Slashdot Mirror
French MPs Consider P2P Downloads Again
gregbains writes "French MPs are preparing to vote again on a proposal that would allow users to download music and movies in exchange for a flat fee per month. This announcement caused outrage from the music and movie groups, but excitement from the vast majority of civilians." From the BBC article: "A report by the Economic and Social Council which advises parliament on new laws argued that P2P exchanges should be made legal. Meanwhile France's highest court, the Cour de Cassation, ruled there was no automatic right for consumers to make private copies of their own DVDs. As MPs prepare to vote again, backing for the global licence remains strong despite the government's opposition."
You're joke is in bad taste. Many people in the French resistance died fighting for freedom, despite the popular notion that the resistance didn't do much. Read the wiki entry.
...they can just stop making movies.
I think the biggest problem in the past 10 years with entertainment companies AND consumers is that each side forgets it needs the other. The MPAA and RIAA fuck with their customers enough, and someday it WILL be too much for Joe Blow, and in the same turn, if we completely fuck the entertainment companies and take away their incentive to produce content, well, they'll just stop.
I don't see why we have to be enemies, and as long as each side is saying "They started it with their (piracy/DRM)!" we won't get anywhere.
i dont see this working. as much as i like file sharing, record companies need money to make it. If file sharing is deemed legal, there will need to be more then a flat fee (assuming the fee is minimal) to keep media companies afloat. money does eventually run out for companies too, and people will download as much as they can to make their fee worthwhile.
but i'm le tired
well have a nap, THEN FIRE THE MISSILES
Vive la France!!!
kin242.net
BTW, which P2P software do the MPs prefer?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
am i the only one who read that and wondered if he was a Kazzaa kind of guy or if he was a Torrent fan ?
The common mistake that people make is they think the French Army (which didnt put up much of a fight) equates to the Resistance (which put up a concerted and continued fight, even during occupation.)
If you believe they have free speech, try distributing neo-nazi pamphlets in France. Free speech is, by definition, for everyone... except the French and similarly oppressed peoples.
I'm actually considering launching a Canadian music download service. I want to get sued so I can change this law. Also, I'm broke and I have nothing to lose. Any suggestions as to where I should begin?
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
Wow, there is someone listening after all! Props to French MPs for standing up to the music industry.
It's also an English term: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cassation
There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
Cour de cassation is like court of appeal. That's where you go when you want to appeal from a previous decision. I would not call it the highest court. There are several of them, in major cities. And the highest court, similar to the Supreme court, is the Conseil Constitutionnel, ie Constitutional council.
Google says "cour de cassation" = "supreme court of appeal".
Old people fall. Young people spring. Rich people summer and winter.
This is not funny. What the fuck is a "MP"? I can only assume the parent is correct in saying "Military Police"... Music Police...Mangy Politican...or any other silly words that fit?
I do agree that they don't have 100% free speech. For example, they control the language of the songs played on the radio (a certain percentage must be in French). But you don't get put in prison for criticizing the government.
From your link:
It's a french loan word. It's even spelled the french way in modern english. It's not an english word any more than Gran Turismo is Japanese :P
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
However, the French do have laws that protect personal privacy. Also, EU countries have signed up to the UN Declaration on Human Rights - unlike the US - and that carries implications that there will be laws against one section of the community stirring up hatred against another. If that is curtailment of freedom of speech, I think most people would support it.
I am always suspicious of the people who try to extend the notion of freedom of speech to include the publication of actual lies.
Pining for the fjords
linky
No, but french SWAT-equivalent cops do wear masks so you can't recognize their faces.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I can't even begin to count the number of filed lawsuits, proposed laws, and stupid shit some official with no power to enact law has said that has made it as news on Slashdot. People, this isn't important news. This stuff doesn't matter.
People sue over the stupidest things all the time and promptly have their case thrown out or simply end up loosing on a later date. That isn't a failure of the court system; that is simply how it works. Everyone gets make their case, no matter how stupid and inane it is. I could go sue CNN over their theft of my copyright of the word "the". Even though you can't copyright the word "the", and even if you could I still wouldn't own it, it would get posted on Slashdot like it is news. We would have a spam of posts decrying the end of the world is coming because of patents, and ignore the fact that my case is going to be thrown out as soon as a judge looks at it.
The same happens with these proposed laws. They are proposed laws, nothing more. When a state or nation enacts a law that affects geeks, THEN report it. Maybe if it is a really large and important law you might report on it before hand. A proposed French P2P doesn't even come close to meeting this criteria, nor was the proposed treat video games as porn law in Utah. Proposals are nothing more then that. Proposals. If this is passed as a law, then sure, it is news. Until then, this is just more Slashdot clutter.
