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!

France Revokes Ability To Disconnect Convicted File-Sharers From the Internet

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the good-thing-they-went-to-all-that-effort-to-implement-it dept.

Piracy 97

New submitter Nicolas Jondet writes "French courts will not be able to disconnect convicted file-sharers from the Internet anymore. On Tuesday, the French Culture minister issued a decree modifying the graduated response scheme and removing the disconnection penalty. 'The report says that instead of simply disconnecting users, those suspected of copyright could be fined if they did not reply to warnings, with a relatively low fine (€60) to begin, and the size of the fine would increase depending on the number of infractions. French anti-piracy will now their focus – instead of handing heavy punishments to individual users, the government is looking towards penalizing "commercial piracy" and "sites that profit from pirated material," according to an official spokesperson.'"

cancel ×

97 comments

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

SHARES ?? HA-HA !! IT IS STEALERS !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44233591)

Get with the law, man !!

France Retreats! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44233601)

This is one French surrender we can all agree with, amirite boys??

Thank the French Courts, not their government (4, Informative)

Camael (1048726) | about a year ago | (#44233893)

The law the French government enacted to cut people off the internet, Hadopi, was basically unenforceable when the French Constitutional Court declared access to the Internet a basic human right [guardian.co.uk] in 2009.

The French judiciary has ridden to the rescue of the country's web users, striking down a controversial new law which would have allowed the state to cut off the internet connections of illegal filesharers for up to a year.

The ruling is a blow to French president Nicolas Sarkozy, who had characterised the so-called "three strikes" law as a crucial weapon in the fight against online piracy. The Hadopi law, named after the government agency which was to police the new regime, was also used by many in the content industry as an example that could be followed in the UK.

But France's constitutional council ruled today that "free access" to online communications services is a human right and cannot be withheld without a judge's intervention. The council also ruled that the method of policing the web envisaged in the law breaches a citizen's right to privacy.

Re:Thank the French Courts, not their government (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44234909)

Internet must be a basic human right, because in some countries in Europe (like the Netherlands) the Internet is the only way to file taxes (paper forms no longer exists for income and V.A.T). Do you think that the I.R.S. of each country would allow its citizens to be cut off from the only way to file taxes?

Re:Thank the French Courts, not their government (2)

xelah (176252) | about a year ago | (#44235421)

I think a rather better argument would be that the Internet is now so important for communication, for political activity, for social involvement and so on that denying people access to it is to deny rights of free association. Not to mention that it's a vast vast overreaction.

Re:Thank the French Courts, not their government (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#44235459)

No, that would be "idealistic bullshit". Something media PR reps like to polish their missiles about for hours every day, and something that means jack shit in reality when money starts to talk.

The real argument is that of money generation and taxation and that one is indeed correct. Cutting people off internet hamstrings efforts to streamline service structures by making them online-only. As a result, cutting people off internet becomes vastly detrimental to both people and governing bodies.

Notably this applies even to non-free (by Western standards) countries.

Re:Thank the French Courts, not their government (1)

xelah (176252) | about a year ago | (#44235527)

No, it would be something that might actually have some relevance to the European Convention on Human Rights which the court has the power to decide the law would breach. This DOES include a freedom of association and to free expression. For some reason, no-one thought it worth including a right to be able to pay your taxes, it being one of the less popular rights.

Re:Thank the French Courts, not their government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44235833)

Look, you can appeal to a national government's ability to make and save money. Or you can try to get the EU to fight it out with that national government, in a long, labyrinthine and utterly irrational process that takes years and ends up with a compromise everybody hates.

Re:Thank the French Courts, not their government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236385)

How about a compromise? Limit the bandwidth so it's still usable or browsing but unsuitable for largescale piracy.

Re:Thank the French Courts, not their government (1)

KingMotley (944240) | about a year ago | (#44258751)

That seems silly. You don't need an internet connection to your house to pay taxes. You can walk down to the nearest internet cafe, starbucks, McDonalds, or pay a tax service to file it for you. Inconvenient sure, but isn't that the point?

