Europe Rejects Plan To Criminalize File-Sharing

Lineker points out a report that the European Parliament has rejected plans to criminalize file-sharing by private individuals. The amendment to remove the anti-piracy measures passed by a vote of 314-297. The decision is expected to influence how France, with its strict anti-piracy polices, approaches this issue when it assumes the EU presidency later this year. From InfoWorld: "France's so-called Oliviennes strategy to combat copyright abuse includes a 'three strikes and you are out' approach: Offenders lose the right to an Internet account after being caught sharing copyright-protected music over the Internet for a third time. The report is significant because it 'signifies resistance among MEPs to measures currently being implemented in France to disconnect suspected illicit filesharers,' the Open Rights Group said in a statement.

Comments

RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

The right to an internet account? So, France supplies every citizen with an account until they've had three strikes?

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, there aren't many of what we would call rights in France. Freedom of Speech for example. They couldn't have a Led Zeppelin day on the radio for example, since a fixed percentage of the music must be in French.

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

By virtue of government oversight of telco's, yes.

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is parent so anti-French ? We are just different culture and different way of doing thing. France is very good in computers, leads in that industry. And in WWII we help to defeat Nazis, being a good ally to US as is always. Why so much people in US do not like us French people ?

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

What did you do in WWII exactly? I seem to recall France was pretty much down for the count fairly early on, since you lacked the concept of invaders going AROUND your impenetrable defense.

Anyway, if it wasn't the French, it would be someone else. Maybe we should move on to the Danish. No one likes them, much, anyway.

Re:RIGHT?

[theheadlessrabbit]

Why so much people in US do not like us French people ? Because the wine, food, healthcare, social services, and kissing are so much better in France, Americans have to hate you so they can continue to feel good about themselves.

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a hilarious comment on an American forum, since the US likes to pretend it singlehandedly won WWII, when in reality it was mostly the Russians who destroyed the German army, and the Brits who destroyed the Luftwaffe. The US army came in late and had to rush simply to get into Germany before Stalin took all of it for himself.

Re:RIGHT?

[Vectronic]

Hey, dont take it so personally, most Americans probably think that the Statue Of Liberty was made by Ford Motor Company...

Not to mention your (as a country) help in 1812, and WW1... if it wasnt for you, the odds are good they'd still be under British rule (who they should hate more than anyone)

Although I have nothing against the french (as in 'France')... if you could come and ship the damn Quebecers back to your country, we'll build you a new Eiffel Tower or something... promise...lol

Re:RIGHT?

[theheadlessrabbit]

No, there aren't many of what we would call rights in France. Freedom of Speech for example. They couldn't have a Led Zeppelin day on the radio for example, since a fixed percentage of the music must be in French. So freedom and constitutional rights in the United States have eroded to the point where Freedom is now defined as the ability to play Led Zeppelin all day?

How the hell do Content Laws have anything to do with Freedom of speech?

We have Canadian content laws in Canada as well.

CanCon laws in no way impeed my freedom to say what I want, when I want. I can say that Stephen Harper is a fucking douche, whos anti-media policies would be right at home in North Korea. I have the freedom to walk right up to his house, knock on his door and say it to his face (if he answers his own door...)

Re:RIGHT?

[electrictroy]

It's difficult to please a french person. For example if you try to use their language, and don't get the accent quite right, then take it as an insult! (Most nations take it as a compliment that you at least tried.)

Re:RIGHT?

[2.7182]

Can you have signs in English anywhere in Quebec ? (Business, private, whatever) An honest question - I am just wondering if it is an urban legend that you can't.

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

So? We created Chinese food. And pizza. Not to mention the missionary position. You're welcome.

Re:RIGHT?

[Wrath0fb0b]

Apparently you don't have freedom of speech in Canada. Listen to your "human rights investigator" (PDF http://volokh.com/files/warmantranscript.pdfPDF p43):

MS KULASZKA: Mr. Steacy, you were talking before about context and how important it is when you do your investigation. What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?

MR. STEACY: Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value.

MS KULASZKA: Okay. That was a clear answer.

MR. STEACY: It's not my job to give value to an American concept.

Now, I'm sure that's not the view of most Canadians but idea that someone from your "human rights" commissions has such abject disregard for the universal value of free speech - a value that is by far not uniquely American. How did this person get to be in that position?

So freedom and constitutional rights in the United States have eroded to the point where Freedom is now defined as the ability to play Led Zeppelin all day? While I'm generally not happy about the state of American Constituional Law (and I'm also not alarmist about it either, most of the institutions seem sound enough to survive a few bad terms), I would say that the right to play whatever music (obscenity notwithstanding) you want on your radio station constitutes a part of a fundamental right. It's not defined that way, it's just that the way it's defined necessarily includes that right (mathematically, that right is necessarily a subset of the broader right).

As far as the French policy goes, I cannot imagine any Court in the United States upholding a restraint on the ability of a citizen to freely contract with an ISP for internet access. The only way this could possibly happen is if it is proven (note: the "making available" theory no longer holds water) that the person in question distributed files in violation of someone else's rights, the DA/USA could make not touching the internet a part of a plea deal. In that case, it's voluntary and so there is no question of legality.

Re:RIGHT?

[MrNaz]

You're American, aren't you? I'm Australia. Yes, I ride to work on a kangaroo.

And yes, I've been asked that seriously by an American I once met while travelling.

Re:RIGHT?

[Phil_At_NHS]

Honest Answer? A perception, right or wrong, that the French are extremely arrogant and self important. Something that is probably echoed as a perception of Americans.

Re:RIGHT?

[mrsteveman1]

Yea but they have the French position

(you don't want to know...hint: it involves cheese and a baguette)

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Brits who destroyed the Luftwaffe. That would be Commonwealth not just the brits. ;)

Re:RIGHT?

[B5_geek]

Not an urban legend.

Quebec has the most draconian laws of any communist country.

Sure you have freedom of speech, but it must be in French.

Take our most famous "English-rights' lawsuit taht a Canadian company took to the Quebec government.

Eaton's. (A very large upscale'ish Sears) Was forced to change their signs in Quebec from: "Eaton's" to "Eatons'"

All because the former was an 'English' sign.

Re:RIGHT?

[compro01]

well, technically we don't have "freedom of speech". freedom of speech is not mentioned anywhere in the charter of rights and freedoms.

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be honest? The French POPULOUS is great. It's the French GOVERNMENT (Or anybody in Paris with authority, really, be it perceived or genuine) that sucks. Most of the people of Paris I met were fantastic. It's the people who viewed themselves as 'in charge' that were complete assholes.

And I mean that, unerringly, that was the case. It wasn't the case in Britain, nor in the Bahamas, nor Canada nor Mexico, nor America. But when I visited Paris? Every time I had to interact with a policeman or security guard or whatnot, they treated me like filth for simply existing.

Is that enough reason?

Re:RIGHT?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

and don't get the accent quite right, then take it as an insult!

Has this actually happened to you?

Re:RIGHT?

[NoPantsJim]

I've always been baffled by that myself. What drives me even more nuts is the constant jokes about Canada, and I'm an American. It's always some dumbshit redneck who's never been outside the country who calls Canada "America's hat" without considering that the Canadian dollar is worth more than ours and that he's got less teeth then they have provinces.

I've been to quite a few Canadian cities on hockey trips and I'm seriously considering moving there.

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's happened to me... however, I'm pretty sure it's just an EXCUSE to treat you like filth instead of a REASON. Generally, the Parisians who wish to treat you like crap will wait until an excuse presents itself. And you can tell which Parisians wish to treat you like crap, because they perceive themselves to have authority. The rest of the country seems to be fine but god help anyone not from Paris, who has to deal with a Police Officer or Security Guard in Paris...

Re:RIGHT?

[the brown guy]

All signs must be primarily in French i believe, but thats not Canada, that's Quebec and nobody gives a fuck about them anyways.

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

A hhangaroo?

Re:RIGHT?

[Zelrak]

You can have english signs, they just have to have bigger and more prominent french writing. So there can be some english, but the french has to predominate.

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

And what we do have is this:

b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

Re:RIGHT?

[Arivia]

Even though I don't really agree with them, they're technically and legally in the right. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (what governs this sort of stuff across Canada) is separated into two sections: responsibilities, and rights. You don't get your rights until you live up to your responsibilities, and you definitely don't get them if you're infringing on someone else's rights. Basically, legally, in Canada, other peoples' human rights trump your right to expression (not to speech; we don't have a right to free speech). So, he's doing his job the right way, as crazy as it may seem.

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

You just have to let them know you aren't an American and many french people's attitudes improve immensely.

Thanks be to G.W.Bush and his freedom fries, amongst other things.

Re:RIGHT?

[BootNinja]

It's cool Australia, I live in Texas and when I went to Disneyland on a band trip 10 years ago, I was constantly asked by floridians about my horse.

So I just ran with it and told elaborate stories about mucking out the school stables, my great aunt ethel who lost a finger feeding her horse, and how my dad got run over by a steer.

Re:RIGHT?

[Maxo-Texas]

And also, you wouldn't see restrictions on the ability to play songs by one french band all day restricted.

Re:RIGHT?

[lelitsch]

That's not even a decent troll. How is freedom of speech not part of "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication"? Section 2b of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Re:RIGHT?

[compro01]

i wasn't even trying to troll. i emphasized "technically" for a reason. there is no "freedom of speech" in the charter. the word "speech" isn't even in it. freedom of expression is technically different (it explicitly includes all forms of communication) from freedom of speech (includes only spoken word), though they're effectively the same with "speech" being reinterpreted.

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

well, technically we don't have "freedom of speech". freedom of speech is not mentioned anywhere in the charter of rights and freedoms. More significantly, the Charter specifically gives Parliament (and, to a lesser degree, provincial authorities) the power to pass laws that violate the Charter if they feel that it's important enough to do so (the "notwithstanding" clauses).

Worse, the Charter is a law, passed by Parliament, as opposed to part of the Constitution (as in the US Bill of Rights). As such, it can be amended by Parliament at its whim, as opposed to having to go through the difficult Constitutional amendment process.

Most countries are this way; rather than limiting the power of government to infringe your rights (as in the US), they define in law what your rights are. Many people, American and otherwise, fail to grasp this difference.

For example, the US Second Amendment does not give Americans the right to own a gun; rather, it forbids the government from infringing upon the right of Americans to own a gun. Similarly, the US First Amendment does not give Americans freedom of speech or religion; rather, it forbids the government from passing any law that interferes with freedom of speech or religion.

The Canadian Charter, on the other hand, grants rights (e.g., section 2 "fundamental freedoms" including freedom of speech), but then says in section 33 "that Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare" that a law they pass overrides section 2.

Similar situations are to be found in the UK, Australia, and other countries with parliaments (elected dictatorships). The citizens of these countries like to delude themselves that they are "more democratic" than the US, and that they are "more educated" than most Americans.

Zimbabwe is an excellent example of how parliaments are not "more democratic"; an important part of a real democracy are checks and balances to prevent the people from voting in a dictatorship (and to allow the minority a veto over something that stomps on their rights). Similarly, the image of "ignorant American" typically comes from some rich airhead American kid on a foreign vacation; not at all representative of Americans, but since it fits the prejudice they go with it.

Re:RIGHT?

[1u3hr]

No, there aren't many of what we would call rights in France. Freedom of Speech for example. They couldn't have a Led Zeppelin day on the radio for example, since a fixed percentage of the music must be in French.

Sacrebleu! Your right not to play any French music on publicly owned radio frequencies is sacred. Let them try to pry that from your cold dead hands.....

Or you could just play a few French covers of Stairway to Heaven to make up the quota.

Re:RIGHT?

[multisync]

I've been to quite a few Canadian cities on hockey trips and I'm seriously considering moving there.

You'd better get some pants first

Re:RIGHT?

[MrNaz]

That's pretty much what I did. There is now someone running around the world who earnestly believes that kangaroos in Australia are tied up with bike locks.

Re:RIGHT?

[cyborch]

(you don't want to know...hint: it involves cheese and a baguette)

I thought it involved something else...

Re:RIGHT?

[Z34107]

Ahh... America and France used to be such great pals until the "falling out."

