French President Violates His Own Copyright Law, Again 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."
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:France just sucks (Score:5, Funny)
Re:France just sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 thi
Re:France just sucks (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
If you do have a daughter I pity her, because you are overly protective. As long as she makes her own decisions at it I would seriously advise you to let her go, certainly at an age earlier than 25. Heck, why not make it 35, you'll have no grand kids but that's insignificant in regards of protecting her, no?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ahh, another victim of Poe's Law [rationalwiki.com].
psychological maturity is not physical maturity (Score:2, Insightful)
yes, there are 13 year olds who are more mature than some 33 year olds on some issues. but your average 13 year is not psychologically mature enough for informed consent with an older person. they simply don't understand the long term psychological effects on their self-esteem, their happiness, their sense of identity, etc. maintaining these aspects of self are often not even concepts most of them recognize yet
15 year olds? 17 year olds? where do we draw the line?
well, we have to draw it somewhere
look, ther
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>and sex with with minors IS brutality
Two days ago a boyfriend/girlfriend spent a night in prison for exchanging nude photos over their phones. Isn't THAT a form of brutality against minors? Your lecture on the law sounds good in the abstract, but the practical application of that law is borderline tyrannical. Laws that result in minors being maltreated are just as bad as the pedophiles, and those criminal laws should be executed (repealed).
Re:psychological maturity is not physical maturity (Score:5, Insightful)
and sex with with minors IS brutality.
Rubbish. Coercion is mental brutality. Having sex with someone who isn't physically developed is physical brutality. Rape is both physical and emotional brutality. Consensual sex with someone who's physically mature (no, I don't buy the "their mind isn't developed; all sex is non-consensual" idea) is not brutality of any sort. Their body is ready and their mind is willing.
What is mentally damaging is telling someone they're still a dumb kid, they don't know anything, and they were abused (OMG, really? like they can't decide whether or not they were, and they're too dumb to figure it out) by this old pervert (who they thought cared about them, and who they cared about too). No, since they're just a kid, they're too dumb to even figure out that this person is a perverted creep and they were abused.
And since everybody thinks so, they have no alternative but to admit that yeah, they must be an idiot to even think of letting some old pervert abuse them like that. Great. Now they have a problem they didn't even know they had, just because everyone agrees that they should.
so respect the rules, or be punished for transgression.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm playing by the rules. I just think they're idiotic.
you yourself, if you have a human conscience, should simply understand that sex with minors is a transgression against your own human conscience, your own abilit yto empathize with the fact that 99% of 13 year olds are not psychologically ready to handle sex with an adult.
And adults somehow are?
Nothing magical happened when I turned 18. As I said before, what they're not psychologically ready for is all the guilt and shame that accompanies them being indoctrinated to believe that they willingly allowed themselves to be raped – despite the fact that any sane person would see that's an absurd concoction of contradictory words.
Re:what a moron (Score:4, Funny)
you're describing patronization and condescension as the real crime, as a worse crime than child rape
I never said "rape". I'm talking about consensual acts, and they weren't traumatized until society told them what a perverted thing they did (and maybe jailed their partner!). I'm not talking about pedophilia (pre-pubescent sex), either. I'm talking about people whose bodies are mature and who are mentally willing, and I don't care about all this bullshit about them being mentally incompetent to make that decision.
I mean, we've finally admitted that the whole "OMG, he's teh gay, that's perverted!" reaction is harmful (go look for articles about gays committing suicide because of the emotional persecution, I'm sure there are plenty of them out there). Why can't we understand that "OMG she had sex with a grown-up? That's perverted!" is also harmful? The only difference is that, in one case, we have an easy out (blame the grown-up) that lets us claim WE didn't cause the mental distress.
The rest of what you posted frankly makes little sense and you're accusing me of a lot of stuff that I never claimed to think. Please consider what I've said, not all the crazy things you assume I think just because I've said that this whole emotional maturity thing is baloney. Al-Qaeda? Showing a 3-year-old movies about torture and dismemberment?
