Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

229 comments

Heh (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41327837)

Smack that bitch and tell her to get better taste.

I'll suck your dick. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41327859)

Wanna meet up? I have an abuse fetish. I'll do both anal and oral. You don't even have to make me cum.

Re:I'll suck your dick. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41328255)

This, this right here is why I love the internet. In my life, no one, and I mean no one would say to me, "I'll suck your dick. Wanna meet up? I have an abuse fetish. I'll do both anal and oral. You don't even have to make me cum." No one.

BUT, you put a little anonymity between two people, and this is what you get.

I fucking love technology. Free speech and free-action for the win on this one, folks.

Re:I'll suck your dick. (1)

Dunge (922521) | about 2 years ago | (#41328907)

As sarcasm/joke (which was the case in this post) I can tell you many people will say it in real life too....

Re:Heh (-1, Troll)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | about 2 years ago | (#41327923)

unless she's an entitled woman. then she'll smack him around for getting in trouble for her indiscretion. after all, that 150 euros is hers too and how can she possibly be expected to pay for music when he spends it all on piracy fines. does money grow on trees?

Re:Heh (-1, Troll)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41328131)

unless she's an entitled woman. then she'll smack him around for getting in trouble for her indiscretion. after all, that 150 euros is hers too and how can she possibly be expected to pay for music when he spends it all on piracy fines. does money grow on trees?

EXCUSE ME? Is this advocating violence against women supposed to be funny on Slashdot? On any website? I hope the mods not only -1 this post, but every post of yours they can get their hands on, you little shit.

Re:Heh (4, Insightful)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | about 2 years ago | (#41328167)

No, it's advocating violence against men - which, my political correctness compass tells me, is absolutely fine.

150 euro fine, in fact.

Re:Heh (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41328235)

No, it's advocating violence against men - which, my political correctness compass tells me, is absolutely fine.

That's a new definition of violence of which I was previously unaware. See, for me, violence is a bit more dramatic than entering your credit card info on a website.

Re:Heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41328495)

You didn't reply to the grandparent anonymous coward's post, the one that advocates violence against women.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3115931&cid=41327837

Your reply was to Eponymous Hero's post, the one that advocates violence against men.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3115931&cid=41327923

I think you totally missed this in your rage, which is why you mistakenly think the only "violence against men" that's been mentioned is use of a credit card.

Your moderation is likely due to your complete double standard on this regard, where you are going apeshit about violence against women while not even noticing the fact that the post actually advocates violence against men. But don't think that the violence jokes represent Slashdot as a whole; I usually enjoy your posts and wouldn't you to leave.

Posting anonymously because, while I didn't moderate your posts, I have moderated elsewhere in the thread.

Re:Heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41328581)

Posting anonymously because, while I didn't moderate your posts, I have moderated elsewhere in the thread.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can moderate before you post while your moderations disappear if you post (even as AC) afterwards.

Re:Heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41328863)

EXCUSE ME? Is this advocating violence against women supposed to be funny on Slashdot?

...

then she'll smack him around

Not sure if trolling idiot, or just plain idiot.

No, NOT a troll (-1, Flamebait)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41328263)

You know what, I'll happily burn every karma point I've ever earned on this website -- it's not a troll to tell someone that advocating violence against women is wrong. Whoever modded my last post down should be ashamed. You coward.

Re:No, NOT a troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41328305)

Penis?

Re:No, NOT a troll (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41328327)

You are a troll, bitch. I hope you get cock slapped and butt fucked tonight after being roofied.

Re:No, NOT a troll (2)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about 2 years ago | (#41328385)

EXCUSE ME? Is this advocating violence against women supposed to be funny on Slashdot? On any website? I hope the mods not only -1 this post, but every post of yours they can get their hands on, you little shit.

Be careful what you wish for.

Re:No, NOT a troll (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41328499)

Be careful what you wish for.

I also wish for a pony.

Re:No, NOT a troll (5, Funny)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about 2 years ago | (#41328633)

I also wish for a pony.