They gave us the statue of liberty, we inspired them to overthrow their monarchy for freedom. But, despite Ben Franklin's best efforts and French help in our own war, we kinda puked over how bloody their revolution was getting. And it's been downhill ever since.

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

to be fair, in french, tone of voice is as important as the content, even an experienced speaker can use an insulting tone unwittingly.

Re:RIGHT?

[music_man_420]

The initial version of "The Charter of the French Language" (Bill 101) made it illegal to post signs in any language other then French. This law was upheld (through a storm of controversy, I might add) between 1977 and 1993. However in 1988 The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that this restriction violated "The Charter of Rights and Freedoms". However the incumbent Premier at the time invoked the "not withstanding" clause of the Canadian constitution to delay the change in law until 1993. Since then it has been legal to have bilingual signs in Quebec so long as the French part of the sign is displayed "markedly predominant."

I apologize for the off-topicness of my post but as a Canadian who is deeply fascinated with politics, especially those surrounding Quebec and the French language, I could not resist.

Re:RIGHT?

[unoengborg]

Actually, content laws have a lot to do with freedom of speach. More and more information is distributed on digital media, and if we build systems, technical or legal, to control such media they can be used for other things than making sure that recordcompanies get their "fair" share.

Re:RIGHT?

[rohan972]

May wee!

Re:RIGHT?

[Bloke down the pub]

They caused a lot of casualties to the Germans. Mostly from syphilis.

Re:RIGHT?

[radio4fan]

if you try to use their language, and don't get the accent quite right, then take it as an insult! Bullshit.

I moved to France last Decemeber to learn French. I have not had a *single* experience of hostility from anyone here when speaking my terrible French to them, or at any other time.

The French I've met are friendly, warm, helpful, hardworking, practical and resourceful.

I had heard these stories about 'what the French are like' and in my experience the stories are just rubbish.

Re:RIGHT?

[Bloke down the pub]

What about German or Chinese? If I ran a shop selling speicialty goods from those countries, and my customers were wholly or mainly expats from those countries, why can't I write my sign in German or Chinese?

Re:RIGHT?

[radio4fan]

No, there aren't many of what we would call rights in France. Freedom of Speech for example. They couldn't have a Led Zeppelin day on the radio for example, since a fixed percentage of the music must be in French. No, this is not a restraint on freedom of speech (which is guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights).

US radio stations can't broadcast songs with 'fuck' in the lyrics. So can I assume that you feel there aren't many of what you would call rights in the US?

French stations can -- and do -- broadcast songs with foul language in both French and English, during the daytime on mainstream shows.

Re:RIGHT?

[hachete]

Quebec is a communist country? WTF? That inaccuracy does undermine what you say ...

Re:RIGHT?

[arkhan_jg]

This only applies in Paris, but there they hate everyone, not just you. The accent is the excuse.

Paris is to France as London is to the UK, or New York is to the USA. I.E. full of assholes that hate everyone else.

Re:RIGHT?

[damaki]

Dude, when I discuss in french with a foreign guy who does not seem to master this language, I do not pay attention to such things. I mean, for instance, if he says "Tu" instead of "Vous", it no problem. Only stupid people and grammar nazis see rudeness everywhere.

About french and english, it is mostly that the majority of yound people does know some bits of english but speak so badly that they are ashamed of it and won't event try. Futhermore, they will probably not understand your accent if you do not speak really slowly and with reduced accentuation. Foreign languages education in France is absolutely terrible. We mostly get incompetent, french teachers instead of natives. Here stands the secret of the famous "french accent"

Re:RIGHT?

[woods01]

I have to say that im ignorant when it comes to French healthcare. After doing a google on it I found the following to be rather amusing. "In France, health insurance is a branch of the Social Security system. It is funded by workersâ(TM) salaries (60 percent of the fund), by indirect taxes on alcohol and tobacco and by direct contribution paid by all revenue proportional to income" Isn't it an oxymoron to have "healthcare programs" funded by tobacco and alcohol profits? Over here in the US, we've already made the connection between booze/smoking & your health. People that don't smoke are in general, better healthy and more productive. If France does what this article does, and only grants it to it's Citizens, it's one step ahead of the US in many ways, over in the US, healthcare goes to everyone, citizen or not.

Re:RIGHT?

[kjayant]

You should look at Americans through the eyes of a foreigner.. The "perceive themselves to have authority" is all cultural. Some people might confuse the American attitude of confidence and ownership at their job also the same

Re:RIGHT?

[old and new again]

Can you have signs in English anywhere in Quebec ? (Business, private, whatever) An honest question - I am just wondering if it is an urban legend that you can't. they must be bilingual, with the french part bigger than the english/other language part

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sir, are my new hero.

Re:RIGHT?

[Jedi Alec]

Hah, you think? The *real* reason is that when a cute french girl speaks english, no matter how poorly, the accent is absolutely &%^&#^$^& hot.

Dutch sounds a lot better with a good helping of french accent applied as well, btw.

But seriously, one of the major issues is that fact the all french tv is dubbed instead of subtitled, much like german tv btw. And if you want to get a feel for just how awful an experience this is for someone who isn't used to it, try imagining visiting another country and seeing someone watch, say, Amelie Poulin(great film) or even Taxi dubbed in german.

Hearing and speaking it regularly is the only way to make progress in a language, the stuff at school is just the basic foundation to start off from.

@+

Re:RIGHT?

[nospam007]

It's road signs they mean.

Re:RIGHT?

[Paaskonijn]

since you lacked the concept of invaders going AROUND your impenetrable defense. I know this is flamebait, but you're thinking of WW I, when the Germans tried to reach Paris through Belgium.

Re:RIGHT?

[electrictroy]

You're probably right. (The following is just a joke.)

FRENCHMAN: "Oui! You picked up your bagel with your left hand!"
TOURIST: "I did what?"
FRENCHWOMAN: "Filthy English tourist. You come here and insult us? How dare you!"
TOURIST: "???"
FRENCHMAN: "And now he's drinking his milk with a straw. Despicable."

Re:RIGHT?

[jovius]

Germany was largely destroyed by its own stratetic errors. If they had interpreted their intelligence right they would have prevented the invasion. Germany was tied by the eastern front - another failure. But, if they had commenced that campaign only a couple of weeks earlier it would have been a success. Germany could have been able to secure their positions in Europe, if they had acted rationally.

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the French position was 50 miles away from the frontline in a rapid retreat, or sat in a puppet government.

Relax, it's a joke!

Re:RIGHT?

[niktemadur]

Good job pointing out the fact that it was the Soviet army that did the lion's share of the task. Any doubt in that area can be dispelled by reading about The Battle Of Kursk, in July of 1943. After this campaign, which effectively broke the nazi army's back, Soviet forces were in a continuous forward march towards Berlin, which would have easily been achieved regardless of Operation Overlord and its' subsequent campaigns.
Most US citizens like to believe that Patton was the military genius in WWII, and he was very good indeed, but any historian worth his/her salt will tell you unequivocally that Field Marshall Georgy Zhukov was The Man.

Re:RIGHT?

[Oktober Sunset]

As opposed to WW2 where the Germans did reach Paris by going through Belgium.

Re:RIGHT?

[Zelrak]

I know it's pretty ridiculus, but you would need to put french also, at least as prominently.

It gotten kinda crazy, but these laws are all form the 60s and 70s when English people owned a lot of the buisnesses and such, yet the population was mostly French so they decided they had to do something: The Quiet revolution and more specificly Bill 101

In fact, if you are a German or Chinese immigrant and you want to go to public school you have to go in French, you can't go in English even. To my knowledge you need to have parents that went to an English school in Quebec to be able to go to English public school. (Although you can just pay to go to a private school.)

Re:RIGHT?

[mcvos]

since you lacked the concept of invaders going AROUND your impenetrable defense. I know this is flamebait, but you're thinking of WW I, when the Germans tried to reach Paris through Belgium. In WW2 they did reach Paris through Belgium.

Not that that justifies France-bashing, though. There wasn't a single country that could stand up to the German military at that time. They overran most of Europe and came pretty close to Moscow.

Re:RIGHT?

[Zelrak]

Actually, it's all signs, there's an Irish pub that was recently ordered to take down vintage guiness adds since they were in English. See this acticle in the Gazette, Montreal's English paper.

(note: I think they eventually didn't actually take them down, but you get the idea.)

Re:RIGHT?

[Oktober Sunset]

Ah the French have to to take any opportunity they can to insult people, when you're a country of people who eat frogs' legs and snails, you gotta take any comeback you can.

Re:RIGHT?

[stevey]

The funniest thing about a recent trip to Vienna (in Austria) was seeing some of the local students walking around with T-Shirts with a "No kangaroo" signs upon them.

It seems that many tourists got Austria and Australia confused - quite how that can be I don't understand - and constantly asked to see the kangaroos.

Re:RIGHT?

[fbjon]

No, it makes perfect sense. If you buy cigarettes and inflict harm on your health, it's only fair that you have to contribute more to the health insurance with every pack you buy. The conflict of interest only exists for a corrupt government that seeks profits above all else.

Re:RIGHT?

[Pax681]

um if you are resident in France then you are entitled to thew health service and what it has to offer , which i might add is a ASSLOAD MORE THAN ANY AMERICAN MMO WILL DO. i think youi will find that without insurance tyour treatments in America will cost y6ou a large fortune. In the UK and France this is not the case. We actually GIVE A SHIT about our fellow countrymen/women and believe in social healthcare, whereas your govt believes in PROFIT for their MMO pals. not very caring at all

Re:RIGHT?

[TheRaven64]

I had heard these stories about 'what the French are like' and in my experience the stories are just rubbish. Most of them I've heard have been told by French people. And a lot of them have been about how Parisians treat people from the rest of France...

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Broadly true, Russian losses in particular were truly massive and all too often overlooked in the west. However the US was vital all the same. Britain would almost certainly have fallen without US support, e.g. U-boat attacks on Atlantic convoys came perilously close to starving us into submission. Also the USSR war machine was assisted considerably by US-made prefab factories etc.

Re:RIGHT?

[eiapoce]

I can remember playing the russian part of Call Of Duty was stressful because soldiers were unarmed and expendable.

Re:RIGHT?

[Iamthefallen]

I've explained to people that the difference in how we celebrate Thanksgiving in Sweden is that it customarily involves lots of herring and reindeer as it's too cold for turkeys to survive the 11 month winters...

Re:RIGHT?

[twig_nl]

Can you have signs in English anywhere in Quebec ? (Business, private, whatever) An honest question - I am just wondering if it is an urban legend that you can't. Under current regulations, commercial signs can be bilingual (or multilingual) but French must be twice as prominent as English (or any other language(s)). There are also various exemptions for political organizations, religious organizations, etc. The laws may be strict, but I wouldn't call them draconian (as B5_Geek does below). For example, in terms of political debate, there is plenty of English-language media in Quebec. Also, the story that Eaton's was forced to change their sign by the autorities is, indeed, an urban myth. They did change it, but they were not ordered to do so by the government.

Re:RIGHT?

[Zerth]

Huh, I should have known they would have a position...

But then nobody expects the French Position.(groan)

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been in many different parts of france, in some parts of france I hate the french more than in others :) But the french are a little arrogant if you ask me. They only speak french, while in most country's of europe at least 2 languages are spoken.

Re:RIGHT?

[Colonel Korn]

I've encountered a few Parisians who sort of did this, usually in non-touristy restaurants. However, I think the average Parisian is at least as friendly to English-speaking Americans like me as the average American, and when I go to other parts of France I meet the warmest people I've ever seen in any part of the world. France has a wonderful culture and a wonderful people.

Re:RIGHT?

[mdwh2]

The right to an internet account? So, France supplies every citizen with an account until they've had three strikes?

"Right" does not mean "The Government must provide every citizen with it", but that they cannot take it away.

Freedom of speech does mean the Government should provide you with a platform to broadcast your views.

Right to a family life does not mean that the Government must provide every Slashdotter with a wife.

I don't see why this is any different.

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a liar and/or an idiot.

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who stormed the French beaches at Normandy?

I can't remember which country sent thousands of its young men to die on Omaha Beach.

Can someone please remind me who pushed Hitler out of France?

