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 President Violates His Own Copyright Law, Again

kdawson posted about 5 years ago | from the trois-grèves dept.

Privacy 356

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been caught violating someone's copyright again. This time, presidential services made 400 unauthorized copies of a DVD when only 50 had been made by the publisher. Mr. Sarkozy, of course, is the one pushing the HADOPI law, which would disconnect the Internet service of an alleged pirate after three allegations of infringement. This isn't the first time he's been connected to copyright violations, either. His party had to pay some €30K for using a song without authorization. If he were he subject to his own law, Mr. Sarkozy would be subject to having his Net disconnected the next time he pirates something."

cancel ×

356 comments

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

France just sucks (3, Informative)

Absolut187 (816431) | about 5 years ago | (#29692355)

Their "Culture Minister" wrote a book about buggering young Thai boys.
What a joke of a country.

Re:France just sucks (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29692417)

Merde !

Re:France just sucks (2, Informative)

Absolut187 (816431) | about 5 years ago | (#29692495)

No seriously, google it:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=france+culture+minister+young+thai+boys&cts=1255098089473 [google.com]

He actually wrote a book about it and they still made him culture minister.

I'm not flaming.
France really does suck.

Re:France just sucks (5, Funny)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 5 years ago | (#29692917)

Well he could write a book, that sounds very cultural, no? And it's someone who obviously has had a serious taste of foreign cultures, no? Sounds that he fulfills at least some of the requirements of a CULTURE minister.

Re:France just sucks (5, Insightful)

TheCarp (96830) | about 5 years ago | (#29692919)

Fascinating. Though he doesn't say how old they were, as has been pointed out in blogs on this, its not uncommon for an older man to use terms like young boy to refer to people in their teens and 20s. Also there is some question as to... what is too young? or is it about age or about power? The more damning admission for me is NOT age, but the fact that he knew he was in a world of slaves and forced prostitution.

Thats what gets me about the Polanski thing. So what if she was 13! A 13 year old has probably gone through puberty. Being attracted to 13 year olds and having sex with them is just human nature. Its the fault of stupid ideas in parenting that have caused a culture of sexually retarded 13 year olds. Or as was said in that kinsey movie (I don't know if its an acutal quote by the man) "In an uninhibited society, a 12-year-old
would know most of the biology which I will have to give you in formal lectures."

In any case... a paedophile is someone attracted to pre-pubecent children. He is CLEARLY not one of them.

On the other hand, he got her drunk and she didn't want to do it. Thats rape. Thats wrong at ANY age. I have seen blog post after blog post, and even now this man's defense of polanski who keep mentioning "sex with a 13 year old" and just seem to forget that it was RAPE. Why is sex with a 13 year old somehow worst than RAPE.

I find that disturbing.

The only saving grace here for him in my eyes is that it was so long ago. I see no real benefit in prosecurion of 30 year old crimes, unless the offender is believed to still be doing it.

-Steve

Re:France just sucks (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 years ago | (#29693247)

I don't think it's worse, but I do think that having sex with a 13 year old is both predatory and pathetic, if you're a [physically] grown adult anyway. The brain hasn't fully developed at 13. At that age you lack the ability to make reasoned decisions as the same level as an adult, which is why we don't permit adults to have sex with them. I agree that 18 is arbitrary and that the laws relating to sex and age are capricious but I don't agree that restricting sexual congress by age is unreasonable. I do think though that a "three-year" or similar law ought to be in effect, and that children can be charged with a crime for having sex with children their own age is ridiculous. They may well need counseling, but unless it was rape, they don't need to be run through the system. Any excuse, though...

Re:France just sucks (3, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 5 years ago | (#29693659)

I think you presume too much when you say "13 is immature" because it depends on the person.

I went to college with a 15-year-old and he was more mature than I was at age 19. And of course being in college, he had sex with coeds five years older than he. Although that was technically illegal (statutory rape), I don't consider it immoral. A young adult is still an adult and should be free to make his own decisions.

>>>The brain hasn't fully developed at 13.

If this was our standard, people would not be considered adults until age 25 - that's when the brain finishes making its final connections. I think the onset of menarche (typically 15) is a better point to call someone an adult.

Re:France just sucks (4, Funny)

Tanktalus (794810) | about 5 years ago | (#29693989)

If this was our standard, people would not be considered adults until age 25 - that's when the brain finishes making its final connections. I think the onset of menarche (typically 15) is a better point to call someone an adult.

You don't have a daughter, do you. I think 25 is fine.

