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!

Major Battle Brewing Between French Gov't and ISPs

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the race-to-surrender dept.

Government 111

Dangerous_Minds writes "Drew Wilson has been following HADOPI (France's three strikes law) a lot lately, and the latest developments are that the French ISPs and the French government are edging closer to a full-on war over compensation. The French government apparently requested that ISPs send an invoice of the bills after a certain period of time, but the French ISPs don't feel this is good enough — probably because of worries that the compensation the government will ultimately provide won't be enough. The ISPs are demanding adequate compensation, and if the government doesn't give it to them, they simply will not hand over evidence required to enforce HADOPI law. While HADOPI demands that ISPs cooperate, speculation suggests that if the government takes ISPs to court, the ISPs will simply rely on constitutional jurisprudence to shield them from liability (translation)."

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

Never gonna happen (5, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464484)

Getting the French government to surrender? That seems unlikely.

Re:Never gonna happen (-1, Flamebait)

jimbolauski (882977) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464560)

Nothing is impossible for those cheese eating surrender monkeys.

Re:Never gonna happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33465158)

what's a "surrender monkey" and how can cheese eat it ?

Re:Never gonna happen (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | more than 4 years ago | (#33465602)

Re:Never gonna happen (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#33468682)

So, joking, I asked her if the carpet matched the drapes, and she said those four magic words... "There is no carpet".

Certainly much more magical than "there are no drapes".

Unless she's that chick out of the Star Trek movie...

Re:Never gonna happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33468632)

Cheese is an uncountable noun so "those" cannot apply to it. have to bread "the cheese eating

Tu failez le grammeuuuuuuuurrrr grand temps.

Re:Never gonna happen (3, Funny)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464570)

Maybe if they disconnect the government from the internet. It is standard practice if you don't pay your ISP.

Re:Never gonna happen (1)

Cley Faye (1123605) | more than 4 years ago | (#33465262)

Knowing that the french government use openoffice as their firewall, I don't think they are even connected to the real world. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F011hLZHZrM [youtube.com] (it's in french, sorry)

Re:Never gonna happen (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33468806)

Reminds me of the time A&T turned off a shit load of FBI wire taps cause they weren't paying the bills.

Where the government won't look out for your rights the corporations will, spying on a million people costs a lot of money and it ain't coming of their their profit margin if they can help it!

Re:Never gonna happen (1)

m509272 (1286764) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464790)

Good one! Thanks for the laugh :-)

Re:Never gonna happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33464950)

I know you meant it as a good natured joke, but have you and others considered the French acted like any true friend would by telling the US what it needed to hear, instead of telling it what it wanted to hear ?

(BTW, I'm British, not French before anyone asks.)

Re:Never gonna happen (1)

PePe242 (1690706) | more than 4 years ago | (#33465078)

I believe last time this happened, beheading was involved....

Re:Never gonna happen (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33465202)

As unlikely as getting the American government to surrender, I think (read Vietnam.)

Re:Never gonna happen (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 4 years ago | (#33466050)

Getting the French government to surrender? That seems unlikely.

The only thing the French can host with success is an invasion.
Food trough water.

Re:Never gonna happen (2, Informative)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 4 years ago | (#33466272)

I don't like the French, but if it wasn't for them, you'd still be drinking tea.

Re:Never gonna happen (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33467240)

I don't like the French, but if it wasn't for them, you'd still be drinking tea.

So are you implying that the french government is the Only government, nay group of people, that have the ability to pull a successful revolution in the past few decades of time?
Or just implying that the past few decades never happened?

Unless you can somehow prove that a bunch of angry people with guns and decades of time on their hands to use them are 100% unable to do what the french did, then your statement is false.

Re:Never gonna happen (0, Flamebait)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#33468786)

I don't like the French, but if it wasn't for them, you'd still be drinking tea.

So are you implying that the french government is the Only government, nay group of people, that have the ability to pull a successful revolution in the past few decades of time?

No, he isn't.

And I'm not implying that you are piss-poor at comprehension and have no knowledge of history.

I'm bloody well telling you that you are piss-poor at comprehension and have no knowledge of history.

Re:Never gonna happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33468950)

You don't like *the* french? Got to love blanket immature statements such as this one!

Re:Never gonna happen (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#33468882)

Well, when it's the French people against the French government, they invent cool new devices... but what is cooler than the guillotine?

