Legal Victory for P2P in France

nietsch writes "The Register is reporting that a french Kazaa user that had been sued by the SCPP (the french equivalent of the RIAA) has been acquitted by the courts in his county. 'The Judges decided that these acts of downloading and uploading qualified as private copying' Ars Technica has more coverage on the subject, or you can read it in english from the organization that lead the defense."

Comments

who knew?

[ajdowntown]

Who knew france would be the country to stick up for digital copy rights?

Re:who knew?

[Haeleth]

Who knew france would be the country to stick up for digital copy rights?

We're talking about FRANCE here. Of course they chose to surrender to the pirates instead of fighting the good fight with Uncle Sam and the {RI,MP}AA.

Re:who knew?

[KaushalParekh]

refresh your history.. France has always been the country to stick up for rights.

Re:who knew?

[Anonymous Coward]

Must explain the WWII stuff and all.

Like why France was the first country to declare war on the Nazis in Sept '39 while the US just sat on their hands?

Re:who knew?

[Spy der Mann]

Who knew france would be the country to stick up for digital copy rights?

Well, they opposed Bush in his "omg teh terroristz lets bomb iraq!" madness.

Re:who knew?

[HawkingMattress]

LOL you'd think it would make more sense to surrender to multinational companies and Uncle Sam than to a bunch of "pirates" with no legal standing... I call that fighting for keeping a sane society, instead of surrending to the power of majors like the US and others do...
And it makes for a saner society because otherwise you'd have to put 50% of the population (we do have real broadband here so the phenomenom is quite widespread) into jail because they're using a technology that happens to be here, and has no legal equivalent (no, ITMS is not equivalent to itunes until it allows to find as much content. Right now there is 1% of what you can find on emule...maybe). Besides, nobody was ever put in jail for copying records, or cds. Why should it happen for mp3s or divx, only because some smart guys found a way for peers to get together easily ?

Re:who knew?

[Anonymous Coward]

You did so much better in securing the liberties of Vietnam .. oh that's right , you got your Ass kicked , you didn't surrender you ran away .
George Washington also surrendered to the French once .

Re:who knew?

[Brushfireb]

France has always been notoriously pro-consumer. So much so that it drives businesses away. In droves.

They are so pro-consumer, who would ever consider even starting a business there?

Yay socialism.

(I feel moderator rage building...It's OK. Ive got karma to burn.)

Re:who knew?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Must explain the WWII stuff and all.

It's funny how people always mention WW2 and the french Vichy Government, while completely ignoring the whole history of social and democratic progress.

The Vichy government was a mistake and a shame. But that doesn't erase the fact that Americans owe France their freedom, most of their constitution, and a pretty statue. Looking at thing from a different angle, America's image as bringers of freedom, fighters against tyranny, and lighthouse of the world for democracy was right at the end of WW2. Since then, it's been going downhill quite frankly. Yet nobody seems to blindly ignore America's more glorious past. So give France a rest, read up some of its history, and understand that every country can sometime slip.

Re:who knew?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only those who went to war against the Nazis while they were strong should comment here.

Kill stealers who waited for the Russians to do the hard work before daring to backstab a broken foe deserve no respect.

Re:who knew?

[FidelCatsro]

The French did not Surrender , the French government did .
France had some of the best organised Resistance movements in the War .the D-Day landings would likely have been a lot harder had it not been for the French Resistance .

French Aristocracy and rulers have a habit of Bending over , The French People have a habit of Kicking them up the arse when they do .

Re:who knew?

[RingDev]

Uhh, you got that backwards. They are NOT sticking up for copy rights.

-Rick

Re:who knew?

[Anonymous Coward]

ITMS is not equivalent to itunes until it allows to find as much content. Right now there is 1% of what you can find on emule

iTMS has over 2 million songs. You're saying that eMule has 200,000,000 unique tracks?

Thanks for giving me a reason to discount every single thing you said.

Re:who knew?

[masklinn]

Big deal, how many times did Napoleon try to conquer Russia?

Once, winter won after Napoleon burned most of Moscow to the ground.

Re:who knew?

[Anonymous Coward]

We did a similar blunder in Sweden actually. In the beginning of the war the normal government was replaced by a ministry composed by members from all parties. They could (of course) not agree on anything of importance which lead to Sweden sitting on it's ass through out the war. We are still embarrassed.

Point is, small decisions can have unexpected, far reaching consequences in complex situations like a world war, and its not necessarily fair to judge based on such decisions.

Re:who knew?

[kadathseeker]

Bah, France along with Germany and Russia opposed the war because it would interrupt their nice oil deals with Iraq.

Re:who knew?

[Anonymous Coward]

You might as well get over it, we give the French a hard time because they're French, not because of some valuable insight. It's fun to have some blind ignorant stereotypical humor every once and a while. If WWII hadn't happened we'd simply joke on them about not wearing deodorant or the way they talk.

I doubt most of the people that make these types of jokes actually dislike the French, more likely they have no real opinion. I'm certain that most of us judge others on a person by person basis. If not, no amount of history lessons will solve prejudice.

If you want to know what annoys me it's when people take jokes seriously and when they think some random person speaks for the rest of the country.

So in other words, loosen up Frenchie!

Re:who knew?

[weierstrass]

>The vietnam war was a battle between N and S.

hahahahahaha.

you must be american. is that what they teach you in primary school nowadays?

Re:who knew?

[HawkingMattress]

If WWII hadn't happened we'd simply joke on them about not wearing deodorant or the way they talk.

Dude we do wear deodorant, and lots of it. It's the single micacle that allows us to wash only once year, for valentine's day !

Re:who knew?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who knew france would be the country to stick up for digital copy rights?

More like everyone knows how socalist France is and knew they would opt for taking from business and giving to the people for free.

Re:who knew?

[kfg]

America's image as bringers of freedom, fighters against tyranny, and lighthouse of the world for democracy was right at the end of WW2.

Just so long as you did not live in the country whose freedom the world actually went to war to defend in the first place:

Poland.

America as the "Bringer of Freedom" who stood up to tyranny and kicked its ass in WWII is the biggest fucking con job in history. The older I get, the smarter Patton looks.

KFG

Re:who knew?

[Rei]

Yeah, because good relations with Iraq was much more important than good relations with the US, which they traded with twenty times as much, and who would (explicitly admitted) have granted them reconstruction deals had they taken part in the invasion. What great logic there. Sure, it had absolutely nothing to do with three in four French citizens opposing the war. Heaven forbid a democracy listen to its population!

Re:who knew?

[skam240]

Of course plenty of people do start successfull businesses there. The first to come to mind is Ubisoft, which is a very successfull French game publisher that was founded relatively recently. http:www.ubi.com/

Re:who knew?

[Anonymous Coward]

"and understand that every country can sometime slip."

We're talking about France and not say McCarthy in America, right? Maybe there are more recent examples of slippage all around ;).

Re:who knew?

[mOdQuArK!]

Bah, France along with Germany and Russia opposed the war because it would interrupt their nice oil deals with Iraq.

The _companies_ of those countries might've opposed the war because of that.

The _citizens_ of those countries opposed it because they thought, like most of the world, that the Bush Administration was lying through their *ssholes about the necessity for going into Iraq.

Unfortunately, half of the U.S. public seems to be in a state of willful denial, otherwise he & his cronies would have been impeached and thrown into prison by now.

Re:who knew?

[sirnuke]

Shoot, are we all going to have to leave Canada for France?

Re:who knew?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a slight difference between supplying moral support and helping provide those who provide guns to the people who are actually fighting... and storming the beach head.

Where did you see that the French didn't fight along the Americans? You should read a bit more about it and about the people involved

The French support we enjoyed during the revolution was critical. It was not, however, in any way comparable to the support they enjoyed during WW2.

What support are you talking about? The US started supporting the French only because they were forced into the war by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Before that they were just sitting on their collective asses and enjoying the show. Their "support" is purely a by product of them defending themself!

But whatever, there is no blinder man than the one who doesn't want to see.

Re:who knew?

[Cal Paterson]

He said content. You said songs.

ed2k isn't going to have 200 million songs, but it does have far, far, far more than iTunes does. iTunes has only 2 million songs; ed2k will have far more than this. In addition, it also has video, books, games and anything else digital that you can think off.

In terms of unique content, its isn't completely out of the questions that the ammount of content on ed2k outstrips iTunes 100 to 1. p2p networks are growing at an incredible rate, and it will probably happen in the future. You have no way of measuring ed2k. It's immeasurably vast, and songs are only a part of ed2k.

Re:who knew?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh-huh. And the French also don't bathe, the men are all spectacular lovers, the women never shave body hair, to a citizen they hate Americans and... uh... they sacrifice babies, desecrate the Bible and the rooves of their mouths are hairy. All true, I swear! (in front of anyone who's never been more than 100 miles from home.)

Re:who knew?

[slashdotmsiriv]

I agree. Those who don't know much about WWII France checkout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_French_Forces. It is by fat the most consise, accurate and coherent short description of what happened. There are plenty of other good references but this one is shorter.

It is one of the most interesting aspects of the ww2 in Europe and Africa. Check out the role of Charles De Gaulle. And btw if for some reason you have not seen it yet, check out Casablanca the movie.

Re:who knew?

[freedom_india]

Absolutely correct. The French did all that and as a result the French leaders went to jail.
Now, tell me, what is Bush doing outside the kennel?

What is Rumsfeld doing?

So, before you fucking the french, look at our leaders first.
Got it?

You MUST be one of the guys who ask for Freedom Fries from McDonalds i guess.

Re:who knew?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah, France along with Germany and Russia opposed the war because it would interrupt their nice oil deals with Iraq.

Bah, it's not like the US went to war to take control of those nice oil reserves using fake excuses.

Re:who knew?

[Brushfireb]

You consider starting in 1986 recent? Remember, thats 20 years Ago. I call that OLD. B

Re:who knew?

[xarak]

France is going to be the country to revolutionize P2P and digital copyrights in general, and you still sit there and whine about them?

Re:who knew?

[db32]

Uhm before you get too excited about French aid in the American Revolution you should examine the motivating factors. They weren't exactly champions of freedom, they just really didn't like the British, and taking America away from the British would weaken them considerably. It was in their best interest for the revolutionaries to win that fight, but not wanting to get in the mix directly and make life a little more difficult, they just supported us. This is sorta the same way we supported various countries and "freedom fighters" against those evil commies. We wanted to communists weakend, but didn't want to risk a direct conflict, so we just help out the little guy who doesn't have much to lose by fighting.

Re:who knew?

[Brushfireb]

I have travelled throughout all parts of france, lived in paris for brief periods, and have had enough experience with the government and economic policies to stand behind my original position. I said nothing about all of the stuff you mentioned, but I suppose its a fair argument for you to assume I believe things I didnt mention.

I love france, the people, the food, and the culture. Even though both sides dont want to really admit it, French Culture and American culture are very similar and very intertwined.

But that doesnt mean that their economic structure isnt a total fucksicle. It is.

Re:who knew?

[Andrew Aguecheek]

Like why France was the first country to declare war on the Nazis in Sept '39 No, they weren't. They declared at 5pm 3rd September 1939. Britain had already declared at 11am.

Re:who knew?

[Kierthos]

You mean, after Moscow (which wasn't really the capital of Russia at the time; St. Petersburg was) had been stripped of pretty much all supplies by the Russians, and was possibly set on fire by the Russians so as not to provide shelter either? Oh, and let's not forget the asylum inmates that were turned out on the streets by the Russians.

It wasn't just the winter that did Napoleon's "Grand Army" in.

Kierthos

Re:who knew?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Before that they were just sitting on their collective asses and enjoying the show."