Re:France just sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29693267)

There is a difference between physical maturity and mental or emotional maturity. There is a reason why the age of informed consent is 18 years old.

Re:France just sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29693405)

Thats what gets me about the Polanski thing. So what if she was 13! A 13 year old has probably gone through puberty. Being attracted to 13 year olds and having sex with them is just human nature. Its the fault of stupid ideas in parenting that have caused a culture of sexually retarded 13 year olds.

Stay away from my kids, you sociopath.

I can't believe I have to spell this out to ANYONE here on Slashdot, but there is a world of difference between having the PHYSICAL maturity to have sex, and having the EMOTIONAL maturity and self-actualization both to properly refuse sexual advances from an adult, and to handle all the consequences that can arise from sex.

Statutory rape laws exist because adults at the age of majority are in a position of authority over minors. This means that any sexual advance by an adult towards a minor is coercion, and any sex with a minor is ALWAYS non-consensual, moron.

Re:France just sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29693767)

Maybe if you, and averyone who thinks like you, could teach their children about sex and their consequences when they are physically mature to suffer those consequences, they would be mentally mature and would be informed enough to decide for themselves.

Just maybe.

But no, you just keep your children in bubbles. Never daring to tell them about sex and its consequences and letting them start playing with their physically mature bodies without the knowledge to to know what they are doing.

You are the monsters. You are the ones that keep their children in obscurity only for your fear of them becoming adults. You treat them like children, they will act like children.

Re:France just sucks (1)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | about 5 years ago | (#29694103)

I'm fairly certain most kids learn about sex well before they're physically mature enough to have it; I know I did. Understanding it and being able to make the decision to do it are very different. If you would let your 13 year-old children have sex with their peers, let alone adults, then you are the monster, you idiot.

Re:France just sucks (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 5 years ago | (#29694005)

Statutory rape laws exist because adults at the age of majority are in a position of authority over minors. This means that any sexual advance by an adult towards a minor is coercion, and any sex with a minor is ALWAYS non-consensual, moron.

Bullshit.

Re:France just sucks (2, Insightful)

Absolut187 (816431) | about 5 years ago | (#29693461)

Its called statutory rape, and its a crime for a good reason.

When a grown man has sex with a teenage girl, she is taking all of the risk (pregnancy, raising the child alone, etc.). But 13-year-olds are not typically aware enough to weight risks vs. reward. That is why it is considered "predatory". Because it is. There is no chance of any sort of "equal footing" in that "relationship."

I'm only 30, and even 18-year-olds look really young to me. Yes, some of them are attractive, but 13? THIRTEEN? No way. That's not even "barely legal." That's not-even-close to legal.
Go to a junior high school and take a look at an average 13 year old girl. Even with all the hormones in our milk they still look like little kids.

I'm betting you don't have a 13-year-old girl of your own, or you wouldn't be sticking up for old men who take advantage of them for sex.

Polanski is a pedophile and anyone who sticks up for him is not much better.

Re:France just sucks (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29693603)

Polanski is a pedophile and anyone who sticks up for him is not much better.

I'll let this speak for itself.

Re:France just sucks (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 5 years ago | (#29694181)

I'll agree with you on the age of 13. At 13, most have just barely began puberty. By 14, though, most of them are well into puberty and at 15 or 16 they've just about passed it if they haven't altogether.

Anyway, this whole cultural thing about post-puberty teens still being children is fairly new, from a historical standpoint. It didn't use to be uncommon in other cultures for people to be considered adults, and even get married, at the ages of 13, 14, 15 years old . Mary and Joseph were probably nowhere near 18 years old (regardless of whether or not you believe it's a true story).

Re:France just sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29693615)

You evil, sick, piece of shit.

Scratch that. I apologize for insulting fecal matter.

sjc@carpanet.net

Re:France just sucks (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | about 5 years ago | (#29693739)

Oh, that was hard to check... second Google hit goes to Wikipedia...

"Geimer testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes,"

"Polanski was initially charged with with six counts: "Furnishing Quaaludes to a Minor", "Child Molesting", "Rape by the use of Drugs", "Sodomy", "Oral Copulation" and "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse". These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor."

Re:France just sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29694003)

Polanski raped the girl even after she asked him to stop. There's also the whole plying her with alcohol and slipping her a quaalude beforehand, too. It wasn't _just_ statutory rape.

