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.
Vive la France!!!
kin242.net
BTW, which P2P software do the MPs prefer?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Wow, there is someone listening after all! Props to French MPs for standing up to the music industry.
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.
linky
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.
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!
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.
You mean 20 euros.
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"
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?
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.
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.
Popular speech does not need to be protected. The only interesting freedom of speech is freedom of unpopular speech.
To not bash the French (just for variety), in Germany you can go to jail for 3 years for disrespecting another's religion, as the man who was selling toilet paper with the word "koran" printed on it has learned. So inoffensive speech is presumably protected, but expression that offends someone? Off to jail for 3 years.
Freedom of speech is exactly freedom of highly offensive speech. Why do people have a hard time with this concept? If you want to value "not offending people" higher than freedom of speech, that's fine for you, but don't call the result "freedom of speech", call it something else.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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).
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.
Sadly, I can anticipate the answer to your question about the little guy. It goes something like this:
"If musicians are so worried about making money, then they're businesspeople, not musicians. They should be in the business just for the love of creating. If they want money, they can play live concerts, or give away their music for free and beg for donations. And remember that Beethoven didn't care about money; he did it for the love of music.(*)"
But seriously, Canada and (to a lesser degree) the US have taxes and tarrifs that are distributed to performers, musicians and composers. The reality is that the distribution is very selective. In Canada, you must be a Canadian musician to see any money, and in both countries, only the top 40 artists see a significant amount.
The top downloads on the iTMS tend to match up with the Billboard top tens, so there's some support to the theory that music is pirated in the same proportion that it's bought in physical form. But my iTunes purchases are nothing like the Billboard top ten. If the USA were to adopt a socialized music system where I'd pay $10 a month for all I could eat, I think that most of my money would go to the Top 40 artists, and the musicians whose work I actually downloaded and enjoyed would not see any of it.
(*) Not true in the least, but nonetheless a commonly held opinion among file sharing fans.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
"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.
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.
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.