America had just come out of a 10-year depression. There was no interest in at that time to enter what was considered a European war. I think we should not judge too harshly here. The treads on this stupid WWII posts remind me of little kids: My dad can beat up your dad stuff

Re:who knew?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to know what annoys me it's when people take jokes seriously and when they think some random person speaks for the rest of the country.

Given what I've seen and heard in the streets, on TV, in the newspapers, some people takes those "jokes" as facts.
I don't think those ideas of boycotting French wine and renamed the French fries into Freedom fries were juste bad taste jokes either.

All those things are taken seriously by some peoples and do affect the life of the French people.

As an example, a French friend of mine has a French flag sticker at the back of his car. While he was stopped at a red light, a moron stopped in the parking lane on his right to shout to him: "Go back to your fucking country".

Myself, I had an altercation with a woman the usage a laundry machine (a stupid thing really). She quickly started to call me "fucking French", not the more common "asshole", "son of a bitch", "fucker" and the like.
Then she called the cops (yes, just for a dispute over laundry machine!!). At some point, the cop said something about bothering them for such a childish thing. When he said that, he was not looking at her, who called them, but at me.

So in other words, loosen up Frenchie!

So in other words, your jokes are not funny anymore and have more implication than just "being funny".

Re:who knew?

[NeutronCowboy]

While that was the logic of the french crown at the time, there was also considerable ideological support by a large swath of the french intelligentsia and general population. Some even went over to participate in the battles themselves. Google for Lafayette and Tocqueville for some more info.

Re:who knew?

[Andrew Aguecheek]

You didn't say "recent." You said "always."

Re:who knew?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, if only more places stood up for one's right to download massive amounts of stuff for free, without the owner's permission, and without playing for it!

We need more places that support our immoral actions and greed! Stuff like this really helps with our rationalizing things off and removing any guilt we may have for our wrongful actions....

Re:who knew?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

It's inside-out day! Flamebait comments get modded as Insightful, and Insightful comments get modded as Flamebait!

Re:who knew?

[Brushfireb]

Actually, I was referencing the word "recently" in the phrase written in post, and I quote "The first to come to mind is Ubisoft, which is a very successfull French game publisher that was founded relatively recently."

Again, you would consider 20 years ago being founded recently?

Re:who knew?

[db32]

Certainly. It isn't terribly difficult to believe that the populace thinks and acts differently than their leaders. Look at the current state of affairs with any number of issues right now. I think it is a little funny how everyone condemns Americans as all being the same, and then screams bloody murder when Americans do the same to them. I view a great deal of it like religion. The People, like God, are good on the whole, but both have some pretty crappy representitives. I'm not pro or anti France, I just dislike seeing both sides of the "Country X is always good/evil", it is always so one sided and rarely accepts the fact that their favorite country has done both good and evil things, and are rarely motivated by simply wanting to do good or evil.

Re:who knew?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we should not judge too harshly here.

I'm not trying to judge the Americans. They did what they did. The French did what they did. Nobody, neither nation nor people is blameless.
But I do think they should stop pretending that they are saints always selflessly helping the people in needs while the French are just a bunch selfish cowards.

Re:who knew?

[Anonymous Coward]

hahahahahaha.

you must be american. is that what they teach you in primary school nowadays?

Ok, let me clarify... The Vietnam War was N.V. supported VC (Commies) vs. US supported S. Vietnam (non-Commies). Better?

Perhaps my statement was a little over-generalized, but my point remains the same. France tried to maintain colonial rule, failed, and other problems ensued.

Kinda like how Britain failed at maintaining colonial rule over us Americans... How do they teach that in your primary schools?

Re:who knew?

[Lauwenmark]

[i]The French support we enjoyed during the revolution was critical. It was not, however, in any way comparable to the support they enjoyed during WW2.[/i] Well, did you ever wondered where the Insurgents got most of their military equipment from ? Who provided the maritime support required ? Who provided the basical military instruction needed that lacked to the army of Washington ? That's much more than the "moral support" you were talking about. Actually, most of the guns used by the Insurgents were provided by the French (One of the most active being the famous writer Beaumarchais). In both wars, the support was actually comparable, and had the same critical impact on the result. The only difference is its absolute scale - but let's not forget that the US Independence War was lead nearly two centuries before WW2, and on a much more limited area, hence the difference in raw numbers.

Re:who knew?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, in france they get 20-70 cents a track for mp3's so how come in the states they get 5 to 10 GRAND a track?

Re:who knew?

[dotgain]

Thanks for giving me a reason to discount every single thing you said.

Says the AC...

Re:who knew?

[kwandar]

Actually, while not a precedent I can certainly see Canadian Courts looking at this decision, and not only because the decision is in French, one of our official languages. The fact that they considered copying the files into a shared folder as private copying has repercussions as the Canadian Copyright Act has provisions for private copying. In the only case where this was looked at, a Federal Court Judge found that the act of sharing was not "distribution" which is specifically not allowed under the private copying sections of the Act. While the Federal Court of Appeal overturned portions ofthis ruling, they did not address the issue. So this may have a very nice Canadian outcome - particularly if we fight against the changes that were proposed in Bill C-60 under the previous government, to amend the Copyright Act.

Re:who knew?

[ejp1082]

The sad part about your post is the assumption (and I'm not sure I disagree with it) that being pro-consumer and pro-business are mutually exclusive properties for a society.

I guess in my fantasyland, businesses would all be pro-consumer and function comfortably in a environment where pro-consumer laws were the norm, rather than seeking out the countries where they can get away with the most to the detriment of both consumers and the larger society.

Re:who knew?

[Travelsonic]

Yeah, if only more places stood up for one's right to download massive amounts of stuff for free, without the owner's permission, and...

...you should have stopped there, since that is it... "not paying for it" is just an excuse to lash out at all music downloading weith a broad brush, when really it is whether you have permission (gained through payment some, or often times) or not that matters.

Re:who knew?

[Brushfireb]

I think this is a very valid point. I dont really think they should be or are completely mutually exclusive, at least not in theory. Ideally, as you more eloquently pointed out, a business should by its nature be pro-consumer -- consumers are their customers (either directly or indirectly). In that sense, at least, I dont think they are mutually exclusive properties for a society. Until you include the government bureacracy.

The real problem with many European countries pro-consumer stance is not that it is necessarily anti-business, but rather just that it drastically increases the paperwork and regulation in the society. My original post was incomplete -- more to my point was that most european countries are seeing a true economic decline in profitable, growing small entrepreneurial companies. Companies that grow from 2 employess, to 25, to 2000 within the span of a decade.

These types of companies have real difficulty starting and operating in very pro-consumer environments -- not becuase they are anti-consumer, but becuase they cant handle the paperwork and cant afford the legal team to get them inline with the regulation. Large existing companies have no trouble with paperwork.

The US has had this problem as well in the last 20 years. The real key to getting us to your (And my) "fantasyland" is to figure out a way for the environment to be pro-consumer, without passing all of the burden onto the small businesses. This burden is too much to bear along with creating a new venture. In the US, places like the SBDC (small bus development centers) are a good first step, but we need to go WAY beyond this. This involves automation, linked databases, simplified paperwork, efficient government offices with satelite office accesses, 24/7 access/help lines and more.

A pro-consumer environment does better society, provided it doesnt bankrupt it first.

Re:who knew?

[TheDugong]

Of course lets forget that the US funded and trained Ho Chi Minh & Co during WWII and made it as difficult as possible for the French to reclaim their colony so that Uncle Sam could colo^H^H^H^H gain greater political influence in the area.

"Because of their loss, the country was later divided in 2, North and South."

Due to whom?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMZ_(Vietnam)#Establi shing_the_DMZ

I'm English/Aussie therefore my natural enemy is the French ;o), so I am not taking sides. There really is no moral high ground here, it's just the usual thing of fat rich people f$%king over normal people.

Re:who knew?

[joecr]

Well, they opposed Bush in his "omg teh terroristz lets bomb iraq!" madness.

Did you forget that France also sold lots of military hardware to Iraq. Why attack you customer, unless you are Sony of course?

On that note I remember a joke that went around for the short period of time when they supported the war. It was something about being able to tell if a "Mirage" was a friend or a foe.

I know France wasn't the only country selling arms to Iraq in spite of the embargo placed by the UN, but Russia & China have been less of an ally in the past then France was, so they didn't piss me off as much, I still think they deserved a more harsh punishment, such as death for all involved, for selling weapons to people they were not supposed to sell them to. I personally think that for doing that we should have also attacked them (France, Russia, & China) killing the people who sold weapons to people like Sadam.

If I remember corectly France, Russia, & China were all against that war because it would force them to fight against a customer which would then cost them money. I really wish Sony & all those other DRM zealots would learn this lesson. The customer needs to not be your enemy.

Re:who knew?

[typidemon]

The Soviet Union pretty much collapsed all by itself.

Re:who knew?

[Dark_MadMax666]

Everytime somebody states that "winter won over somebody " in Russia (like over Napoleon or Hitler) I am just wondering why he is considering invading nations as such pansies that one single winter can devastate them . Russians live with it their whole life for christ's sake!

Re:who knew?

[cdrdude]

I, for one, welcome the removal of our old RIAA/SCPP overlords :-)

Re:who knew?

[Kjella]

Everytime somebody states that "winter won over somebody " in Russia (like over Napoleon or Hitler) I am just wondering why he is considering invading nations as such pansies that one single winter can devastate them . Russians live with it their whole life for christ's sake!

Spoken like someone who has never experienced wartime. You don't go down to get local grocery for food, then go back to your house and put on the heater. Keeping an army alive and warm in the field requires a large and constant supply of food, heating, fuel and so on. The invaders get longer and longer supply lines, the invaded get shorter and shorter.

Basic infrastructure that you take for granted, roads, bridges, power plants, trade routes, imports and exports are destroyed or stopped. On the defense, you destroy as you pull back, the nearest good place to stay isn't far and all the supply lines behind it are untouched. On the offense, you probably haven't had a good place to stay since the invasion. You have to rebuild the infrastructure, you have to defend the length of the supply line and it just keeps getting worse.

Trying to invade Russia was in general not a very good idea - even if you replaced Napoleon's army with a russian army. Granted, they'd to a lot better but it'd still be a very hard winter. Much much harder than "spending all their lives" there in peacetime ever was.

Re:who knew?

[MMaestro]

Looking at thing from a different angle, America's image as bringers of freedom, fighters against tyranny, and lighthouse of the world for democracy was right at the end of WW2.

True, but prior to WWII America was never in a position to challenge Britain's naval power, Russia's massive army size, Germany's military effeciency, or France's (at the time) impressive post-Napoleon military record.

Even post-WWI, the U.S. never fully mobilized for war, German was still militarily impressive, British naval power was challenged but ultimately still dominant, Russia 'lost' but was still impressive in army size and France proved that 'it still had what it took' by holding off the Germans. Post/During-WWII,The only reason the U.S. recieved an image of 'bringers of freedom' and what not, is because every other previously major nation was more or less leveled (Britain blockaded/bombed, Japan nuked/occupied, Germany a wasteland/divided, etc).

As for France's past, even if you count out WWII, France's pre-Napoleon military history is not that impressive. The countless wars/skrimishs/border disputes/colonial disputes between France and Britain are legendary, Germany dominated France in the Franco-Prussian War and the French and Indian War between the French Canada and the British American colonies is not just a simply footnote in history either.

Re:who knew?

[Lord Flipper]

"The first to come to mind is Ubisoft, which is a very successfull French game publisher that was founded relatively recently."

Again, you would consider 20 years ago being founded recently?

What are you reading deficient? You notice the word relatively in the sentence you quoted?