"informed consent" is the concept your looking for (2, Informative)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 5 years ago | (#29694089)

its not good enough to consent

you also have to be considered psychologically mature enough to know what exactly you are consenting to, what it implies, what its effect on you will be in terms of self-esteem, etc

physical maturity is not the same as psychological maturity

even if the 13 year old girl, perfectly sober, had agreed to have sex with polanski, its still rape, because by any coherent standard, a 13 year old is not ready to fully understand the implications of the arrangement. 15 year old? 17 year old? look: there's some 11 year olds who are more mature than some 51 year olds in certain aspects of life. but by any coherent standard, 13 year olds by and large simply don't understand what the hell is going on PSYCHOLOGICALLY (they understand what id going physically) when it comes to sex. this is valid observation for a binding legal standard by any rational effort

yes, some archaic societies and historical ones pretty much agree 11 year old girls were fair game for marriage/ sex/ etc

and these same societies also had things like slavery, absolute monarchy, cannibalism, etc. so there's no validity in pointing to brutal societies to justify burtality

in other words, we live in a modern advanced society. as such we recognize concepts like psychological maturity and informed consent and human dignity. and we respect them, and we incorporate them in our legal codes and we punish people who violate the concepts. why? so that we can stay being a modern advanced society. so should you respect the concept of "informed consent", not if you wish to remain a part of this society, but if you want to consider yourself a modern rational human being who understands and respects human dignity and who has a human conscience

or don't. and we'll rightfully punish you for your willful transgressions

Re:France just sucks (5, Insightful)

Rennt (582550) | about 5 years ago | (#29692951)

No seriously... a country does not suck because they have shitty representatives.

If they have enough shitty politicians their government might suck, but I don't know if I would be calling that particular kettle black

Have you even been to France?

Re:France just sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29693201)

I have, and it sucked. You know that parody of EuroDisney that was on the Simpsons? Where the guy in costume was rather abusive and French? That actually happened to me.

Re:France just sucks (1)

rvw (755107) | about 5 years ago | (#29693633)

I have, and it sucked. You know that parody of EuroDisney that was on the Simpsons? Where the guy in costume was rather abusive and French? That actually happened to me.

If you relate yourself to the Simpsons, you probably deserve it to be treated like that.

Re:France just sucks (2, Interesting)

Jeian (409916) | about 5 years ago | (#29693445)

And as you're all nodding your heads in agreement, please keep the parent's words in mind next time you're tempted to rail on what a terrible country the USA is.

Re:France just sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29693555)

France is a terrible country, the USA is a terrible country. That doesn't me the people are terrible, it just means that the status quo in these countries suck.

Re:France just sucks (3, Insightful)

Absolut187 (816431) | about 5 years ago | (#29693591)

Who elected your representatives?

American and French citizens both bear the blame for voting for corrupt people.

Re:France just sucks (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29693645)

Yes, and I can tell you that the French do indeed suck.

Very, very well.

Re:France just sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29693665)

No, but I've heard the Frank Zappa song, "In France".

Re:France just sucks (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 5 years ago | (#29693755)

>>>a country does not suck because they have shitty representatives. If they have enough shitty politicians their government might suck

France's democratic government has sucked for about 200 years. Other than a few bright periods of time, they've had tons of lousy leaders. Napoleon was the first - Sarkozy's just the latest in the string. I feel sorry for the French.

But then I remember they have topless beaches, and I figure it's not such a bad country after all. ;-)

Re:France just sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29693005)

Please state your nationality, so that we can search for similar news about your politicians and conclude that your nation sucks as well.

And btw saying that "France sucks" is flaming even if what you say about a single person is true. How in hell could you get a positive mod on that? Troll, flamebait and offtopic are all applicable to your post.

Re:France just sucks (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 5 years ago | (#29693863)

Positively modded because France dose suck. lol

Re:France just sucks (3, Informative)

jbezorg (1263978) | about 5 years ago | (#29693019)

No seriously, google it:

And so I did....

French minister in 'boy sex' row [bbc.co.uk]

The Bad Life: A Memoir by Frederic Mitterrand (Author), Jesse Browner (Translator) [amazon.com]

But I would also like to point out that people on both sides of the political fence are unhappy. From the BBC article:

Socialist Party spokesman Benoit Hamon told Reuters: "As a minister of culture he has drawn attention to himself by defending a film maker accused of raping a child and he has written a book where he said he took advantage of sexual tourism. To say the least, I find it shocking."

Marine Le Pen, vice president of the right-wing National Front, read excerpts of Mr Mitterrand's book aloud during a television interview, and said it left "an indelible stain on the government".