USA! USA! USA!!

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is indeed true. It has happened to me so many times, while I was in Paris and Nice for two days each. Two days each. And while I was there, I met exactly two people who cared to speak in English (not mentioning the big shops). Every one else: ticket counter, information center... they were all just plain rude.

While I was at Nice, every time I went to the train station, I was "randomly selected" for passport check, two times I was taken to the police station. After that we were just avoiding going to train station even though we had a lot of stuff in locker room.

And last but the not the least, while returning back to Germany, they took me (along with 3 more people, two were black) out of the train at Strasbourg and handcuffed me, then left me on the German border, after I signed some documents in the police station. Oh, btw, they left everyone else immediately for some reason which I think was: they all spoke French. I was left in a room for 5 hours and no one spoke a word to me.

I might have let my bitterness spill on this post, so I am posting as AC.

Re:RIGHT?

[dryeo]

Really the important thing is what the Supreme Court says. Much like the States where your President says that the constitution is a piece of paper and he is above the law.
And here we have more freedom to say whatever we want on the radio including words like shit and fuck or show boobies on the TV.
Anyways it's much like the States where different people have different ideas about what rights people have and really it comes down to what the Supreme Court says.
The one negative is the not-withstanding clause that allows a province to override the bill of rights (only used by Quebec so far to force their sign laws into law) but at least it is out in the open instead of hidden like in the States.

Re:RIGHT?

[STrinity]

The Soviets didn't have military geniuses in the war -- or rather, they did, but Stalin had them all shot. What they had was lots of cannon fodder. They didn't win because Zhukov was a genius -- they won because he was merely competent but had far more reserves than the Germans.

Re:RIGHT?

[STrinity]

A) The Germans pulled the same thing in WWII, going through the Netherlands, only this time it worked.

B)The Schlieffen Plan got the Germans within 30 miles of Paris before the Brits and French were able to stop them, and that was only because the Germans opened up their flank too much. So the plan almost worked. And even its failure doomed the French to four years of continuous bloody war, all because they didn't try to defend the Belgian frontier until the last moment.

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you happen to mention that the herring is red?

Re:RIGHT?

[IndustrialComplex]

I loved that slogan.

Austria - No Kangaroos. :)

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes great that Russia occupied several countries with an equally fucked up system as nazism was. They're still bragging about it tough.

Re:RIGHT?

[nguy]

That's a hilarious comment on an American forum, since the US likes to pretend it singlehandedly won WWII, when in reality it was mostly the Russians who destroyed the German army, and the Brits who destroyed the Luftwaffe.

The difference is that neither Russia nor GB had a choice in the matter; the US, however, did. The US could have just leaned back and let Germany take over Europe; Europe would have been so weak that it wouldn't have been a threat to the US.

The US army came in late and had to rush simply to get into Germany before Stalin took all of it for himself.

The US made big sacrifices during WWII and was crucial in the success of the allies. And even if you just consider the time after WWII, the US invested in a massive effort to de-Nazify Europe, get Europe back on its feet again, turn Germany into a democracy, and keep the USSR from taking over Europe. Of course, the US acted out of enlightened self-interest, since a free and democratic Europe was in their interest; but you can bet that if the US hadn't been there, the aftermath of WWII would have been continued bloodshed and hostilities among the French, British, and Germans.

The Russians, in contrast, turned the nations behind the iron curtain into totalitarian regimes and sucked them dry economically.

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxi dubbed in german

Aieeeee, what an awful image!

Re:RIGHT?

[niktemadur]

It's true that Stalin had his military geniuses shot and surrounded himself with incompetent cronies like Budienny and Timoshenko, who faithfully toed the party line.
However, Stalin also knew that Zhukov, who was also wildly popular with the troops (a major point of jealousy and paranoia), was the one general he could not afford to execute.
And so, Zhukov was shipped off to Siberia and was brought back when the cronies had things on the verge of catastrophe, such as the defense of Moscow and the siege of Leningrad. And then, there was Stalingrad and Kursk.
In fact, it is said that Zhukov was the only man in the world who could storm into Stalin's office and call him an idiot to his face, which he did on occasion, making everybody around feel like they were about to have a heart attack.

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to the typical american tourist, who feels highly offended if some "native" happens to not speak in english and doesn't hesitate making sure you know for a fact you should speak it.

Re:RIGHT?

[niktemadur]

Forgot to mention another important point.

It's also true that a disproportionate amount of Soviet men were used as cannon fodder, at first. Yet to the horror of the nazis, the waves of soldiers just kept on coming, incredibly, every time better trained and with better equipment than the previous batch. It was the most unbelievable nightmare conceivable for the invaders.

What was it that the man said? Oh yeah, never get involved in a land war in Asia. I think the principle applies, as most of the Soviet Union was in Asia, even though the nazi invasion was confined to the west of the Urals. The industries and training camps were in Asia.

Re:RIGHT?

[Cywiro]

And in WWII we help to defeat Nazis, being a good ally to US as is always.

So you want credit for helping the allies to bail you out of a war you started (Sept 3rd 1939)?

Re:RIGHT?

[compro01]

1. yes, but using that is generally politcal suicide. the federal goverment has never even used it. quebec has (their french language stuff) and alberta tried it in regards to same-sex unions (and got overruled as ultra vires).

2. where the hell are you getting that? the charter IS entrenched in the canadian constitution. perhaps you're mixing it up with the bill of rights from 1960, which was just a federal statute.

3. i would guess that's a matter of opinion.

4. yes, they can do that, but as i said, no one will, as they'll be promptly removed from office.

5. IMO, we more vigeriously defend our rights up here, as we know they are subject to limitations, and thus we will set those limitations on our own terms.

6. i never said anything about parliments being "more democratic" and our checks and balances seem to work fine.

Re:RIGHT?

[Wrath0fb0b]

Please stop judging the United States Constitution based on George Bush. Presidents come and go (and the sooner this one goes, the better) but I'm confident that the institutions of this country are stronger than a temporary fuckup. Perhaps this is a minority view of /., but recall that Nixon didn't manage to destroy the Constitution and he was much more clever than W.

As far as boobies on the public airwaves goes, they belong to the public and it seems only logical that the public can make rules for their use. I wouldn't vote for those restrictions, but I respect the overwhelming vote in favor. Democracy sucks like that sometimes.

Re:RIGHT?

[Slithe]

Why do Swedes celebrate Thanksgiving? I thought it was primarily a North American tradition.

Re:RIGHT?

[Friggo]

Right to a family life does not mean that the Government must provide every Slashdotter with a wife. More's the pity...

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cough cough, Lend Lease Act, cough cough, Destroyers For Bases. And you're welcome for taking care of Japan, Italy, and North Africa. The other Allies wouldn't have won with the US, and we wouldn't have won without them. Can we put an end to this stupid nationalistic claptrap that keeps getting brought up now? I realize Europe wants to feel good about themselves since they were getting their everloving asses kicked for a while, but none of us could have won it without the others.

Re:RIGHT?

[crotherm]

I find your lack of history knowledge disturbing. Please familiarize yourself with the Lend Lease Act. If it were not for the factories in USA, Europe would have been doomed.

Re:RIGHT?

[crotherm]

Good job pointing out the fact that it was the Soviet army that did the lion's share of the task. Please familiarize yourself with the Lend Lease Act. The factories in USA is what made it possible for the USSR to even have an army.

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good old USA, making a profit out of everyone's misery. Guess you forgot about the weapons your sold to the Nazis too then? Look up some bush family history...

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great Britain,(+ commonwealth countries, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India) same country that defeated the Luftwaffe. Oh, sure, the USA came along for a ride, and really wanted to stop Stalin getting Berlin, but they certainly weren't needed.

Re:RIGHT?

[dryeo]

It's not just George W Bush, though he is a very good example. Your government has been making end runs around the constitution for a long time.
Prohibition is one good example, took a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol, yet did not for quite a few other things.
Prohibition has also been used for political purposes quite a bit and involving felonies it strips quite a few rights from people caught up in it. No more voting, no ownership of firearms (a basic right in your bill of rights) and awfully hard to get a good job.
The FBI under their former leader, Hoover, were quite blatant about doing things that GWB only fantasizes about as well.
Also look at what happened to citizens of Japanese descent during WW II, most of their rights stripped away based on their race.

And the boobies. In most of the 1st world and I believe in the USA women have the same rights as men. If in the States the public can remove those rights that easily it stands to reason that they can also remove the rights to things like free speech, being imprisoned without a trial, unlawful searches etc etc.

The truth is that both our countries (and probably all the rest) have at times problems respecting peoples basic natural rights and we should all do our best to keep our glorious leaders on the right track.

Re:RIGHT?

[niktemadur]

I'm not disputing the spectacular industrial contribution the United States gave allied countries with the Lend Lease Act. I'm saying that Berlin would have fallen in 1945 regardless of Operation Overlord. In fact, Overlord could almost be viewed in retrospective as a race to beat the Red Army to Berlin.

Also, I believe that one of the points being made in this thread is that in popular culture (Hollywood, for example) the Western Front is portrayed in the spotlight, while the massive inferno that was the Eastern Front is relegated to the back burner. You have to remember, the majority of the Wehrmacht's elite fighting forces were engaged with the Soviets.

Have you ever played the board game Axis And Allies? France, Belgium and Holland are played with a couple of dice, while in Karelia, Belarus and the Ukraine you have to throw a bulging handful, every single round, on both sides.

Now, when it comes to the Pacific Theater Of Operations, it's a whole different ballgame. But that's another topic.

Re:RIGHT?

[Weedlekin]

"when you're a country of people who eat frogs' legs and snails"

Instead of one where they eat rattlesnakes and alligators.

Re:RIGHT?

[Weedlekin]

"The French I've met are friendly, warm, helpful, hardworking, practical and resourceful."

This has been my experience as well (although I don't live there, I've visited various bits of it quite a lot). Yes, there are some arrogant pricks in France, just like there are arrogant pricks wherever you go, but I've seen nothing to indicate that France has a higher percentage of them than any other country.

Re:RIGHT?

[Weedlekin]

"And yes, I've been asked that seriously by an American I once met while travelling."

It's because few Americans know much about Australia beyond the fact that it has kangaroos, so they don't realise that Aussies far prefer the smooth ride that they get from a wombat to the tooth-jarring gait of a Roo.

Re:RIGHT?

[bulliver]

He's not inaccurate. I think he is trying to say that the laws of Quebec rival those of a communist country...least that's my reading.

Re:RIGHT?

[vic.thorn]

Indeed commonwealth pilots were in evidence, as were French, Polish, Norwegian etc but all were trained by the RAF and were equipped with British aircraft i.e. Hurricanes and Spitfires.

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be a complete idiot...France is very much more democratic than most countries.

Yes, France used to provice and 'manage' the internet space in it's country, much like Germany and other euro markets. Now they are attempting to come under one banner and this is one step in the right direction.

The AC should really get out of the trailer park and visit the world...

Re:RIGHT?

[crotherm]

Good old USA, making a profit out of everyone's misery. So now providing resources to other Countries during war must be done at the providers cost? Wow.... Also, I think USSR might not have been required to pay us back, since they did not have the money.

Guess you forgot about the weapons your sold to the Nazis too then? Look up some bush family history... Bush != Government at that time. Only now does the Bush crime family have that power.

Re:RIGHT?

[crotherm]

OK... I do agree with your points. Germany probably would have fallen without Operation Overlord, but with it, it made Nazi Germany suffer even more during the war, and made it MUCH better for those not under USSR rule after the war.

I would say that I tend to get *sensitive* when I keep hearing that it was all USSR and not the Western countries. You would think reading /. I would become immune to it... ;)

Re:RIGHT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Use the fucking Preview button, dipshit.

The above is friendly advice. Please do not interpret it in any other way.

First posts lately...

[junner518]

Why have first posts royally SUCKED lately?
you are definitely not shocking anyone with your language, and you destroy this site, whose main content lies in INTELLIGENT comments.

Not to be offtopic, I like this development in Europe. They seem to get it, unlike our RIAA infested governments in the US.

Underground

[WarJolt]

Criminalizing file sharing will just drive it underground like the good old days. Whens the last time any of you sent files over IRC?