And the answer is yeah, compared to, say, the oldest press agency in the World [Agence France Presse - 1835] Ubisoft was founded relatively recently. Get it? ....yet?

Re:who knew?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm supposed to be suprised that France was the first to complain *and not do anything about it*? Seems rather typical.

Re:who knew?

[Anonymous Coward]

So they're both against the war against terror (USA), and the war for terror (RIAA)?

Re:who knew?

[Brushfireb]

I suppose you and I have differing standards on what is "relatively" recently. In your world, I suppose, that makes me reading deficient. I suppose anyone with a different opinion from your own is deficient, correct?

And back to my point original, thats one example. ONE. A single example. Surely you France Economic Policy fanboys can come up with more than that, no?

Again, I LIKE france, french people, culture, food, etc. But their economic policy is beyond absurd. I'm not saying ours (USA's) isnt following down the same path, thats a whole different discussion.

Why dont you try to add something to the discussion instead of nitpick about whether a 20 year old company is "Relatively" new or not. Or do you have no real argument beyond semantics?

Re:who knew?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's good to see that you're judging posts based on content. That's a sure sign of critical thinking.

Not Sure If I Agree

[u16084]

Its a tough call.... By making the files Public how does that translate into Private Use?

Re:Not Sure If I Agree

[kiracatgirl]

It means private as in non-commercial, not as in kept hidden from the rest of the world.

Re:Not Sure If I Agree

[Yvanhoe]

This is old news.
The act of downloading is considered fair game but the act of uploading without the correct licence is still illegal.
you also have to know that in France there is a "tax on the private copy". When you buy a blank CD or DVD, you pay a tax that goes directly in the SCPP's pocket. The judge recognized that by burning most of the downloaded stuff, this particular person was in fact paying for his stuff and denied his responsability.

BTW, isn't it a last year news ?

On a side note, French parliament is currently examining a law that would legalize a "P2P fee", legalizing 100% of P2P downloadable stuff. Its chances to pass are thin, but there is currently a heated debate (most politician think about the 2007 presidential elections)

Re:Not Sure If I Agree

[u16084]

Theres days, when one feels like an ass... And today is the day. (thanks....)

Re:Not Sure If I Agree

[manno]

I kind of agree, particularly when you consider the fact that a lot of these P2P companies are selling the software for profit, or selling ads in the software for profit.

Calling the current state of P2P apps "sharing" is still one of the most intelligence insulting stances I think a person could argue from. How is making an exact bit for bit copy of a song/program/whatever file on a strangers computer considered sharing. If I share an XBOX game with a friend, we either both sit down and play it together, or I physically give him the DVD therefore precluding me from using it at the same time. How would me burning the game to another disk, a disk from which he could make an exact bit for bit copy, and give to another friend, and so on and so on... be considered "sharing"? It's wrong, and the fact that so many people choose to defend P2P and burning bit-for-bit copies of CD's as sharing, is an insult to content distributors everywhere, from Adobe, to the RIAA, even Shareman Networks put a stop to DietKazza/KazzaLight.

Both sides are guilty of putting forward faulty logic in an effort win the argument. Both the RIAA, and the P2P community. I hate DRM just as much as the next guy, and I think it's something that shouldn't be necessary, but in this pro P2P era, where forgery is considered correct, and defensible by so many people. How could you blame content distributors for trying to protect their products. Do I feel that they're going about this the wrong way? Absolutely. However I can see why the P2P communities actions as a whole, encourages such drastic responses. The worst part is P2P's actions are giving them incentive, and desperately needed fodder to further advance the idea of DRM into the commercial, and legislative arena.

Re:Not Sure If I Agree

[Rei]

I personally love that concept. On the top of it, I would love to see a completely voluntary listening-reporting system in which the music that you listen to gets reported to a central server to determine how much a song is getting listened to (limited by user), and thus give the artists a logarithmicly-scaled share of the tax revenue (thus helping small artists).

Re:Not Sure If I Agree

[skoaldipper]

Neither do I, at least with the following snipet from the article...

In 2004, a Canadian court ruled that P2P applications were akin to photocopiers and that files on the network were like library books; the mere act of making a file available for download, for instance, would be no different than a library making a book available.

At least here in the States, in a library you are forced to return the book. There is no such mechanism on P2P networks. Also, you can only legally photocopy around 10% of a book, although no librarian will hover behind you to enforce it. Plus, library books are governed by a less restrictive educational fair use; completely distinct license domains.

...not to mention the obvious distinction that one is made from paper and the other from electrical bits. Two different mediums with two different mechanisms for copying. The first is time consuming, laborious, and incomplete (no hard cover or bind), whilst the latter is quite easy and exact...

Re:Not Sure If I Agree

[dosquatch]

in France there is a "tax on the private copy". When you buy a blank CD or DVD, you pay a tax that goes directly in the SCPP's pocket.

And in the US we have the "DAT tax", which was extended to cover blank cassettes, Blank VHS tapes, and music (not data) CD-R. This is a royalty that goes to the labels, artists, producers, etc. regardless of what you record on the blank media, was lobbied for by the MPAA/RIAA, and is meant to ensure that IP owners get paid for at-home copying. So we're good to go, right?

Re:Not Sure If I Agree

[dosquatch]

...not to mention the obvious distinction that one is made from paper and the other from electrical bits. Two different mediums with two different mechanisms for copying. The first is time consuming, laborious, and incomplete (no hard cover or bind), whilst the latter is quite easy and exact...

And?

Copyright law (ideally) speaks to who may use published information and how, not how you go about implementing the "how". What you're saying is that our rights should be curtailed because the tools have become better or more efficient.

Say you don't believe this.

Re:Not Sure If I Agree

[djatari]

This is not old news because it is the first time that *uploading* was also authorized as "private copying" and thus not considered a copyright infringement. Also, the decision was by a court in Paris, while previous ones had been elsewhere in France, and it is considered to have more weight.

Re:Not Sure If I Agree

[skoaldipper]

What I'm saying is that any court of law should be able to make the distinction between apples and oranges, so to speak. That is their role, in lieu of or while using precedent to the case. Apparently, this Canadian court was using the library example as precedent for financial risk, and failed to make that legal contrast.

Is that not a fair critique?

For example, right or wrong, in the much publicized Napster case, two separate courts required the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to be developed at trial, since this new mp3 medium was unique with respect to prior similar digital medium cases heard before; and at least these two were both digital medium, not a book versus a song. Furthermore, they even considered the Audio Home Recording Act in application to this case. Therefore, yes, a court should consider these differences. It's their job, as a matter of law. Otherwise, irrational men like myself could make law. That was my observation as shown above, and take issue with their conclusions as a rational man.

Early Days

[MCSEBear]

The music industry is very used to getting their way. They have plenty of money to give to politicians when they aren't giving it to radio stations in illegal pay for play schemes. Give them a while and they will bribe the bad news away...

Re:Early Days

[theJML]

"The music industry is very used to getting their way. They have plenty of money to give to politicians when they aren't giving it to radio stations in illegal pay for play schemes. Give them a while and they will bribe the bad news away..."

Because God Forbid the music industry actually gives any of that money to the people that write/play/record/produce/create the music that makes them an industry. I figure the artists should actually see some of the money instead of it being spent on lawsuits and red-tape.

I mean, that's like winning the $100M lottery and only getting $5 out of it because someone decided that they'd use the rest of the money to sue other people to make sure someone doesn't steal my $5.

I guess I just don't see how the RIAA isn't a wholy owned subsidiary of the Mafia.

Re:Early Days

[pete6677]

I guess I just don't see how the RIAA isn't a wholy owned subsidiary of the Mafia.

I couldn't agree more. How else would they get away with the crap they've been pulling for so long? They've done much worse than cracking down on filesharers; it's just now becoming more apparent to the public. ANY other industry would have long ago faced an anti-trust prosecution for operating in a similar manner as the record cartel.

Re:Early Days

[Shadowlore]

I guess I just don't see how the RIAA isn't a wholy owned subsidiary of the Mafia.

That's because you have it backward.

Re:Early Days

[Anonymous Coward]

Because God Forbid the music industry actually gives any of that money to the people that write/play/record/produce/create the music that makes them an industry. I figure the artists should actually see some of the money instead of it being spent on lawsuits and red-tape.

So how does copying and posting music files for the world to download help the artists? Don't get me wrong -- the music industry execs are clearly trying to protect their own intere$ts, but who's actually doing something about the underlying problem? Maybe influential artists like Bono of U2 should spend more time trying to help other artists create a fair and equitable market for their talents instead of playing world politician.

Re:Early Days

[theJML]

"So how does copying and posting music files for the world to download help the artists?"

Well, first off it allows people to find out if they like the music before they try to blindly decide if they want to drop $15 on their CD. I'll have to say that I have purchased more CD's I've downloaded and liked than I would have ever purchased if I wasn't able to download them at all. (My criteria are simple, have atleast 3 good songs with replay value for a $10 investment. It's amazing how most CDs don't fit this category.) iTunes filled this gap by allowing people to just buy 1 song from that album that had nothing but crap except for the one good one. Now the RIAA is bitching because it didn't get your 15 bucks it only got $1. Maybe they should figure out why instead of suing everyone for the other $14.

Ever since the dawn of time, the best way for someone to know about something is word of mouth. If I hear some random advertiser tell me a CD is good, I'm not buying it. If I hear it from one of my friends that knows my musical tastes, I may give it a shot. The Internet allows these artists to advertise their songs to anyone willing to lend an ear. Now you don't have to take your best friend's advice, you can hear it yourself!

I suppose not everyone is as good at buying CD's they like as I am perhaps, but I think the artists should start to use the power of the internet instead of letting the RIAA buy lawyers new cars for them.

Re:Early Days

[Just Some Guy]

I guess I just don't see how the RIAA isn't a wholy owned subsidiary of the Mafia.

That's really not fair. You're comparing a group of terroristic thugs who sell protection rackets and shady distribution channels with a group of Italian-American businessmen. When was the last time you heard of the mafia putting the beatdown on a single mom, or an old lady with no telephone who lives with a bunch of cats?

No, I'd much rather pay the mafia than the RIAA; the odds are a lot better of actually getting something for your money.

Re:Early Days

[shark72]

Back in December a woman in Chicago tried that defense -- that she was just sharing stuff with Kazaa because she wanted to listen to the tracks before she bought them. She even rejected the RIAA's settlement offer of $3.5K. The judge didn't buy it, and now she's out $22.5K.

I've never had a lack of ways to sample music make me feel like I was forced to pirate something just to make an informed buying decision. Some of the resources I use:

1. The iTMS preview feature
2. The iTMS / Amazon "people who bought this also bought that" recommendation engines have helped me discover lots of cool artists that fit within my somewhat obscure musical tastes.
3. Hearing them on the radio - -specifically, XM. My XM receiver displays the artist name and song title, so snagging it off of the iTMS is easy.

My success rate of buying only stuff I like has been very high, just using the tools available. Not once have I felt that my hand was being forced into installing Kazaa.

"I suppose not everyone is as good at buying CD's they like as I am perhaps, but I think the artists should start to use the power of the internet instead of letting the RIAA buy lawyers new cars for them."

Interesting that your experience has been different than mine. I've found lots of great music -- legally -- using the power of the Internet. And, those few people I've met who work in the music industry are hard-working people who don't happen to have very nice cars. At any rate, the music industry isn't too much different than the computer peripheral industry, the software industry, the frozen foods industry, and the clothing industry. To wit:

• The ones at the top get paid a lot... many, many times the average industry worker's salary.
• The industries have trade groups. The trade groups do things like hiring lawyers, and lobbying Washington.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect the music industry to be any different -- particularly if one is using this as justification for putting a bunch off files in one's Kazaa share directory.