She called for the culture minister to step down.

"Resign, Mr Mitterrand and perhaps, afterwards we'll be able to give lessons to other people," she said.

Mr Mitterrand said it was an honour to be dragged though the mud by the National Front, and criticised the Socialists for making common cause with the extreme right.

Re:France just sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29693059)

Well, he is a homo, and confessed that he went to see male prostitutes in Thailland, and in no way underaged kids.

The French fascist right wing is exploiting this to make some political noise, trying yet again to link homosexuality and pedophilia.
I could blame him for many things, but certainly not for coming clean about seeing male prostitutes..

And given the recent US Priest pedophile scandal, I would say that you'd better STFU.

Re:France just sucks (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 5 years ago | (#29694009)

He said "Boys" only after people went after him did he back up and say that he just "Calls them Boys". He went to Thailand, He then paid a slave owner money to bugger (What are most likely underage) "boys" that were sold and have no choice in the matter. He is a sick fuck when you look at it in the best light. As far as the Catholic priests that have been caught in the U.S. well fuck them too, and we are putting them in jail and suing the shit out of the Church. Its a good thing that in France they do not have any Catholic churches. Wait ummmm. Well I am sure that after seeing the problems with the priesthood in other parts of the world the French are investigating throughly. Ummm. Nope. I think that it is You sir who should STFU. Just saying.

Re:France just sucks (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about 5 years ago | (#29693107)

Or rather, you mean France is good because they don't discriminate against gay people or perverts.

Re:France just sucks (4, Insightful)

frenchbedroom (936100) | about 5 years ago | (#29693147)

We didn't make him culture minister, Sarkozy did.

Re:France just sucks (5, Informative)

loutr (626763) | about 5 years ago | (#29693163)

Please don't mix up our joke of a governement with our entire country. The public opinion here is just as appalled as you are by this affair (even if the medias try to downplay it), this minister and this governement as a whole.

You (assuming you're american) had your G.W. Bush, we've got Sarkozy. I hope we'll get our Obama in 2012...

Re:France just sucks (1)

Absolut187 (816431) | about 5 years ago | (#29693525)

Touche.

But we both have to admit that its not JUST our elected officials who make things the way they are in our countries.

If half of America wasn't scared to death of gays of getting married, we probably wouldn't have had our retarded Bush Jr. fucking up our country (and the world).

Bush did not elect himself (well, not the second time anyway).
And neither did Sarkozy I would think.

Re:France just sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29693245)

What's amazing is that his book did not came in the store a few days ago. No, it cames a few years ago. Its content was not kept secret until today, tv news are radio talked about it. Frédéric Mitterand did not hide, and I did not hear a lot of voice complaining about that all this time. So, why now? Why not when he was given this charge?

Re:France just sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29693293)

France sucks because its president or one of its minister has done something bad ;-) ..... dude you should think twice before posting such smart thoughts !

Re:France just sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29694151)

You're judging an entire country on the basis of two individuals? Pathetic. Also, wonderful job karma whoring by replying to yourself.

Re:France just sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29693093)

By the way, it's the minister that was sucked.

And don't forget this accusation is coming from extreme right.
That don't mean one must approve, but you have to know who you support.

Re:France just sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29693113)

Seriously, you can make such a generalization based on the behaviour of ONE minister? Also, he wasn't buggering YOUNG Thai BOYS, just Thai males. Get your facts straight before trying to act retarded, cause you end up looking retar.... Oh wait...

Re:France just sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29693497)

Got to love how the people that are implying that France doesn't suck because of the actions of their politicians are getting zero scores. There's never a shortage of retarded Francophobes on the internet.

Re:France just sucks (1)

b04rdr1d3r (1079225) | about 5 years ago | (#29693363)

Waouh, don't you think you are pushing generalization a bit too much here ? "Culture Minister" are not elected by the French, but chosen by the executive... so how do you connect the fact that he allegedly buggered young Thai boys and the fact that France is a pathetic country ? Do you believe everyone in France fully agrees with this type of behaviours ? I can't imagine you are that naive... or maybe you just like being a troll...

"If he were he subject to his own law" ?! (5, Insightful)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | about 5 years ago | (#29692483)

In this day and age are there still people who think that the laws apply equally to everyone?

Re:"If he were he subject to his own law" ?! (4, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about 5 years ago | (#29692591)

No it should not. Poor people get a slap on the hand, rich presidents get the Guillotine!