Gotta side with the ISPs on this one (5, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464540)

Monitoring and fulfilling information requests costs time and money. If they're being required to do so constantly, chances are they had to bring on temporary staff to keep up with the worklog. It's wholly unfair to demand this of them, and yet not compensate them.

Then again, "fair", "business", and "government" don't go together, so ::shrug::.

Re:Gotta side with the ISPs on this one (-1, Redundant)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464566)

It's wholly unfair to demand this of them, and yet not adequately compensate them.

Fixed.

Re:Gotta side with the ISPs on this one (-1, Offtopic)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464658)

Talking to yourself again Pojut?

Re:Gotta side with the ISPs on this one (-1, Redundant)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464676)

Correcting yourself again Pojut?

Fixed.

;-p

Re:Gotta side with the ISPs on this one (2, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464804)

What do you mean "again"? Most people only get concerned when I'm NOT talking to myself :p

Re:Gotta side with the ISPs on this one (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33466384)

Hey, what is this place? How did I get here?

Re:Gotta side with the ISPs on this one (4, Interesting)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464922)

It is not necessarily unfair.
Even if I do not agree in regulating the net.
business need to deal with the unpleasant results of their business as well as making money.
The oil companies for example are not paid by the government to run safe rigs and to clean up their spills, the government forces them to do that if they want to remain in the oil business.

Re:Gotta side with the ISPs on this one (3, Informative)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#33465248)

Using your examples of oil companies, it is true that they aren't necessarily payed to run safe rigs...however, the government is a huge customer of theirs (military, government official vehicles, etc) as well as providing them legislation that works in their favor and tax breaks/keeping tax loopholes open.

They aren't directly payed money, but approve or disapprove, they're still compensated.

Re:Gotta side with the ISPs on this one (2, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 4 years ago | (#33465312)

Well you could say the same of ISPs, the government is a huge customer of most industries and tend to pass pro industry laws.

Re:Gotta side with the ISPs on this one (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 4 years ago | (#33465352)

But either way are you actually saying that any company should be able to do whatever it wants, as long as the government does not pay it to do otherwise.

For example: I could start up a dog poop removal business. and when I remove the poop from a house that pays me to do that I just throw it on the neighbours yard?
for me it is a win/win.
and sure the law forbids this, but by your logic, laws should not apply to businesses.

Re:Gotta side with the ISPs on this one (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#33465432)

But either way are you actually saying that any company should be able to do whatever it wants, as long as the government does not pay it to do otherwise.

That's not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the government is specifically asking a business to do something it would otherwise not do on its own.

and sure the law forbids this, but by your logic, laws should not apply to businesses.

I think you're twisting my point. All I'm saying is that the government is requesting a company to do something that it otherwise would never do. This request will cost a lot of time and effort to comply with, cost and effort that a smaller ISP might not be able to shoulder on its own while still maintaining a minimum level of service quality.

I never said that laws should not apply to businesses...hell, I didn't even imply it.

Re:Gotta side with the ISPs on this one (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 4 years ago | (#33465504)

But the government is not requesting, it is demanding.
which is law, or close enough to it.

Re:Gotta side with the ISPs on this one (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#33465538)

That I agree with.

Re:Gotta side with the ISPs on this one (1)

thetartanavenger (1052920) | more than 4 years ago | (#33466408)

The oil companies for example are not paid by the government to run safe rigs and to clean up their spills, the government forces them to do that if they want to remain in the oil business.

They may require safe rigs and to clean up spills, but they don't expect the oil company to ensure all users of their oil aren't speeding or breaking the law in some other respect.

The ISP's are required to run a safe network that doesn't, say, electrocute anyone. If they dig up the roads to install more wires they're required to put the road back together afterwards, and so on. Expecting them to also police their network at an individual user level is not the same thing, and deserves compensation.

Re:Gotta side with the ISPs on this one (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 4 years ago | (#33466604)

What unpleasant results? If they are operating as a dumb pipe, at the end of the line it's the user who is 'apparently' abusing it. This about the same as hydro, water or NG. If a user snaps a pipe in their basement or plays captn' sparkler against their mains box, it's sure not the service providers problem if they die.

