, you would have to have somebody read your letters to you... And if a newspaper were accused of infringing someone's copyright three times, they could obviously not print a single letter the next year!

this is a battle (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 5 years ago | (#28666407)

You make an intresting point. It is not just families but anyone with a shared connection.

But what you fail to understand is that we the citizens are fighting an enemy who does not CARE about rights and laws. Disney is an evil coorperation who used copyright to avoid having to pay royalties on Pinocio but wants royalties on said cartoon to be extended infinitly. They don't want copyright law respected. They want to control all media and the law is just a tool in their arsenal. If they could get away with using gangs to enforce their desire, they would. Their desire is not justice, it is profit.

If in their goal for profit the internet is destroyed then so be it. They don't care and would have prefered for it to never exist in the first place.

The content industry does not care if some innocent bystander has their youtube access removed. Because said innocent bystander by watching the free content they don't own is denying them their profits.

Because that is what this is really about. Do you think that when I download a game or song the economy is hurt? if so, then you suffer from the broken window problem.

Simple example. A teen has an allowance of say 100. He can then spend that money on CD's. That's 100 into the economy.

OR he rips the CD and spends 100 on clothes. That is 100 into the economy.

The difference? Absolutely nothing.

Know this, if piracy is ripped out, then we can have two results:

A: Content sales stay the same because people are spending their money on different things.

B: Content sales increase but all other sales decrease because money can only be spend once.

If you think C: Content sales increase and the content sellers can now buy more other things. then you lack a fundemental understanding of economy.

The economy doesn't care where money is spend, as long as it is spend. the amount of money does not magically increase because it is spend in one area. The economy adjusts. As one shop in the high street closes another will takes it place.

think about it, look at your local highstreet. Less music stores but more mobile phones stores. As young kids have come used to downloading their music, they can now afford to spend their money on mobile phones. The music store clerk was fired and rehired at the mobile phone shop.

The only who care are those at the top because they don't want to find a new line of business. This is like protecting the horse market against those nasty carmakers.

Laws based on baseball or cowboy games? (1)

fantomas (94850) | about 5 years ago | (#28666217)

Laws based on baseball rules ("three strikes and you're out") or morality based on "cowboys and indians" games ("we are the good guys and you are the bad guys") seem to be fine when you're 8 years old. But for adults in the real world? Please, I thought we'd left that behind with George Bush and Ronnie Reagan.

The real world is far too nuanced and complicated for child-logic to fairly run a society.

Fuck the pirates and their supporters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28666377)

Were they expecting to be able to download whatever they want without any repercussions? Which law DID they want? How can you have ANY law at all and that law being less strict than this?

O hay - I will just take OpenOffice and incorporate it into my proprietary software and sell it, because fuck whatever rights and fuck the authors and their "imaginary property". Or I guess not.

In conclusion: Fuck pirates and their supporters.

It's not going anywhere: zombie bill (3, Informative)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | about 5 years ago | (#28666613)

This is just Sarközy trying to save face. This law is even more unconstitutionnal that the previous one, and it's going to be bitchslapped down by the constitutionnal council once more, and worse. For instance, they've added a crime for not securing one's internet connection, punished by a hefty fine. Given that it is impossible to achieve 100% security, even for a security professional, it is simply absurd to require it of the common net user.

They still don't care that it's technically impossible. They believe their own bullshit.

Everyone knows this won't pass the CC. Even most of the majority. (Many are not pleased that Sarkoléon is marching them towards the cliff, but they are good little soldiers, like GOP congressmen under Bush. Which is fitting, considering how Sarközy got elected by applying Rove's methods.) The Council was damning in its first rejection. Not only did it nuke the damn thing's only mean of coercion, charitably leaving the useless part standing; but it also reserved the right to nuke it further in the future.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>