Watching torture and dismemberment ought to be traumatic to anyone, regardless of their mental maturity; it's just that at a certain point they should be mentally mature enough to deal with some of the crueler things in the world and also to understand the difference between fiction and reality.
Whereas, on the other hand, consensual sex is not emotionally traumatic (to anyone, of any mental maturity), rape or coerced sex always is (regardless of someone's mental maturity). Needless to say pedophilia is both painful and emotionally traumatic, so by all means that's an obviously barbaric and reprehensible action. Lastly, if we're concerned about broken relationships, those are a part of life and they are always traumatic – so just how long are we going to protect them from this? Didn't we just agree that learning is a part of growing up?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm making an assumption that by that definition you'd still be considered a child.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The UK age of consent is 16
18 if the other person is in a position of trust, such as their teacher (at least in England and Wales, not sure about Scotland)
drinking and smoking are both 18
Not so simple. As Wikipedia correctly points out:
Children under 5 must not be given alcohol unless under medical supervision or in an emergency (Children and Young Persons Act 1933, Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937). However, children aged 5 and over may legally consume alcohol in their own home or someone else's as long as they are under the supervision of an adult.
The minimum age for the purchase of alcohol is 18. People aged 16 and 17 may consume wine, beer or cider on licensed premises (pubs/bars/restaurants) with a table meal. In England & Wales, an adult must order. In Scotland, no adult is required to be present. The legal age for the purchase of alcohol from an off-licence (store/supermarket) is 18 (16 for liqueur chocolates).
Purchasing alcohol on behalf of a minor is illegal in Scotland, England and Wales. This means acting as the young person's agent.
18 is right for buying tobacco products, but I don't know what the law is on whether younger people can smoke tham.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, historically people of that age were not considered children. For example, in Judaism, males become entirely culpable and responsible for following Jewish law [wikipedia.org] once they reach the age of 13, and females once they reach the age of 12.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> 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.
When has the organ that changes over the course of your entire life from birth to death "fully developed" in your eyes? As a 31 year old myself, I would put it somewhere around 26 years old.
As for "predatory and pathetic"... I guess that depends on how you see sex. I don't tend to see it as bad or dirty. Its j
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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 ne
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of other things have also changed. Including lifespan. And scientific advances. And not dying from diseases we now see as trivial.
Just because we've made the best part of life last longer doesn't mean we should have to wait longer before we can enjoy it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, well, I never was really talking specifically about young/old relationships in my original post (though the guy I was replying to was, I suppose).
However, I do know one thing: if you do discover an ongoing, consensual, 15/30 year old relationship, breaking it up and making the kid testify against the adult and throwing the adult in jail is going to do a hell of a lot more emotional damage than the relationship ever could – even if it soured and/or the kid grew up and realized they were young and
Re: (Score:2)
"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
"informed consent" is the concept your looking for (Score:2, Informative)
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 ol
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
As somebody asked on BBC R4 a couple of days ago, would you say the same thing if the person who had confessed to statutory rape were Senator Polanski the Republican politician, Corporal Polanski serving in Iraq or Father Polanski the Catholic priest?
Re: (Score:2)
what is too young?
there is this 'age divided by two plus seven' which seems reasonnable
Re: (Score:2)
Not in various US states and countries.
http://ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm [ageofconsent.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I like this [wikipedia.org], it has a good colour-coded graphic (that's the North America article, but there are similar ones for other continents, and the graphic shows the world but has the U.S. states individually marked).
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re:France just sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
So according to you, Spain [wikipedia.org] and Argentina [wikipedia.org] are countries of monsters (age of consent is 13), Not to mention Canada [wikipedia.org] (which allows 12 years old to have sex with their peers).
Let me assume that, in spite of resorting to ad hominem, you are capable of reasonable discussion of complex and emotionally loaded topics.
The real problem is not sexual relations and age, it is exploitative relations (sexual or otherwise), which should be illegal at any age.
I agree that most modern 13yo lack the necessary emotional maturity and understanding and therefore an adult entering into sexual relations with them will be, ipso facto, exploiting them. However, that is a consequence of how society treats and shelters young people and not of their age per se.