Rare, medium or well done?

Re:No, NOT a troll (5, Funny)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 years ago | (#41328935)

Well, it's not very rare, definitely not well done, and I don't think it can tell the future.

On Feminism (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41328595)

As a former feminist (before being raped), I have to say that refusing to have sex for whatever reason is a mental illness that has been pushed onto us women from birth through insane ideals coming from childless crones that wants us to suffer as they have. Even our own body makes it clear that whether or not we should have sex is not for us to decide. Is it the man that decides this, and the only crime that should exist, is if he choses to have sex just for the sake of pleasure.
We need to cure my sick sisters through therapy. I suggest open institutions where women who doesn't want sex are shackled and put naked on display for single men who can go there and chose the woman he wants to have a sexual relationship with, and who can then touch her until the illness is cured and she finally comes. They she must be raped until she is fully subservient.
I personally think that women who file rape charges against people should be punished by death, but again, these women are sick, and needs to be cured.
We cannot go on like this. The rape laws are horribly sexist towards men, and prevents them from mating. The crones who made these laws must be ursurped and jailed for crimes against humanity.

Re:No, NOT a troll (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 years ago | (#41328897)

I think you may need to re-read the post you're flaming... "entitled woman" does not imply violence, and "she'll smack him around" implies this hypothetical (and yet strangely familiar) woman is the one being abusive.

It's not a troll to tell someone that advocating violence against woman is wrong... unless you're doing it in response to something that has absolutely nothing to do with advocating violence against women.

It's like if I posted "I'm planning to move to the tropic of cancer" and someone replied with "HOW DARE YOU IMPLY HAVING CANCER IS A HOLIDAY!" -- they'll get modded offtopic at a minimum, and more likely as a troll.

I've got karma to burn, so don't mind posting educational replies to flamebait threads.

entitled woman is redundant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41328397)

tsia

Keep the woman in line? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41327845)

Apparently in France, it is a man's responsibility to police the behavior of his wife. After all, women are property.

The net connection is under his name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41328083)

That's why they fined him and not her, not because of what you think is the truth,

Re:Keep the woman in line? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41328085)

According to the 3-strike law, it's the responsibility of one who signs a contract for internet access contract to make sure that his/her computer cannot be used to breach law. The lady will not be fined because it's just too difficult for the Court to prove she downloaded the file (and not a neighbour or a relative on a visit). But the guy can be fined, because the contract was in his name, and it can be proven that his connection was used to download a song illegally.

Re:Keep the woman in line? (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#41328517)

because it's just too difficult for the Court to prove she downloaded the file (and not a neighbour or a relative on a visit).

Yeah, due process is pretty hard. Why don't we just get rid of all of it? Just throw people in prison based on mere accusations.

Re:Keep the woman in line? (3, Insightful)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 years ago | (#41329005)

Prisons have free Internet access, don't they? I wonder what happens if someone downloads music while incarcerated....

Good job France! (5, Interesting)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about 2 years ago | (#41327849)

France, out of nowhere, is suddenly showing surprising competitiveness in the "Passing dumbass laws so the rest of the world can see what a bad idea they are" department.

Re:Good job France! (4, Informative)

Dynedain (141758) | about 2 years ago | (#41327955)

What do you mean "out of nowhere"? France was the first country to pass 3-strike laws for copyright violations and has been pushing this crap for years. /. covered this extensively 4 years ago... [slashdot.org] and I'm pretty sure it was on here even before that, but I'm too lazy to do more Googling.

I'm just surprised it's taken them this long to enforce the law.

Re:Good job France! (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about 2 years ago | (#41327987)

Well, yeah, but the lack of enforcement up to this point left me kind of assuming (hoping) it was just an empty platitude.

Re:Good job France! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41328055)

France, out of nowhere, is suddenly showing surprising competitiveness in the "Passing dumbass laws so the rest of the world can see what a bad idea they are" department.