I don't support illegal file sharing (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44233617)

But I agree, governments should go after the guys that are making $$ from it (*cough* google, bing), and tread lightly on the ones make casual use of the search engines.

Re:I don't support illegal file sharing (1)

bjwest (14070) | about a year ago | (#44234211)

But I agree, governments should go after the guys that are making $$ from it (*cough* google, bing),...

So should we go after The Yellow Pages [yellowpages.com] , and hold them accountable for shop lifters? Local white pages have everyones name and address as well. They're responsible for all home invasions.

Re:I don't support illegal file sharing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44234651)

Yes.

Re:I don't support illegal file sharing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44234901)

Except that analogy doesn't work. It would if they were going after domain services like some countries try to do.

I think that recent change in focus is the right direction to go, as long as their definition of sites that make a profit off pirating are the digital equivalent of the people selling pirated movies and games burned to disc.

Re:I don't support illegal file sharing (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44235105)

I don't think the yellow pages list where you can listen to the records the listed record store is selling..

Re:I don't support illegal file sharing (1)

bjwest (14070) | about a year ago | (#44236219)

Shoplifters don't go into stores to listen to music.

Re:I don't support illegal file sharing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44235047)

And what are you doing to stop it? Figured..

For once... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44233631)

France shows more sense than most governments!!

+5 for France on this one.
-2000000 if they surrender within 3 days to the RIAA/MPAA terrorists.

Re:For once... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44233663)

I find your comment entertaining since it calls an entire country as cowards thus continuing a meme my peers have celebrated with many laughings, HOHO! I want to join with their laughings to reinforce my sense of self worth by pretending I AM TEH USA, HAHA! I know nothings of history for that is for the fags.

Re:For once... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44233715)

You must be a hoot at parties. Assuming you get invited to any.

Re:For once... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44233773)

They are on /. the answer should be obvious. When was the last time you were invited to any?

Re:For once... (2)

Master Moose (1243274) | about a year ago | (#44233853)

Actually,

I have been invited to less and less parties as I have begun to use Slahdot more and more. A study needs to be commissioned.

Re:For once... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44234427)

Co-relation - is not causation.

Re:For once... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44235591)

well fot he American definition of winning a war see the 1812 war with Canada.

Re:For once... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44233839)

HAHA! I know nothings of history for that is for the fags.

My God, are you afraid of gay people?

Re:For once... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44234669)

I am afraid of faggots. I'm afraid that they keep trying to put their erect cocks in my anus. Having an erect cock in my anus hurts. That's why I'm afraid.

Re:For once... (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year ago | (#44235003)

So what you are saying is that if someone were to try put their erect cock in your anus, you would not stop it from happening, as demonstrated by your experience with the physical feeling of such an act?

Re:For once... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44235241)

Of course I would stop it from happening, just like I would stop someone if they try to murder me. And just like the government has made murder illegal, I also want the government to make putting erect cocks in anuses illegal.

Re:For once... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44235479)

That would obviously depend on whose erect cock it was, and whether the purpose of said insertion was mutual pleasure or not.

Re:For once... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44233981)

You realize Brits say that about the French far more then Americans do. In fact Brits constantly stereotype pretty much every country. Gay germans, sheep shagging kiwi's, criminal aussies, cowardly french, stupid dutch, greasy haired italians, etc.