They need something to do after their 35 hour work week is completed and during their 5+ weeks of vacation!
(No, I'm not jealous, I'm just cracking wise. My current job (programmer) is hourly (W-2, not 1099), so I get paid for every
Who gets hurts the most by this proposition? The little guy! Okay, the filthy socialis... I mean french start collecting this "tax" and paying out to the big players, BMG, Sony, etc. What about all of the smaller artists who get pirated... they aren't going to see ANYTHING. This is not the solution to the problem. Are they going to start allowing people to pirate software by paying a small tax? As long as you pay your $4 fee you can download photoshop? It's the same idea! How can a group of people be so misguided?
Offtopic as hell, but with all the fairly anti-French comments that are going to get modded up as funny, I think I might as well set the facts straight.
A lot of Americans love to make a mockery of the French. A lot of this revolves around the French surrender in world war 2, and how the Americans had to "save" the French from Nazi occupation.
Let's make a few things clear here:
1) The French lost 1.5 million men in the First World War, with over 4 million wounded. [source]. The social and moral effect of this were devestating. The French are still feeling the demographic effects to this day. Petain, the infamous Nazi collaberator dur WWII, was one of those in command during the first war and was very aware of the devestation of modern war, and one of the major reasons for the surrender was that neither he, nor a huge amount of the French public were willing to pay such a high price again.
Americans love to mock the French over this, "Cheese eating..." surrender, but think for a moment of American war sentiment in the aftermath of Vietnam. Having suffered only ~60,000 war dead, America effectively became war adverse until after the first Gulf War, and probably till this day to some extent.
Multiply that by x23 times and then try and reasses the French situation.
2) Not everyone in France rolled over and surrendered. Everyone on these boards has heard of the french resistance, and not without good cause. "La Resistance" is to this day a phrase synonomous with any freedom fighters all over the world. Try to remember that quite a lot of French people did what most americans would never do if their country was occupied. Red Dawn is a feelgood movie, not a social commentary on American patriotism.
3) This one is Serious.
America did not win the Second World War In Europe.
The western front was absolutely not what defeated Germany. No way in hell. The war was decided on the Eastern Front. Almost completely. Russia defeated the Nazi's. Not British stiff upper lips. Not the D-day Landings. No. The Russians defeated the German Army.
Don't get me wrong. The Western front was a vital moment in that it ensured western europe did not fall under another dicatorship. But please, do not bullshit either yourself or others by perpetuating this myth that America, or England, defeated the Nazi's. It wasn't Shermans that rolled into Berlin.
So take a moment to come off the pedastal, realise that not everyone in the world lives in a nice safe and secure democracy, and please, stay out of penis size competitions with the French, because they see a lot more action than American's do. Both kinds.
Disclaimer: I am not French, and to be honest, I don't like France very much.
May the Maths Be with you!
They are tired of paying $20 for a piece of fscking plastic too.
My karma makes buddha cry.
It is clear that the grandparent intended on using "you're", but omitted the word "a" and accidentally inserted "is". The poster intended to say "You are a joke in bad taste".
I've always said that I wish the movies, music, and whatever industries would just get together and charge a flat fee, and offer all their content for one monthly fee. It might be expensive, say 100 a month or something, but that would be better I think. That way the people who like music more wouldn't be punished by the RIAA or have to buy a billion CDs for 15 a piece. You don't have to go bankrupt to be interested in pop culture and we can finally have a truly free exchange of information. How many people buy more than 100 dollars a month worth of movies and music anyway? I know I'd be under that bar even if I was still buying albums. I think this french thing is a great idea.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
Like parliament, or garage, or apartment, or restaurant, or ...
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Everybody in the European Union, about 460 million people.
Member of Parliament
Roughly equivalent to a senator (I think), although there is quite a big difference in how the systems work.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
Energy. 80% of electricity in France comes from nuclear plants. Most of the rest is from hydroelectric plants. Cheapest electricity in Europe. France exports electricity. Now that's energy independence.
Back in 1973, at the first "oil shock" of the Arab oil embargo, there was debate in France over what to do. The decision was made to go for energy independence. Unlike in the US, that decision was carried out. And now France is reaping the rewards. They don't have to fight wars for oil.
It's true. There are laws in France requiring radios to play something like 30 percent French songs. But you can say (French or any other language) bad words and show breasts on TV without any problems. And you Brits and Americans, you can't. So whose got the better end of the free speech stick?