Plus, it would be almost impossible to enforce a ban. There are already ways to increase anonymity and it's hard to block that kind of traffic.

Re:Underground

[Aetuneo]

I'm not sure what your point is, but I download files from IRC bots all the time. It's the only way to get some subtitled anime, and it's almost always faster.

Re:Underground

[zappepcs]

Can we sign you up for a speaking tour in D.C. ? Huh? please? Someone needs to spend some time... well, a whole LOT of fucking time in D.C. writing this in soap on legislators car windows and stuff.

While you are up there, can you stop in and see the gang of nine in the courthouse, perhaps explain these intartubewebtrucks to them?

Re:Underground

[WarJolt]

Yes

Re:Underground

[WarJolt]

I'm not sure what your point is, but I download files from IRC bots all the time. It's the only way to get some subtitled anime, and it's almost always faster. You're the kind of guy who still uses a rotary phone. Still works don't it?

Re:Underground

[darthdavid]

Actually rotary phones don't work anymore in a lot of circumstances. You need a touchtone phone to use any kind of voicemail system.

Re:Underground

[Baki]

It will also drive it out of the internet, but it won't go away. In times of terabyte harddrives, people will swap such disks, similar to the good old days when this was done with floppies.

The spread will be slower, but broader. People won't be able to share and fetch a single file very fast, but instead they will wait longer and then share simply all music that has ever been produced in one go.

Will the police and state forbid people to walk around with a harddrive in the future?

Re:Underground

[thegrassyknowl]

Plus, it would be almost impossible to enforce a ban.

Well, I say... I am sitting not 100M (about 300feet for you Americans) from a free public wireless access point. From my desk I can see at least another 5 with weak or no security.

There is wireless Internet available free for all at the restaurant I eat at down the road. There's free wireless at my local library. You don't have to join the library or ask for any kind of permission to use it.

There are two access points near my house with the same default SSID and no encryption with fairly huge pipes behind them (obviously owned by a bunch of clueless people).

I'd like to see them stop me getting on the Internet. Furthermore, I'd like to seem them trace it back to me, given I was on a public access point, change my MAC address and make a point to sit where there is no security vision (at home, at my office desk, etc).

I hope this post highlights the stupidity that governments with these kind of policies are demonstrating.

Also, since when is Internet access a right for all? I remember that there was an election promise here to give Internet to all because all needed fast broadband connectivity. How is that a priority of the gumbiment?

Re:Underground

[jez9999]

Interesting fact; did you know you can emulate a rotary phone with your phone's "hang up" button? Quickly tapping that button emulates the rotary phone's "pips", so you can dial a number that way. I've done it before!

Re:Underground

[Colonel Korn]

I can communicate with fax machines by whistling. I can't actually send any data, of course, but I can initiate the transfer and get them to print a blank page. I used to let my parents know I needed to be picked up from school when the voice line was busy - if they saw a blank page coming out of the fax, they knew it was me.

Re:Underground

[Anonymous Coward]

Whens the last time any of you sent files over IRC?

Last night. I never left.

Re:Underground

[Seek_1]

Forget IRC, bring back the member-only BBS's! :)

Re:Underground

[Tano]

Will the police and state forbid people to walk around with a harddrive in the future? Yes.

And why not ? If they can be considered an accessory to copyright crime why wouldn't he state be able to forbid it ?

It's not really an outlandish concept, sadly - if a bit paranoid.

I have to ask

[causality]

Regardless of what France does, When I see that the EU generally doesn't just cave in anytime a corporation wants to use their government to further its own interests, my first thought is: Did someone steal the balls of every American politician and ship them overseas or something? It would explain quite a bit...

Re:I have to ask

[sticks_us]

Did someone steal the balls of every American politician and ship them overseas or something?

Not quite. I believe the balls were probably sold to a large international corp. through a complicated but effective purchase (or maybe a rent-to-own) program.

That's not to say the EU gets off the hook, the fact this thing even came to a vote (narrowly losing 314-297) means its only a matter of time until it, or a more convoluted version of it, passes.

Re:I have to ask

[mrsteveman1]

It's an international ball market, get used to it

Re:I have to ask

[PitaBred]

Balls? Who needs balls when you're in a corporation's pocket? "ideals" and "ethics" are for poor people.

Re:I have to ask

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless of what France does, When I see that the EU generally doesn't just cave in anytime a corporation wants to use their government to further its own interests If eight votes went the other way, the outcome would have been completely different. Clearly there is no 'united' thought about this plan in Europe.

Re:I have to ask

[Anonymous Coward]

If eight votes went the other way, the outcome would have been completely different.

322-289.. what difference would that make?

Re:I have to ask

[RAMMS EIN]

Let's not develop the false impression that everything is great in the EU. We (I live in the EU), too, have bad laws, and a patent office that has granted software patents. Here, too, there are fear of the terrorists, discrimination against muslims and foreigners (even from other EU countries), security theater, governments that block investigations of possible mishaps, unreliable voting machines, religious fanaticism, the works.

Not that life is downright terrible in the EU, but we need to keep our eyes open, promote what is good, and correct what is wrong. Sure, I guess it's fun to laugh at Americans who can't spell their own language right, think Holland is the capital of Amsterdam, and are being spied on by their own government, but then, I know there are plenty of people in my country who can't spell their own language right, have absolutely no idea where Minnesota is, and are spied on by their government even more.

Re:I have to ask

[KinkyClown]

This is the world upside down... it used to be that 'ideals' and 'ethics' are for those who can afford them.

Re:I have to ask

[Yvanhoe]

It is more that the EU parliament has very few power compared to national parliament. So lobbying is less active at the European level and more active at the national level. Olivenne, author of France's anti-piracy proposition for instance, is the CEO of Fnac, a CD and book reseller (a local concurrent of Virgin Megastores)

Re:I have to ask

[utnapistim]

Did someone steal the balls of every American politician and ship them overseas or something? It would explain quite a bit...

It's not that; more like, as a politician in the US, you can't get far, unless you have corporate backing (corporations control the media, thus public opinion, among other things). As such, you (Americans) don't elect people as much as do the corporations.

Disclaimer: Not to bash Americans or anything, you can see the same in Romania (where I'm from) where as a politician, you can't get very far unless you're willing to bribe and receive bribes - among other things - as everybody in the political system expects bribes, and the system eliminates those who don't, by design.

Re:I have to ask

[nutshell42]

We (I live in the EU), too, have bad laws, and a patent office that has granted software patents.

Software patents that are unenforceable. The patent office and the corps both know that European law doesn't allow patenting abstract concepts. The patent office grants them anyway because that way the corporations apply for more patents and more applications means more money for the patent office. The corporations buy those useless pieces of paper because they're lobbying for US-like patent laws and want to be prepared for the glorious day when they can sue everyone into oblivion.

The great thing about the EU atm is that the parliament was a completely powerless entity until not too long ago and it's split into dozens of factions (there are a few big "parties" but as often as not MEPs will vote for the interests of their country or their region or whatnot) which means that it's not as thoroughly corrupted and not as easily corruptible as Congress or many EU State parliaments.

Or more specifically the corruption's petty like stealing office supplies and declaring holiday trips official fact-finding missions. It costs the tax payer a few millions at most and while it tells you something about your representatives it's vastly better than organized lobbying which really screws you over. I remember a quote where Bob Lutz complained that GM was in trouble because "Toyota has more representatives than we do."

Re:I have to ask

[Icarium]

So Europeans are human too. Who'da thunk it?

Re:I have to ask

[pjt33]

That's not to say the EU gets off the hook, the fact this thing even came to a vote (narrowly losing 314-297) means its only a matter of time until it, or a more convoluted version of it, passes. Probably in a meeting of the Fisheries ministers.

Re:I have to ask

[mcvos]

Or more specifically the corruption's petty like stealing office supplies and declaring holiday trips official fact-finding missions. It costs the tax payer a few millions at most and while it tells you something about your representatives it's vastly better than organized lobbying which really screws you over.

Don't kid yourself. Lots of EU laws are being written by lobbyists. It's not uncommon for MEPs from completely different factions to submit literally the exact same proposal or amendment.

Re:I have to ask

[nutshell42]

Don't kid yourself. Lots of EU laws are being written by lobbyists. It's not uncommon for MEPs from completely different factions to submit literally the exact same proposal or amendment.

Which kinds of laws? It's just that the EP seems to be the lone voice of reason in many of the stuff we read here on /.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's about stuff where the EP has had actual power for longer because then lobbyists would have spent more time to undermine the process.

Re:I have to ask

[Anonymous Coward]

There isn't just one government you have to buy - you have to buy a number of them. And then, you need to make sure you don't buy two that won't agree with eachother no matter what, or you'll get a political crisis that will take a long while.

In the US, there's just one party to buy. Even for just the Netherlands, you'd have to buy at least 3 parties.

Outlawing file sharing is like...

[Pig Hogger]

Outlawing file sharing is like outlawing jaywalking. You can do it, but it certainly won't stop people from doing it. It may be enforced at first, but since people don't think it's shaking the very foundations of the Universe, they think nothing of doing it, everybody but a little bunch of anal jerks ends up doing it, and it's not enforced anymore.

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[QuantumG]

Outlawing file sharing is like outlawing jaywalking. I agree but for different reasons. Both are a case of government ruling over people instead of representing them. People *want* to jaywalk.. they want to get from one side of the road to the other by the shortest possible route and they're willing to dodge traffic to do it. Who the hell are you to say they cant? The majority? No, we all jaywalk. So where is this authority coming from? No-where! And that's why jaywalking laws are bullshit and shouldn't even exist, let alone be enforced. Same goes for file sharing. I think we've all made it abundantly clear that we want to share files and most of us, the majority of us, don't give care about any laws we may be breaking whilst doing it.

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[darthdavid]

Also, Drugs. We all like them. Fuck the DEA.

P.S. It's always 4:20 somewhere...

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[iminplaya]

The purpose of these kind of rules is to give the authorities "probable cause" to knock your door down. To make everybody a "criminal". And to generate revenue and increase conscripted labor through the prison system.

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[QuantumG]

Yes, it is all a gigantic conspiracy! It couldn't possibly be that someone's son or daughter was killed whilst jaywalking and made it their life quest to have a law passed "for our own protection". Motorcycle helmets and seatbelts are other examples of Freemason infiltration of our government.. it's the all seeing eye man!!

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[iminplaya]

"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal"

Godwin'd

Thanks

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[Rakishi]

Who the hell are you to say they cant? The majority? No, we all jaywalk. So where is this authority coming from? No-where! How about all the people who actually want to drive instead of playing "dodge the stupid jaywalker." You want to jaywalk, sure thing as long as certain conditions are met. These would include such things as drivers having total immunity, criminal and civil, if they hit someone crossing in a non-designated place. Likewise the jaywalker (or his estate) would be required to pay any and all costs that result including cost to the driver who hit them (such as lost time) and estimated costs to society from the resulting traffic jam.

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[QuantumG]

How about all the people who actually want to drive instead of playing "dodge the stupid jaywalker." They want to jaywalk too.. just ask em.

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[Baki]

The state could lock up everybody doing it, or at least ruin them financially (which will in the long term also result in locking them up). But with 1% of US population already behind bars, who is going to pay for locking all file sharers up, and who pays for the economical damage of financially ruining a large amount of people?

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[Rakishi]

Well I'm a driver and I fully support anti-jaywalking laws, your point being. The only time I jaywalk is on small streets with no traffic at all but even then it's not like I'd be bothered much if I couldn't.

Even in NYC, the city with probably the most jaywalkers and flattened jaywalkers in the US, only 56% of people opposed stricter enforcement of jaywalking laws. I'm sure most places can easily get that extra 8% that's needed for the majority of people to support such laws (or enforcement of said laws).

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[QuantumG]

Here's how you do your survey:

"Hey motorist, do you think we should have stricter jaywalking laws?"
"Damn straight kid, I'm sick of all these idiots getting in front of my car."

Here's how to see if the people want it or not:

"Hey pedestrian, you just jaywalked, here's a $200 fine, and if I catch you again it's off to jail!"
"You're fucking kidding me right copper? Here's what I think of your ticket." [rip] [rip]

And if I need to explain this to you then frankly I doubt that you ever get out of your car.