Re:Early Days

[anotherzeb]

See the success of the British band the Arctic Monkeys to see how true this is for a lot of people - their original fan base was formed by word of mouth and grew so large that when they released their first album recently it became the fastest selling album in Britain so far

Re:Early Days

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I just don't see how the RIAA isn't a wholy owned subsidiary of the Mafia.

Read some Courtney Love and you might begin to understand.

Organized Crime, Cartels, Industry Associations, the line is not allways clear.

Re:Early Days

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, first off it allows people to find out if they like the music before they try to blindly decide if they want to drop $15 on their CD.

You're right, but that still doesn't address the problem that the majority of that $15 lines the pockets of the music industry execs and doesn't end up going to the artist!

Private Copying

[Microlith]

That's the most public form of the word "private" I've ever seen.

Somehow I doubt copying is truly "private" if it involves people you don't know, who could possibly number in the thousands or more...

Re:Private Copying

[TubeSteak]

Because of criticism on /.

The French Judge surrenders.

/Why can't you just be happy that someone is sticking it to the Euro RIAA?

Re:Private Copying

[Microlith]

!fark

And I don't mind anyone sticking it to them, I'm just skeptical of that interpretation.

Re:Private Copying

[Kjella]

Probably, but private has many meanings. private 4 c) Conducted and supported primarily by individuals or groups not affiliated with governmental agencies or corporations: a private college; a private sanatorium. In that context private P2P is correct even if it is open to everyone.

Re:Private Copying

[kingpin2k]

Haven't RTFA yet, but couldn't "private" simply mean non-commercial. Even if I share a set of 1's and 0's with a million people, if I haven't charged them, why wouldn't that be private?

Re:Private Copying

[MSZ]

Think of "private" here as "noncommercial".

If he was selling these files, the decision would probably be different.

Private?

[gr8_phk]

I might agree that someone sending a copy to a friend could be considered "private copying" depending on your definition, but to put it on p2p where the whole world can download it seems much more public than private. The french court must have some very interesting definitions indeed.

Re:Private?

[Otter]

There seem to have been multiple courts making the same ruling in different cases. It makes no sense to me, but IANAFL so what do I know?

Re:Private?

[ratboy666]

Um... different definition of "private".

A number of copyright holders around the world lobbied in the last decades and WON the right to a surcharge on blank media. Every cassette tape, blank CD, etc. would be levied, the proceeds to go to the artists.

Seemed like a good think at the time, I guess.

In exchange for the levy, "private copying" was allowed. Basically, you are allowed to exchange music with your friends. Seems that this has been generally interpreted by the courts (in serveral countries) to mean "non-commercial, benefiting only the person". Which, given the nature of the surcharge, AND the fact that only material you ASK for is copied, AND that the P2P transfer is not commercial, makes sense.

It seems that the definition of "private" is then "non-commercial"

Other interpretations lead to some very bizzare results.

Of course the Music Association could now lobby to have the levy overturned (who knew about P2P?). But to loose out on all that guaranteed money from media sales? I don't think its likely. But they have to test the "private copy" against P2P in every jurisdication (somewhere they MAY be able to have the cake, and eat it too!).

Ratboy.

Re:Private?

[swilver]

But the fact is, the world doesn't download it. There's only so much bandwidth, so in the end a few *private* individuals will actually download it from you directly (and in most cases only part of it).

The industry would like you to believe that YOU, in making a file available for download, are the SOLE person responsible for every copy downloaded everywhere, not just from you.

The fact of the matter is, a single individual doesn't have the resources to make a file available for everyone, it takes a lot of individuals to make a file public.

However, I see where this makes a good business model, as you could sue everyone that made a copy available for the entire sum of damages...

Everyone's doing it

[camcorder]

Someone should have checked judges personal computers to understand merits of this verdict.

Re:Everyone's doing it

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Someone should have checked judges personal computers to understand merits of this verdict.

Your statement is a classic case of logical fallacy called ad hominem tu quoque. Please read up about it here.

Re:Everyone's doing it

[hunterx11]

Yes, but it's not as bad as the fallacy jocum super caput.

Re:Everyone's doing it

[lbrandy]

You cannot commit a logical fallacy unless you assert something. He has asserting nothing, therefore has commited no fallacy. Furthermore, there is nothing fallacious about saying "The judge ruled in his own self-interest (as to make his own actions legal)". The fallacy would be, in fact, to say "the judges decision is meaningless becuse the judge has commited this crime before." There is a distinct difference in the two asserations... and the GP could have meant either, and asserted neither.. therefore no fallacy has occured.

Re:Everyone's doing it

[ThousandStars]

Your statement is a classic case of logical fallacy called ad hominem tu quoque.(sic)

Your statement is a classic example of the logical fallacy no humorus tu assholio de Slashdot. In this fallacy, someone fails to get a joke and thus responds to an absurd or amusing post in a serious way. Moderators, such as the one who gave you +1 Insightful, also sometimes suffer from this malady.

I'd like to see a clear definition of...

[ursabear]

I'd like to see a clear definition of private copying.

At what point does retrieving a file from someone else's computer stop being private? I completely understand someone making copies of all kinds of things within their home. When someone I don't know is making copies of my files - this is when it seems to be anything but private. I'm not advocating a particular POV about copyrighted materials here... I'm thinking in terms of the moment that a file ceases to be "my" file and becomes "someone else's file."

Re:I'd like to see a clear definition of...

[corvenus]

If i am naked in my house with the blinds open and you (a stranger) walk by and see me, does that mean that my house stops being private? Just food for thoughts...

Re:I'd like to see a clear definition of...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Private" refers to the "performance",
it means that you can't use your copy for public screening, but it's OK if you only play it to your family.

Also, in this case, the "Private copy" law was only used to justify how the guy used the files he got from kazza...and, yes, he didn't play those files in front.
They justified the "upload" part by saying it was tied to the way Kazaa works and not done on behalf of the user (you can read this at the ADA site)

BTW, if you wan't the exact text of the "private use" law, it's easy as it's always printed on every material copyrighted in France, including documents you can google for:

L'oeuvre fixée sur ce support est exclusivement destinée à l'usage privé dans le cercle familial. Toute autre utilisation (reproduction, prêt, échange, diffusion en public, avec ou sans perception de droit d'entrée, télédiffusion, en partie ou en totalité, exportation sans autorisation) est strictement interdite sous de peine de poursuite judiciaire.


it means you can only use the copyrighted works within your family, everything else is prohibited.

Re:I'd like to see a clear definition of...

[Anonymous Coward]

French law has the same definition of private as you, for that matter.

Contrary to what the article says, the judgement ( http://www.juriscom.net/jpt/visu.php?ID=785 ) does not mention private copying. The judges just stated that the accused could legitimately claim he didn't know he was sharing copyrighted materials.

Transcript of court proceedings

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

SCPP:
        Go and tell your master that we have been charged by God with a sacred quest. If he will give us money for the MP3s, he can join us in our quest for the Holy Racketeering Scheme.
FRENCH JUDGE:
        Well, I'll ask him, but I don't think he'll be very keen. Uh, MP3s are free you see...
SCPP:
        What?
RIAA:
        He says MP3s are free!
SCPP:
        Are you sure they're free?
FRENCH JUDGE:
        Oh, yes. They're very nice-a. (I told him MP3s are free.)
POLICEMEN:
        [chuckling]
SCPP:
        Well, u-- um, can we come up and have a look at your MP3 collection?
FRENCH JUDGE:
        Of course not! You are English types-a!
SCPP:
        Well, what are you, then?
FRENCH JUDGE:
        I'm French! Why do think I have this outrageous accent?!
RIAA:
        What are you doing in England?
FRENCH JUDGE:
        Mind your own business!

Re:Transcript of court proceedings

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

This hilarious courtroom scene was punctuated by the RIAA and Co. fleeing from the courthouse as the baliff's launched (e)Donkeys from court catapults.

Also, John Cleese was wearing iPod earphones throughout the whole sketch.

That's a pretty shaky defense

[Sockatume]

It's like placing a stack of burned DVDs on your windowsill, with a big sign saying "Meatloaf and the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra", and everyone else on the street doing the same. Maybe somebody will wander past and take one of them. Maybe you'll wander past someone else's window and help yourself to some of their "Bon Jovi: Crush" CD-Rs. Sure, it's private copying, but it's pretty blatant what the intent is.

I can't help but wonder if that's just going to give legitimate fair-use copying a bad name.

Re:That's a pretty shaky defense

[rathehun]

Worst Analogy, Ever.
I usually make it a policy not to be completely negative, but this HAD to be said.
kthxbye.

Re:That's a pretty shaky defense

[ThePhilips]

...placing a stack of burned DVDs...

FYI, CD-R/DVD+/-R/RWs are taxed in Europe, as insisted by artists. IOW, if you have downloaded MP3s or movies and burned them on CD/DVD - you are clear, since you are already compensated artists thru recordable medium tax. (And every CD/DVD burner is taxed too.)

And to cool off your hot (in legal sense) American heads, I have to remind that European legal system is NOT precedent-based. IOW, one case over here means nothing. Judge decides the case after looking into the circumstances of the case before him, not by searching prehistoric records of how Gutenberg/etc were judged.

What can you tell from the case, is overall mood over here. People in Europe are sick of taxes. And another association asking for another compensation and protection against competition is just what it is - another association asking for another compensation and another protection against competition. And artist associations here are far from being first in the queue of the beggars, looking for gov't help.

What is illegal here putting such CD-R pile for a sale. But I think it's illegal everywhere. As long as you give it away for free - you are Okay.

Re:That's a pretty shaky defense

[tpgp]

It's like placing a stack of burned DVDs on your windowsill, with a big sign saying "Meatloaf and the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra", and everyone else on the street doing the same. Maybe somebody will wander past and take one of them. Maybe you'll wander past someone else's window and help yourself to some of their "Bon Jovi: Crush" CD-Rs. Sure, it's private copying, but it's pretty blatant what the intent is.

Dear God.

Meatloaf with the MSO + Bon Jovi: Crush.

These are your examples?

The french have different copyright laws to the USA. Some are stronger (ie Moral Rights are perpetual in France), some are weaker.

Nothing is as simple as it seems

I can't help but wonder if that's just going to give legitimate fair-use copying a bad name.

I'm not sure you understand the issues involved here - this ruling has stated that p2p is legitimate fair-use copying.

Re:That's a pretty shaky defense

[Stonehand]

It's fine if it's not for sale?

Hmm. So how about this scenario --

* Publishing house A releases a record expected to be a top seller.
* Publishing house B buys one copy, and openly makes it downloadable without charge, in order to reduce the sales of publishing house A.

Is this legal?

Re:That's a pretty shaky defense

[masklinn]

Just so you know, there is a tax on hard drives too (yeah, cause you can, like, store music on them. Soooo tax!)

Re:That's a pretty shaky defense

[Sockatume]

I'm meaning, in the long term. I can't help but wonder if the response from the music industry in France is going to be pressure upon the government to limit their currently aces-tacular rights for the individual. I mean, I've got no idea how well that'd work, but I imagine the industry's not simply going to say "Well, shucks, they got us" and give up.

FYI, I'm from the UK. Also FYI, "Europe" is not a single entity: "piracy tax" on blank media is not universal.

Re:That's a pretty shaky defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Publishing house B buys one copy, and openly makes it downloadable without charge, in order to reduce the sales of publishing house A.

That would qualify as indirect commercial gain.

Re:That's a pretty shaky defense

[strike2867]

As long as you give it away for free - you are Okay.

Just like our hooker laws.