Re:For once... (1)

mindwhip (894744) | about a year ago | (#44234501)

Yeah but we do it in a fair, non discriminatory, way to every country and just to be doubly fair include the individual countries and regions within Great Britain in those stereotypes. The kilt wearing, strong accented Scot. The Welsh singing abilities. English bowler hat wearing, stiff upper lip gent. The welsh and/or northern Scots are also reported to be fond of sheep. Middle England is said to be full of Morris Dancing Faggots. London is full of pansy office workers to list just a few...

disclaimer: any views expressed in this post are not my own, rather samples of those that can easily be found on the internet, on TV, in newspapers or in comedy clubs
(Not Posting AC as I have Karma to burn and curious if this goes anywhere ;) )

Re:For once... (1)

Zemran (3101) | about a year ago | (#44234601)

The French are not cowards, they are the most aggressive hairdressers on the planet and the Germans are too busy making sure their deck chairs are in the right place to have time to decide who to have sex with. The Aussies ARE all criminals so that is not racist, it is fact as is the the fact that Italians are greasy (it is all that olive oil). You are wrong about the Dutch, they are stoned not stupid and it is the Welsh are busy shagging sheep (no one knows or cares what the Kiwis do.

Re:For once... (1)

Macgrrl (762836) | about a year ago | (#44234751)

I beg to differ, there are less Australians in prison as a percentage of our total population than there are Americans in prison relative to their total population. If any country was going to have the accusation of being full of criminals thrown at them, the good ole' USA will be near the top of the list.

While several of the early white settlements were penal colonies, the vast majority of people who have emigrated to Australia have done so for economic reasons - in search of a better life for themselves and their children.

Re:For once... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44235009)

That's because in Australia, the criminals are not in government.

Re:For once... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44235113)

1. Fair dinkum Aussies know that the proper word is FEWER, not LESS. "Fewer" is used with countable objects; "less" is used otherwise. Sara has less milk. Sara has fewer marbles. This misuse of "less" is an Americanism.

2. Ned Kelly [wikipedia.org] .

Re:For once... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44235619)

you missed of the septic tanks - fat fuckers.

Re:For once... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44235087)

As an American, it pains me to inform you that Napoléon was excised from all history books in the US on the same day they changed all the signs in the fast-food joints to read "Freedom Fries" instead of "French Fries"

Re:For once... (1)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about a year ago | (#44236217)

Are you sure anon was from the USA or is that your knee jerk reaction to people stereotyping the French? Anonymous Coward indeed.

Re:For once... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44233849)

It strikes me as exactly the same but now with another way to make profit on it.

Re:For once... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44247595)

Compared to the USA which IS owned by the RIAA/MPAA "terrorists"?

Do they mean...? (5, Interesting)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#44233729)

Will they increase the fine, as they say, with the actual number of infractions? Or do they really mean they'll increase it with the number of allegations?

I think slashdot submitter misunderstood the artic (2)

aepervius (535155) | about a year ago | (#44234703)

Or maybe *I* am misunderstanding it. 2013-596 says "Objet : infraction de négligence caractérisée ; abrogation de la peine complémentaire de suspension de l'accÃs à un service de communication au public en ligne" and " III de l'article R. 335-5 du code de la propriété intellectuelle. "

But 355-5 is "Article R335-5 Créé par Décret nÂ2010-695 du 25 juin 2010 - art. 1 I.-Constitue une négligence caractérisée, punie de l'amende prévue pour les contraventions de la cinquiÃme classe, le fait, sans motif légitime, pour la personne titulaire d'un accÃs à des services de communication au public en ligne, lorsque se trouvent réunies les conditions prévues au II :
1 Soit de ne pas avoir mis en place un moyen de sécurisation de cet accÃs ;
2 Soit d'avoir manqué de diligence dans la mise en Å"uvre de ce moyen. "

EMphasis mine.


In other word, it is not about file sharer, but rather people putting an open access not securized. Now instead of disconnecting them after a 3rd warning, they don't disconnect them but put fines. Which makes sense, but is not about file sharer


Agaiin maybe I am misreading and somebody can check :
The decret :
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000027678782

The original decret
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do;jsessionid=40CAF13F7CA80F3ECF351133E3DD58CF.tpdjo17v_2?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006069414&idArticle=LEGIARTI000022393991&dateTexte=29990101&categorieLien=cid

Re:I think slashdot submitter misunderstood the ar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44234823)

Nope. It says "[...] regarding information transfer, detailed in L. 331-21 of the Code of Intellectual Property"

When you're caught sharing information/a file that contains intellectual property, you're breaking the law. However, since it's hard to prove the identity of the file sharer with only an IP address, it is up to you to correctly setup and secure your home network, so your neighbor can't share his files thru your network, making YOU responsible before the law.