Re:Gotta side with the ISPs on this one (1)

the_womble (580291) | more than 4 years ago | (#33466630)

The difference is that the oil spills and the risks caused by unsafe rigs are a consequence of the oil company's business.

The costs imposed on the ISPs are purely a result of government regulation.

Re:Gotta side with the ISPs on this one (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 4 years ago | (#33466730)

But they are both the result of government regulation.

The government regulation that says, unsafe work conditions are not allowed, costs oil companies money and they would not have as safe conditions if the government did not enforce it.

Putting aside the issue of net neutrality it is very similar situation in my opinion.

Re:Gotta side with the ISPs on this one (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 4 years ago | (#33466792)

Are the Oil companies required to monitor the use you make of your car once you've put their oil in it ?

Re:Gotta side with the ISPs on this one (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 4 years ago | (#33466908)

Are the ISPs required to monitor all the data you download, after it is downloaded and on your computer?

No they just handle their side of it, when the data goes through them into your computer.

As oil companies need to make their workplaces safe and not cause huge environmental disasters.

Re:Gotta side with the ISPs on this one (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#33466972)

The oil companies for example are not paid by the government to run safe rigs and to clean up their spills, the government forces them to do that if they want to remain in the oil business.

That's an incredibly bad analogy, so here's a better one -- the oil companies aren't required to pay for investigations of bank robbers who use petroleum in their getaway cars, which is exactly like this is.

The oil spill thing is more like an ISP screwing up and bringing internet service for all providers' customers to a halt, and making them pay for that, which would be reasonable. You broke it, you bought it.

Wow Brilliant (4, Insightful)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464580)

So the government buckled to pressure from large 'content-producing' corporations - and our only defense is are other large corporations who don't want to comply because it hurts their wallets.

Not because they think its a bad idea, respect their customers or whatever, because it hurts their wallet.

What a giant mess this world is - money driven. When are the revised copyright laws coming out? No there's no large company which wants that, oh allright - Never O'Clock

Re:Wow Brilliant (4, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464738)

They should cut out the middle man - let the content producers compensate the ISPs directly. Surely it's a small price for them to pay if it's going to prevent billions of Euros in lost sales due to piracy, it's also a short-term thing because the biggest pirates will disconnected within a couple of months.

Re:Wow Brilliant (1)

InEnacWeTrust (1638615) | more than 4 years ago | (#33465330)

The biggest pirates have been using rapidshare and other similar services for months if not years... and these services are not covered by Hadopi. Only true p2p networks are (Donkey and Torrent, mainly)

Re:Wow Brilliant (1)

alfredos (1694270) | more than 4 years ago | (#33465934)

It also has the beauty of helping answer the question on whether losses due to piracy quoted by content producers are grossly inflated, or the content providers are objective, reasonable, thoughtful and scientific about the matter. Anybody wants to bet?

Re:Wow Brilliant (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 4 years ago | (#33466464)

let the content producers compensate the ISPs directly.

That's a dangerous precedent to set; you would then have the copyright holders paying the ISPs to give the police information on what people are doing on the internet. I don't know if I like the idea of corporations hiring armies of private investigators to snoop on us so they can report the results to the government. In France, at least, I'm willing to bet they'd rather leave the whole thing in the hands of the government. Over there, they trust the government more than private interests.

Re:Wow Brilliant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33467454)

sad thing is, it's only going to affect the small time pirates. the big fish are too clever to get caught by their isp.

Re:Wow Brilliant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33464754)

Yeah well, do not forget we are talking about France here.

They oppose it, that's a legal way to contest (1)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464990)

Part of Sarkonazy's merry band of big content bitches propaganda was that it would not be costly to the taxpayer. This will make them look bad. Plus the more that shit is delayed the better the chances that it get quashed by the EU before it starts doing damage.

Re:Wow Brilliant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33467924)

Maybe it is driven by ideology but it just sounds better when they say it's money driven. Of course it could be for both reasons. Or 5 reasons.

I work for an ISP. The copyright police non-sense is just a general pain in the ass. We get several dozens daily. We don't have time, really. Further, I'm not in the business of baby sitting our customers. More-so, I don't care to e-mail some kids mom with a nasty gram and create fear, confusion and bad jives between us and that customer. Lastly.. multiple times they've implicated the wrong IP address and recanted on dozens of mailed violation notices. And finally, they keep changing their damn message format foiling any filters I've tried to make to catalog all this garbage.