So firstly, I suggest that, regardless of the law in your jurisdiction, you spend the time and effort to educate your children to the point where they are able to to give (or, more likely, withhold) their informed consent. It will be much better for them if they choose to avoid sex until they are ready for any consequences that may arise instead of being held back by an arbitrary number set by the legislation.
And secondly (and I'm going to get a lot of heat for that), I believe that a cookie-cutter approach is not suitable and instead of a hard-coded age, the decision should be made on a case-by-case basis, should the minor in question prove to be mature enough to make these decisions. After all, assuming that all people automagically gain insight and wisdom precisely on their 18th birthday (or a different one, based on their geographical location) is just silly.
Re:France just sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>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: (Score:2)
Napoleon was never democratically elected. And most of his successors weren't either. France has started democracy in 1789, yes, but it was a monarchy for most of the 19th century until Napoleon III lost the french-german war in 1871.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and I can confirm that it does indeed suck. Its not just the politicians, most of the general public can be considered a bunch of douchebags as well.
Have YOU ever even been to France?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
The state of their personal satisfaction with life is frickin' irrelevant. What matters is the HE IS STILL MINISTER OF CULTURE. Until he resigns or is fired, Sarkozy and his party are condoning him.
Re: (Score:2)
Or rather, you mean France is good because they don't discriminate against gay people or perverts.
Re:France just sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
We didn't make him culture minister, Sarkozy did.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who made Sarkozy president?
Re:France just sucks (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You'd have a point if he ran on an anti-gay platform, but he didn't.
Seriously, the alternative was Al Gore, that guy is a nut job. I'd still vote Bush over Gore, he should just stick to flying his private jet around the world to give talks about environmental responsibility and leave us alone.
Kerry was horrible also, but at least he wasn't crazy like Gore. He was weak though, and fake, and it is hard to get past that, especially just a few years after 9/11 and right in the middle of the hunt for Bin Ladin
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I don't recall Bush promoting little boy rapping bastards as 'culture minister'.
If you get Obama in 2012 it'll be awesome, your government's political parties will have a majority so powerful there is no way anyone can stop them from doing what they want, and yet nothing will continue to get done because they can't agree with themselves.
I guess you haven't been paying attention to the actual politics in America, but Obama's presidency and the Democrat majority in congress has been nothing short of a joke.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't recall Bush promoting little boy rapping bastards as 'culture minister'.
boy
Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of Lil' Bow Wow either, though "bastard" might be a little harsh.
Re:France just sucks (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't recall Bush promoting little boy rapping bastards as 'culture minister'.
May I remind you of this fine fellow named Dick Cheney ? How about Donald Rumsfeld ? They may not be pedophiles but they have fucked up the lives of much more people than Mitterand.
If you get Obama in 2012 it'll be awesome, your government's political parties will have a majority so powerful there is no way anyone can stop them from doing what they want, and yet nothing will continue to get done because they can't agree with themselves. I guess you haven't been paying attention to the actual politics in America, but Obama's presidency and the Democrat majority in congress has been nothing short of a joke. They have their entire team in office, everything is under their control, [...]
That's already the case for us. The opposition is a pathetic joke, Sarkozy has control of the governement and the media, he can do whatever he wants without any risk of backlash. He gets things done, problem is he's headed in a completely wrong direction.
[...]and they still can't get anything useful actually accomplished.
That's not the impression I'm getting from here, the healthcare reform seems much needed despite the public outcry (which I don't really understand BTW), but what do I know ? Guess I'm just a retarded european...
Re: (Score:2)
So because one Frenchman has a taste for little boys, that proves that all Frenchmen therefore have the same perverse behavior? One bad apple spoils the whole truckload?
Don't quit yer day job for a career in statistics or set theory. Well, maybe statistics, considering it's abused about the same as what you did.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's because the French people allow a Frenchman with a penchant for little boys to remain their Minister of Culture.
That suggests the French people are pretty fucked in the head. Even if the average Frenchman does not want this person to be in that position, it is the French people who created the situation that allowed the man in that position, and keeps him there. The blame for the government of any democratic system rests on the people who put that government in place - that is the voting population.