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
But most of the free riders are too blinded by self interest to see it. In fact, this law is seriously misguided and I hope the good people of france gain he foresight to see through it. The license fees ultimately paid in any such exchange would go directly to the movie and music industries, and inevitably straight to the top of that food chain. This would allow the industry itself the potential to take greater risks in signing acts, but that's a fundamentally flawed model in that it only further sustains their power and control of the channels of communications.
The internet and home computers make it incredibly easy to share data. These machines practically beg us to share with others. We don't need laws that further incentivize sharing data, that part is already handled.
What we need are laws that encourage creation. And the way you do that is you protect, as much as possible, everyone's ability to profit from those creations as they see fit. I'm a commonsists myself - I believe we have a fundamental duty to foster a "commons" of work which anyone, anywhere, may employ in their own creative expressions - to provide a common culture and a "leg up" of works from which may be derived new creativity. But coopting the legacy works of those who do not share these beliefs actually denies the commons much potential because it discourages new embodiments of creativity.
Protect intellecual property rights; feed the commons.
Actually they only control the ratio of French over other languages. I know there is a lot of good music in the world. Most of it is not in English. Now, how frequently does your radio station in the US (except for NPR) broadcast something in a language other than English?
Yes : to break the ruling of a lower court. That's what the cour de cassation, which is the highest court for civil law, does. Note that the CdC does not rule on the content of cases, but only on the way justice was administered.
I'm afraid this person who I assume is a fellow French national, is a little bit misinformed himself about the workings of his own country : the Cour de Cassation IS the highest court for civil law. There are three institutions that cover what the Supreme Court does in the US : The Cour de Cassation and the Council of State are the highest appeals for respectively civil law and administrative law. The former rules whether justice was administered properly in cases involving crimes and felonies of people or businesses. The later judges whether the State and the local governments act within their legit powers and is the highest appeal for people who, to put in in American terms, "sue the government". And finally the Constitutionnal Council censors bills when they are incompatible with the constitution or international law, _before thay are made into law_. It is not possible to appeal to it once the law is signed, unlike with the Supreme Court.
um, since when to the french speak spanish?
All the "French -" products that were re-dubbed "Freedom -" suddenly take on a positive light..
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
FTA:
So the money goes to the artists. But how is the pot of gold divided up?? Are the numbers of downloads for each artist monitored and the money is returned to the artists proportionately to that? Or are there blanket statements made along the lines of: "well so and so was top-40 last year so he's getting a lot" and "never heard of Wolf Parade so they must be terrible so we won't give them much". Are the indie bands going to get a penny? Who decides this... and if it's some French committee somewhere, are they going to be pressured to give more money to "Variete Francaise" artists even if it has fewer listeners?
Oliver / http://www.treasuretunes.com/
PS: In the interest of full disclosure: I am part French AND part American (and Canadian, but let's keep this simple).
Just curious... are you the same OMF from Eva Monkey Forums?
Sign the petition for a global licence by L'Alliance Public-Artists (public and artists for a legal solution for exchanges on the Internet). The organization mentioned in the BBC story is L'Association Des Audionautes. All pages are in French. Use Google Language Tools if you need a translation.
no, an MP would be closer to a congressman.
I think we need to draw a distinction between the MPAA and the RIAA.
If you examine the costs, we need reasonably large production companies in the picture industry, its production costs are high, and the 'cost' of a flop is also high, in addition, it *mostly* pays its artists reasonably, after all United Artists was just that and was a reaction of the stars of the time against the studios of the time.
However we do NOT on the whole need large record companies. The cost of production is low, the cost of distribution is low *mostly* the artists are poorly paid or ripped off in some way, and the cost of failure is also relativly low. In addition the costs of an artist being independant are low, so they are really only parasites on others work and talent
I really think the MPAA are doing themselves a dis-service being associated with, and adopting the methods of the RIAA
Lots of stuff goes on behind the curtain in France, take for example all the hidden letters they don't pronounce. Shhh
"You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
You're right, you're right... I surrender.
Another common mistake people make is thinking that the french army fought at all during WWII. The 360.000 dead or wounded obviously dropped their guns on their feet when they surrendered or something.
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
Uh? so what? How the hell is that related with free speech? Or is the witness protection program a breach of free speach too, because you can't easily go smash the witness' face with a bat?
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
Are you aware that these acts are forbidden in most of europe, along with holocaust denial?