Re:That's a pretty shaky defense

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that you're then determining legality based upon who commits the act. If it would be wrong or illegal for Publishing House B to do this, why would it not be wrong or illegal for Person B to do the same thing?

Re:That's a pretty shaky defense

[Jesus_666]

And to cool off your hot (in legal sense) American heads, I have to remind that European legal system is NOT precedent-based. IOW, one case over here means nothing. Judge decides the case after looking into the circumstances of the case before him, not by searching prehistoric records of how Gutenberg/etc were judged.

However, precedent is not entirely meaningless - a judge might factor it in when (s)he makes a decision. In some cases a widely known decision might even influence the legislative. So precedent still has some importance over here, even though it's not like in the USA where according to Redneckville vs. Sixpack it's allowed for a person to compare backwater towns with less than ten inhabitants with Podunk, VA. (Watch out for hyperbole. Might cause diarrhea when consumed in large quantities. Celebrity voices impersonated.)

Re:That's a pretty shaky defense

[Art Tatum]

What can you tell from the case, is overall mood over here. People in Europe are sick of taxes. And another association asking for another compensation and protection against competition is just what it is - another association asking for another compensation and another protection against competition. And artist associations here are far from being first in the queue of the beggars, looking for gov't help.

So is Europe starting to move away from heavily controlled economics and toward free markets?

Sit and wait...

[spacefight]

They will appeal, for sure. Nuff' said.

Mushrooms!

[Anonymous Coward]

(n/t)

TFA...

[nordelius]

... would be worth a look. This should be seen in context with a French initiative to tax access to P2P networks.

What they seem to be looking at is accepting that people are going to use P2P networks anyway, and look at implementing some kind of revenue model to ensure that music publishers don't get so antsy in france that they sue dead people who have never used a computer.

"But," I hear you cry, "what's to stop me using Brand X esoteric open source P2P software?". Well, if you are using and not paying, you are now committing an offence against the state.

Which makes it a damn sight easier to get your arse put in prison.

Cunning.

Re:TFA...

[Kjella]

Bah, what does a rigid P2P network that needs to report in to a central server or be surveilanced at the ISP level provide you over what online stores already provide? If you can let people officially upload, you'll have people with huge flawless collections providing exactly the same goods. And they won't let you undercut online stores, so prices will be equal.

A far more likely solution is that you'll be taxed for the bandwidth, whether you use it to download MP3s or Linux distros. That has already happened to blank CDs, DVDs and HDDs in music players many places. It is absurd that you should pay for burning a backup of your vacation photos or a linux CD, but it is *already* this way. Don't tell me it can't happen to the Internet connection itself...

Re:TFA...

[marcosdumay]

Or they are realizing that their business model, based on being the gateway on the music market, is doomed and want to change it to gathering taxes.

What artists do you think that will receive this money? Some independent ones? And how much of it goes to the artist anyway? The music labels just want to become some kind of aristocracy.

if you don't like it...

[iogan]

.. don't market and sell you music/films in france. or anywhere else where this is legal/legalish.. if it really makes a difference to the people who are "stealing" your music, they will stop doing it. unless of course, your stuff is sooo shit that nobody could care less if you made more of it. in that case, you're screwed.

--------------

put a link to your blog on http://www.doyoulikemyface.com/

Re:if you don't like it...

[Supepromme]

So what you are saying is that to stop people from downloading your album for free you...stop people legally buying it, forcing them to get it by..downloading?
Meanwhile the people who downloaded it already couldnt care less as..they downloaded it for free already?
Well done. A++

Uh. Not quite.

[torstenvl]

The title is misleading. Maybe "Legal Victory for a P2P user in France" would be better.

France uses the "civil law" system (as opposed to the "common law" system used in the U.S., the U.K., and the Commonwealth, past and present). It's based on the Roman corpus iuris civilis, and it doesn't have any such thing as "precedent." Each and every case is decided purely on the facts of the case, the law as written, and the judge's... erm... well... judgment.

This doesn't mean P2P is legal in France. It means someone got away with it.

Re:Uh. Not quite.

[ant-1]

We do have precedent. It's called "jurisprudence", and although a judge is not legally bound to apply the same judgment twice for two similar cases, it is was is done in the courts.
And when the judge deviates (because the precedent is obsolete for example), he better have good reasonning wrapped around its verdict, because higher courts will break the judgment if not.

Re:Uh. Not quite.

[torstenvl]

La jurisprudence n'est pas la même chose que notre precedent . Au système de droit commun, si une court supérieure décide un règle de droit, tous les autres doivent non seulement le respecter, mais le suivre. Toute contradiction est strictement interdite. La seule exception est la Cour Suprême, qui n'a aucune obligation. Le système français avec la jurisprudence est plus semblable au principe de stare decisis .

En France, un juge ne peut ni créer ni démolir aucune loi.

Re:Uh. Not quite.

[Threni]

> Maybe "Legal Victory for a P2P user in France" would be better.

Or perhaps "Temporary Legal Victory for a P2P user in France until date of appeal hearing"? If you think the people who run France, the US etc are going to stand by while people bypass intricately constructed and policed business models then you're more crazy than I am!

Re:Uh. Not quite.

[Anonymous Coward]

stare decisis is actually the precedent rule in case law. In France arrêt de règlement (binding decisions by a higher court) is explicitly forbidden by the Civil code. Jurisprudence is simply the corpus of the juridic decisions, no binding value - but a judge still needs to justify why in a similar case a different decision is warranted.

Still, the French Civil code allows for some amount of 'creation' vis-à-vis some juridic norms that are established by certain courts of law (la Cour de cassation, for instance)

btw, the French spelling of precedent is précédent.

Re:Uh. Not quite.

[ThinWhiteDuke]

Congratulations for your excellent French (I sincerely hope that French is NOT your mother tongue and that I'm not currently insulting you). Still this is Slashdot and the rule of the place is that posts should be written in English, or at least should be readable by English-speakers (typos and bad syntax are tolerated, if not encouraged). So, if you don't mind, I'll try and translate your (Informative, IMHO) post. Please feel free to correct any mistake.

Jurisprudence is not the same as our precedent. Under a common law system, if a higher court decides a rule of law, all others must not only respect it but also follow it. No contradiction is allowed. The only exception is the Supreme Court, which bears no obligation. The French jurisprudence is more similar to the principle of "stare decisis" (is that latin? NDT)

In France, a judge cannot make or repel a law.

Re:Uh. Not quite.

[El Cabri]

France does not have a pure civil law system, just as so-called "common law" countries don't have a pure precedent-based system. After all one of the sources of US law is a written source : the constitution.

In theory, the only law applicable in France is written by the legislative branch. The judiciary is supposed to only work as a machine, applying the following pseudo-code:

foreach (case) {
            check out facts
            look up relevant article of law
            pronounce judgement
}

Precedent does exist, but is viewed more as a labor saver, a little bit like speeding up an algorithm by caching intermediate results that can be used more than once.

Most of the written law in France is arguably well designed, some of it, most famously Napoleon's civil code, having been barely touched in more than 200 years.

The benefit of a written law system then is that in many cases, if you want to know whether you're right to do something, you just look it up in the book (or on www.legifrance.gouv.fr), instead of giving $1000 to a lawyer for advice and crossing your fingers.

However some other codes are not working so well, two examples would be the intellectual property code, which is faced with a technology shift of millenary proportions, and the labor code, which is creaking under thousands of categorical-interest driven articles that are largely contradictory and contrarian to economic common sense.

In these domains, the precedents take center stage.

Re:Uh. Not quite.

[Anonymous Coward]

Stare decisis and binding precedent are two different things. Precedent is a legal doctrine by which lower courts MUST BY LAW adhere to higher court rulings. Stare decisis is a philosophical doctrine by which higher courts are supposed to make successive rulings similar to one another. That's why Alito was questioned about stare decisis -- it wouldn't make sense for him to be asked about precedent, since the Supreme Court is not bound by it.

Don't correct my French. It was flawless except for the accidental addition of a "t" after "cour" the first time I used it. I put "precedent" in quotes, but for some reason Slashdot strips all guillomets. Nevertheless, you can still see the space between that and the period which follows the word, indicative of someone typing (left-guillemet)(space)precedent(space)(right-guil lemet)(period). I was using the English word, precedent, because I was referring to the common-law doctrine of precedent, which is something very specific and somewhat different from précédent.

Re:Uh. Not quite.

[Anonymous Coward]

now that you mention it there is some strange space there. My apologies. May I suggest the 'preview' button next time? or em tags? :)

Re:I'm sorry

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

I know its bad but it had to be told.

Yes and no.

Social Networks + P2P?

[aralin]

This made me thinking about joining a social network like Orkut with music sharing and share your music only with your friends and maybe friends of friends. That could get around some legal hurdles in more countries and while you don't get this way any music you want, you still get quite a lot new music and actually improve the relationships with your friends through listening to some of the same music as them.

Re:Social Networks + P2P?

[Anonymous Coward]

...friends and maybe friends of friends

i think that's what peer to peer means...

think of decentralized networks like overnet or kademlia, you only bootstrap with some "friends" and then you peer with "friends of a friends" and all in all you have the whole world some handshakes away.

but seriously that was the idea behind Direct Connect, where you were connected to a "hub" of some kind of friends (sharing same interests) with some rules and only shared your files with them.

Re:Social Networks + P2P?

[jeriqo]

You should try Last FM : http://www.last.fm/

Re:France surrenders to the War on P2P

[Master Ben]

Surrendered? Sounds like they just fired one of the few shots in a losing war.

Re:France surrenders to the War on P2P

[ThinWhiteDuke]

I would have thought, in this specific occurrence, that it is the US who surrendered to big business.

But I'm just French. And not even Republican. What do I know about spinning news?

Re:I'm sorry

[DrSkwid]

**** Warning : Not Funny ****

Still, stop trading copyrighted stuff

[Sithgunner]

I just want to say, that P2P being legal still does not allow exchanging of copyrighted material, and hope those traders who has no respect to creators of those materials start hurraying and download all night like monkeys...

They are changing the law now

[antonallan]

This latest verdict is probably in line with the current French legislation. But since France is a member of EU, they will eventually have to implement the EU Copyright Directive (EUCD). The French parlament are in fact discussing this, the proposed french law is called "Droit d'Auteur et aux Droits Voisins dans la Société de l'Information" (DADVSI), and though opposition is tough it will certainly come to life soon, as all EU directives must in all member states.

Then P2P networks and the use of them, even to share innocent files, will be illegal. This law will also affect Open Source software development, so it might matter more than you think.

You can help the French community by signing a petition here:

http://eucd.info/index.php?English-readers

Re:They are changing the law now

[Anonymous Coward]

You can help the French community by signing a petition here:
 
What online petition ever achieved anything? I'll rather help by spreading the use of encrypted, anonymous P2P to everybody. Copyright (as a social fact not a legal concept) will not be defeated by appeals to reason or justice, because it is not reasonable or just anymore. It is now an obsolete concept fighting for survival by any means necessary. I say kill it.

Re:They are changing the law now

[autophile]

The French parlament are in fact discussing this, the proposed french law is called "Droit d'Auteur et aux Droits Voisins dans la Société de l'Information" (DADVSI)

"...for Information Society"? Don't they work for Peace And Love, Inc?

--Rob

Re:They are changing the law now

[dago]

EUCD is just a directive (and not a law, btw) which gives, on purpose, a lot of freedom for things such as private copies, fair uses ans so on.

It means that is the application by the member state legislative bodies who can make very strict rules or lean toward the consumer rights. In this case, the proposed french law implements this EU Directive and will eventually "legalize & tax" peer to peer. Other states have very generous laws (e.g. Belgium), while other are much more strict (UK).