Someone stealing bread to survive should be overlooked, the rich asshole stealing because he cant be bothered needs to be killed on the spot.

Viva La Revolution'!

Re:"If he were he subject to his own law" ?! (2, Insightful)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | about 5 years ago | (#29692721)

[JAVERT]
Now bring me prisoner 24601
Your time is up
And your parole's begun
You know what that means.

[VALJEAN]
Yes, it means I'm free.

[JAVERT]
No!
It means you get
Your yellow ticket-of-leave
You are a thief

[VALJEAN]
I stole a loaf of bread.

[JAVERT]
You robbed a house.

[VALJEAN]
I broke a window pane.
My sister's child was close to death
And we were starving.

[JAVERT]
You will starve again
Unless you learn the meaning of the law.

[VALJEAN]
I know the meaning of those 19 years
A slave of the law

[JAVERT]
Five years for what you did
The rest because you tried to run
Yes, 24601.

[VALJEAN]
My name is Jean Valjean

[JAVERT]
And I am Javert
Do not forget my name!
Do not forget me,
24601.

Re:"If he were he subject to his own law" ?! (1)

gnud (934243) | about 5 years ago | (#29693157)

Or, you know, don't quote song lyrics, but the actual text?

Liberation is not deliverance. One gets free from the galleys, but not from the sentence.

Re:"If he were he subject to his own law" ?! (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 5 years ago | (#29693069)

Once you get into judging based on need though you open a whole can of worms.

If starving people steal all the bread of the local baker than he and HIS family may starve instead. Or what if one poor person steals the food from another poor person, allowing him to survive while the other dies?

What I'd suggest is for the most basic of needs (food), have some level of government assistance to turn to. Soup kitchens and the like that are tax payer funded. Nothing extravagant (the goal here is to keep people alive, not give them a cushion to fall back on if they don't wish to become a productive member of society), but enough to meet their most basic needs.

Once that is in place we should handle all crimes, regardless of social stature or motive, equally under the law.

Re:"If he were he subject to his own law" ?! (1)

mayko (1630637) | about 5 years ago | (#29693545)

I think you're reading far too much into that.

I think he means that we need to start looking at crimes at a case by case basis, and use some common sense. A policeman beating someone for verbally attacking him is far worse then a fellow citizen responding with violence. Just like a rich person, or corporation committing crimes is far worse then someone who breaks the law out of necessity.

However, as is commonly observed, our system seems to operate in a backwards fashion. Those that should be held to a higher standard are often given extra slack, while those needing some slack are made examples of.

Re:"If he were he subject to his own law" ?! (3, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | about 5 years ago | (#29693787)

Too bad it's the opposite. There's a poor man doing life in a California prison for stealing a candy bar (three strikes law), while a chicken plant manager who chained the fire doors shut to keep the workers from stealing chicken parts got two years after the place burned down, burning twenty five people to death.

Rich people only go to prison if they steal from someone richer than themslves. Stealing from the poor is encouraged.

Re:"If he were he subject to his own law" ?! (5, Insightful)

kemenaran (1129201) | about 5 years ago | (#29692641)

We have an official presidential immunity in France. It sucks.
I mean, it wasn't that bad when presidents acted reservedly - but now that Sarkozy starts to fuck up, sue people and everything, *while being protected of all judicial proceeding*, man...

Re:"If he were he subject to his own law" ?! (4, Informative)

Krneki (1192201) | about 5 years ago | (#29692755)

It was the same in Italy, another Fascist regime, but 2 days ago the law was overturned because it was found unconstitutional.

Re:"If he were he subject to his own law" ?! (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 5 years ago | (#29694119)

>>>It was the same in Italy, another Fascist regime

So in Italy the corporations are private, but the business decisions are made by the government? That's what fascism (aka corporatism) means. It's supposed to be a halfway point between the free market (no government control) and the communist market (government owns everything).

Re:"If he were he subject to his own law" ?! (1)

Jurily (900488) | about 5 years ago | (#29692971)

We have an official presidential immunity in France. It sucks.

Didn't he break a presidential oath or something? I'm sure there are checks at least in theory to prevent this sort of abuse.

Re:"If he were he subject to his own law" ?! (2, Interesting)

jhjjhj (1228452) | about 5 years ago | (#29693083)

I thought that the three strikes law took away your access without any judicial proceeding. So is the president subject to the law?

Re:"If he were he subject to his own law" ?! (2, Informative)

loutr (626763) | about 5 years ago | (#29693701)

This was the first version of the law ("HADOPI 1"), which was overruled by the Constitutional Council precisely for this reason.