I don't like pirates. I don't download pirated stuff. I appreciate the hard work or sometimes Herculean effort of an artist, or a movie producer, or a software developer, they all deserve to get paid for what could be years of work.. but screw these people protecting the rights of some huge corporation.

- You're friendly ISP systems admin.

Why do people allow this to continue... (1)

Mark19960 (539856) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464652)

all over the world?
Why aren't people voting these assholes out or taking BACK their countries?

I don't get it.... I must be from a different mold.

Re:Why do people allow this to continue... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33464698)

The same reason you allow murder and other shit to still happen. There is nothing an individual can do about it.

Re:Why do people allow this to continue... (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 4 years ago | (#33465130)

People get away with murder because nobody knows [for sure] that they did it.

We know exactly which politicians vote for terrible laws.

Re:Why do people allow this to continue... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33465148)

Not if they do a voice vote like the House did with the DMCA.

Re:Why do people allow this to continue... (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#33468158)

While this is true, at least here in the states our choices are "Rich money grubbing corporate ass kissing candidate" A or B. Hell the only difference between D and R anymore is which cock they suck. BOTH are for bigger government, less rights, and screwing the public. The only difference is the Dems suck the big media cock and the Repubs suck the military industrial complex wang.

So tell me, oh wise one, which is the "correct" choice here?

Re:Why do people allow this to continue... (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464716)

Answer:

1. Lobbying
2. The 'man in the street' doesn't care
3. The media can always be enticed to speak in favour if you advertise a lot
3b. Adverising costs money - large companies have money
4. Probably a stupid 'two-party' system so nothing to choose from anyway
5. "I'll vote for them because my parents voted for them, and my parents before that"

Re:Why do people allow this to continue... (1)

LaRainette (1739938) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464746)

Sunday, April the 22nd 2012.
Yeah we used to go oldschool forks and guns on the kings back in the days, but now we're all about elections you know, and they only come every 5 years.

Re:Why do people allow this to continue... (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464814)

Ummm, we have pirate parties forming as we speak. The Pirate Party even has two members of the European parliament now.

I'm definitely voting 'Pirate' in the next elections ... and I've never actually got off my ass to vote before (and I've been eligible to vote since the 1980s).

I'm not particularly for piracy, I just don't believe the RIAAs lies and I don't think politicians should be wasting time listening to them either.

Re:Why do people allow this to continue... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33464848)

I don't get it.... I must be from a different mold.

The living-in-my-parent's-basement-long-after-hitting-30-and-still-a-virgin mold?

Re:Why do people allow this to continue... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33464868)

I don't understand either.

Australia now has censorship over porn and violence on the Internet. (I guess the prime minister is a frustrated virgin)
France now has censorship over online gambling on the Internet. (That one is because France enjoy taxing everybody, even foreigners)

We are talking about civilized countries here... They are getting quite near the China-India model...

I'm afraid that most people are too lazy/don't care enough to take any concrete action against the government.
It might change in the future though. The real internet revolution is not even one generation old, let's wait the death of all those baby boomers, things should change then. Might be too late though

Re:Why do people allow this to continue... (1)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 4 years ago | (#33465254)

because when election time comes around, people vote based on candidates policies on health, or defence, or education, so copyright reform stops being important. And, once people are voted in, they go off on 4 or 5 years of totally unaccountable power where most of their decisions are heavily influenced by lobbying from groups with money (in this case, the 'content industry').

Kinda makes sense. (1)

LaRainette (1739938) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464684)

HADOPI is aimed at protecting the rights of the music and film industry.
This same Industry has been ignoring ISP and internet for over a decade before realising they had to stop living in the stone age and now ISP should PAY for the music and film industry own ignorance and lack of vision ?

WTF ?

The Music and film industry doesn't want to hear about global licensing and is still clearly unable to provide consumers with digital offers that would be at least attractive enough to be considered a worthy alternative to committing felony !
Let them die, someone will replace them and artists are not suddenly going to start starving because EMI or Warner closes.

It's not the government roles to enforce a non-sensical law that makes ISP pay for others mistakes.

Europe (2, Insightful)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464726)

So in one part of Europe, internet access is a fundamental human right. In another part of Europe, it can taken away entirely for the minor crime of copyright infringement.

