Slashdot Mirror


Decriminalizing File Swapping

IAmTheDave writes "Wired reports that judicial activism is taking hold in France, much to the dismay of the recording industry, as judges are beginning to suspend the sentences of convicted file swappers. Further, they believe they are starting a revolution against the draconian laws at the base of the industry's legal agenda, and that sometimes laws need to be changed. Says Judge Dominique Barella of the laws against file swapping in today's society: 'It is similar to the sociological consequences of the Prohibition period in the U.S. (during the 1920s). Certain laws can have unexpected consequences on society.'"

4 of 665 comments (clear)

  1. prohibition by Greg+Wright · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here is a blurb from a article on the failure of prohibition by the Assistant Professor of Economics at Auburn University, Mark Thornton. If you read it, just substitue 'file swapping' for 'alcohol' and it seems to ring very true.

    "National prohibition of alcohol (1920-33)--the "noble experiment" -- was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. The results of that experiment clearly indicate that it was a miserable failure on all counts. The evidence affirms sound economic theory, which predicts that prohibition of mutually beneficial exchanges is doomed to failure

    The lessons of Prohibition remain important today. They apply not only to the debate over the war on drugs but also to the mounting efforts to drastically reduce access to alcohol and tobacco and to such issues as censorship and bans on insider trading, abortion, and gambling.

    Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition. Those results are documented from a variety of sources, most of which, ironically, are the work of supporters of Prohibition--most economists and social scientists supported it. Their findings make the case against Prohibition that
    much stronger."

    My favorite quote from prohibition was this on by Reverent Billy Sunday:

    "The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile and children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent."

    Seems like the same kind of quote a RIAA is telling artist when they talk about their fight against file swapping.

    Well, I know that I am drawing at least a couple unfounded correlations between the two, but its fun to do. Also, I should point out that I am not for or against either position. Both positions have their own problems.

    --
    --greg Vulcan quiescent... Q: What machine shutdown with this message?
  2. France has a different legal system by redelm · · Score: 5, Interesting
    France uses "code civile" which is very different from English Common law. Judges have a different role, and in particular are much less bound by precedent than under common law. Judicial activism is a built-in feature. Not a bug.

  3. Re:viva la france by MCZapf · · Score: 5, Interesting
    In my opinion as a French Magistrate (just kidding), once a movie has been on broadcast television, it's OK to download it for "personal use". I have two reasons for this:
    1. You theoretically could have recorded it (existing fair use).
    2. By the time a movie is on television, movie studios have generally extracted a majority of their profits from it. The purpose of copyright (to encourage the creators by allowing them control/compensation for a limited time) has therefore been fulfilled.
    I'd like to see copyright reduced to ten years, for motion pictures, at least.
  4. Someone must stand up and defend France! by Simonetta · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So, France doesn't produce much music the world wants to listen to, or many movies they want to watch.

    The best way to understand the relationship between Anglo and French cultures is to think of them as parallel universes. There is a lot of great stuff that happens in both that doesn't 'cross the bridge' between them.

    French movies tend to be 'small' and not huge CGI blockbusters, but they tend to be the best of all the 'small' movies of the world. During the movie theater era before the VCR revolution of the mid-1980s, French films were widely shown in every major US cities. French directors like Truffaut and Rohmer were known throughout the world.

    French music is not only the pop songs of the radio, but also most of Europe outside of the UK. Paris is also the ground zero for the world music movement. Much of the music of Africa is recorded there and many of the best African musicians are based there. Paris is also the center of the European orchestral music movement, both modern and classical. Classical music is rare and modern orchestral music unknown on US radio.

    Back to the topic. I believe that the final effect of all the DRM and legal action against the consumers of corporate entertainment product will be the marked decrease in the demand for this product.

    This might be beginning to happen with Hollywood movies. The box office revenue growth seen in the past eight years seems to have stopped. This has nothing to do with movie file sharing, because that activity is very small compared to the size of the industry itself. It's more due to high prices at the theaters and unexciting movies.

    What we will see, hopefully, is a lot of smaller movies on DVD that rent for 1/2 or 1/3 of the cost of the latest blockbuster. It would seem to management that 20 $1 rentals is a lot worse than 4 $5 rentals, but that isn't so because the consumption of entertainment product creates its own demand for this product. It's a different type of product from, say, food. The more entertainment that you consume, the more that you want and the more money that you will pay for it.