Re: (Score:2)
Their "Culture Minister" wrote a book about buggering young Thai boys.
What a joke of a country.
That's right trust information that came in vicious attacks by an extreme right party of holocaust deniers [wikipedia.org]. The guy may be guilty, but I'll reserve judgment until he's stood before a jury of his peers instead of a pack of rabid dogs like the Front National.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I am not fond of my minister of culture nor my government. But that is false. The book is not about his sexual relation with young Thai boys but about his life and the things he never told anyone before. It is like "Confessions" by Rousseau.
There is a chapter where he says he paid for sex with male young ADULT. I read an excerpt and there is no confusion possible. Perhaps he had relation with minor (that I don't no) but the book does not say so.
An article (in french) on this subject : http://www.rue89.com/2 [rue89.com]
"If he were he subject to his own law" ?! (Score:5, Insightful)
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" ?! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
[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 d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 a
Re: (Score:2)
What I'd suggest is focusing on making life survivable WITHOUT government intervention and social care programs. Instead of taxing a business into oblivion to support those programs...let them have the money to hire people are a fair wage.
Oh wait...but the lovely stock market prevents companies from doing what's best for their employees. Said companies must do what's best for the stock price (and thus executive compensation).
Re:"If he were he subject to his own law" ?! (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
here [sohovichlaw.com] and here [democratic...ground.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
How about making fines proportional to income [wikipedia.org] ? Of course personally I still prefer the guillotine for the rich, but proportional fines are a close second.
Re:"If he were he subject to his own law" ?! (Score:5, Insightful)
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" ?! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 pre
Re: (Score:2)
On June 10, 2009, the Constitutional Council of France struck down the central, controversial, portion of HADOPI, that would have allowed sanctions against internet users accused of copyright violations (as opposed to being convicted for same), ruling that because "the Internet is a component of the freedom of expression" and "in French law the presumption of innocence prevails", only a judge can impose sanctions under the law.
- from wikipedia.
So HADOPI 2 fixes the judge problem, but does it still violate t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
The last thing you want is to have another country writing your ethics rules. This sounds like something the people of Italy need to deal with directly.
Re: (Score:2)
That's easy to say when the people have some modicum of control over the laws of their country. When the people are powerless, outside influence could possibly be their best hope. This is the same reason why invading forces sometimes find sympathizers among the people of the country they are invading (usually oppressed minorities, but not always).
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody does. We mention how we want our world to be, and that we still are willing to change it.
You on the other hand, seem to have caved in, wishing to censor even the mentioning of our very ideals. :/
whole impact ? (Score:4, Funny)
"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 ? (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No but the Germans would have had a very friendly Mexico.
Vive la France Libre! (Score:2)
anyone who knows french law (Score:3, Interesting)
is the fact that they removed the publishers name actually criminal?
Not about breaking the law (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Uuum, if that was biting the hand that feeds him, then it's him who might get swept under the rug in no time. ^^
But if you *really* thing, the music industry is a powerful industry, you're massively uninformed. Ask any insider about the yearly revenue of the whole industry. Worldwide.
It's a joke. They can't even beat industries on the size of the toilet brush industry.
Let alone what's left of their profit, after refusing to go with the times.
They are mostly made of 4 medium-sized companies.
One can sweep the
The puppet master (Score:2)
So... he's above his own law? (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do as I say... (Score:2)
Not as I do!
Next time he is *alleged* to pirate something (Score:5, Informative)
Summary is incorrect. He would be disconnected the next time he is alleged to have pirated something.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm wondering if he'd actually get separate offenses for each copy. If so, that's several hundred strikes at once, not 1.
If he was going to be charged with anything, I mean. Since we all know he's actually above the law...
No internet? (Score:2)
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 . . . (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
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.
The President of the Republic... (Score:2)
The President of the French Republic is not going to have his Internet service disconnected. I may not know much, but I know that.
Re: (Score:2)
"...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: attribu
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.