If you want to share your network with your neighbors or friends, and having no WiFi password or encryption, you're free to do so, and the law has nothing against it, this three-strike law only applies when someone's using torrent or p2p to download copyrighted material.

Thanks for the clarification (1)

aepervius (535155) | about a year ago | (#44235115)

I also learned that all decret are available on that web site ;). Nice to know for the future.

Re:I think slashdot submitter misunderstood the ar (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year ago | (#44235015)

I see French law is already completely in control of the copyright maffia.

Dear Soulskill (2)

oldhack (1037484) | about a year ago | (#44233735)

Can you write in English?

Re:Dear Soulskill (2)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year ago | (#44233845)

Hey this is /. where we are pioneers not just in technology but also in spelling and grammar.

Re:Dear Soulskill (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44234325)

Obviously not.

Re:Dear Soulskill (1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | about a year ago | (#44234859)

I don't know if he can write in English, but what is for sure, is that he can't read French. The decree only removes disconnection from people that didn't secure their lines, as per http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do;jsessionid=FCB2F144F0CB66EDF871AB7AD7F8932D.tpdjo14v_1?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006069414&idArticle=LEGIARTI000022393991&dateTexte=29990101&categorieLien=cid [legifrance.gouv.fr] though file-sharers still can be sentenced to be disconnected.

Re:Dear Soulskill (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44242441)

Give Soulskill a break, he wasn't an English major, he's a technologist. Complaints about slashbugs are valid, complaints about editing here aren't. Just like complaints about MSMs retarded "understanding" of science is forgivable, but their gramattical stupidities are not. The people at the newspaper should have English and Journalism degrees and should know that "go too the store" is stupid, but I still see it way too often..

France, RIAA, what a minefield (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44233741)

In order to get a post not modded down on this thread, your post will have to be PC on several levels.

I'm Canadian (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#44233841)

Fuck you RIAA and fuck you France, eh?

If you define Pirated Material as Stolen Material (4, Insightful)

JabrTheHut (640719) | about a year ago | (#44233827)

Then expect Disney's web site to be targeted, for a start. Actually, all the major movie studios' unoriginal and uninspiring copies of each other should make them targets of this law.

Re:If you define Pirated Material as Stolen Materi (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year ago | (#44233867)

I know you're just having fun, but (a) plagiarism of storyline has been a fundamental part of storytelling since prehistory, and (b) even if there were laws against being unoriginal, all of the source material is long out of copyright!

Tell that to the Harry Potter fanfics (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44235065)

Or the Marx Brothers' when they did A Night In Cassablanka. Or Lindows.

etc.

Re:Tell that to the Harry Potter fanfics (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#44237191)

Fanfics? What about the canonical storyline? It would implode into a black hole.

Re:If you define Pirated Material as Stolen Materi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236065)

all of the source material is long out of copyright!

Thus the hypocrisy...Disney "borrowed" from the public domain pretty much every single storyline they've ever used, and yet they lobby congress to extend copyrights to prevent anyone "borrowing" theirs. Don't worry, I'm sure the concept of copyrights and patents expiring into the public domain will be long forgotten before too long.

Re:If you define Pirated Material as Stolen Materi (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year ago | (#44239499)

Copyright doesn't protect the storyline, only the details of the actual product. Take the recent film Oz, for example—they were unable to get the rights to the 1939 film from MGM, so despite the fact that the movie was probably prompted by the success of Wicked, there are no explicit references to it and some witches' names had to be changed; the only references to the 1939 film are homages like the use of black and white to denote the real world. The rest comes from the original books.