This seems yet another case of national government using the european excuse ("eh, it's Brussels !!!") for unpopular measures who falls under their sole responsability.

Re:They are changing the law now

[shortstumpyone]

However there is a strong precedent amongst french politicains that says, we will ignore european law if it makes us unpopular with the elctorate. Therefore if teh french parliament decides that implementing eu law is going to cost them votes, they wont in fact the french govt will probably have to be taken to eu courts to enforce this if they think they are better of not implementing it.

So does this mean ..

[bizitch]

... we can route all our P2P traffic via proxy/router thru France in order to be immune from prosecution/lawsuits? - sweet!

Re:So does this mean ..

[Sky Cry]

In related news, 7 out of 11 internet exchange points in France couldn't handle a sudden traffic increase.

As they say in french

[varkman]

pwnez

Cocorico !

[Matlo]

I think this decision is fair. You guys have to be aware that french people pay a special tax when they buy blank CDs. Where does it go? Into the SACEM's (~RIAA) pockets. So anyone buying CD-R/CD-RW is already paying for the right to make copies. And if you use the CD-R to make a backup of your documents (yes, I know, who does that?), you basically paid the tax for nothing. So let's download citoyens !
I think also the distinction between private and public is in the money. If you download for your personal use, and do not make money out of it, you're good. But if you burn the downloaded music and sell the CD, you're evil! Actually, making money and being evil are very strongly connected in France. Darn capitalists!

Stupid stupid stupid

[jb.hl.com]

Since when has sharing other peoples' work/taking other people's work from thousands of anonymous people ever been "private copying"?

And I thought the mantra was "we use P2P legally"?

Re:Stupid stupid stupid

[Changa_MC]

Private: not commercial, not government.

And the mantra is "we use P2P legally"

In france, that legal use happens to include sharing music.

Street Corner Distribution?

[RingDev]

So can a person in France stand on a street corner handing out copies of copy righted material too?

This is the equivilant of saying it's okay for any person to press as many copies of a copyrighted material as they want and hand them out to complete strangers. So long as they don't make a profit.

That's freaking crazy!

-Rick

Re:Street Corner Distribution?

[Anonymous Coward]

No I think you're missing the point of the verdict. It may certainly be illegal to "hand out copyrighted materials" on a street corner.

What ISN'T is being the person that runs down the street grabbing a copy from each of the idiots handing them out. In this case you're just being opportunistic.

Re:mod me troll but...

[masklinn]

It's a victory for the comman man, not for rights.

France has an extremely wide notion of private copy rights and fair use, and this notion is extremely important to the french. This is a victory for the aforementioned private copy rights, a victory for the rights of the citizens.

Not a victory for the rights of the music lobby indeed.

Then again, only one side ever wins, in america the music lobby wins, in france the citizens lobby wins.

Only download is private copy

[alain_f]

The judge only decided that download can be seen as private copy. Several other decisions in France go in the same direction. According to the current law, private copy cannot be prohibited by the copyright holders as long as the copy is intended to be used by the guy making the copy. It means you can rip a CD, put the MP3s on a website with restriced access and send a link to this website to your friends, but not directly send the MP3s by mail (because in this cause, you would be the one who create the copy to be used by someone else). In France, there is a non-negligible tax on writable CDs, on Flash memory, on hard drives which goes directly to the music/movie industries, as a compensation for private copy. What is new in this decision is about upload. But this is not related to the private copy so-called exception. The arguments are: (1) the guy only put files in a shared directory, he had no control on whether the files would be downloaded or not; (2) actually, the software did not even allow the guy to distinguish between files protected by copyright and other materials; (3) one cannot assume by default that the guy wanted to cheat. For those who read french: http://www.juriscom.net/jpt/visu.php?ID=785

My bust.

[RingDev]

Okay, not so crazy. I just saw that media tax the French have to pay. So this isn't crazy, it's just socialized. Which may be dumb, but isn't crazy.

-Rick

Hope BitTorrent TV like PPlive can be integrated

[yanggz]

Hope BitTorrent TV like PPlive can be integrated into the browser, that would be faboulous!

I'm moving to France, who's with me?

[digitaldc]

I am taking my 10 Terabyte RAID on an extended vacation in Nice to get a tan, have a bottle of a 1962 Romanee-Conti, and do some rapant 'private copying.'

I think I'm beginning to understand

[Digital Vomit]

I think I'm beginning to understand why they call them "freedom fries" instead of "french fries" now.

However I'm a still bit confused about this "land of the free" stuff.

Re:I think I'm beginning to understand

[Firehed]

Hmm... last I knew, I still called them french fries. In fact, I think the one time I heard "freedom fries" used, I was mocking that person for the next however long it's been since they said it.

Mod par^H^H^HFrance UP! +1 Not being bossed around by monopolized corporations.

Re:I think I'm beginning to understand

[Anonymous Coward]

You might be amused to learn that 'France' actually happens to mean 'land of the free', etymologically (an honor it shares with Thailand). Makes the whole 'freedom fries' thing that much more ironic, doesn't it? :)

Sanity

[Bodysurf]

"What is illegal here putting such CD-R pile for a sale. But I think it's illegal everywhere. As long as you give it away for free - you are Okay."

Finally, a SANE ruling. That just makes common sense. I wonder why this took so long?

Re: Legal Victory for P2P in France

[Anonymous Coward]

Le woot!

it only takes one

[Bizzeh]

it only takes 1 step to start a thousand mile walk... is this the first step in stoping companies like this?

Is Paris P2P Paradise?

[soupdevil]

It's interesting that France, home of almost-legal p2p for copyrighted files, is also the center of activity for Jamendo, which is one of the most interesting and innovative, non-controversial ways to use peer file sharing software. It's a music sharing website, but all artists release their music under Creative Commons licenses, and you can download albums on eMule or BitTorrent networks, which saves Jamendo on bandwidth.

I would have assumed that encouraging legal downloading of mainstream, copyrighted files would have discouraged the growth of shared, open alternatives. But the opposite seems to be true.

one of the main things people need to understand

[iogan]

with regards to p2p copying etc, is that the money "lost" by artists etc is money that they would have never seen anyway. i haven't bought a single CD in years, and i have never ever bought a DVD. whether or not i have access to p2p networks or not the issue -- during certain periods i have had such access, during certain others i have not. the whole point is, even though i had no access to any *NEW* music or movies whatsoever, i still didn't buy any.

why?

because it's honest to god not such an important part of my life. if i really cared about movies, i would spend the extra cash and get better quality etc. same with music. now the question is, is it morally wrong for me to watch downloaded movies etc? in any way more than for instance watching them through a shop window, or at a friends house, or sneaking into the cinema or whatever. does it matter to anyone if i saw it or not? the cash is just not ever coming close to their pocket. nothing can be done about that.

another thing completely is the fact that there is no proven link between downloads and lost record sales. and why should there be? there's no such link between people listening to the radio -- on the contrary, people buy songs they heard on the radio. the same applies to downloaded songs.

Editors/Mods, PLEASE correct "french" to

[davidsyes]

"French"/"France", etc...

For posters to have SOME modicum of credibility or open-mindedness or regard for proper casing, PLEASE assist them through taking the liberty to make case proper.

If anyone KVETCHES, then pass on their article for another. Anyone who can take the time to submit should take the time to correct proper names, and even SLASH CODE should force or enforce it. (Apparently, it is not one of the words caught, but "america" is red-flagged.

What about these:

africa
japan NOT red-flagged
russia
asia
spain
germany NOT red-flagged
tokyo
brazil
mexico
italy ...just to test a few...

THANK YOU!

Re:Editors/Mods, PLEASE correct "french" to

[Godwin O'Hitler]

I don't know why I'm allowing myself to be dragged into this but...

I know the article is in English but just as a matter of interest, in French there is no notion of proper adjectives, only proper nouns. So "French" translates as "français", but "a Frenchman" translates as "un Français". Other words like days of the week and names of months also remain uncapitalised.

Even in English, when a proper adjective-noun pairing becomes commonplace, it loses its capital, thus "french letter", "parmesan cheese", etc.

Listen, I can be a grammar nazi along with the best of them but capitalising proper terms is the last of my worries unless I really can't tell whether someone's talking about Polish vodka or floor polish.

Re:France surrenders to the War on P2P

[manno]

You're French? Good a lot of post say that their is a tax on harddrives, CD's flash memory, how big is the tax? Is it a percentage of the item's value? Is it a flat fee, per device/disck, or is it per megabyte?

What was really judged?

[Nybler]

None of the articles in the post indicated exactly what Antoine did. Did he just post his own content on the P2P network so that he had access to it wherever he was? Or was he pulling content others had posted and thus obtained this content without paying a license? The articles don't make it clear what he did.

If it was the former case then this was a good decision. One of the articles likened this to a library purchasing books - it's not responsible for how the patrons use them.

If it's the latter then I disagree that he did nothing wrong - he stole. People are saying this is OK because you aren't making money from it, i.e. it's for private use? I'm not making any money when I steal a pair of pants from the store and I don't sell them - I'm only intending to wear them for my own private use. What's the difference?

Artificial Distinctions.

[RossumsChild]

Ok, the problem is that you then have to create an artificial distinction.

Lets say I create a new sharing program, similar to that vaporware allpeers in functionality. Let's say that version one works by creating a 'buddy list' of my friends, and allowing me to share only with them.

We call that "private use" because it is simply a digital version of what we already do when we hand somebody a mix we burned ourselves.

Now, lets say that I release version two of the program. In that version, if my buddy A wants a file, and none of *his* buddies have it, he can send a one-generation 'find this file' request, which pops up and I click "ok" if I want to help him out. If so, my copy of the program automatically looks through all *my* buddies' files and if buddy C has the file, my computer will automatically download the file, transfer it to Buddy A, and let me keep a copy if I feel like it.

Still private use? I'm just acting as the middleman to pass the file from Buddy C to Buddy A. They both know me, and this would be no different than Buddy A taking that mix CD that I made him and making a copy for his girlfriend. So we can't possibly argue that this isn't private use if the first one IS private use.

Obviously you can see where this is going. Let's say that in version three of the program I make the process of 'passing on' music allowed automatically, and I allow up to three generations of pass-on. Now if I oversimplify the math, let's say the average buddy list is 40 people, with 10% overlap and a total user space of 2 million (So four generations of 'access' would be 36^4 = 1.6 million), then the request is likely to hit 75%+ saturation of the entire user-base--Even though I'm only passing the file through three intermediate friends (which would still be easily classified as "private" if it were done in meatspace).

Now obviously this would be ridiculously computation intensive and kindof a silly way to share files, but it illustrates an important point: The disinction between public and private becomes completely aribtrary at some point, based on some vague idea of social limitations that is decided by who? The Courts? The RIAA? The average file-sharer?

Clearly technology obviates the ability to distinguish between 'private' (small scale) sharing and 'public' (large scale) sharing and makes the boundary artificial, silly, and impractical to impose or enforce.

Are you an American citizen?

[RossumsChild]

Because if you are, I'm curious: what are your thoughts on the Boston Tea Party?

Re:Are you an American citizen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Boston tea party was wrong, but it accomplished something right.
That answer your question?

Whats with the Hacky French jokes?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

You hacky sperm wagons cant think of an original french joke?

Come on... Brainstorm guys... for the children!

We need new french jokes like... Did you hear the French sold arms to Saddam? They worked perfectly... When America invaded... they dug a hole into the ground for him to hide.

Weeeeeeooooowooowoowow I'm FUNNY... Look at me Daddy... No not that way.. you dirty old man... wooooooooooooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

In Nazi Germany, the French invade you!