Nah, they've been in the running for a long time [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Good job France! (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41328097)

France, out of nowhere, is suddenly showing surprising competitiveness in the "Passing dumbass laws so the rest of the world can see what a bad idea they are" department.

A lot less dumbass than elsewhere: 150 euros is a slap on the wrist. I bet speeding tickets go for more. This is downright enlightened by G20 standards. In the United States, people get thrown in jail, or face hundred thousand dollar fines -- thus ensuring permanent poverty for life.

Re:Good job France! (1)

amanaplanacanalpanam (685672) | about 2 years ago | (#41328211)

thus ensuring permanent poverty for life.

As opposed to temporary poverty for life.

Re:Good job France! (1)

pdabbadabba (720526) | about 2 years ago | (#41328573)

Please show me the US case where someone has been thrown in jail for downloading music or videos. (Except, of course, videos that are criminal to own, like child porn.)

Re:Good job France! (3, Informative)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41328655)

Please show me the US case where someone has been thrown in jail for downloading music or videos. (Except, of course, videos that are criminal to own, like child porn.)

They don't, not directly. What they do is get a judgement against you. Then the debtor repeatedly files motions to have you appear in court, which when they have a judgement against you, they can do, so the judge can assess your income, pay back plan, etc. The key word here is repeatedly, sometimes several times a month. Since these judgements are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, there's no hope for them to repay it. And as you might imagine, when you have an appointment two or more times a month for the rest of your life, sooner or later circumstances are going to arise where you miss your court date.

And that is when you go to jail: For failing to appear, or contempt of court. The sentence in either is indeterminate; An increasing number of jurisdictions have laws in place saying you can't get out of jail until you repay any legally owed debts -- statutes originally intended to repay victims of actual crime, not civil cases. So you do forced labor, at minimum wage, in jail.

God Bless America.

Re:Good job France! (1)

DM9290 (797337) | about 2 years ago | (#41328931)

Please show me the US case where someone has been thrown in jail for downloading music or videos. (Except, of course, videos that are criminal to own, like child porn.)

They don't, not directly. What they do is get a judgement against you. Then the debtor repeatedly files motions to have you appear in court, which when they have a judgement against you, they can do, so the judge can assess your income, pay back plan, etc. The key word here is repeatedly, sometimes several times a month. Since these judgements are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, there's no hope for them to repay it. And as you might imagine, when you have an appointment two or more times a month for the rest of your life, sooner or later circumstances are going to arise where you miss your court date.

And that is when you go to jail: For failing to appear, or contempt of court. The sentence in either is indeterminate; An increasing number of jurisdictions have laws in place saying you can't get out of jail until you repay any legally owed debts -- statutes originally intended to repay victims of actual crime, not civil cases. So you do forced labor, at minimum wage, in jail.

God Bless America.

can you cite the case where this happened? it sounds a bit fishy to me. there is something called 'abuse of process'.

Re:Good job France! (1)

niado (1650369) | about 2 years ago | (#41328941)

An increasing number of jurisdictions have laws in place saying you can't get out of jail until you repay any legally owed debts -- statutes originally intended to repay victims of actual crime, not civil cases. So you do forced labor, at minimum wage, in jail.

I'm going with citation needed here...a quick googling only picked up one anecdotal instance of a judge sentencing someone to indefinite incarceration until he could raise a payment. This is obviously a questionable ruling but so was the source, which provided very little detail of the case.

I can't find evidence of laws such as you describe in any US jurisdiction.

Re:Good job France! (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#41328855)

Except he got it for failing to "secure" his internet connection, not for copyright infringement. Imagine you're a building owner renting out the apartment to tenants with internet connection. They download, you get fined. That level of indirection is a new level of stupid.

Re:Good job France! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41328123)

How about the 75% tax on income over a million euros? Watch for the mass exodus of the rich and all good athletes...

Re:Good job France! (3, Insightful)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#41328241)

Good riddance I say. Let the rich leave, and other entrepreneurs start new businesses that actually make the economy grow.

