Slashdot Mirror
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.
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...
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
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" ?
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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...)
-I only code in BASIC.-
How we know is more important than what we know.
and don't get the accent quite right, then take it as an insult!
Has this actually happened to you?
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
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?
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal"
Godwin'd
Thanks
What?
How we know is more important than what we know.
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?
I drink to make other people interesting!
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.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
> 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...
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.
As opposed to WW2 where the Germans did reach Paris by going through Belgium.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
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.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
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.
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
Since you started this debate it does fall on you to cite your sources, please I'm waiting.