I'd shoot myself, if i werent half french.

I'll be at Chuckle Cunts on the 8th headlining with Jimmy Norton. It's his birthday you know.

Re:Whats with the Hacky French jokes?

[NiteShaed]

awwwe, our Lil' Jimmy is just growing up so fast.....seems like his last birthday was just yesterday.

Re:Whats with the Hacky French jokes?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Ain't LiL Jimmy just a sweety.

Re:France surrenders to the War on P2P

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I am french.

There is not tax on hard drive or flash media. There is a tax on Blank CD, blank DVD, min disc, etc. and it is somewhat related to the amount of audio data you can put on.

Here is the list:
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/actualites/comm uniq/tasca-2001/copie-supports-num.htm

The list is in francs, and you have 6.5F = 1EUR

Re:France surrenders to the War on P2P

[geekee]

"I would have thought, in this specific occurrence, that it is the US who surrendered to big business."

No, the US govt refuses to surrender to a bunch of leeches who are too cheap to pay 99 cents for a song. And people wonder why we need DRM. Thanks France, for proving that technological measures are necessary to protect IP, because the courts won't do it.

Re:France surrenders to the War on P2P

[ThinWhiteDuke]

Hmmm, did some research. It seems to date back to a 1985 law. Rates are updated from time to time.

Since November 2005, the broad principle is E45.73 per 100h of music and E125.77 per 100h of movie. This apparently (I did not check the math) translates into E.32 per 650Mo CD-R, E1.27 per 4.7Go DVD-R, E1.05 per 100Mo of flash drive or mp3 player (1 euro = 1.20 USD)

Hope this helps.

Re:France surrenders to the War on P2P

[manno]

It does, and thanks.

Re:France surrenders to the War on P2P

[manno]

thanks

Re:one of the main things people need to understan

[genner]

or sneaking into the cinema

Ok you had me till you said that.

Duh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yes. Governments do that all the time. You murder, they execute. You have a barney, they war. You steal, they tax. You kidnap, they imprison.

Re:one of the main things people need to understan

[iogan]

ok maybe not sneaking in to the cinema.. but the other things.. :)

a premise about downloading

[N3wsByt3]

"Calling the current state of P2P apps "sharing" is still one of the most intelligence insulting stances I think a person could argue from."

Only beaten by the insult of calling it 'theft', which the RIAA often uses in its rethoric.

In any case, I fail to see the logic in your arguments; you consistently use 'bit for bit', as if the manner in which the copy is taken is detrimental. This, however, is an arbitrary opinion, not an inherent valid argument. As others, including courts, have argumented that it's not the technology used that matters, but the way the tool is used (for instance, for commercial gains or not). This shows, that your 'bit for bit' defence can reasonably be considered irrelevant.

Taken that fact and one doesn't subscribe to your premise, the copying of digital data is not different (in regard to it's use) then that of copying pages out of books, or copying films on VHS, etc. The courts in france came to same conclusion, and it's a logical one...otherwise, everytime the technology changes one could argue it's suddenly illegal to do things that were perfectly legal before.

Re:a premise about downloading

[manno]

I specifically stated that the RIAA's arguments were just as flawed as P2P's. Both sides are using broad brush strokes to try and paint things in the best possible light for themselves. And there is a significant difference between an analog copy of a piece of media, and a digital one. Before P2P a mix tape was the RI's biggest realistic threat, a threat buffered by the fact that there's a tariff on analog cassette tapes. Now they're facing the very real situation of people downloading millions songs the RI paid to have dubbed, marketed, and distributed all for a payout of $0.0, and a big "F.U." in their general direction.

I'm sorry but me going onto a strangers hardrive, and making an exact copy of every copywrited file he has and saying that where there was once one and there is now two perfectly identical copies possessed now by two completely different parties somehow constitutes sharing is a farce. It's not exactly theft, but it's also not entirely on the up, and up.

It's not being shared it's being distributed, in a very unfair way. Their own content is their biggest competitor. Is DRM the answer no, it's easily circumvented, and is by definition tougher on those of us who pay for content than those who get it from P2P. I buy content grudgingly knowing I could easily be getting cheaper, and easier from a P2P service. After payment all I get is a crippled version of the song I could of got of of gnutella. It pisses me off, but I know it's wrong to go out and pull anything I want of a strangers harddrive without compensating the people that made that song possible.

Will there be a time where content is directly distributed to end users without the need of the RI middle men? Where artists give consumers of their music direct access to it, and they get paid for by doing appearances, and concerts. Where DRM isn't considered a solution by any party in the system. I hope and would like to think so, but we're not there right now. There here-and-now of it is the current P2P/RIAA situation is a moral wasteland, inhabited by the morally corrupt, all of whom are claiming moral incorruptibility. One just feeds the other, because both are right, and both are wrong.

Re:a premise about downloading

[N3wsByt3]

"Before P2P a mix tape was the RI's biggest realistic threat, a threat buffered by the fact that there's a tariff on analog cassette tapes."

Ermm...there is a tariff on digital carriers too, you know. At least in europe.

The point I was trying to point out is, that one can hold the opinion it's not a matter of technology, nor of threat to the RIAA&co, but of the use that a person makes of it. One can easily say 'it used to be the only threat' etc., but lets not forget that the *IAA has ALWAYS fulminated against technologies they thought of as a threat - and that includes analoge systems, like VHS. Obviously, if they had succeeded in manipulating the law enough, we wouldn't be where we are today, with the consumer-rights we have. So, the treath (at least the perceived one) for them was augmented because copies were made possible. The same goes for when the radio and TV was created and mass-produced: they argued it was a huge threat too.

Now, history repeats itself, and a new technology has been born, and the *IAA are back at it again: claiming they'll go broke and that the threat is huge, etc. However, seen the reports that they actually didn't do that badly, and it's not clear if P2P are to blame (many d/l music they wouldn't buy otherwise anyway), and people still buy stuff if they perceive an added value in it, one can ponder whether these claims are true.

Anyway, as one can see in ANY of these cases, where new technology popped up, and the threat and damage was claimed to be huge, courts often decided in the interest of the new technology and consumer-rights, and did NOT accept the reasonings given by the *IAAs. Courts have decided on the legality of the use of technology; is it used commercially or not, etc? NOT about the technology itself, since, as I said, that would be foolish. Otherwise, each time a new technology will be created (and in our modern times, this happens frequently) one can't claim an action that was before completely legal, now suddenly becomes illegal.

So, I understand your claim about there being a difference, but as I said; one can reasonably be of the opinion that that doesn't matter all that much. There was much difference between buying a vinyl record, and the mass sending of the same music through the ether too. Should one have claimed radio should be forbidden?

No, I think the way it was handled made sense: they allowed it, and searched for mechanisms to compensate the artists (though it's often NOT the artists that get the gain).

And so, being pragmatic, should one forbid P2P? No, one should construct a mechanism in which the artists get compensated, and that's exactly what france tries to do. Most european countries already have taxes on digital cariers too, so the 'threat' already gets buffered in that respect. For pure online d/l (P2P) they now buffer the threat with asking a flat fee-tax.

All this seems reasonable and more in line with the history of new technologies vs. the *IAAs, then just to ouright forbid it, or making it illegal (even criminal, some voices lobby). This line of reasoning is self-defeating, however...I mean, we all know a large part of the population has d/l something that was copyrighted sometime in his life - now that we live in the information age, this hardly can be avoided. Is outlawing the technology, criminalising the users, fining (often huge) them, or throwing them in jail, and that for a considerable part of the populace, the answer?

Me thinks not, just as it wasn't for when a considerable part of the populace started using VHS-tapes to record stuff.

Instead, one should search for a way to uphold consumer-rights, to allow the use of P2P (which can't be stopped anyway), and to envisage a way of compensating the artists, just as they have always done in the past. It is refreshing to see France take a more rational approach than to fulminate against the technology and its users.

Re:a premise about downloading

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct: "Now they're facing the very real situation of people downloading millions songs the RI paid to have dubbed, marketed, and distributed all for a payout of $0.0, and a big "F.U." in their general direction."

This is a blatantly BIG FU to those industries because they blatantly tried to hijack an entire generations technological advances as regards computing, and sought to make a use of it exclusive to their own industry in order to preserve profits that are *no longer required or necessary*. It's OK for THEM to have the latest tech in order to make a billion copies cheaply, but anyone else?

    It is indeed a form of civil protest against entrenched billionaires who sought to illegitametly maintain a monopoly on distribution, by forming cartels and seeking legal relief when they should have just altered business models when technology warranted it.

It's flawed analogy time! but it should work.

If some inventor came up with a way to build a mr. fusion energy blackbox that you could plug your stuff into and it would just run for years at zero or little cost, and the electric industry made it illegal for you to do so, but you had the means to aquire said box, what would you think or do? Might it be...tempting? Might you not think it was a righteous thing to do? If they sought to squash that invention, and made it illegal for you to use it, how would you feel about it? How would you feel if you noticed your power bill never went down, despite their being the tech to drop it to almost free or free? Would you feel...ripped off? Would you care about their "profits" when they were no longer technically necessary? Would you think socieity's benefits outweighed the profits of a few, those few who were already very well off and could actually just go retire and live rich for the most part? Now add in that it had come out that for decades they had been sitting on the ideas, and had bribed their way into making sure the cheap/free way of getting power was kept hidden, that they had colluded to maintain their positions at the expense of everyone else?

I remember when it was "illegal" for humans of a certain darker skin tones could not go to various places, or avail themselves of certain services. It took a lot of people to "break the law", ultimately hundreds of thousands if not millions total, to get things back into a sort of modern order and to finally relinquish the past. It's worked, it is "better" now, although I am sure some people here or there somehow suffered economically from it, in the grander scheme of things it has worked out for the better.

Sometimes you just have to crack some eggs to make an omelette, as the saying goes.
We have the technology to make "ideas" universally available and so cheap as to be almost free. They should come up with a plan to address this. Almost free times billions of people should be enough for the artists, and as for the middlemen skimmers-who cares? Really, who cares? They are deal makers and sales people, they can go find something else to sell. There are still a lot of tangibles out there that could stand improvement and that need to be sold.

Re:a premise about downloading

[manno]

You make some good points, I'm to out of it right now to comment, but I'll get back to you.

Downloading *and* uploading are private copies.

[djatari]

This is inaccurate. If you read the press release, it clearly states that this is the first time that downloading and uploading have been considered private copies. This is the major significance of this case. Plus, the portion you linked to was only an extract of the case.

Re:Downloading *and* uploading are private copies.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you're talking about a press release and we're talking about the judgment itself. It doesn't mention the word "upload" (or an equivalent) once.
Besides the extract in question is a large excerpt of the original paper (which you obviously haven't read). Actually it's the oriiginal judgment stripped of all the useless bureaucratic stuff.

Depends on the country

[henni16]

I hate to poop on the party, but the grandparent post is wrong - or at least oversimplified.
The legality of giving CD-Rs away for free depends heavily on the European country.
For Germany:
If you own the original, you may copy CD/DVDs (that don't contain DRM!) and give them to close familiy/friends; IIRC about seven people was a loose definition of "close family/friends". But this right is currently under attack so that no copys are allowed; the "non-DRM" part was the first step in September 2003 and now there are talks about banning all private copying; of course there are no talks of removing the blank media tax, the CD/DVD burner tax, scanner tax etc

AND: for stuff that contains DRM you aren't even allowed to make copys for YOURSELF!

To be precise: you aren't allowed to make copys of DRMed stuff if you have to circumvent the DRM somehow, so the "analog hole" is still open. That's why you can get programs that make copys by playing a CD and simultaneously recording it using the soundcard.