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[music_man_420]

Are we talking about file-sharing or pot?

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[Rakishi]

Here's how to see if the people want it or not:

"Hey pedestrian, you just jaywalked, here's a $200 fine, and if I catch you again it's off to jail!"
"You're fucking kidding me right copper? Here's what I think of your ticket." [rip] [rip] Well then you won't mind if I shoot you dead right? After all since most murders would claim being prosecuted for murder is wrong by your logic murders should be perfectly legal.

Like I said, in NYC a proper survey found that a large amount of people have no trouble with fines for jaywalking. They probably have this amazing thing called self-control with which they're able to stop jaywalking, or never do it to begin with, if it becomes illegal. They're also able to realize that the extra time they spend walking is more than offset by the lesser time they spend driving.

And if I need to explain this to you then frankly I doubt that you ever get out of your car. I lived in NYC for most of my life, then moved to the Bay Area. See I did this amazing thing when I moved to an area that fines jaywalking: I stopped jaywalking. I don't need to save those extra 20 seconds, I don't need to risk getting hit by a car and I don't need to risk getting a ticket. I also didn't have a car till a year ago or so since I didn't need it till then. The one thing I love about driving in the Bay Area versus NYC is that you don't have to constantly watch out for idiots jumping in front of my car (the drivers are the idiotic ones here but that's a different topic).

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[QuantumG]

I don't know how much more plainly I can make this.

Everyone jaywalks. You said yourself that you jaywalk. There isn't anyone under the age of 15 who hasn't jaywalked.

If you think laws against jaywalking are not unjust then you are, quite simply, a fascist.

End of discussion. Go away now.

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[Anonymous Coward]

Speak for yourself, man, not everyone likes drugs. For example, I don't.

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[Anonymous Coward]

I should hope "my estate" can cope with paying for a couple of late delivered pizzas.

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize that
a) Virtually the entire world (apart from US, Canada and Australia) manages perfectly well with no jaywalking laws.
b) In most countries, pedestrians could certainly be held civilly or even criminally liable for any reckless act causing an accident, and using/not using a designated crossing point would certainly be a significant factor.

90% of the world finds the very concept of jaywalking laws bemusing and/or hilarious.

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's totally ridiculous.

Hasn't it ever occurred to you that in any traffic situation, everyone involved has to act reasonably and defensively (i.e., in a manner fit to prevent accidents)?

If a pedestrian runs on a busy street without looking and gets hit by a car, it's (likely) their fault, true. But similarly, if a pedestrian walks onto a quiet street where there's just a single car in the distance, and the driver's not slowing down even though they see the pedestrian crossing the street and even though they COULD slow down, and if they end up hitting the pedestrian, then it's (likely) the fault of the driver, too.

Put another way, things are rarely black and white, and to say "it's always the fault of the pedestrian!" is just as stupid as saying "it's always the fault of the driver!". The only thing evident there is a desire to get things dealt with as quickly as possible without having to look at the facts and invest time into finding out what actually went on, and that's not a good policy, ever.

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[Zironic]

Laws against common crimes like jaywalking and speeding aren't there to make your life miserable. They are there lower the amount of accidents due to jaywalking/speeding by giving a financial incentive to do it less.

If there were no traffic laws I seriously doubt that traffic would work.

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[mdwh2]

Well then you won't mind if I shoot you dead right? After all since most murders would claim being prosecuted for murder is wrong by your logic murders should be perfectly legal.

Actually, I doubt it. They may protest things specific to their case, or protest their innocence, but I doubt many murderers kill people with a belief that murder should be legal. After all, if it was legal, then anyone else (such as the police) could murder them in turn.

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[Colonel Korn]

Who the hell are you to say they cant? The majority? No, we all jaywalk. So where is this authority coming from? No-where! How about all the people who actually want to drive instead of playing "dodge the stupid jaywalker." You want to jaywalk, sure thing as long as certain conditions are met. These would include such things as drivers having total immunity, criminal and civil, if they hit someone crossing in a non-designated place. Likewise the jaywalker (or his estate) would be required to pay any and all costs that result including cost to the driver who hit them (such as lost time) and estimated costs to society from the resulting traffic jam. Everything you say except for paying the costs of the traffic jam is already in place. I recently saw a case brought up in traffic court where a jay walker got killed by a driver and then his estate was forced paid the driver money for repairs and some less tangible costs.

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[Pig Hogger]

How about all the people who actually want to drive instead of playing "dodge the stupid jaywalker." You want to jaywalk, sure thing as long as certain conditions are met. These would include such things as drivers having total immunity, criminal and civil, if they hit someone crossing in a non-designated place. Likewise the jaywalker (or his estate) would be required to pay any and all costs that result including cost to the driver who hit them (such as lost time) and estimated costs to society from the resulting traffic jam.

Well, no, of course. Driving is a PRIVILEGE, whereas walking is an inalienable right. If you don't drive well, you gonna have your license revoked, effectively stripping you of your privilege, whereas no matter what one does, he cannot be (legally) stripped of his right to walk.

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[Pig Hogger]

I should hope "my estate" can cope with paying for a couple of late delivered pizzas.

What cost? If they're more than 30 minutes late, they're free!!!

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[Dextrously]

Assuming that your 56% number is correct, and referencing census.gov for some estimated population numbers. The estimated population of NYC in 2006 is roughly 19,306,183. What you're saying to us is that ~10,811,462, nearly 11 million people oppose stricter enforcement of jay-walking laws. Thank you for showing how many U.S. citizens in a single city oppose this.

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[Rakishi]

Everyone jaywalks. You said yourself that you jaywalk. There isn't anyone under the age of 15 who hasn't jaywalked. That most people have done it does not mean that most people oppose making it illegal. I for example don't. Likewise making something illegal does not mean it will always be prosecuted and exceptions can be put into the law itself.

If you think laws against jaywalking are not unjust then you are, quite simply, a fascist. No that's what you think, I simply find the trade-off worth it. Given how such laws exist in most of the US and how they are enforced in many place it seems most people agree with me. If they didn't agree then like in NYC (where the opposition only had a small majority) any effort to prosecute jaywalkers would very quickly be killed.

End of discussion. Go away now. In other words you can't find any actual evidence to back up your point so you're running away? I at least managed to find a survey to back up your point which is apparently more than you're able to do. Likewise I can point to the failed attempt to enforce jaywalking in NYC as an example of what happens in a place where the majority supports jaywalking.

Since you started this debate it does fall on you to cite your sources, please I'm waiting.

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[Rakishi]

Sure and as a result jaywalking isn't enforced strongly in NYC anymore. Then again 56% is far from a large majority and NYC likely has the largest percentage of jaywalkers in the US. It's quite plausible that in most other places, especially more driver friendly cities, the majority swings the other way.

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[Rakishi]

Walking is not a inalienable right as you think of it. You can be arrested for walking on my property, the courts can keep you from walking within x feet of me, the courts can put you in jail (thus keeping you from walking outside) and so on. So even if you have a right to walk that does not mean that it is an unlimited right to walk anywhere, in other words a right to walk is not a right to jaywalk. No one is stopping you from walking, they're simply stopping you from walking in certain places. I simply pointed out that if you wish to do certain actions that have certain consequences then those consequences should fall on your shoulders.

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[Dextrously]

These points are all highly debatable. I could reasonably argue that New York city also has the highest percentage of people who are frustrated with jay-walkers. Most city's who don't have this high concentration of jay-walking and traffic are far more likely to dismiss the law, as it is not an important issue at all.

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[Leynos]

Thank fuck we don't have stupid laws like this here. Seriously, fuck all motorists.

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

It couldn't possibly be that someone's son or daughter was killed whilst jaywalking and made it their life quest to have a law passed "for our own protection".

Forget about those idiots! What about the misfortunate drivers who've had a grown adult throw itself at their cars. Why should motorists be subjected to people using their bodies as lethal projectiles?

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[Friggo]

Actually, in sweden, you as a driver are almost always held liable if you hit a person in the street. The argument is that you should drive in a way that you can safely stop should something unexpected, like a person, pop out onto the road.

Re:Outlawing file sharing is like...

[Pig Hogger]

I never fail to be amazed how much yankees are so incredibly anal about personal responsibility... No other culture on earth harbours such thoughts.

What about corporate pirates ?

[bug1]

So if a corporation gets caught violating copyright three times, does corporation get banned from the internet, or is it yet another case where corporations get a free ride ?

Who was it that said that "a corporation has a body but no soul" ?

Re:What about corporate pirates ?

[Anonymous Coward]

A corporation is larger than life, its golden! It cant do wrong, Hope you accept that.

Re:What about corporate pirates ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright violation tends to get pretty expensive for corporations. I suspect that if are dumb enough to try three times, you're obviously having a free lunch, which, per definition, does not exist.

The problem with not criminalizing it....

[mark-t]

Let's say somebody who isn't a big name copyrights a particular work and starts to sell it, and let's say that a big publishing firm sees as a potential threat. What the bigger publishing firm could do is snatch the work and start distributing it (at no cost) online themselves, using their own fatter distribution pipe for the purpose, and effectively locking the smaller publisher out of benefiting from their own work.

This sort of scenario has implications on GNU software also... if file sharing of copyrighted material without permission wasn't criminal, somebody could take some GNU software and make changes and release those changes under whatever terms they wanted via filesharing, since copyright infringement wouldn't apply to them in that case.

I am perpetually amazed at how supposedly intelligent people cannot see that sharing copyrighted files without permission of the author not being copyright infringement is a contradiction in terms.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[alexhard]

Hi, you seem to not have noticed the words "private individuals". Yes, they could release the software via filesharing, but then it would still be free (as in beer, not as in freedom obviously, but it doesn't make any difference..nobody from it except the end user who gets something for nothing). If, on the other hand, you start a business and sell that modified GNU software, which actually is a big deal, it stops being a private matter and you should (and will) be prosecuted for it.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[Mr2001]

What the bigger publishing firm could do is snatch the work and start distributing it (at no cost) online themselves [...]
if file sharing of copyrighted material without permission wasn't criminal, somebody could take some GNU software and make changes and release those changes under whatever terms they wanted via filesharing You seem to have misunderstood the difference between criminal and civil law. "Criminalizing" something means making it a crime, the sort of thing that the police can arrest you for without anyone having to sue you first.

Copyright infringement is still a civil tort, and even though you won't be hauled off in handcuffs for trading songs, you can still be sued for it.

The fact that the EU decided not to criminalize file sharing doesn't mean they legalized it.

And by the way, since you brought up the GPL... those of us who are opposed to copyright in general (I don't believe infringement should be a crime or a civil tort) tend to believe that the main effect of the GPL is to give back the rights that copyright law takes away. If anyone could distribute any software without anyone else's permission, would it really matter if some of them didn't include the source code? RMS says yes, but I say no.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[mark-t]

Sure it would be free, but permitting it could effectively lock out a copyright holder from being able to benefit from distribution of the work. And I certainly wasn't suggesting a company's trying to sell modified GNU software, I was suggesting that they simply change it and releasing those changes under a closed-source license, perhaps for the sole benefit of raising the visibility of their own company, so that they profit indirectly because they may have other software that _is_ commercial. This can be particularly problematic when the original copyright holder doesn't have as fat a distribution pipe as the second company.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[evanbd]

In what way is a civil penalty insufficient to stop the scenario you describe? It's worked well enough in the past, hasn't it? (Well, if anything, it gets overzealous.)

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[Hemogoblin]

There are many things that aren't "criminal", but are still illegal. For example, you can be punished if you break a contract, or if you perform a tort. That's what copyright infringement should fall under: tort law. Not some stupid criminal law with mandatory sentencing and fines.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[orlanz]

First, "file sharing of copyrighted material without permission" is illegal in most contexts, the proper term is copyright infringement. You "infringe" on the copyright owned by an entity. Don't let the term fool you, it is extremely bad to commit. Per the punishment, it is far worse than stealing; thou per the law, it isn't.