In HADOPI 2, a judge will order the suspension. But it will almost be an automatic ruling, you can't come and defend yourself, and the judge's decision will be based solely on the logs of the private firms which will monitor P2P networks.

Keep in mind that the Constitutional Council has not examined HADOPI 2 yet, and as this 2nd version is just as moronic and iniquitous as its predecessor, I think (hope, anyway...) that it will be torn to pieces by Chirac and his buddies.

Re:"If he were he subject to his own law" ?! (3, Insightful)

ansa (26988) | about 5 years ago | (#29693087)

Amen to that man. Immunity for politicians in charge is one of the worst things for a democracy, two days ago in Italy we avoided a similar law thanks to the Constitutional Court rejecting Berlusconi's ignominous proposal... we still have a mafia's boss as a Prime Minister, but now he can be prosecuted for his crimes... of course the trials were blocked with ad-personam laws and they have to start them over again, so in the meantime he'll come up with another trick to avoid being prosecuted, but still it's a victory.
We really should have common rules throughout Europe to protect us all from that kind of things.

So what are we trying to say? (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 5 years ago | (#29692489)

Yes, we don't like the hypocrisy, but if you really don't believe in imaginary property then what he did isn't questionable at all.

I think there needs to be a balance struck between the rights of creators and users so that everyone comes out ahead. The idea that anything accessible should be shareable is clearly bankrupt, but without a viable alternative (without resorting to draconian laws) I fear that we are heading towards that undesirable outcome.

Re:So what are we trying to say? (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | about 5 years ago | (#29692861)

"...a balance struck between the rights of creators and users"

A nice idea; maybe start by listing these?

Be careful, as soon as you say "creators have a right to get paid" you've left the free-market camp. Not that the free-market camp is the only good and true and noble one, but that's beside the point.

When being-paid is thought of as a *right, rather than a hit-or-miss result of free market activity, you have to turn in your libertarian badge.

I'll start with an actual right I believe creators have: attribution.

Re:So what are we trying to say? (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 5 years ago | (#29693111)

Be careful, as soon as you say "creators have a right to get paid" you've left the free-market camp.

How about something in the lines of "creators have a right to ask for compensation from other people that want to access their work" - ranging from reproduction to looking at it in a museum. This can be monetary compensation, but of course the creator does not have to ask for compensation. They just have a right to ask for it. And in case they ask it, they have the right to get it when someone actually wants to access the work.

A musician should have the right to ask for money for playing of their song, or for sales of a CD carrying a copy of it, or for use in a commercial, or whatever.

A painter has the right to ask for money from anyone wanting to look at the painting (think entrance fees to a museum), or for someone who wants to buy this work - the first sale doctrine should remain in place of course. The painter also may ask money if someone wants to make a reproduction of the work.

The artist has for sure a right to ask to be paid - not a right to be paid outright of course. It is their creation, they should be able to do with it what they want. And giving it away without compensation is part of that right.

Re:So what are we trying to say? (1)

Al Dimond (792444) | about 5 years ago | (#29694015)

I don't completely agree with this. Authors don't have the right to prevent people from lending books to their friends, and they don't have the right to stop people from quoting them (many try, but just recently the estate of James Joyce was slapped down in court for just this -- but even if the law happened to come down on the side of the Joyce estate it would still be against our cultural tradition). After the copyright term is over (something no actual creator has to worry about in the US) they have no rights at all (except, perhaps, against outright plagiarism).

Re:So what are we trying to say? (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 5 years ago | (#29693551)

Creators may or may not have a right to get paid. If their works suck so bad they aren't worth paying even a cent for, then they sure as HELL aren't worth pirating either.

Software piracy is theft not in the sense of depriving the creator of his dues, but it is theft in the sense of deriving an ill gotten benefit, and the creator DOES lose an opportunity to sell to you.

Piracy may not hurt you if your would-be user wasn't going to buy your product anyway. However, if the user would have paid even one CENT for your product, that is one cent that won't be going your way because of piracy.

Yes, stuff costs too much and has DRM up the wazoo, but that is NO excuse for users to freeride. It doesn't work, because all it does is give the publishers the excuse they need to continue their propaganda machine.

What makes piracy wrong is that it at its heart is the same big fat "fuck the law" that motivates REAL criminals, you know, the kind that actually cause harm to society. Allowing people to get away with cheating the system and getting stuff they're not entitled to breaks down order.