Re:Depends on the country

[ThePhilips]

I have oversimplified. IANAL, first. Second it's Slashdot ;-)

You wrote: "To be precise: you aren't allowed to make copys of DRMed stuff if you have to circumvent the DRM somehow, so the "analog hole" is still open. That's why you can get programs that make copys by playing a CD and simultaneously recording it using the soundcard."

You are not living in Europe. In Europe you own what you have paid money for. If I have bought CD/DVD/etc - I own it. And I can do with it what ever I like. I can make a copy and give it to my friend. Private copy, private exchange. If I would try to profit directly off the copied CD/DVD - then it's definitely illegal.

But compare with:
If I have bought game console - I can mod it. It's Okay.
If I have setup mod chip shop - I try to profit off other people work and most likely that would be ruled illegal.

All rulings in Europe (and some other places in the World) to date were judged from that prospective. Common pattern: new technology erode old music recording and distribution model. But as I have put it in great parent post, gov'ts (especially in Europe) are already over-protectionists - to argue that particular industry needs protection you would need a stronger case. In case of the recording industry is easy and clear: new technology erodes old business model. And since when we are against progress?!? :-/

Re:Depends on the country

[henni16]

You are not living in Europe.
Well, last time I checked, Germany was part of Europe ;-)

I can make a copy and give it to my friend. Private copy, private exchange. If I would try to profit directly off the copied CD/DVD - then it's definitely illegal.
As I said: In some parts of Europe (read: at least in Germany) it is different since there are some DMCA-like laws now (since autuum of 2003 IIRC).

In Germany you aren't allowed to circumvent even the crappiest DRM to create a private copy.
Programs that can be used to circumvent DRM may not be sold or advertised for (that part of the law was created to stop magazines from running arcticles like "How to backup your movie DVDs", "The best ripper programs" or giving download/vendor URLs for programs that ignore or circumvent DRM).

Additionally you aren't allowed to make a copy from an "obviously illegal source".
I think that was added as an anti-P2P measure but what constitutes an "obviously illegal source" isn't defined in the law and wasn't yet "defined" by court rulings.

btw: the site euro-copyrights.org tries to provide an overview of what's legal in which (EU) country.

Not "Last years news"

[henni16]

The act of downloading is considered fair game but the act of uploading without the correct licence is still illegal.

I understood that the big thing about this decision was that even the uploading isn't illegal (didn't RTFA, but a German source a few hours ago).
It was mentioned that some time ago there already was a ruling that considered downloading to be legal. That's probably the "old news" that you were thinking about.

Re:France surrenders to the War on P2P

[Ngwenya]

Since November 2005, the broad principle is E45.73 per 100h of music and E125.77 per 100h of movie. This apparently (I did not check the math) translates into E.32 per 650Mo CD-R, E1.27 per 4.7Go DVD-R, E1.05 per 100Mo of flash drive or mp3 player (1 euro = 1.20 USD)

Brilliant. So, let's see if I understand. Under the Single Market agreement, I can purchase goods and services from any EU member state, under the taxation rules of that member state, and the customs officials cannot stop me importing the materials. (Hence, UK customs officials can whine and whinge about bringing back 200 bottles of wine and 10,000 cigarettes, but they can't actually stop you).

Now, it's not worth it for CD-Rs, but I would have thought that a box of 100 DVD-Rs are about 60 in the UK, which, under French tax rules would cost about 180. Which means that if you can travel to the UK and back for 120, you could buy a years worth of DVD-Rs and then P2P the shit out of them. Hell, you wouldn't even have to leave the airport, and I'll bet you could get a flight from any provincial airport in France to Heathrow or Gatwick, buy the DVD-Rs in the terminal, and then bugger off home. I even seem to remember that airport shopping is UK tax discounted too!

OK - so I in the UK will open up a Unix shell account in France and fill my boots with P2P stuff (which I can import for private and domestic use without prosection because of the Secondary Infringement laws in the Copyright Act), and the French can hop over to Britain and buy the DVD blanks. Everyone wins! Well, except the record and film companies, but we hate them anyway.

BTW, mes amis - eat in France before you leave. British food has got a zillion times better in the last 10 years, but the airport food still sucks donkey balls.

--Ng

To be precise

[Anonymous Coward]

the judgment ( http://www.juriscom.net/jpt/visu.php?ID=785 ) does not authorize uploading nor does it say that uploading is considered private copying.

The judges took the decision to acquit him because :

- The guy could legitimately claim he didn't know he was sharing copyrighted stuff (he could have shared a whole folder and then incidentally placed copyrighted files in it).

- He had no means to formally tell that one file or another was under copyright (in fact only 1212 of the 1875 tunes he shared were).

- As has already been said, there's a tax on blank media that was precisely designed to compensate for such damage.

Re:To be precise

[djatari]

It is exactly the "sharing" that constitutes uploading. No it doesn't make explicit reference to the word "uploader" per se, but it does does indeed discuss "partager." When the decision refers to "placé une copie dans des répertoires partagé accesible à d'autres utilisateurs" this is clearly indicating that others may download from that shared folder, thus resulting in uploading.

I'm too cheap

[soupdevil]

I'm too cheap to pay 99 cents for a song, if (as with iTMS) that song is crippled with DRM, stripped of 90 percent of its data, comes with no physical media or artwork, and yet is treated as a single physical copy rather than a media service (e.g. no option to download again if file is corrupt, deleted or destroyed).

I got an iTunes card for Christmas a couple of years ago, and I tried using it to download an album. Five of the 11 song files were corrupt and unplayable, but Apple would not refund my money or authorize a new download.

Re:I'm too cheap

[geekee]

"I'm too cheap to pay 99 cents for a song, if (as with iTMS) that song is crippled with DRM, stripped of 90 percent of its data, comes with no physical media or artwork, and yet is treated as a single physical copy rather than a media service (e.g. no option to download again if file is corrupt, deleted or destroyed).

I got an iTunes card for Christmas a couple of years ago, and I tried using it to download an album. Five of the 11 song files were corrupt and unplayable, but Apple would not refund my money or authorize a new download."

translation: I have a right to steal something if the the producer doesn't offer it to me in a manner I want.

Re:I'm too cheap

[soupdevil]

Did you use BabelFish for that translation? Because it's not very accurate. I don't steal songs, but I do have over 100gb of music files, from my CDs, and from artists who share their music DRM-free on sites like Magnatune, Jamendo and mp3Tunes.

I haven't yet run out of music to listen to. Try Sufjan Stevens on Emusic, or C. Layne on Magnatune, or Thierry Blanchard on Jamendo.

Whose laws ?

[Quiberon]

It's OK for the French and the Americans to have different copyright laws.

The French have French laws, which date back to Napoleon. The Americans have (mostly) English laws, from the time when the Founding Fathers went across the Atlantic, and that then traces back to William the Connqueror. Oh ... maybe the English have French laws too, then.

And I seem to remember that the French gave the Americans the Statue of Liberty.

Copyright's a commercial thing. I expect this decision --- if it stands --- will make a number of companies think about how and whether to do business in France.

Acquitted is not the right word for it. Judge sending the SCPP away with a flea in their ear, and saying "You took this guy's computer away ? Now give it back, say sorry, promise not to do it again, and start respecting his privacy" is more like it.

I think the cookie would have crumbled differently if he had been in England, though.

Re:one of the main things people need to understan

[swilver]

I see no problem with it, although sneaking into a cinema I wouldn't condone.

I haven't bought a single CD or DVD either in years, and don't intend to either as I find both these media clumsy, or downright annoying (unskippable content comes to mind).

I pay for Cable, but donot own a TV guide; I never ever watch "live" TV anymore, however, I do download stuff that has been on TV before (or will be soon I'll admit) and then watch those at my own leisure -- I donot bother to program my VCR for this simple convience.

I donot think this will be a problem. Music, TV and Movies will not go away -- who produces them and how they are distributed might undergo some serious changes though.

Only download ....

[alain_f]

The link points to a page from which you can download the .pdf of the judgment. I think my claim was accurate.

In a sense, there is no deliberate upload in usual p2p networks. You simply put files in a "shared directory", and other people decide to download it if they want. You don't get any money from it and as long as it is for their private use, there should be no problem considering the current french law.

Impeachment

[Anonymous Coward]

The powers behind the scenes, the actual controllers, with the rogue spooks as henchmen, have got that bribe/blackmail scene down real good now. Real. Damn. Good. Most of congress is compromised, as is most of the judiciary and most of the higher level war machine.. You only ever hear about scandals that they want you to hear about, in their chosen time frame,using their method and of their choosing.. Impeachment happens when the controllers want it to happen,for reasons that make sense to them, and the US realpolitik has nothing to do with "voting". The "US people" have zero control over any impeachment of high level TV soundbite tools like "presidents".

NOT "Only download" ....

[djatari]

In a sense, there is no deliberate upload in usual p2p networks. You simply put files in a "shared directory", and other people decide to download it if they want. You don't get any money from it and as long as it is for their private use, there should be no problem considering the current french law.

Whether or not it is deliberate, the upload still does occur. In the previous cases, the act of uploading, which does inevitably occur when you put your files in a shared directory, had not been deemed to be "private use." This case is novel in that it recognizes that this, too, and not just downloading without keeping files in the shared folder could be authorized as private use.

Re:NOT "Only download" ....

[alain_f]

Blah. So read the text of the judgment and tell me where it deems upload as "private use".

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

[interactive_civilian]

Rei said:

Yeah, because good relations with Iraq was much more important than good relations with the US, which they traded with twenty times as much, and who would (explicitly admitted) have granted them reconstruction deals had they taken part in the invasion.

WTF? So the US says, "Hey, we're gonna go totally destroy this country. Wanna come along and help and then make money rebuilding it? Don't worry...we're sure not too many of your soldiers will die, and we've gotten much better about friendly fire." And you think France should have said, "Oh, yeah. We're in. After all, it is only brown sand people."

Asking a country to participate in war (that was started on false premises) because they can profit from it is one of the more disgusting things I have ever heard.

I would say that good relations with Iraq, not to mention not killing thousands of innocent people, is much more important than slaughtering people and destroying countries for money.

Oops...my bad.

[interactive_civilian]

Whoa...upon further review and a second cup of coffee, it seems I totally misread the intent of your post. Sorry about the "WTF?" post because it seems that we are in agreement.

Must get some more coffee.

Re:who knew? - New Zealand declared war 1st

[Anonymous Coward]

It's said that New Zealand actually declared war first (both world wars)- a full 12hrs ahead of GMT - becasue we filed our papers in readyness to support Britain.

This has been disputed though. Google it.

But did they actually attack Nazis ???

[Anonymous Coward]

AFAIK they just DECLARED war and did nothing ...

You forgot Poland (Locke/Eastern Europe) ...

[Anonymous Coward]

0. I am a European.

1. You are way overestimating French impact on the US - IMO
US would win even without French help - it just might have had
taken longer ...

2. Heard about John Locke ? US does not owe its constitution to France - there is a long list of European non-French thinkers who contributed to it - just read wikipedia .... Freedom in Europe was in England, Netherlands, Poland - not in France with its absolute monarchy ...

3. It is not downhill from WWII. It is US and Reagan who drove USSR to economic collapse ... And this was 1989 ...

Together with pope JPII and Solidarity this gave the end of communism
and democracy for the whole Eastern Europe.

WWII for EE was just a betrayal - half of Europe went under communism
dictatorship - it brough freedom and democracy to Japan and France but definitely not to Eastern Europe and a lot of Asia/Africa.

I think so. . .

[RossumsChild]

You mean to say that it is morally wrong to break a rule created by anyone in authority over you, regardless of the morality of that rule?