Which brings us to the point. I am not sure how it is in the EU, but in the US, "crime" is a very strong word. It is where murder, rape, fraud, and theft sit and ponder all day. It is so strong, that the government comes to punish you by taking you to court on behalf of the people, and dealing out a hefty punishment in terms of community service, fines, jail time, and death!

Copyright infringement currently falls under Civil law, where the entity being damaged goes after the one who is doing the damage. Now, in civil law, you need to show quantifiable (read: must be in dollars) damage to punish the infringer. You don't need such things for a crime. Also, the punishment isn't (read: shouldn't) going to be community service, fines, jail time, or death.

WHY? Well, in a crime, you tried to damage society and need to pay society or are removed from society. In a civil matter, you pay the guy you damaged all the... damages, court costs, and bit on top for being a bad boy.

In a way thou, maybe copyright infringement should be a crime. As, in a crime, the court needs to prove "without a reasonable doubt" that someone committed it. In a civil matter, I think there just needs to be a high probability. Plus, all the revenue/damages are awarded to society instead of the copyright holder or some pointless middleman who says he represents a bunch of them.

IANAL blah blah blah.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[mark-t]

The biggest problem I find with civil penalty is that it can often be inadequate to act as a genuine deterrent.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[mark-t]

You seem to presume that in the case of copyright infringement, only the person whose copyright was infringed was damaged. This is *NOT* the case.

Unchecked copyright infringement, even if only against one company, weakens the value of copyright, as a whole... since future publishers see that copyright may be inadequate to protect their work from being copied.

It is because of this "global" damage, that copyright infringement should be handled by criminal law, and not merely left as a civil matter.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[QuantumG]

There are many things that aren't "criminal", but are still illegal. Not according to the legal definition of "illegal".. I think you might be after "unlawful".

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I say that it's a good thing that the value of copyright is weakened. Should escaped slaves be punished harshly to avoid weakening the value of "human property" (HP!) rights? Sure, if you like the existence of HP rights? But HP rights are disgusting and immoral, much like IP rights.

Yes, I DO think copyright monopoly law is akin to slavery - it steals a little freedom from lots of people instead of all the freedom from one person. If you don't want stuff copied, don't fucking release it in the first place, that's fine by me.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[Mr2001]

Unchecked copyright infringement, even if only against one company, weakens the value of copyright, as a whole... since future publishers see that copyright may be inadequate to protect their work from being copied. The smart publishers already saw that the minute they first learned what copyright is. The idea that a law could actually be effective at restricting the flow of information from one individual who wants to share it to another who wants to receive it is absurd on its face.

Copyright is inadequate to prevent any works from being copied, and the sooner we realize that as a society and shift to a model that doesn't need to prevent copying, the better off we'll be.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[Mr2001]

Multi-thousand dollar fines for sharing a handful of songs are "inadequate"? You must be joking.

Increasing the penalties won't help, because the risk of incurring that penalty is still exceedingly small. The average file sharer is more likely to die in an accidental fall than to be caught infringing.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[mark-t]

Sure.... if you can come up with some way of giving people an incentive to produce new works and receive due recognition for them without somebody else of possibly higher profile coming along and getting all the credit. Currently, that's what copyright does right now.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[mark-t]

Multi-thousand dollar fines for sharing a handful of songs are "inadequate"?

Evidently, since people still do it.

But I was considering the cases where the infringer has _more_ money than the person being damaged.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[Hemogoblin]

Perhaps. I'm not a lawyer :) Oh, and incase someone points it out, I am aware that France does not use the Common Law system. I'm only using those terms because that's what I'm familiar with, considering I'm from Canada.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[Mr2001]

Sure.... if you can come up with some way of giving people an incentive to produce new works and receive due recognition for them without somebody else of possibly higher profile coming along and getting all the credit. Currently, that's what copyright does right now. Easy:

1. The incentive to produce new works is the same as the incentive to cut hair, write code, design bridges, or manage companies: getting paid for doing it. As long as there is demand for new works to be produced, there will be people willing to pay for their production. Selling copies is an indirect way to fund that production, but without copyright, it could still be funded directly.

2. Taking credit for someone else's work is fraud. If you say "I wrote this book" when in fact you didn't, that's a lie, and if you say it in a commercial context, it may already be illegal. If not, it could be made illegal on its own without involving copyright.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[Mr2001]

Evidently, since people still do it. People still commit every crime. If your definition of an "adequate" penalty is one that's completely effective as a deterrent, then there is no such thing.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[burgundysizzle]

If you want to move copyright infringement to covered under criminal law it should be removed from being a civil matter at the same time (so you can't be had twice) and any fines collected go to the government not the copyright owner. No statutory damages to the copyright owner, just a criminal prosecution. I bet you no-one or very few people get prosecuted though if that ever happens.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[burgundysizzle]

... or at least not anyone not involved in commercial level copyright infringement/piracy.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[drsmithy]

If anyone could distribute any software without anyone else's permission, would it really matter if some of them didn't include the source code? RMS says yes, but I say no.

That's because your objective is free software, but RMS's objective "Free" software.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[drsmithy]

The biggest problem I find with civil penalty is that it can often be inadequate to act as a genuine deterrent.

If a law requires a severe punishment to deter people from breaking it, then it's probably a bad law.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[DrJokepu]

Copyright infringement is still a civil tort, and even though you won't be hauled off in handcuffs for trading songs, you can still be sued for it.

Copyright infringement is a crime in quite a lot of EU countries, including the one I used to live in. That means yes you can get to jail because of sharing Die Hard 3 on BitTorrent.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[Mr2001]

I don't know about that. I believe in Free software too... I just don't think requiring everyone to distribute source code is a necessary part of it. I think it's sufficient to let end users redistribute the proprietary version and reverse-engineer any proprietary changes.

RMS wants it to be convenient to modify and redistribute software. I don't mind if it's merely feasible.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[mark-t]

What I meant by "people still do it" is that it is generally practiced by a significant percentage of people, not merely that it still happens on occasion.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[mark-t]

I could abide by the premise that only demonstratable losses would be paid to the copyright holder, and such payment would be in excess of any criminal penalties that apply. This would mean that the RIAA's $10K per infringement thingy would not go over in court... since they cannot reasonably demonstrate that much loss. More importantly, IMO, criminal penalties would still be applied in situations where financial restitution would not make sense or be practical, such as making a derivative work of some free software without respecting the original copyright.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[mark-t]

Are you saying that laws against petty theft are bad laws? The penalties are *FAR* in excess of the damages done... by a fatcor of a hundred or more. Yet, it is sufficient to act as a deterrent in the general case and compel most people to comply. Or do you seriously believe that most people are generally honest and would not steal what they desired if they happened to think they had a good chance to get away with it?

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[Mr2001]

That's also true of other unlawful acts where all parties involved are consenting: drug use, prostitution, underage drinking and smoking, jaywalking, etc. No matter what the penalties are, people will still do them because the chances of getting caught are minuscule.

Re:The problem with not criminalizing it....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and all of those should be legalized. The whole idea of a 'victimless crime' is a contradiction in terms, no?

They should make it leagal ...

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

to share any and all files, provided its sent over ham radio, or manually via morse code.

Who said?

[Anonymous Coward]

You just did, obviously.

But, I believe Lord Thurlow also said: "It has no body to kick and no soul to damn."

too close for comfort

[rastoboy29]

Although it's nice to see this, it was just a tad closer than I would like to see.

Kinda makes you wonder if ANY of our Western governments have the interests of their people in mind, in the least.

Re:too close for comfort

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you insist on using a different font? Fucker

You should learn to spell legal

[Anonymous Coward]

You shouldn't be against something ... until you can spell it. Don't worry about what they should do. You should learn to spell "legal".

Re:You should learn to spell legal

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

I disgargee.

EU's Speedy Legislation

[BountyX]

Has anyone else noticed that the EU legislates technology issues very fast and they make appropriate decisions for their people? I wonder why the US is having so much trouble properly legislating IT?

Re:EU's Speedy Legislation

[middlemen]

That is because politicians in the USA are busy paying 1000$ an hour for girls who sing on Myspace and busy bankrolling their careers -- the real "American dream" !

Re:EU's Speedy Legislation

[the brown guy]

The US governments "checks and balances" tend to sacrifice legislative efficiency and speed for more limits on what one branch can accomplish while prolonging the process artificially so there are no hasty decisions. Poli sci 101 wasn't totally useless..

Re:EU's Speedy Legislation

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a grass-is-always-greener-on-the-other-side thing, I expect. Here in the EU, their track record of making appropriate decisions is spotty at best. Sure, the software patents thing was blocked (but really only partially, since the EPO considers itself literally a law unto itself), and now this (though 314 vs. 297 sounds pretty near 50/50 to me, not a some definitive block!).

But examples of the EU royally fucking up are everywhere too, even in our geek field - Data Retention? I pee RED?

French isn't in the top 10 so they are En colÃ

[NotQuiteReal]

Here is how it breaks down top languages

Seems like Arabic will be the official language of France before too long.

Dumb idea in the first place

[pclminion]

Define "Internet account." As in, your name is on the bill from some ISP somewhere? Are these people aware that you don't actually have to have an "account" to use the Internet?

Re:Dumb idea in the first place

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Fortunately.

Re:Dumb idea in the first place

[Anonymous Coward]

The original idea required the ISP to cut any internet connection to your place of residence. So you could still get internet access at a public library or at work, but no one in your family could have internet access at home.

Re:Dumb idea in the first place

[MrNemesis]

Yup, I'm looking forward to being banned from the internet after my flatmate downloads a bunch of music from the net. Seems like the only way to have a shared internet account not being terminated in this manner is for me to police every machine in the house, which means invading the privacy of my flatmates.

As you point out, an internet connection is not a person, or a company, or a family, or anything. It is an internet connection that may be being used by all of these.

Freedom of expression

[bug1]

well, technically we don't have "freedom of speech". freedom of speech is not mentioned anywhere in the charter of rights and freedoms.

According to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, you do.

From the preamble
"Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,"

And from article 19.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Re:Freedom of expression

[compro01]

unless i missed something, that declaration is non-binding.

while we don't have the freedom of speech idea, we have the broader/more accurate concept of freedom of expression, rather than reinterpreting "speech" to mean a bunch of things other than spoken word.

In related news ...

[kylehase]

European ISPs encounter rolling service disruptions due to unusually high traffic.

Title misleading??

[AmigaHeretic]

Title: Europe Rejects Plan To Criminalize File-Sharing

Really?? They were going to ciminalize file sharing?? That would have been SOOO sweet. You see at work they are alway sending me these crappy PowerPoint files about production goals. Oh man if only I could have turned them in for file sharing!!

I'm guessing they were talking more about "stealing songs", but I mean aren't there already laws against copyright infringment? Why would you need a second law for the exact same thing?

Re:Title misleading??

[Anonymous Coward]

aren't there already laws against copyright infringment? Why would you need a second law for the exact same thing? Criminal vs. civil law. Learn the difference.

Re:Title misleading??

[meringuoid]

I'm guessing they were talking more about "stealing songs", but I mean aren't there already laws against copyright infringment? Why would you need a second law for the exact same thing?

Stealing songs is already a crime: if you walk into a store, take a heap of CDs, and walk out with them without paying, you can be arrested. Copyright infringement isn't a crime: if you walk into a store, copy the heap of CDs, and walk out with the copies without paying, you can't be arrested. It's to do with one being theft, and the other not being theft, because they're completely different things.

Re:Title misleading??

[AmigaHeretic]

Yep, I must be an idiot. I must've reading fake news all these years where people ARE arrested, computers confiscated, homes invaded and libraries of "backup" DVDs confiscated by the police.

Re:Title misleading??

[Dan541]

If someone emails you an illegal file are you guilty for accepting it?

Re:Title misleading??

[crimperman]

Stealing songs is already a crime: if you walk into a store, take a heap of CDs, and walk out with them without paying, you can be arrested.

You seem to be making the same point as the GP. After all they did write "stealing songs" (e.g. in quotes) so I think they had realised the point you are making. In any case what you describe is stealing *CDs*, not stealing *songs* :o).

if you walk into a store, copy the heap of CDs, and walk out with the copies without paying, you can't be arrested.