My proposal for rights is as follows:

Creator:

* The right to not have their product pirated
* The right to not be screwed over by publishers
* The right to give their product away for free if they choose

User:

* The right to enjoy what they paid for without having to run afoul of anti-circumvention laws
* The right not to have their shit revoked on a whim even if they paid for it
* The right not to be terrorized by a litigation monster and forced into a settlement.

Re:So what are we trying to say? (2, Insightful)

Lemming Mark (849014) | about 5 years ago | (#29693063)

I think in an elected official the hypocrisy, though arguably expected by most of us, is probably the worst thing here and makes everything he's done in this instance questionable. Do we need the law to protect content-producers? If so he shouldn't be responsible for piracy himself. Or should we not have such a law, in which case he should come out against it.

Even if I thought copying were OK, I'd still think that doing it whilst overseeing the introduction of anti-copying legislation was morally wrong.

Re:So what are we trying to say? (1)

xouumalperxe (815707) | about 5 years ago | (#29693295)

Yes, we don't like the hypocrisy, but if you really don't believe in imaginary property then what he did isn't questionable at all.

The part that is objectionable isn't the copying. It's the dissonance between the copying and the laws he's trying to pass.

whole impact ? (3, Funny)

Atreide (16473) | about 5 years ago | (#29692491)

"Mr. Sarkozy would be subject to having his Net disconnected the next time he pirates something"

As president / head of France does it mean whole France would be disconnected ?

Re:whole impact ? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29692653)

But then how would they host the waving white flag website?

Re:whole impact ? (-1, Troll)

Dunbal (464142) | about 5 years ago | (#29692929)

host the waving white flag website?

      Better than the "we come 3 years late do very little then claim we're responsible for the victory" flag.

      You know, I have both British and Canadian passports. And both of my parent countries did much more, per capita, than the US did in Europe. Give France a break. Had the Zimmerman note never been intercepted (by the British), you would have had Panzers in Washington DC before you knew it, and YOU WOULD BE SPEAKING GERMAN NOW TOO. The world just wasn't ready for that kind of warfare. The fact that the Germans lost the initiative in 1942 (Stalingrad) yet it took THREE MORE YEARS for Russia, the US, and the British Commonwealth to push Germany back speaks for itself. Americans would have surrendered too.

      So take your blasé, naive attitude and shove it up your arse. I respect the French, and I respect the fight that the French resistance put up all throughout WW2. But I'm sure you have no idea what I'm talking about, since you obviously went to American "school". PS - make sure you paid your mortgage this month.

Re:whole impact ? (3, Informative)

Volante3192 (953645) | about 5 years ago | (#29693139)

Point of order:

Zimmerman note, WW1.
Panzer development, 1920s.
Stalingrad, WW2.

But I'm sure you know what you're talking about since you didn't go to American "school."

Re:whole impact ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29693151)

Are you confusing the Zimmerman Note (from WWI) with WWII? Because it certainly looks that way...

Besides, in WWII the Soviets contributed FAR more to the effort than the British, Canadians, AND the US. And bringing up attacks based on nationality...well, it speaks for itself.

Re:whole impact ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29693165)

The Zimmerman Telegram happened during World War I so even if it wasn't intercepted it would be impossible for it to cause Panzers to enter Washington DC.

Re:whole impact ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29693233)

I need to start browsing at +3. Idiot.

Re:whole impact ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29693237)

Umm. the Zimmerman Telegram was in World War I. They didn't have Panzers then.

Re:whole impact ? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 5 years ago | (#29693641)

No but the Germans would have had a very friendly Mexico.

Re:whole impact ? (1)

techiemikey (1126169) | about 5 years ago | (#29693377)

In addition, the US publicly joined WWII shortly after 2 years and a few months after the war initially started. In addition, before publicly being involved, the US kept helping out the British by lending them Military Equipment, and trading destroyers for use of military bases.

Re:whole impact ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29693263)

If anything, someone needs to trick him in to downloading something in copyright and report him, see how he likes his stupid laws.

Vive la France Libre! (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | about 5 years ago | (#29692503)

You don't really expect high ranking politicians to follow the law, do you? If you're american, you've had bush for the last 8 years, and this shouldn't be surprising. If you're european, this should be par for the course, and if you live anywhere else, you're not important (according to the USA or Europe).

Re:Vive la France Libre! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29692669)

Why so rejected?