Similarly, if you've ever actually compared the Grimm versions of the fairy tales to the Disney ones, you'll find they generally feature significant plot and character differences. The Disney myths are legitimately new tellings, derived in the traditional manner from multiple sources and with additional innovations. Notice that there have been several versions of Robin Hood since Disney's.

Disney's mission to extend its copyright isn't about the stories, it's about guarding the look-and-feel of their products, and most importantly, Steamboat Willie, the first appearance of Mickey Mouse. What Disney really seeks to control by extending copyright is the distribution of merchandise with their characters' images on it, which is a huge cash cow for them. The design of Mickey, like Disney's other characters, is entirely their invention.

I'm not saying any of that is good or healthy for civilization, by the way, but the whole "Disney borrowed from the public domain yet refuses to give back" line of reasoning is based on inconsistent logic; they borrowed only the plot, not the whole product.

Re:If you define Pirated Material as Stolen Materi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44235597)

No. But expect YouTube and DailyMotion to come under attack. YouTube especially makes billions of dollars off of pirated material.
If you and I had their kind of video collection, the Feds would be breaking down our doors in a heartbeat. Ah, the luxury of being
super rich, sigh.

"commercial piracy" (2, Interesting)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44233923)

Um, all piracy is commercial, and almost always involves some kind of lethal weaponry. If no money changes hands and/or the transaction is consensual, then it ain't piracy. Copyright is piracy. It takes money, heavy weaponry, and coercion to make it work.

Re:"commercial piracy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44233989)

What have you ever published, that you think you deserve to deny professional writers and musicians a chance to make a decent living? Don't tell me about sysadmin perl scripts.

Re:"commercial piracy" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44234049)

What if being a professional writer or a musician has simply been overtaken by technology, i.e. how is a professional writer or a musician any different from any other profession which is made obsolete by technology? You can still write or compose music while being paid for other work (plenty of people do it), perhaps the era of writers and musicians drawing their full-time income from their works has now ended?

Re:"commercial piracy" (1)

Macgrrl (762836) | about a year ago | (#44234789)

What I'd like to see - but don't think it likely - is that 'superstar' salaries in sports and entertainment come down to something a bit more reasonable making some of these properties less expensive to make, and may encourage publishers to take on new artists from time to time. It could potentially also have the effect of making it cheaper to consume these entertainment products, meaning people are more likely to consume them via legitimate means - assuming simple methods of sourcing and using said media.

While I'm spinning candyfloss unicorns, how about CEO and Board salaries coming down to something which is no more than 10 times that of the lowest paid worker at their organisation like is done in some Scandinavian countries.[1]

[1] No I don't have a citation for this, I remember hearing about it are some point in the past 20 years *waves hands vaguely in 'that' direction* but couldn't find a relevant link after a quick google search.

Re:"commercial piracy" (1)

Cenan (1892902) | about a year ago | (#44235719)

As an inhabitant of one of those countries in that direction, I can tell you that there is no hard limit on the salaries of CEOs, but even so they tend to significantly lower than their counterparts in other countries. I'm not quite sure of the reason for this, other than we have very strong unions here, that are not mafia fronts - and a general consensus that a company's profit isn't all made on the top floor. But it's all guesswork, and I'm sure someone can ferret out an example that will put all my reasoning to shame, but meh.

No Google link either, since I'm nobody search bitch, do your own digging :)

Re:"commercial piracy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44243237)

What I'd like to see - but don't think it likely - is that 'superstar' salaries in sports and entertainment come down to something a bit more reasonable making some of these properties less expensive to make, and may encourage publishers to take on new artists from time to time.

Why do we need publishers? Musicians can have their CDs professionally recorded and made, including cover art and jewel cases, for about two bucks each in lots of 1000. That's cheaper than their instruments. Writers can have their books printed professionally and earn more per copy than with a publisher. We have the internet for publicity. I see a future without publishers.