Re:Good job France! (1)

Threni (635302) | about 2 years ago | (#41328421)

Uh...who gives a fuck about athletes? Leave, then? You're not bringing any money in, as statistically more events will be in some other country than your own. More importantly, it's your hobby/job - it's no more interesting to my than anyone else's. As for the rich - well, we'll cope. Someone else will take their place. And, of course, they're not currently paying as much tax as they perhaps should anyway, so leaving won't make a lot of difference.

Re:Good job France! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41328145)

Not at all. USA is exporting political corruption and bribery via the media companies. It doesn't matter what the first world country it, once palms have been greased, it's game over.

Just look at the president and his media lacky, Obama and Biden. Done almost nothing for the people, but pushed more draconian media company laws through under the radar. When we don't do anything about blatant BS on our doorstep, why would anyone else?

Re:Good job France! (5, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#41328299)

France, out of nowhere, is suddenly showing surprising competitiveness in the "Passing dumbass laws so the rest of the world can see what a bad idea they are" department.

doesn't sound quite as dumbass as fining him 2 345 423 dollars for it.

150e doesn't cover the expenses generated by the proceedings though.. so I guess it's true french.

Re:Good job France! (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#41328939)

Neither does sentencing a murderer to jail. The point in both cases is deterrence.

Mine's Encrypted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41327851)

But it's named "passwordisfuckthepolice" ...

what if don't WANT it "secure"? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41327869)

802.11 for example provides for the ability to either encrypt the connection or leave it open for anyone to access. It will broadcast the SSID if you want it to, and the intended purpose of that is to let other people connect.

How is it reasonable to prosecute person A for what person B does with person A's equipment? Is the ISP also liable in this case? How about Linksys or whoever made the networking equipment? Or Intel, for the cpu that allowed the alleged infringement?

Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41327901)

Well if you keep it open you face liability. As the article mentions, it's the subscriber's liability.

Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41328147)

That's not quite right, it was his ex that used the service and not just an open wi-fi. He was fined because he cooperated with police and the court. What this tells me is when they come knocking the answer is always NO get a warrant.....

Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41328249)

No, it is quite right. The law states that liability for infringement is on the subscriber of the internet service.

Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#41328613)

Does the law hold one accountable if they take basic measures to void unauthorized use? If a hacker somehow cracks someone's secured WiFi and uses it to torrent a bunch of files, is the liability still on the subscriber?

Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? (2)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 2 years ago | (#41328659)

No, it is quite right. The law states that liability for infringement is on the subscriber of the internet service.

No, he is not liable for infringement. He is responsible for securing his connection so that others can't infringe, and failing to do this is what he was fined for. The infringer is liable for infringement, but since the connection was not secured (for which he was fined), it is very, very hard to prove who the infringer was.

Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? (2)

CrashandDie (1114135) | about 2 years ago | (#41329069)

There are no search warrants in France. The police (and especially the Gendarmerie) is allowed to enter any building, any house, any property, within certain conditions (for example, they're not allowed to wake you up before 6AM). The only time that a DA has to sign something off is if there is no official case yet, and the owner of the property did not agree to it being searched.

Other than that, they can just walk in and have a coffee for all they care.

Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#41327999)

More than that, why is he liable for what his WIFE did? If she committed the crime she should be fined. Not him.

I can understand the ISP cutting service due to a violation of TOS by sharing with your neighbors, but sharing with your own family is a ( potentially criminal ) TOS violation??? WTF?

I hate to use a car analogy, but if you loaned your car out to a guy across the street, and he robbed a bank and used your car for the getaway ( but you didn't know he was of course, or we would have a different legal issue ) would you be liable? Or if he solicited a hooker on the street corner? Yes, under these rules.

Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? (2)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41328111)

Because the law states it's the subscriber's liability for any infringement done on the connection. This also has nothing to do with e ISP's ToS. Lastly, this is not a criminal matter.

Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? (1)

Shagg (99693) | about 2 years ago | (#41328585)

Because the law states it's the subscriber's liability for any infringement done on the connection.