Re:Vive la France Libre! (1)

LordAndrewSama (1216602) | about 5 years ago | (#29692949)

While not following the law, he's not technically doing anything illegal. France has presidential immunity, according to someone posting above me, and a quick google search to verify.

anyone who knows french law (2, Interesting)

poetmatt (793785) | about 5 years ago | (#29692505)

is the fact that they removed the publishers name actually criminal?

Not about breaking the law (3, Insightful)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | about 5 years ago | (#29692529)

It's all about getting punished. I'm sure this will be swept under the rug in no time, by the French RIAA to boot. You know, don't bite the hand that feeds you...

Nuk Nuk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29692541)

It's like ten thousand spoons, when all you need is a knife...

Right Wingers (1)

edivad (1186799) | about 5 years ago | (#29692549)

There's one thing that seems to be common in all those Right Wingers. They always want to set the most strict rules for the others, but for them exceptions can always be made.

The puppet master (1)

Krneki (1192201) | about 5 years ago | (#29692563)

Nicolas Sarkozy is just a puppet in the hands of corporations. He is too fragile to stand up for any civil right.

So... he's above his own law? (2, Informative)

foxtyke (766988) | about 5 years ago | (#29692567)

Let's see, he's pushing a law that enforces copyright by punishing those whom violate it and yet can't keep his own people from violating it on his behalf?

Looks like the problem isn't as clear as he would lead you to believe if even his own staff and himself can't stay within copyright laws.

It's not about being able to (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29692939)

Why would they want to follow the law? There are three reasons to follow the laws:

  • Risk of legal action (He can't be sued)
  • Moral (He is a high level politician)
  • Fear that significant amounts of people won't vote him the next time because of this (...yeah. That's not going to happen.)

I am sure he and his staff could follow the laws if they wanted to. They just have no incentives to do so.

Re:So... he's above his own law? (2, Interesting)

uffe_nordholm (1187961) | about 5 years ago | (#29693241)

What you fail to take into account is that no French law is really ever used. To anybody. Unless of course you are a criminal, terrorist or foreigner. French laws are essentially a bunch of guidelines to stear you in the right way, but if you break them tastefully, you may very well get away with it. And being the President de la Republique means you can get away with murder....

Do as I say... (1)

MeNeXT (200840) | about 5 years ago | (#29692875)

Not as I do!

no worries (1)

u-235-sentinel (594077) | about 5 years ago | (#29692961)

This time, presidential services made 400 unauthorized copies of a DVD when only 50 had been made by the publisher.

He will just make it retroactively legal. It's ok. Nothing to see here. Move along now...

Stupid frogs (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29693017)

The foul and most foreign, French!

Next time he is *alleged* to pirate something (5, Informative)

Karellen (104380) | about 5 years ago | (#29693409)

Summary is incorrect. He would be disconnected the next time he is alleged to have pirated something.

No internet? (1)

bidule (173941) | about 5 years ago | (#29693713)

If he were he subject to his own law, Mr. Sarkozy would be subject to having his Net disconnected the next time he pirates something.

Does it really?

Because it doesn't appear that the internet was used to illegally distribute that copyrighted material. And I don't think HADOPI is that stupid (or smart, if you lean that way).

Too bad . . . (2, Funny)

MarkvW (1037596) | about 5 years ago | (#29693733)

Too bad that most Western law insists that the law apply equally to everyone. Lawmakers would write simply the greatest laws . . . if they themselves didn't have to be bound by them.

We'd have the greatest family values, the greatest IP protection, the greatest right to life . . .

If only the lawmakers could be above the laws . . .

Re:Too bad . . . (1)

mbone (558574) | about 5 years ago | (#29694035)

Too bad that most Western law insists that the law apply equally to everyone.

This seems relevant somehow :

La loi, dans un grand souci d'égalité, interdit aux riches comme aux pauvres de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

Anatole France.

Next Time He Breaks His Law... (1)

rawr_one (1474675) | about 5 years ago | (#29693783)

Who wants to dig up his cables and cut them next time we think he breaks the law he wants in place? I'd be up for it, if I lived in France, and I think it would be a pretty great message.

Fine him... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29693913)

Just fine him, personally...

$100,000.00 per dvd copy
$100,000.00 per song, on each dvd copy...

400 unauthorized copies - $40,000,000.00

10 songs used as soundtrack to the movie, copied 400 times - $400,000,000.00

One nice fine of roughly $440,000,000.00 payable immediately...

The President of the Republic... (1)

mbone (558574) | about 5 years ago | (#29693941)

The President of the French Republic is not going to have his Internet service disconnected. I may not know much, but I know that.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?