When is the EU civil war coming? There needs to be a Scandinavian Lincoln to conquer France and free the oppressed.

Re:Europe (3, Funny)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464792)

Europeans fighting and killing other Europeans?! Inconceivable!!

Re:Europe (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#33465764)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Europe (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464796)

I think the vikings are just tired of fighting and have given up. Some time ago already. France will never learn...

Re:Europe (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#33466250)

Many of Vikings moved to Great Britain. Their descendants are the English football fans who regularly go to Europe, get really drunk, fight the locals and each other.

The rest of the Vikings who stayed at home learned how to work together and survive peacefully with what they have. ;).

Re:Europe (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464834)

I am very amazed that this happened in Europe. But the french government has a history of that. The EU wanted to ban cosmetic animal testing, but the french government was lobbied by a ton of cosmetic industries [who remain anonymous = 0 public backlash] and it collapsed.

Same thing here - turning into a 'little USA' it seems.

Re:Europe (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464912)

"...but the french government was lobbied by a ton of cosmetic industries..."

Turning a little USA??? Interesting. Perfume, France, HELLO? You apparently seem to be completely unaware that Paris is home to some very old and powerful cosmetics manufacturers for hundreds of years. Some, I'm sure. are older than the US. You cut out animal testing, you cut the throats of a French industry, one of the few France has left. I think if anything the US would be taking their queue from the French. But we won't let facts stop us now, will we?

Re:Europe (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#33466428)

You cut out animal testing, you cut the throats of a French industry, one of the few France has left.

In what way? Plenty of other comestic companies seem to survive just fine without needing to test their products on animals. Exactly what is so special about these French companies?

I think if anything the US would be taking their queue from the French.

A queue of what?

Re:Europe (1)

Alioth (221270) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464970)

You're mistaking the EU for a country, it is not. It's an alliance of sovereign nations (and therefore quite different to the United States).

Re:Europe (0, Troll)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#33465046)

There is an EU constitution. There is a US constitution. The EU is a union of states. The US is a federation of states. Sounds pretty similar to me.

Re:Europe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33465180)

I have genitals. My wife has genitals. Sounds pretty similar to me.

Re:Europe (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#33465346)

Those of us who are familiar with your wife's genitalia won't disagree with you.

Re:Europe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33465370)

Well, except for the fact that hers control yours. You aren't saying the EU controls the US or vice versa, are you?

Re:Europe (1)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 4 years ago | (#33465302)

could you consider how it all works, rather than just comparing words and pronouncing them to be the same? Would that be too much to ask?

Re:Europe (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 4 years ago | (#33466076)

Only France didn't ratify it (among others), so there is none.

Re:Europe (0)

Dumnezeu (1673634) | more than 4 years ago | (#33466404)

In another part of Europe, it can taken away entirely for the minor "crime" of being accused of copyright infringement.

FTFY

ISPs are not police forces (2, Insightful)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464756)

Police forces, for one thing, get an upfront budget instead of being asked to "police the country first and send us the bill later, we'll decide if we pay you back or not."

Re:ISPs are not police forces (2, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464952)

Banks are not police forces either, and yet they have to report suspicious activities and supply evidence all the time.

Re:ISPs are not police forces (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33465192)

Banks are regulated, ISP not so much. Pass a law to regulate ISP to do such, then ALL ISP can charge the customers for the cost of doing it instead of billing the government. Then the ISPs will be happy to comply because the consumers won't have any where else to go as an alternative.

Re:ISPs are not police forces (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33467704)

The French HADOPI law applies to ALL French ISPs and their customers. Your point?

Re:ISPs are not police forces (1)

Moridin42 (219670) | more than 4 years ago | (#33465204)

Well.. banks can continue to make money on frozen accounts. And.. banks can pay out less money to depositors in order to cover their costs of compliance. Your only choice is to hold cash rather than deposit.

ISPs on the other hand, charge fees. Watch the ISPs, assuming they lose in court, attach a "government compliance fee" in a separate line item. Just to make the government's "it won't cost taxpayers" line appear as the BS it is. Unless, of course, there are lots of French taxpayers without net access.

Although, it would amuse me most if the ISP that connects Elysee Palace billed them for the entire cost of the system, and disconnected them for failure to pay.