Which is completely idiocy. The husband is negligent because he let his wife use the connection that was in his name? Are they kidding?

What that effectively means is that each individual must have their own connection, and not share it with anybody. I'm sure the ISPs would love that, but it makes no sense.

Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#41328649)

If they are going to have this stupid law, why do the ISPs get a pass? After all, they subscribe to other ISPs' networks in order to facilitate global communication.

Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? (3, Interesting)

Urza9814 (883915) | about 2 years ago | (#41328153)

The fine wasn't for her copyright violation, it was for his negligence.

Here's a more appropriate analogy:
In my state, you're required to have an emergency exit for every bedroom. The apartment I used to live at, before my roommates sued, had a bedroom with only one exit. This would be equivalent to punishing the landlord had my roommate fallen asleep with a lit cigarette and been killed/injured in the fire because he couldn't escape easily due to the building not being up to code.

The appropriate thing to be outraged about is not that he is being held responsible for his wife's crimes -- they're saying he was negligent and that's a pretty well accepted concept. The thing to be outraged about is that they've decided that having an open wifi network is negligent. I intentionally disable the security on mine...what would they call that? Conspiracy? Aiding and abetting?

Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41328197)

For the car analogy, the difference is that the 3-strike law explicitely states one MUST secure the connection. An analogy could be gun laws that may require that you keep your weapons locked in a safe. If some guy uses the weapons not kept in a safe, he is of course liable for whatever he does with them, but you are also liable for failing to lock them down.

bad car analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41328229)

If you lend your car to your wife and she gets an automated camera speeding ticket (and let's say there's no picture of the driver). Who do you think will have to pay it?

Re:bad car analogy (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#41328661)

I heard that in some states if you ignore it, they drop the ticket.

Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41328417)

Because he's liable for failing to control what his account was used for.

Basically it's a lot easier to prove that it was his connection used for that download than to prove who did the actual download. Therefore it's easier to go after him than his wife who could use the 'it might have been someone next door on our WiFi argument' - even if it was someone on the WiFi he would still be liable as the owner of the connection.

France is going after the easier to prove case. This doesn't mean it's right.

Just goes to show you (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41327961)

What happens when you let a bunch of faggats run your country.

Re:Just goes to show you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41328183)

DOWNMODDED?!?!?! Fuck you, slashdot. You know the french are up to no good here.

Re:Just goes to show you (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41328453)

Downmodded because: 1. you can't even spell "faggot" and 2. the only people who use "faggot" as an insult are those that are too stupid to think of anything else.

Now, kindly piss off and get back to doing your homework. Those fractions aren't going to denominate themselves! Before you do go, since I'm not all bad, I'll even help you with your book report; the dog gets his red ball back then goes to rabbit's birthday party.

Failing to secure it, from his wife?!?!? (3, Interesting)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#41327975)

Either marriage is very different in France or this is a bizarre ruling.

Re:Failing to secure it, from his wife?!?!? (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 2 years ago | (#41328101)

The law will punish who it likes and however much it likes. It doesn't matter out tortuously or illogically the law needs to be interpreted, it only matters who the defendant managed to piss off.

Re:Failing to secure it, from his wife?!?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41328159)

RTFA:

his wife had signed a statement admitting to downloading two tracks by the artist Rihanna, although these were not the only downloads the man was accused of allowing.

More than just his wife used the connection to infringe on copyrights.

Re:Failing to secure it, from his wife?!?!? (2)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#41328201)

RTFA

Sir, I'll have you know that's a curse word on this site!

Re:Failing to secure it, from his wife?!?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41328283)

RTFA

Sir, I'll have you know that's a curse word on this site!

It's an initialism and your mocking nature of its importance is a great example of one of the reasons Slashdot has plummeted. Your knee jerk reactions to stories are getting old fairly fast!

Re:Failing to secure it, from his wife?!?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41328513)

Ladies and Gentlemen of Slashdot... Can we get a hearty "WOOOOSH" over here for the AC who just doesn't seem to understand what a sarcastic joke is?