Re:"commercial piracy" (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44234145)

The smoke that left your chimney, the light that shone out your window is no longer yours.

Re:"commercial piracy" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44234471)

What have you ever published, that you think you deserve to deny professional writers and musicians a chance to make a decent living?

Deliberately or just through ignorance, you confuse copyright and droit d’auteur. Copyright was created by publishers, and mostly used by them.

But don't let being wrong cause you to reassess your world view.

Re:"commercial piracy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44234877)

The ability (either physical or legal) to copy data does nothing to make writers or composers obsolete. The work of writers and composers is not to copy data. They aren't even involved in the copying of the data. It makes no philosophical or economic sense to pay them for something not done by them and not involving them.

They should be paid for the work they in fact do, which is to say, inventing/discovering new data (and not, I repeat, copying existing data). This is something that has not yet been made ridiculously easy by technology (the way copying data has), and thus still has substantial exchange value. People who have money to spare and want new data (and there are still many of these) will eventually arrange ways by which their money is paid to those who invent/discover new data for the work to be done. This would probably take the form of contracts, i.e. a group of people who collectively want certain kinds of new data collectively arrange a contract for a skilled artist to invent/discover new data of that kind (to an extent this is already happening [kickstarter.com] ). In fact, with less of the money being siphoned off into the pockets of CEOs and lawyers in the form of economic rent, this system of exchange would actually be more efficient, with consumers paying less money, more new data being invented/discovered, and more money going to the community of working artists. It would also give artists an assurance that they are being paid for their work, because the terms of the contract would be in place before the artists contributed their labor; and in the absence of copyright law, they would also face no fear of being drawn into a lawsuit after accidentally inventing/discovering data someone else already invented/discovered (which, in a sane world, is not something wrong or punishable).

The system of contracts and free information makes philosophical and economic sense; it is a sane system. The system of private rent capture, lawsuits, price fixing, waste, copyright trolling, and constant fear is an insane system. Like any other abuse of economics, it represents an overall cost to society and benefits only the abusers.

Re:"commercial piracy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44235121)

What have you ever published, that you think you deserve to deny professional writers and musicians a chance to make a decent living? Don't tell me about sysadmin perl scripts.

The majority of composers and artists have no interest in earning money. There are vast collections of free music and art on the internet from people who create music for fun rather than profit.
I don't think it is right to write the laws to help the loud few who wants to be able to make a decent living on music alone. That would not be fair to those who create it for free.
Music is not a limited resource.

Re:"commercial piracy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236205)

The majority of composers and artists have no interest in earning money.

Maybe you should talk to some of them? They need to eat, pay the rent, raise a family, sock away money for their kids' college.

IT administrators and web developers, OTOH, have no interest in making money. They'll gladly take unpaid internships so they can work 24x7 doing what they love.

Re:"commercial piracy" (1)

Cenan (1892902) | about a year ago | (#44235695)

Who ever promised writers that they absolutely must be able to make a living producing drivel for the masses? I think it would be a lot more productive for all of us, if rapper #400 went out and got a real job, and produced "music" on the side, maybe we could also have some cultural influences that does not revolve around how many chains you wear, but are actual commentary on society.

When just one of those idiots who deem themselves writer's these days, produce something of genuinely novel character, I'd be happy to shell out for it, but the sad fact is that most of what is produced is reiterations of centuries old plots. Produce stuff of value, then maybe we can talk about protecting your rights.

Also of note is pricing, why the hell does so much of an AAA title's budget get allotted to marketing? If their works are of such profound nature, maybe they'd be able to sell themselves. Why do we need yet another movie about alien invasions, or zombie apocalypses costing millions to make and more millions to market? If we cut all the marketing and handed the savings down to the consumer, in the form of cheaper tickets, maybe movie theaters wouldn't be in such dire straits. And just maybe we don't need yet another kids animation movie produced in head ache inducing 3D along with regular 2D, maybe if you're producing novel content, one copy is enough, yes?