Not enough anti-piracy laws (3, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464778)

Clearly there needs to be more anti-piracy laws that hardly affect the pirate and mostly just affect the average citizen! What would we do without these worthless bills, laws, and treaties that don't actually affect their intended target, take away more of everyones rights, and try to 'recover' imaginary profits that pirates 'stole'?

For the record (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464872)

The frogs have my full support. I've got your back.

That's not all Isps (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33464876)

that's just one ISP ..they refuse to give for free somithing that cost them (the identity of the ip owner).
the two other major ISP are more sympatize with it , like orange who give it for free(Albanel witch was the cuturel ministre in charge of hadopie for a time and just continually ridiculize herself is now in charge of Orange comuncation or something like that ).
SFR , (Vivendi universal Subsidiary) is like Orange "pro Hadopi"

some other ISP like FDN (the oldest french isp) are against hadopi with FREE ..

Re:That's not all Isps (1)

chaodyn (1313729) | more than 4 years ago | (#33464986)

Ridiculize - I like that. That's an awesome new word. I'm going to start using it rediculizingly frequently.

Re:That's not all Isps (1)

Orphis (1356561) | more than 4 years ago | (#33468472)

Orange has never given any identity for free, that's a lie. Even when the police is investigating pedophiles or other serious online crime. Sometimes, they even report some fraudulent activities or people in danger and then you have to PAY them to get the information. And the police has to do it, even if it's a false alert. SFR and Free on the other hand are nicer, you can ask them and get an answer quickly even before contacting the prosecutor to have an official paper. When someone is going to commit suicide and tells on internet and the police is notified, they have to act quickly and paperwork has never been easy.

Law that should not exist (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#33465060)

When enforcing the law creates an undue burden on society -- tax dollars are not enough, private industries dollars are not enough, and people continue to break the law anyway -- perhaps it is time to ask, "Does this law even make sense?"

Oh, wait, the copyright lobby -- I forgot that their interests trump everything, even logic.

Re:Law that should not exist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33465420)

Qu'est-ce qu'un dollar? Vous américains insensibles clod

Re:Law that should not exist (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 4 years ago | (#33466544)

That's some interesting grammar you have there, Coward.

Re:Law that should not exist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33467736)

The grammar was fine before google translate messed it up. I'll just stick to languages I actually speak from now on. Sorry.

Re:Law that should not exist (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 4 years ago | (#33468894)

You might have done better with "nigaud américains insensibles".

Hadopi scammers (5, Interesting)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 4 years ago | (#33465118)

In related news, today TechDirt posted about scammers starting to send out fake Hadopi notices asking random people for money.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100902/02075110872.shtml [techdirt.com]

This is really turning out to be a FAIL of EPIC proportions.

Re:Hadopi scammers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33465356)

That's a great development! Now when people in France get notices they can say they *thought* it was just a scam and ignored it.

Which of course it is (a scam), but a government-sponsored one on behalf of content producers.

"This is really turning out to be a FAIL of EPIC proportions."

The worse it is the less likely it is that such a stupid, extra-judicial idea will catch on elsewhere, so -- go France! May your sacrifices in this foolish endeavor benefit the rest of the world.

Re:Hadopi scammers (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 4 years ago | (#33465576)

Ahah. I really shouldn't say that, but hurrah for scammers !

Re:Hadopi scammers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33468138)

+1 !!! Just imagine the 1st email (yes, the 1st strike is by email. The one provided by your ISP, the one people don't use since they already have hotmail/gmail/yahoo/whatever...) just get flagged "SPAM". Maybe not that funny, but this could be a line of defense.
-you did not respond to the 2nd strike !
-I never saw the 1st one, I thought this was a scam ! :D

a la guerre comme a la guerre (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#33465160)

C'est la guerre!

Ca c'est la revolution!

Re:a la guerre comme a la guerre (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33465434)

si seulements

Analogy time... (0, Offtopic)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#33465392)

If I'm walking down the street and I drop my wallet, losing $1000, should I be able to sue random people to recover my loss?

If anybody's responsible for their "loss", it's the person who allowed a pristine copy to leave the movie studio. Haven't they heard of safes?

Re:Analogy time... (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#33465430)

OH, wait, that should be in the "Hurt Locker" thread... :-S

Greedy bastards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33466588)

What they really want is for the government compensation to be more profitable than having the disconnected customer paying for their internet access in the first place.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?