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
Since we... duh... surrendered to spain? Probably happened, we've been known for surrendering, we can probably find one war during our 1500 years of history when we surrendered to someone at least remotely related to spain. Or to someone who'd surrendered to spain in the past, or would in the future.
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
Like the other reply says, and:
I know a thing or two about loan words, I'm a native French speaker myself (stereotypical bilingual Canadian), I was trying to say that it's one of the words that is also spelt the exact same way in English and has an English definition in the dictionary
There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
Napoleon crowned himself, he didn't need anyone to do that, and he was actually a fucking smart guy, most french laws still come from Napoleon's Code which was one of the most advanced pieces of civil law at the time.
I fail to see how he was evil, too. Sure he did declare war to everyone in europe, but then again you couldn't live 10 years without a war somewhere at that time, and france, being the biggest and most populated country of the western world (even before the napoleonic wars) had it's share of it.
Was he evil because he actually, like, won battles?
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
I see your point, but the solution isn't to have the government step in and regulate that.
The radio stations play exactly what they think that the public wants to hear, no more and no less. That's why they spend millions of dollars a year on focus groups and surveys and everything else. If you live in Brooklyn and turn on the radio and hear a lot of urban and rap stations, with maybe some alternative and spanish-language stations thrown in for good measure, it's not because someone in the ClearChannel Secret Underground Lair decided that Ice Cube is "better" than Dierks Bentley, it's because they're trying to play what they think people in that listening area want to hear. I may think their taste in music sucks, but I have no right to legislate my own taste on them instead.
You can argue that the big radio networks do this poorly -- and I might agree with you, to a certain extent (they are after all, limited by the information they take in, which may or may not be accurate) -- or that you personally don't like the music they play, but the market forces encourage the media outlets to play music that will appeal to the greatest number of people. The more people listen to a particular radio station, the more they can charge for advertising on that same station, and thus the more money the station and the station's owner makes.
If ClearChannel actually thought that there was a market for, say, an all-Italian-opera-all-the-time station in downtown Detroit, I have no doubt that they'd be tripping over themselves to supply it (and sell advertising time). But there isn't much of a market for that, outside of what's already delivered by public radio and classical stations, so the big radio conglomerates don't do it.
For the Government to step in and demand that stations play a certain amount of one kind of music is inherently undemocratic -- it's giving the people something they don't want: because if a lot of people did want it, they'd already be listening to it on commercial radio.
I know that hating big media is practically a sport around here, but it's ridiculous to paint them with the Evil brush on everything. Those companies -- in radio, especially -- spend a ton of money and effort trying to puzzle out what the listening public wants, and then delivering it to them. If it doesn't work so well, then it only demonstrates that maybe the top-down management approach is flawed, and they should give more freedom to the individual stations.
Having even MORE top-down regulation -- from the Government instead of from corporate focus groups -- isn't going to help anything. It can only make the situation worse, because if you think a corporation like ClearChannel or Arbitron is a big boat to make turn, the Government is like that times a factor of 1000. (And it's no less corrupt, either.)
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Specifying a percentage is the same as specifying a ratio.
Puh-TAY-toe, Puh-TAH-toe.
John
I for one is sadly puzzled when the will of people may actually come before that of the government or media industry. France surely is anti-America in some ways.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
"I for one is sadly puzzled when the will of people may actually come before that of the government or media industry. France surely is anti-America in some ways."
Socialists countries always give consumers extra rights at the expense of producers. How is this any different? In America producers and consumers pay an agreed upon price by both for a product, and either can walk away if they don't agree.
Vote for Pedro
Why do you think regulations are bad? Just because the government levels the market does not mean it is bad. In France people elect the government. People do not vote for companies, especially not when you deal with monopolies like the MPAA and RIAA.
Well, I didn't think you didn't, but maybe just that you hadn't thought about it :) It's interesting that the old english spelling is different from the old french, but the modern english spelling is the same.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"This announcement caused outrage from the music and movie groups, but excitement from the vast majority of civilians."
I've read a few articles on this, but none have supported the claim that this was supported by the "vast majority" of civilians.
As a sanity check, I most certainly would not want a socialized music system in the US. I don't want to pay a tax for something I wouldn't use. Of the people who are within 50 feet of me at this moment, some might like the idea, some might hate it, but most of them couldn't care less. When I expand this circle to include everybody in my family, the "couldn't care less" ratio increases dramatically.
Is it really the case that the French are different, and the "vast majority" of them want a socialized music system?
