Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Europe Rejects Plan To Criminalize File-Sharing

Posted by Soulskill on from the thanks-for-sharing dept.

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.

65 of 291 comments (clear)

  1. RIGHT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:RIGHT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:RIGHT? by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.
      --
      -I only code in BASIC.-
    3. Re:RIGHT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:RIGHT? by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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...)
      --
      -I only code in BASIC.-
    5. Re:RIGHT? by MrNaz · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      --
      I hate printers.
    6. Re:RIGHT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    7. Re:RIGHT? by B5_geek · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    8. Re:RIGHT? by compro01 · · Score: 2, Informative

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

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    9. Re:RIGHT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?

    10. Re:RIGHT? by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
    11. Re:RIGHT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.
    12. Re:RIGHT? by MrNaz · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      --
      I hate printers.
    13. Re:RIGHT? by radio4fan · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.
    14. Re:RIGHT? by damaki · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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"

      --
      Stupidity is the root of all evil.
    15. Re:RIGHT? by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      @+

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    16. Re:RIGHT? by electrictroy · · Score: 3, Funny

      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."

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    17. Re:RIGHT? by jovius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    18. Re:RIGHT? by niktemadur · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    19. Re:RIGHT? by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --
      What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
    20. Re:RIGHT? by fbjon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
    21. Re:RIGHT? by niktemadur · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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
  2. Underground by WarJolt · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Underground by Aetuneo · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Everything is subjective.
    2. Re:Underground by darthdavid · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    3. Re:Underground by thegrassyknowl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

      --
      I drink to make other people interesting!
  3. I have to ask by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:I have to ask by sticks_us · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
    2. Re:I have to ask by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    3. Re:I have to ask by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
    4. Re:I have to ask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
    5. Re:I have to ask by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    6. Re:I have to ask by Icarium · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  4. Outlawing file sharing is like... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Outlawing file sharing is like... by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Outlawing file sharing is like... by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Funny

      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!!

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Outlawing file sharing is like... by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      Godwin'd

      Thanks

      --
      What?
    4. Re:Outlawing file sharing is like... by Rakishi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
    5. Re:Outlawing file sharing is like... by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    6. Re:Outlawing file sharing is like... by Rakishi · · Score: 2, Informative

      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).

    7. Re:Outlawing file sharing is like... by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
    8. Re:Outlawing file sharing is like... by Rakishi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
  5. What about corporate pirates ? by bug1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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" ?

  6. The problem with not criminalizing it.... by mark-t · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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'
    1. Re:The problem with not criminalizing it.... by alexhard · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Infinite time means everything that can happen, will. You being you is absolutely incidental. You do not exist.
    2. Re:The problem with not criminalizing it.... by Mr2001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    3. Re:The problem with not criminalizing it.... by Hemogoblin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:The problem with not criminalizing it.... by orlanz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:The problem with not criminalizing it.... by Mr2001 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    6. Re:The problem with not criminalizing it.... by mark-t · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    7. Re:The problem with not criminalizing it.... by burgundysizzle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  7. Who said? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    You just did, obviously.

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

  8. Dumb idea in the first place by pclminion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  9. Freedom of expression by bug1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

  10. In related news ... by kylehase · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    --
    You want fun, go home and buy a monkey!
  11. Title misleading?? by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 2, Funny

    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?

  12. Don't worry by aepervius · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  13. Yes it has happened to me by aepervius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Yes it has happened to me by Rob8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Yes it has happened to me by oliderid · · Score: 2, Informative

      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).

    3. Re:Yes it has happened to me by DaFallus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
  14. Inacurate article? by KinkyClown · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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!
  15. It's actually worrying by TheDeivix · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  16. spare us the sarcasm by nguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  17. Why US do not like French by baker_tony · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > 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...