Re:"commercial piracy" (1)

pantaril (1624521) | about a year ago | (#44236139)

What have you ever published, that you think you deserve to deny professional writers and musicians a chance to make a decent living? Don't tell me about sysadmin perl scripts.

I'm not denying creators anything, they are free to charge whatever price they like for their product. It's their fault (and bad legislation fault) that they charge much less for their products then they are worth and try to make up for it by restricting others to make copies of their work.

So you have it backwards. Pirates aren't restricting anyone. It's copyright and its proponents who are greatly restricting usefullness of modern communication technologies and create artifical barriers to accessing important information and culture.

Always remember that without copyright, almost all knowledge and culture could be available to anyone on the planet with connection to the internet.

(note that i'm not against some kind of government support for creators of IP property but such support must not interfere with the freedom to distribute (copies of) IP).

Re:"commercial piracy" (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#44236793)

> What have you ever published, that you think you deserve to deny professional writers and musicians a chance to make a decent living? Don't tell me about sysadmin perl scripts.

No one else has the right to make a living in a particular manner.

Certainly no one else gets to sponge off of work they did 20 years ago.

Welcome to the reality the rest of us get to face.

Re:"commercial piracy" (1)

artor3 (1344997) | about a year ago | (#44234089)

By that logic, all laws are "piracy", since they take money and weapons to enforce. When it comes down to it, it's impossible to have any laws if you don't ultimately have the threat of force to back them up. And if you have no laws, the strongest people will conquer the weak, set up kingdoms and empires, and make laws, just like they did in the beginning.

Re:"commercial piracy" (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44234161)

The strongest do conquer the weak and continue to set up kingdoms and empires. They write the laws. What is your point?

Re:"commercial piracy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44234229)

Libertarians are dumb.

Re:"commercial piracy" (1)

cffrost (885375) | about a year ago | (#44235745)

Authoritarians are scum.

Re:"commercial piracy" (2)

Your.Master (1088569) | about a year ago | (#44238019)

False dichotomists are bums.

Re:"commercial piracy" (1)

cffrost (885375) | about a year ago | (#44246821)

False dichotomists are bums.

The dichotomy is not necessarily false: Example. [wikipedia.org]

Re:"commercial piracy" (1)

artor3 (1344997) | about a year ago | (#44234239)

That in modern society, it's done by voting, and while the current system may not be ideal, it beats the hell out of rampaging armies raping and enslaving and murdering everyone in their way.

Re:"commercial piracy" (1)

Lodlaiden (2767969) | about a year ago | (#44234273)

...it beats the hell out of rampaging armies raping and enslaving and murdering everyone in their way.

Where do you think the term "French Benefits" came from.

Re:"commercial piracy" (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44234383)

We don't need "rampaging armies raping and enslaving and murdering everyone in their way". We have the CIA (Al Qaeda) and KGB (or whatever they call themselves now) for that, and it's outsourced to the locals. Your 'modern society' is a crumbling facade. When the rulemakers refuse to live by the rules, then all bets are off.

Re:"commercial piracy" (1)

artor3 (1344997) | about a year ago | (#44234631)

Blah, blah, blah. Keep stamping your little feet. Humanity is far, far, far better off now than we were a thousand years ago, and we're not gonna let your kind drag us backwards. If you try, we'll just lock you away in a little concrete box and forget about you. Progress marches on!

Re:"commercial piracy" (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44234705)

Humanity is far, far, far better off now than we were a thousand years ago...

Yes, I'm sure that your little part is much better than before. Nobody's trying to 'drag you backwards'. We're only going to keep trying to eliminate your privileged status, and despite your best efforts to obstruct us we are going to 'drag ourselves forwards', break out of your concrete boxes, and toss aside your emperor. Progress marches on, and will leave you behind.