My guess is that the writer has made the assumption that because all of his friends happen to be file sharing fans (which is plausible, if he's in high school or college, and/or his friends all happen to be nerds as well), then this mindset is shared by everybody.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
You do realise the law the French government want to pass is a fairly litteral rewriting of the EUCD directive, EUCD which in turn applies the OMPI agreement Bill Clinton fostered on the world to pass DMCA at home?
In other words, the law itself is pretty close to other EU laws, to the US DMCA, to the extent that some of the pro-business amendments are straight translations of the same amendments Hollywood is pushing in the US?
The big news is unlike in other countries they're causing some uproar and may have the reverse effect of what majors intended: P2P legalisation. And in the same way that
Hollywood -> Bill Clinton (US) -> OMPI (world) -> DMCA (US), EUCD (EU) -> DAVIDSI (France) (the proposed law)
you could have the reverse movement afterwards
It's worth noting the major control of the music market is particularly strong in France (>90%), and they lobbied ever more successfully than in other countries for strong and innane wording of the law (though the core principles are the same everywhere). So far seems they should have been better advised not to rattle their saber so much - consumers actually noticed their government was selling out to lobbies
Because it is people controlling other people and corporations (Through government), which they have no right to do, save to make sure they do not attempt to inhibit their rights. And you have no right over anyone else's property, intellectual or material, unless they choose to give it to you.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
The French government (or anyone else) has no right to control how these artists and record companies distribute their products. If they want to start their own "P2P for a flat fee" program, that's great, but they have the right to only sell it on proprietary 10 foot diameter optical disks if they so desire.
... excitement from the vast majority of civilians." Wow.
How is this project going to work? Will the French government give the artists as much money as it feels appropriate, so the manufacturers of a product cannot set their prices? Freedom? They can't just let the record company pick any price, as is what can and should happen in a free market. So they are abridging freedom for a false "Right to Steal"? "This announcement caused
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
I don't think of myself as of a moron -- but I do suspect that at least one of us may be a troll.
I said I already did include all the real production costs, and made a half-assed attempt at estimating the real (that is, not what the labels quote) costs of distribution. That $1.60 mean "everything till the final sound is provided, ready for pressing into CDs and/or encoding into $digital_format _plus_ all of the artists' profits".
Even if you use electronic means of distribution, the costs from now on won't be 0 -- but they certainly won't increase the price tenfold, as it's the case with RIAA.
I want my money to go into the artists' pockets, not to the middle-men. If free market is allowed, we will end up with the middle-men who can provide the most attractive marketing/packaging/delivery for the least price, instead of a greedy cartel using paralegal tricks to bash customers and any attempts at competition, or corruption-bait like the new french proposal. I'm sure that the cash paid will get "lost" in the bureaucracy.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
I think your comment about the Eastern Front neglects to really appreciate how close the Russians were, at several points, to losing that portion of the war. It's quite believable that if the Germans hadn't had to fight a war on two fronts simultaneously, they would have overcome the Russian resistance.
I have to pipe in because I am a certified wargamer and have actually thought about this issue in order to win as Germany in various War games.
There are 3 times the Germans could have won the War in the East.
1941 - Germans Assaut during June and Get bogged down on the outskirts of Moscow. During December the Soviets attack repelling German forces.
What ere the Americans doing at that time? Well... Pearl Harbor. Any aid to the Soviets at that time? Nah. Neglible.
1942 - Battle of Stalingrad. 600,000 Germans and her Allies are off fighting the Soviets inflicting over 2 million Soviet deaths over a dead city. What else are the Germans doing at that time? They are fighting the Brits in Africa with 2 measly German division with a whole bunch of Italians. Would those 2 divisions made a difference? Probaly not. Maybe Rommel would have been more helpful on the eastern front but he was sent there mostly because he was an unproven commander at that time but made some striking victories.
After this battle the Germans realed loosing over 400,000 soldiers. I'm suprised Manstein was able to save them but he did.
The last chance the Germans had to win was:
1943 - Kursk. Largest tank battle of all time. Where were the Americas at this time? Well they helped drive Rommel out of Africa. Not much else going on. No bombing raids on Germany yet. The German army attacked in the largest concentration known and yet was repulsed by a larger soviet force. Even though the Germans inflicted horrible casualties on the Soviets they could not reach their goals and many had retreat. Their panzer armees were basically destroyed and wasted on the Russian Steppes. It was a grand retreat from there.
A week later, American forces landed in Sicily. Get bogged down hold up about 200,000 German forces. Then the 1943 day air raids begin in earnest.