Not for the act of copying the CDs but possibly for breaking the seals and opening them the store might try to get you for criminal damage. Not saying they'd succeed but...

It's to do with one being theft, and the other not being theft, because they're completely different things.

Actually it's to do with one being a *crime* and one not. IANAL etc. but copyright infringement is not a crime (in the UK anyway) unless it's done in the course of a business. So if you were coying those CDs to sell in your own shop, it's a crime. The whole area is grey and murky - just the kind of environment lawyers thrive in.

Don't worry

[aepervius]

I am a french (gasp!) and a parisian too (double gasp !) and I was treated as filth by anybody in authority too. I am here just saying that it looks like a pattern , and it don't really matter that youw ere a foreigner or not.

Re:Don't worry

[electrictroy]

So basically the paris government has forgotten they are THERE TO SERVE THE PEOPLE, not the other way around. It sounds like they think they are petit-monarchs, and the people are scum.

Re:Don't worry

[oliderid]

The French government is there to serve the Republic. The Republic in France is almost like a Church amongst their politicians.

When you are a foreigner (and you happen to live under a monarchy), you feel like the Republic is the people for most French politicians. Sometimes it looks like they can't even understand that the interest of the state (la republique) isn't always the interest of the people.

This is quite surprising. French people usually claim to be very rationnal, but their politicians are mostly "ideologue" rather than being pragmatic.

Yes it has happened to me

[aepervius]

But not in the country you might think of. I visited Texas back in Dec 2004-Jan 05 (duty travel in DFW, not tourism). When I entered shops, people smiled to me, asked me what I wanted. Then I spoke to them with my thoroughly thick french accent. The fucking majority then grimaced, some even went on to tell me that french people are assholes and support terrorism.

I let my colleague do the rest of the buying & interaction. Luckily the firm I visited did not offer such negative interaction... Nonetheless I certainly told my family, friends and colleague to chose other spot for vacation than the US, or learn to disguise their accent and speak perfect english.

Re:Yes it has happened to me

[Rob8]

I lived in Luxembourg for 6 Months. I can only speak English and Afrikaans. The Germans were polite and helpful. The Locals were polite and helpful. The French looked down their noses at me, refused to even speak to me because I dared to address them in English. Even my girlfriend who speaks fluent German got a monosyllabic response from the French - usually "NO!". Take what you want from that, I no longer have any time what so ever for the arrogance of the French.

Re:Yes it has happened to me

[damaki]

Nice, I move to Austin in august...

Re:Yes it has happened to me

[Anonymous Coward]

With all due respect, that is Texas. They look at MOST people funny and blame people like ME for terrorism too, just because I have this nasty habit of questioning authority.

Go somewhere more enlightened and liberal, like the Mid-Atlantic, New England, or California (Chicago's nice too... just don't stray very far). DO tell those you know to avoid backwater hick areas with an ingrained culture of intolerance.

(AC for probable flamebait mods... but you know it's true)

Re:Yes it has happened to me

[jez9999]

Texans do not speak 'perfect English'. :-)

Re:Yes it has happened to me

[electrictroy]

There has been an anti-French sentiment, not because you're french, but because you did not support the War on Iraq/Afghanistan. A Congressman even went so far as to propose renaming "french fries" and "freedom fries". Once the war's done and forgotten, Americans will go back to like your country again.

It's too bad I wasn't there. I would have defended you, and told them filthy Texans to stop acting like country rednecks.

Re:Yes it has happened to me

[electrictroy]

(ASIDE: The threading seems to be broken. I apply directly to a post... and it shows up 2 pages down.)

There has been an anti-French sentiment, not because you're french, but because you did not support the War on Iraq/Afghanistan. A Congressman even went so far as to propose renaming "french fries" and "freedom fries". Once the war's done and forgotten, Americans will go back to like your country again.

It's too bad I wasn't there. I would have defended you, and told them filthy Texans to stop acting like country rednecks. It's totally uncalled for to insult visitors to our country, and leaves behind a bad impression of America. "But then I guess I can't expect any better from people who think 'how brows' is the proper way to say 'hash browns'." (Hash brown == potatoes chopped up into little bits, and then formed into a pancake & fried on a grill.)

Re:Yes it has happened to me

[mcvos]

I lived in Luxembourg for 6 Months. I can only speak English and Afrikaans. The Germans were polite and helpful. The Locals were polite and helpful. The French looked down their noses at me, refused to even speak to me because I dared to address them in English. ...
Take what you want from that, I no longer have any time what so ever for the arrogance of the French. I think the reason French and Americans hate each other so much is that they're so alike. They're both arrogant pricks who think their nation is superior to any other. Ofcourse the US actually has the military power and cultural dominance to back that up, but to many foreigners, Americans and French aren't so very different from each other.

Except the French have better cheese.

Re:Yes it has happened to me

[oliderid]

Generally French have difficulties with foreign languages just like Brits or Americans.

What you take as arrogance is usually a difficulty to answer you in English or in your native tongue IMHO.

Most don't know foreign languages. They have difficulties to handle their ignorance (they are proud people usually) and thus they look arrogant.

Their answer is short (they use the only few words they know like yes,no,this way or whatever)and they look annoyed (they are in fact embarassed).

Try to speak French/German in the middle of Great Britain or the USA and you will soon find yourself in a similar position.

I'm not French, I'm Belgian and my native tongue is French. French people are usually polite and well educated... But in French.

When you use English as a lingua franca in Europe, it is usually better to know "Excuse me" in the local language at least, smile, and ask this question to a young fellow (more chances that he/she knows English).

Re:Yes it has happened to me

[dwpro]

Austin is very unlike the rest of Texas, I think you'll find (not that the rest is really all that bad.) My apartment complex is a mix of hippies and psudo intellectual liberals. We have a locally famous crossdresser, Leslie, that has his(her?) own product line. Not to say we don't have our fair share of rednecks, but it probably won't be a significant part of your experience. ymmv.

Re:Yes it has happened to me

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe you are really and truely an @sshole...

Re:Yes it has happened to me

[Colonel Korn]

Just keep out of the southern US and you won't encounter that any more than you would in Germany or Italy, but yeah, that sucks. Take solace in knowing that the rest of the country largely treats southerners like southerners treated you.

Re:Yes it has happened to me

[DaFallus]

Go somewhere more enlightened and liberal, like the Mid-Atlantic, New England, or California (Chicago's nice too... just don't stray very far). DO tell those you know to avoid backwater hick areas with an ingrained culture of intolerance. One could also tell people to avoid areas with pretentious assholes who make uninformed generalizations about an entire population of people just so they can feel superior.

Re:Yes it has happened to me

[DaFallus]

It sucks that you were treated like that. However, I have some anecdotal evidence to counter yours. I am from Houston TX, and back in 2000 my aunt took me to France after my high school graduation. I was attacked one night while I was walking on the beach. A group of kids, probably around my age at the time, decided they wanted to steal my hat. One of ran up from behind me and stole my hat while another immediately punched me in the face. When I turned around to confront them I was stabbed by someone with a switchblade. I walked into a restaurant nearby to call for help, but the manager threw me out because I was bleeding and attracting too much attention. Luckily my aunt is a doctor and the wound was minor.

I went back to my hotel to call the police. The manager told me to go somewhere else because they did not want the police in their hotel. I actually ran into some US Marines who, after denying my request to have the shit beaten out of these thieves, took me back to their command to call the police. The police basically said something along the lines of "They're kids. What do you want us to do about it?". The next day, I saw the same people beating the shit out of a German tourist. One of them was wearing my hat

I will not be going back any time soon.

Re:Yes it has happened to me

[Hatta]

You'd get the same reaction from Texans if you were from New York or California.

Re:Yes it has happened to me

[nguy]

I wanted. Then I spoke to them with my thoroughly thick french accent. The fucking majority then grimaced, some even went on to tell me that french people are assholes and support terrorism.

You should have felt right at home; that's how Parisian shops and waiters often treat foreigners.

Nonetheless I certainly told my family, friends and colleague to chose other spot for vacation than the US, or learn to disguise their accent and speak perfect english.

I know what you mean: I feel the same way about France and French.

Re:Yes it has happened to me

[T.E.D.]

But not in the country you might think of. I visited Texas.

There's your problem right there. Texas is about the last place I'd suggest a Frenchman go for a good friendly time. Pretty much the entire Old South you'd be liable to find unfriendly, but Texans tend to have an extra bit of swagger that would make them particularly forward about it.

Dallas and the rural areas thereabout would be about the worst part of Texas for you too. Its very conservative there, and very culturaly homogenious.

2004 was right when Bush's war stared going seriously south too. They woulda been a bit upset and looking for someone else to blame. (Obviously the screw-ups can't be *our* fault. It must be all you doubters who didn't believe hard enough.).

Re:Yes it has happened to me

[m0n5t3r]

or learn to disguise their accent and speak perfect english. nope, that could get you arrested as a terrorism suspect

Re:Yes it has happened to me

[spxero]

I don't think the general U.S. public will ever completely go back to liking the French. There has always been disdain, but the non-joining-our-war was just an excuse to display it. The French annoy Americans, and Americans annoy the French. And if you want perspective about Texas, there are a few people I know that refer to the State of Texas as "The Country of Texas", touting (falsely, I might add) that the Texas state flag is the only flag that can be flown as high as the U.S. flag, since it was the only state that joined the union by treaty. Of course, to them, I'm a hippie from California only good for playing acoustic guitar and kicking around the hackey sack.

Not all Texans are rednecks, but some are. And odds are (to throw in my own misconceptions) if they were working the retail counter, they are not as educated as the business contacts the GP had. Thus, they were more readily accepting that French people are all worthless.

On a related note, my wife and I spent some time on our honeymoon talking to a lovely couple from London. They seemed to be pleasantly surprised to talk to people who were not only from the U.S., but the "redneck" state of Texas. Our world views were surprisingly similar, our family values were similar, and in general we were just two couples looking to live a happy life. In short, we were both semi-prejudiced about each others cultures. I just hope the GP forgave the negative Texans and their viewpoint and helped to give a positive perception of French people. This is a double-edged sword. Texans obviously shouldn't be so rude, but the GP should also not return their negativity, as it just further fuels the fire.

Re:Yes it has happened to me

[Weedlekin]

"Ofcourse the US actually has the military power and cultural dominance to back that up"

France also had the military and cultural power to back up their arrogance fairly recently (in historic terms), hence the fact that, as others have observed, their language is used in various places that aren't part of France.

Re:Yes it has happened to me

[Weedlekin]

"The French annoy Americans, and Americans annoy the French"

And both of them annoy everyone else.

Re:Yes it has happened to me

[Rob8]

Oliderid, for most of Europe you are right. I found Belgium's who could hardly speak English, but when we engaged in a transaction, they were tried to be helpful and polite. Same for the Dutch, Germans and Luxembourgers. However, the French in Luxembourg were RUDE. And on more than one occasion later in the day, I had passed the same unhelpful rude French person, and overheard some acceptable English. They could understand me, just did not wish to help an englander. I am not taring all of the French with this brush, there is the odd diamond in the rough, but the majority I have had the misfortune to interact with have left me with quite a bitter taste. I love going to Europe. Particularly the Benelux area, and despite the language difficulty's we always manage to find some middle ground to communicate on. Sometimes using no more than pointing and nodding or shaking the head. Always friendly. Apart from the French.

Inacurate article?

[KinkyClown]

FTA:

The European Parliament rejected attempts to criminalize the sharing of files by private individuals and threw out the idea of banning copyright abusers from the Internet, in a plenary vote Thursday. I hope the article is not accurate but if I am reading this it states NOTHING on sharing public domain/freeware/private software; meaning enforcing this new law (if it was to be accepted) meant I was braking the law if I where share my own pictures!

It's actually worrying

[TheDeivix]

It's actually worrying to see that such extreme measures are even being considered, in the present and future world access to the internet is as necessary as access to electricity or water, how can the record industry make politicians even consider depriving people of such a vital mean for communication and access to information.

Imagine telling your son that he cannot have a connection at home to do some research for school and educate himself because the government banned his parents in order to protect the interests of some greedy bastards, who the hell do these politicians work for?... i just hope the people remember who are the ones pushing these stupid laws the next time they go to vote.

