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."
...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.
Wow, there is someone listening after all! Props to French MPs for standing up to the music industry.
linky
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.
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.
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.