Re:"commercial piracy" (1)

Darfeld (1147131) | about a year ago | (#44234749)

Gaps! a law against being none original would be the end of story making. Have you read tvtropes lately? (or at all?) It's virtually impossible to make a story without using a trope already used dozen of times (and I'm being optimistic). It would be even worst than software patent.

Maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44233957)

Maybe they noticed than in the modern world keeping them away from Internet is as easy as keeping them away from air and its absence just as ... problematic for honest every day life

Locale (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44234297)

The only place to find €60 or C20 is Slashdot.

"those suspected of copyright could be fined" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44234519)

"those suspected of copyright could be fined"

Suspected could be fined?

  I guess it's time to overthrow this government and hang them.

Re:"those suspected of copyright could be fined" (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a year ago | (#44234961)

"those suspected of copyright could be fined"

Suspected could be fined?

  I guess it's time to overthrow this government and hang them.

Those suspected of sedition will be fined.

What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44234821)

95% of all music, and movies that people might want to download are copyrighted by Americans. What is France's interest in protecting those filthy rich morons?

Re:What's the point? (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about a year ago | (#44246661)

95% of all music, and movies that people might want to download are copyrighted by Americans. What is France's interest in protecting those filthy rich morons?

France signed Berne convention, it therefore has to enforce copyright. In return, it gets the same protection for stuff created by french.

suspected of copyright (2)

devent (1627873) | about a year ago | (#44235449)

The report says that instead of simply throwing people in jail those suspected of stealing could be fined if they did not reply to warnings, with a relatively low fine (€60) to begin, and the size of the fine would increase depending on the number of infractions. (change mine)

Ah brave new world. And some people are asking me why I have such strong opinion on copyright. Because to serve a few special interests we throw every common sense out the window, we criminalize whole demographics for a crime that have no impact on anything. We reward monopolies, stifle our culture and create legal frameworks that would be just brain-dead for any real property.

The new government agency is headed by a board of nine members, three appointed by the government, two by the legislative bodies, three by judicial bodies and one by the Conseil supérieur de la propriété littéraire et artistique (Superior Council of Artistic and Literary Property), a government council responsible to the French Ministry of Culture.[15] The agency is vested with the power to police Internet users.

So you have some people, 6 from the current legislative, 3 from the judicial to "police Internet users". You know, normally the power to "police" is given to the executive, the judicial are the courts and assume innocent before proven guilty and the legislative forging out the laws. This is usually called "Separation of powers".

To ensure that internet subscribers "screen their internet connections in order to prevent the exchange of copyrighted material without prior agreement from the copyright holders"

Ah ok. So I am suppose to know in advance that the web site have the copyrights to present me the content? How am I suppose to do that? How am I suppose to know if the work is already in public domains, is licensed under a free license like the Creative Commons http://creativecommons.org/who-uses-cc [creativecommons.org] which about over 100,000,000 works are using the CC license or the site have some contract with the publisher?

(1) An email message is sent to the offending internet access subscriber, derived from the IP address involved in the claim. The email specifies the time of the claim but neither the object of the claim nor the identity of the claimant.

What email address are they using? My gmail address? My company address? My hotmail or yahoo address? There is no law that requires me to register an email address with the government.

I could go on. You can read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HADOPI_law [wikipedia.org]
This bill stinks. It is a shame for a democratic country. It is a shame for Europe.

The french.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44235561)

..are so incredibly reasonable (it is a new new and tentative situation but a vast improvement when compared to the crap going on in the US for example..)

Fractured thoughts (1)

Porchroof (726270) | about a year ago | (#44235879)

"...those suspected of copyright could be fined..."

Is the idiot who wrote this suggesting that if I copyright something I could be fined?

what?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44237485)

"[...] French anti-piracy will now their focus [...]"

This sentence doesn't make sense...

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?