If the EU approved these laws they would all of a sudden have created millions of supposed criminals, it's nonsense!

I am so happy that the record industry is dying, i invite every one to do it's part in rushing it's well deserved death.

Re:It's actually worrying

[Dan541]

It's actually worrying to see that such extreme measures are even being considered, in the present and future world access to the internet is as necessary as access to electricity or water, how can the record industry make politicians even consider depriving people of such a vital mean for communication and access to information. Because the record industry is a bunch of greedy self serving wankers.

~Dan

UK law?

[IBBoard]

Does that mean that the recently proposed UK law to ban file-sharers from having Internet access (which I thought mentioned three strikes, although I can't find the article) won't be going through? Does that mean that for once the EU may have made a sensible legal decision that will override our UK laws?

I'm shocked...

Re:UK law?

[Anonymous Coward]

It probably makes no difference. Our courts have plenty of mechanisms for restricting people's behaviour without a criminal conviction, so just because it cant be criminal law doesn't mean it can't happen.

Re:UK law?

[Weedlekin]

"Does that mean that the recently proposed UK law [bbc.co.uk] to ban file-sharers from having Internet access (which I thought mentioned three strikes, although I can't find the article) won't be going through?"

The EP didn't vote to permit non-commercial file sharing in the EU, they voted against enacting new legislation that prohibits it, i.e. to continue with the current situation where each member's national legislators get to decide whether it is or isn't legal within their borders.

that's uncomfortably narrow

[nguy]

They only need to change 8 votes out of 314 in order to get the opposite result. If this really were an obstacle, it would be one that lobbyists could easily overcome, with both carrots and sticks.

Also keep in mind that th MEPs apparently have fairly little power; their vote was advisory. If the appointed council decides to pass this anyway. Given how powerful France is and that Germany also has a bunch of big media moguls and is in love with having the government keep order, they may make this a law anyway.

spare us the sarcasm

[nguy]

The right to an internet account? So, France supplies every citizen with an account until they've had three strikes?

You have a right to have an Internet account, just like you have a right to contract with people for other goods and services.

Taking that right away is a serious interference by the government in your personal rights, not to mention in the market. Taking that right away interferes with your ability to earn a living, participate in the political process, do banking, etc. It's not as serious as throwing you in jail, but quite serious nonetheless. And soon, it may actually be a worse penalty than house arrest.

Re:spare us the sarcasm

[EvilN1]

Taking that right away is a serious interference by the government in your personal rights ... No matter how strange it might sound, it's the governement's job to interfere with your personal rights - mostly to make sure that you are able to exercise those rights in real life. Also, it is governement's duty to revoke those rights whenever their exercise is abusive.

To make a stupid car analogy : if you drive recklessly and get caught, you might lose your driver's licence, because you are endangering your fellow citizens' lives. Not being able to drive anymore will interfere with your ability to go to your workplace, bank or anything else, but that's kida the whole point.

Re:spare us the sarcasm

[mdwh2]

if you drive recklessly and get caught, you might lose your driver's licence, because you are endangering your fellow citizens' lives.

If you committed a crime, and were convicted, yes. But if it was decided that people had a right to drive cars, then the Government wouldn't be allowed to prevent people from doing so based on a suspicion.

Your analogy is also flawed in that people generally don't have a right to drive cars on public roads - what with the danger imposed and necessity to pass a test - but it's plausible that a country may see Internet access as a right.

Re:spare us the sarcasm

[nguy]

No matter how strange it might sound, it's the governement's job to interfere with your personal rights - mostly to make sure that you are able to exercise those rights in real life. Also, it is governement's duty to revoke those rights whenever their exercise is abusive.

Nonsense.

There are plenty of "abusive" things that I can do that are perfectly legal.

Furthermore, the government cannot revoke rights without due process. Being "caught" three times is not sufficient, at the very least, you need to be convicted three times of a criminal offense.

And legislators cannot just invent arbitrary punishments as they see fit, they need to be commensurate with the offense and compatible with the constitution and human rights principles.

And even when it is constitutionally permitted, creative punishments are a dangerous path to tread on because people tend to underestimate the impact they have. In a few years, banishment from the Internet will mean that people can't apply for jobs, can't do banking, can't get a mortgage, can't apply for unemployment benefits, and this is a sleazy attempt by media companies to get an extremely harsh punishment in under the radar.

We should stick to fines, incarceration, and the death penalty: those are things people understand. What percentage of an annual salary should a third offender pay? For how many years should he be incarcerated? Or by what method should he be executed? Put your cards on the table and don't try to hide behind obfuscations.

Re:spare us the sarcasm

[0racle]

You have no right to a drivers license, that is a privilege which is why it can be taken away.

The french reaction on this news:

[TBerben]

We fart in your general direction! Now go away, or we shall taunt you a second time!

Bono

[Anonymous Coward]

Our Bono kicks your Bono's ass!

Why US do not like French

[baker_tony]

> Why so much people in US do not like us French people ?

Because if you're made to not like someone, then you immediatly dismiss any good they're doing, like health, lifestyle, nuclear power, as being BAD, so you don't demand it for yourself...

Re:French isn't in the top 10 so they are En col&a

[radio4fan]

Seems like Arabic will be the official language of France before too long.

Seems unlikely, considering that France is the only Western European country with only one official language: French.

Only 2.05% of people speak Arabic in France at home before the age of 5. Source.

In comparison, 2.3% of people in Britain are French speakers. Source.

It cannot work and it's very dangerous...

[GNUPublicLicense]

That cannot work:"suspected" of file sharing is not enough. You cannot automate the system since an IP cannot identify a person since the IP holder guy could have a zombie machine used by others for file sharing. Means that, if you want to bring the proof of *that* specific guy being guilty, you cannot rely on the IP being used as file-sharing of copyrighted content. Moreover, if the guy is sharing with friends and/or family, this is the scholar case of the "private copy". If his private circle uses Linux, interoperability/private sharing is lawly speaking way above DRM and others freedom/privacy killers...

Jail you Linux file sharers!

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't care if it is allowed or not. If you share files, then you are a criminal. Passing a letter on? Criminal! I have 3 old Linux distributions right here. Surely I must be headed for jail. Yes, I know its not what they intended. They aren't that bright. They would chuck the baby out with the bathwater in a second!

Re:French isn't in the top 10 so they are En col&a

[electrictroy]

This is interesting. Languages spoken as a secondary tongue. I wonder why so many speakers use French as a second language?

      1. French (190 million)
      2. English (150 million)
      3. Russian (125 million)
      4. Portuguese (28 million)
      5. Arabic (21 million)
      6. Spanish (20 million)
      7. Chinese (20 million)
      8. German (9 million)
      9. Japanese (8 million)

The difference is...

[Anonymous Coward]

How utterly arrogant. Driving is a privilege not a right, walking is a right not a privilege and as such, walking takes precedence over driving.

If you pay attention on driving tests and driver training you'll find you're taught to drive at a safe speed to match your visibility, if you are driving down a busy street where people could walk out from behind a car you should be driving slow enough that you can stop.

No one's forcing you to drive whilst pretty much everyone is forced to walk for whatever reason. If you can't be bothered to wait for someone to cross the road and aren't willing to drive safely you shouldn't be driving at all. The fact is if everyone was driving to the laws and level of training given in the majority of countries there should actually be no excuse to ever hit anyone no matter what the circumstances.

Do many people drive to test standard once they've passed? Of course not because people are lazy and can't be bothered but giving you the right to avoid prosecution because you're too lazy drive below the specified test standard is arguably the most idiotic idea and comment that has ever arisen let alone been giving a +5 rating on Slashdot.

Hopefully you or your family will be hit by someone breaking the speed limit one day, then we can tell you it's all okay because that's exactly what you were advocating people be allowed to do.

Re:The difference is...

[Colonel Korn]

The problem with bad jay walkers is that they can get themselves hit (or cause avoidance accidents) by drivers who are under the speed limit, not tailgating, and paying attention.

Re:The difference is...

[Rakishi]

If you pay attention on driving tests and driver training you'll find you're taught to drive at a safe speed to match your visibility, if you are driving down a busy street where people could walk out from behind a car you should be driving slow enough that you can stop. So in other words no one should ever drive over 15mph anywhere, even on highways in your perfect world? After all people have run across highways, expressways and other very large streets. You can never tell if a given pedestrian is going to run across or not so by your logic you can never go quickly in case one decides to run across.

Or do you mean you can react, hit the brake and stop in under 5 feet while going 45mph, legally?

The fact is if everyone was driving to the laws and level of training given in the majority of countries there should actually be no excuse to ever hit anyone no matter what the circumstances. Interesting, so in your view drivers have to bear 100 % responsibility but pedestrians are 100%blameless no matter how idiotic of a jaywalking they try to perform?

Hopefully you or your family will be hit by someone breaking the speed limit one day, then we can tell you it's all okay because that's exactly what you were advocating people be allowed to do. No, I'm not.

Adn the reason RMS want's it convenient

[Anonymous Coward]

is because copyright is supposed to be helping the state of the art.

But how can you learn how to program when all you have is the output to view?

A sorting algorithm just sorts. You can't tell HOW just from the program giving you the sorted list.

So how is keeping the source code a secret helping the state of the art? "Oh, look, somehow this program seems to be sorting quicker!!!"?

The algorithms for sorting ARE mostly open but as the algorithm, not as the code (Numerical Recipies are not allowed to be used in our code because there's a copyright on the code in the book and nobody wants to find out how that license applies).

So the GPL is making copyright DO ITS WORK.

Re:French isn't in the top 10 so they are En col&a

[drsmithy]

This is interesting. Languages spoken as a secondary tongue. I wonder why so many speakers use French as a second language?

French colonisation (especially in Africa).

Squaring the Net

[jeremie_z_]

The french grassroot movement Squaring the Net, aiming at informing the general public about such stupid network regulations happening in France and in Europe, helped this decision to be voted, along with EFF, Globenet and other european NGOs.

The industry-influenced French president Nicolas Sarkozy expressed his wish to spread the "graduated response" (three strikes) to the European level during the French presidency of the union (starting July the 1st), after having it voted in France in the next few weeks...(along with this one, other projects include an administrative labelling of "trusted" websites, increase of data retention to fight cybercrime, etc.. more infos on the SquaringtheNet website)

Let's hope this EU vote will help counter his evil plans !

Are they aware...

[downix]

File Sharing is the prime updating mechanism for World of Warcraft...

Do they WANT the Horde decending on them??? And just as the Lich King hits Alpha too...

Re:French isn't in the top 10 so they are En col&a

[totallyarb]

I wonder why so many speakers use French as a second language?

In a word: Africa. West and Central Africa were extensively colonised by the French and the Belgians. Have a look at this map.

Re:French isn't in the top 10 so they are En col&a

[Xiaran]

I wonder why so many speakers use French as a second language?

Its fairly obvious. Colonialism. French and English are very popular as a second core language in many places in Africa and SE asia etc becuase they used to be former colonial possessions of the British and French empires. Russian is a popular second language because it was taught as a mandatory course in former soviet satellite states. And you see Spanish and Portuguese pop up due to being former world powers in the Americas and elsewhere.

Three Strikes?

[Bobfrankly1]

"France's so-called Oliviennes strategy to combat copyright abuse includes a 'three strikes and you are out' approach: Offenders lose the right to an Internet account after being caught sharing copyright-protected music over the Internet for a third time
And now there is plenty of bandwidth available for the 326 remaining internet users in France!

compare three headlines

[Anonymous Coward]

"Europe Rejects Plan To Criminalize File-Sharing" -- Slashdot.
"EU Parliament rejects file sharing ban" -- Theinquirer (http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/04/11/eu-parliament-rejects-file)
"Europe rejects anti-piracy plans" -- BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7342135.stm)

Speaking about brainwashing.

EU presidency

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that every country which gets the EU presidency uses it to try and force the craziest of its homegrown policies on everyone else? The Germans had something nutty, the UK forced mandatory 2 year records of all internet traffic, and now France wants to make copyright protection stronger?

I propose we nuke France, can I get a seconder?

Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

This one gets Troll and the grandparent gets Insightful? I guess the mods are on the RIAA payroll today.