Re:Failing to secure it, from his wife?!?!? (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41328161)

Either marriage is very different in France or this is a bizarre ruling.

Er, both? In France, marriage is a private affair between the husband, the wife, and the personal trainer. And it's a bizarre ruling because nobody went to jail or had their lives ruined... which is common in both french marriages and file sharing cases.

Re:Failing to secure it, from his wife?!?!? (1)

steelfood (895457) | about 2 years ago | (#41328551)

It's a mistranslation. The actual term is more closely translated to "domestic partner."

The tell-tale sign is that they had been properly married, the man would have been fined $10,000 per song instead of a measly $150.

Not 150000? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41327985)

150? I thought these fines were supposed to ruin their victims. How could he afford a computer if that's all he had?

75 Euros per song as oppposed to 1000s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41327989)

I'm not a fan of piracy laws, but if you're going to fine someone, at least this doesn't overvalue the music beyond the GDP of the producing country.

Kudos to the French for getting it only half wrong, when we in the US have it completely stupid.

Re:75 Euros per song as oppposed to 1000s (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about 2 years ago | (#41328515)

"Kudos to the French for getting it only half wrong, when we in the US have it completely stupid."

As we recently were told, they only spent 12 millions to get this result of a fine of 150€.
For the customers, it's cheaper than cable.

2 songs - France:150 euros - USA:16,000$ (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41328013)

oh, and 150 Euros is pretty much like a parking ticket. Is the US, I would imagine you have to sell your house to get a lawyer.

Re:2 songs - France:150 euros - USA:16,000$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41328281)

Actually it's 150 euros for two songs...
Source [in French] : http://www.pcinpact.com/news/73816-hadopi-interview-premier-abonne-condamne.htm

Re:2 songs - France:150 euros - USA:16,000$ (4, Funny)

Doctor_Jest (688315) | about 2 years ago | (#41328297)

Give them time... they only sent out 1,000,000 warning letters so far... there'll be some poor sap who downloaded a Disney movie and he'll be on the hook to bail out Greece...

Re:2 songs - France:150 euros - USA:16,000$ (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | about 2 years ago | (#41328359)

You could take this the other way and say that the USD is facing some major inflation.

Joan of Arc the thief! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41328025)

And let's get on with doing French stuff that we French do.

That's strangely sane and oddly normal. (5, Insightful)

julian67 (1022593) | about 2 years ago | (#41328155)

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/09/11/1740241/8th-circuit-upholds-220000-verdict-in-jammie-thomas-case [slashdot.org]

In the USA it's $9250 per song. In France it's â75 ($190 US) per song.

The penalty in France seems to me to be proportionate and sane. The person penalized did, or allowed to be done, something illegal but not especially malicious or very damaging. They face a penalty which will certainly be unwelcome and which will probably encourage them to act within the law. No huge court case, no lives wrecked, no lawyers riding the gravy train. *This is how a legal system is supposed to be.* That is the difference between "The Rule of Law" and "The Rule of Lawyers".

Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. (3, Insightful)

Alan Shutko (5101) | about 2 years ago | (#41328245)

Well, behaving within the law means the guy turned off his broadband completely. Needing to defend your home broadband against members of your family is crazy.

Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. (2)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | about 2 years ago | (#41328269)

Until you've accidentally left a drive open containing your legitimate collection of 5,000 MP3s amassed over the last decade.

We cannot excuse stupid laws by being hopeful that the sentence is lenient, or that the executive may have mercy.

As to lawyers... while I do speak as someone with some legal education, if you honestly don't think you can get anywhere representing yourself then a lawyer's lied to you. (And, as you may be able to tell, having representation may not get you any further - indeed, it'll only mean that the judge is more strict about you getting your shit right. (But don't do anything without taking some legal advice, for which you should always find the most experienced lawyer for precisely the shit you're in.))

Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. (1)

niado (1650369) | about 2 years ago | (#41328531)

From what I can tell (IANAL, and am particularly unfamiliar with French law) this 3-strikes thing is not a 'per-song' deal. It's just a somewhat flat fine for failing to sufficiently police your internet connection. Pretty interesting concept, actually.

Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | about 2 years ago | (#41328701)

English familiarity, here, though US not wildly different. I know very little French beyond what's common to EU law - if you are right, it is interesting! though it would also be necessary to see whether French law admits multiple counts of the same offence spaced apart in time...

Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 2 years ago | (#41328803)

Under French law you are considered Guilty until proven Innocent.

Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | about 2 years ago | (#41328921)

Going to have to be a bit more specific than that - your assertion would be at least contrary to ECHR art.6(2). Perhaps you mean that a prima facie case shifts the burden onto the defendant?

Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 2 years ago | (#41329083)

Originally, my words were the ones used. Only later did they obfuscate it.

It's like me saying "if you broke it, you own it" and you described a 4 page addendum in contract language that says what I just said, and insisting your version is correct.

Now, would you like to discuss what light spectra the sky is?

Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. (1)

julian67 (1022593) | about 2 years ago | (#41328713)

"accidentally left a drive open"????

I use p2p applications such as bittorrent (Transmission and rtorrent clients) and ed2k (aMule). Since the demise of Kazaa and similar there hasn't really been a circumstance where the p2p user might have "accidentally left a drive open". If I get caught I will be pissed off but I won't really have a right to complain if the penalty is proportionate.

I didn't make any claims about self representation, so your attempt to take me to task for this is a straw man argument.

The person has been penalised because they are responsible for an access point that has been used to acquire copyrighted works in breach of the copyright holder's rights. The penalty isn't heinous or draconian, it's of the kind that will be slightly uncomfortable and probably memorable. What is so unfair?

The penalties imposed in the USA are vicious, vindictive, disproportionate, greedy, shameful, life destroying and disgraceful. The penalty in France is proportionate and rational: no special interest group is gaining vast unearned riches by collecting it, and nobody's life is being crushed by suffering it. This is exactly how the law should operate.

Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | about 2 years ago | (#41328871)

there hasn't really been a circumstance where the p2p user might have "accidentally left a drive open"

Windows share? NFS? FTP? Vulnerable machine, perhaps not updated properly? We're assuming someone borrowing yer wireless, yes? It sounds like you're saying that there is no way a home user could leave files available to anyone within 100 metres unless he tries, and that just ain't so.

I didn't make any claims about self representation, so your attempt to take me to task for this is a straw man argument.

You are unnecessarily confrontational. I was making a general point that people should not feel helpless when confronting the law.

Having said that, conspiracies about a gravy train for lawyers just disempower the individual. It's not the greedy legal opportunists who are moving the pieces.

Doesn't sound too bad... (1)

ChinggisK (1133009) | about 2 years ago | (#41328205)

I didn't follow what this three-strikes law is all about very closely but from what I gather from the article it doesn't sound nearly as bad as the crap that goes on over here in the US. You get three warnings and then they slap you with a $150 fine? Sounds way more reasonable than Jammie Thomas getting $80000 per song or whatever. Could someone who knows more be kind enough to explain the issue?

Re:Doesn't sound too bad... (1)

niado (1650369) | about 2 years ago | (#41328445)

This appears to be an actual fine, not damages awarded in a civil trial. I'm not familiar with the French legal system, but this seems to be similar to a speeding ticket or other semi-trivial fine.

Re:Doesn't sound too bad... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41329017)

Disclaimer : I'm french.

The 3-strike law is about sending downloaders two warning, then bringing them to trial on third count.
Maximum fine is 3000 € and 1 month of internet access suspension.