1944 - Americans land at Normandy. They face Verterns and second line units which number about 200,000. Not to belittle the attack (by all odds it should have failed against the defenses and if it wasn't for naval and air superiority and the bravery of the soldiers storming the beaches it would have ended pretty badly)
Shortly there after the Soviets face a force 3 times larger on the eastern front and wipe it out.
75% of German Dead (about 1.75 million) were on the Eastern front. Bombing raids proved neglible to destroying german infrastructure and many factories continued in operation until they were over run.
So the truth of the matter is... America did help end the war sooner and prevent Stalin from taking over Europe, but I think we overstate our importance at least in victory.
But we have to remember of course what happened after the ware was more important. Without the atomic bomb we would have seen total Communist hemogy in Germany, France, Japan, China, and pretty much the rest of the world from there. So if we are talking about today, then yeah... It was pretty important that the US got involved when it did.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
One of the reasons that Americans are such popular targets in other parts of the world is the American culture. What with all our media and such, it's pretty in your face. So you get the stereotype of the loud, uneducated, pushy American that people love to make fun of.
Well, on the flipside many visible French figures have a real cultural superiority complex, the "Our culture is so much better than yours." Things such as a branch of the government to ensure that the French language stays "pure" from outside words, or holding a purely useless cermony declaring the Prime Meridian to go through Paris, etc.Though no big deal, and certianly not representitive of the average citizen on a day to day basis, it makes good fodder for jokes.
I agree the tension between the countries is another major factor, but some cultures set themselves up for jokes better, at least in the eyes of others.
Although some people have mentioned it here and there, I'd like to point out why this law is but a poor excuse to the problem that the growing number of downloads causes. As of now, the proposal is a flat rate and (as far as I know) optional tax. The main point is there's absolutely no way to guarantee where your money will go. Even if the SACEM (the company that handles royalties redistribution and other copyrights related taxes) evenly redistributes the tax, what criterion would they use ? Safe to assume they'd use number of copies sold. So in the end, who gets the money ? The label produced artists (and/or the labels themselves). Which means the end user cannot choose to help the artists he wants, he'll just blindly throw away his money for labels to churn out more crap (and if you think America is bad, I doubt you've heard much french pop. And I won't quote any names because I would feel bad for single handedly damaging some people's ears.) So sure, fanatic leechers might go and shout "Viva La France" or god knows what, but a global license definitely isn't the way to go to solve the current media crisis. The French government created a very nice site (http://www.lestelechargements.com/ , litterally "thedownloads.com") about why the DRM law (that caused all of this ruckus, including the global license proposal) is good for your health, cures cancer, and saves all of the artists from poverty. On a funny note, if you type "site de propagande" on google (which means as you may have guessed "propaganda site"), you find in first position the website concerning the DRM law, and in third position the above mentioned website.
even though MP doesn't refer to Military Police, I think the french politician Nicolas Sarkozy (currently acting as minister of the interior) would strongly support you idea.
You are right but there is (at least in theory) a MAJOR difference between US Supreme Court and the Cour de Cassation : the Cour de Cassation can not judge a case, it can only break a decision on form, ie if procedure was not correctly executed. Or course, in reality, they pronounce themselves on substance of decision each time they can find some minor details entitling them to hear the case.
And a last note : the European court of Human Rights is higher than the Cour de Cassation. But its scope is limited and this is true for every country in Europe.
every new technology layer remove the need for insignificant middlemen. Which the RIAA, record companies, movie studios are. Because of the web there is now a direct link between artists and the population. And as technologies evolve, the length of that link will be reduced and the middlemen will completely disappear. that is why they are scared and struggling to find a purpose. New and drastic P2P technologies are on the work that will allow instant searches, copies, distribution and consuming of content to the population and instant rewarding mechanisms for the artists that produce it. No servers, No traces and encrypted. All this without the need for knowledge inflated greed-based absolutely useless organizations that highjack both our desires and curiosities as much as the artists needs and survival tools. in the future, it will interesting to see if even only one of those middlemen emerge intact and with a sense of purpose out of the underground replication effort by various hackers around the globe...
I disagree that marketing meerly good songs is "not good for the customers." If all we knew about were "great" songs, then we'd have precious few songs at all. At least with the cost of increasing the noise, marketing also increases the signal. Everyone doesn't have the same taste in music. How would you feel if you missed out on a song you would've really loved because you just didn't ever know about it because it wasn't popular?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Um, maybe you've forgotten who conquered whom.
Watch this Heartland Institute video