Now, the ugly :
- The 3-strike law does not punish downloading or uploading counterfeited IP, because you can never prove which physical person has been doing the download. So the ugly hack has been to create a new "misdemeanor" ("délit" in french). The law doesn't state you are guilty of downloading, it says you are guilty of not having secured your connection. Now, having put things this way, you can prosecute the owner of the connection, without having to prove who was the person initiating the illegal download. This explains why the husband has been punished, even though it is his wife who has admittedly launched the downloads.

Now, the very ugly :
- As stated above, you can be fined for not having secured your line. Thing is, the definition of "securing your line with due diligence" has never been written by the lawmakers. The law stated that the new organism responsible of applying the 3-strike law (the HADOPI) should have written and published such specifications, but the HADOPI didn't (and they probably never will), and still pursued their prosecution mission. The result is that you just cannot prove that you secured your connection, because there is no such thing as a list of things you have to do to consider it secure enough. Actually, if some roaming script kiddie uses your wifi access and downloads stuff, you shall be fined for it. There is no way you can prove you have done enough to secure your connection, and so the breach is proof you did not do enough. You cannot even argue you were hacked and did not do anything : it's your fault if you've been hacked, and it's the fact you've been hacked that is the basis for suing you. Welcome to France.
- In practice, right-owners rely on third party company, which they hire to monitor P2P networks and collect IP address of clients sharing illegal files. This third party company (Trident Media Guard) relies on unpublished methods to collect those IP adresses. There is no way we can assess the method is reliable, and from what you can read on the french forums, it's completely unreliable. Actually, the man who has been fined today had canceled his broadband connection after the second strike ! Epic fail.

Parti Pirate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41328225)

The French Pirate Party must be running overtime printing all the new membership cards, right? Or is it like here, we all are mad, we all complain, then move on (i.e. stay bend over and take it from behind like good little consumers)?

Ah, FRANCE (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | about 2 years ago | (#41328289)

Where 100% of the intellectual property rights of the original owners is fully respected within the Louvre.

Much cheaper than the US (1)

nighthawk243 (2557486) | about 2 years ago | (#41328319)

150 Euros for 3 offenses is nothing compared to a majority of the settlements the RIAA/MPAA seem to extract out of people in the states.

they are confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41328433)

Sounds to me like they are confused about the meaning of securing an internet connection. At least here in the U.S. securing you internet connection means doing everything possible to secure your internet connection from unauthorized access by those outside your household. Normally your wife and children (if they live with you) are allowed to access your internet connection. After the fine, I would probably cut off the wife's access for a while, and only restore it if she signs a legal document that she will not do anything illegal over my internet connection.

It sounds to me like his wife either didn't understand or didn't care that it is illegal to downloaded copyrighted stuff. At least the fine is much more appropriate than what we see in infringement cases here in the U.S.!

Copyrights and patents need to be reformed worldwide. Anything more than 5-7 years for either is totally stupid and unacceptable!!!

Re:they are confused (1)

mrbester (200927) | about 2 years ago | (#41328785)

This law is interesting to me as part of my wireless connection is open, a simple deal with BT meaning that in return for allowing some bandwidth to be used by anyone in range I get to use hotspots all over the world for free where others would have to pay.

However, as the router handles this the IP from BT remains the same regardless of which network is used. This means that copyrighted content can be downloaded via the open network and it would appear at first glance that I am the likely culprit. How would this law deal with that, given that this open network functionality is encouraged by BT?

Arrr! Ye shall ne'er catch we pirates from Bahama! (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 2 years ago | (#41328783)

Rihanna may be a wee bonnie lass from the Islands, but no French court shall capture a free pirate folk from thereabouts, what with these letters of Marque from the English Queen we be having!

Do yer worst, Frenchies! Do yer worst!

LMAO (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41328865)

What a pathetic country...

So long Internet Cafes (1)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about 2 years ago | (#41328991)

I can just picture how well this law will work for free internet providers in public parks, town centers, shopping centers, coffee shops, internet cafes, libraries, etc. Then imagine getting back at your enemies by hacking their WEP keys... We can thank Jack the ripper as we crack their WPA2 network....
I wonder how secure the wireless is at the court house...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...