Slashdot Mirror
Internet Pirates In France To Lose Broadband
slyjackhammer writes "France is purporting to take a hard line on copyrighted media (movies and music). According to timesonline.co.uk, a new measure approved yesterday by the French Cabinet would kill the Internet connection to those caught downloading illegally. 'There is no reason that the internet should be a lawless zone," President Sarkozy told his Cabinet yesterday as it endorsed the "three-strikes-and-you're-out" scheme that from next January will hit illegal downloaders where it hurts. Under a cross-industry agreement, internet service providers (ISPs) must cut off access for up to a year for third-time offenders.' Google and video site Dailymotion have refused to sign up as consenting participants, and the state data protection agency, consumer and civil liberties groups and the European Parliament are all kicking against the goad as well. France may be pioneer in this kind of legislation, but they sure have their work cut out for them."
Isn't that like in the Middle Ages?
While I understand your point. Democracy does not inherently mean that the best result will be the outcome. What percentage of parliament is ever near objective, and full aware of the what is as stake on both sides?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
At risk of being modded down with a baseball bat, this sounds fair.
Three warnings should be more than enough. If you are unaware of the infringing use when you get your first warning, you should try to find out who's doing it. If you don't bother, then well that's your own fault.
It's a whole lot better then being sued for thousands of dollars, at least you get a chance to find out what's happening, or if you are the downloader, to stop with no consequences.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
Also, you know the reason someone like Google won't sign up to be willing participants is because it's signing away their common carrier status. That will have HUGE legal repercussions in the United States. They will be suddenly responsible for even the most minor violation and susceptible to law suit. No company in their right mind would do that. It's not going to be out of the kindness of their hearts. If they could help nail people who are violating copyright without carrying any legal responsibility at all, I'm sure they would.
I'm not seeing a problem with this. You don't have a right to "share" material that is copyrighted by someone other than you if they didn't give you consent. You may not like this, you can come up with all the (possibly valid) reasons things should not be that way. It's not for YOU to decide. The only real problem is how something like this is enforced. I'm willing to bet it will be done with a false positive rate that won't go over well with the French people, who from this side of the pond seem the kind of people who don't put up with their government doing stupid things (I seriously commend them for their idea of how to go on strike).
Burn Hollywood Burn
Well if you RTFA you'll see that they are trying to get it right:
Seems like a fair deal to me. Instead of pro-actively punishing everybody on the assumption that they're going to steal, only actually punish the ones that do.
The points about coffee shop wireless etc are all valid - presumably either the law won't apply to communal wireless (gaping loophole) or cafes/airports/etc will simply bite the IPv4 bullet and buy more addresses so they can associate a C&D notice with an actual (cc verified) customer.
Anyway. I think Sarkozy is talking sense here. Do law enforcement the old fashioned way - by finding and punishing the people actually breaking the law.
do it once and be fired for breaching the IT usage policy that you signed while joining the company.
beside, it's not as if a governemental agency is blocking uniterally your internet access.
I suppose that in that case, your company is considered as an ISP.
The punishment doesn't fit the "crime". To the "knowledge worker" Europe wants to base it's future on, losing broadband is the digital equivalent of house arrest. Without access to radio, television, books and newspapers.
I like the three strike approach though. Should be applied to politicians. Sell out your voters to special interest groups three times and your out. Would really cleans out the European Commission and the European Council.
Dumb Internet Pirates In France To Lose Broadband
Internet Pirates In France With The Slightest Bit of Technical Acumen To Carry On As Usual
there, fixed that for you
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Dear media outlets: Please accept the fact that you are fighting a war that you cannot win. Even with custom-tailored laws at your will the internet won't change and piracy won't go away at large. It is also still doubtful that it is piracy what is causing your alledged losses and not a general loss of quality in and appreciation of music. For the latter part it's even you who is to blame: Music is nowadays everywhere - with your permission. Bad versions of your "hits" are sold as overly annoying cell phone ringtones - with your permission and appraisal.
Some parts of the media business already have learned that both giving away for free and piracy is actually increasing business, not hurting it. Eric Flint, a sci-fi writer has pointed this out: http://baens-universe.com/articles/salvos8 and http://baens-universe.com/articles/The_Economics_of_Writing Instead of treating your customers like shit, making a witch-hunt and introducing bull shit like DRM which only scares away your loyal customers towards piracy - pirated versions don't have silly limitations - you should finally realize that you need to do what every business in trouble need to do: Adapt. Or die. Whatever.
Sincerely
Reality
What are you suggesting is at stake? I have downloaded music illegally on occasion, though I've actually bought a few albums because I like what I hear. For example I downloaded the Guitar Hero III soundtrack and have bought albums from 5 of the artists on there, 4 of whom I'd never heard of before. I do own the game though so maybe that's a bit of a grey area. I have received music from a few people illegally and similarly I just bought a Dream Theater album as a result of that. So I can see the point of people who want to encourage file sharing and say that it doesn't always damage the industry, though I also accept that it is currently illegal. Some people will always be jerks and just want to get everything for free. I met someone recently who went on about SoulSeek and how it's great you can get everything for free etc, I was pretty disgusted because I think that anyone who likes a band should give something back to the artist rather than use the excuse that the artist should do it just for the love of music, though it is a fair point because a lot of bands don't get paid much if anything and really do play just for the love of music (I used to be in a band, it was good fun, though if I were to do it as my main occupation then I would definitely want paid - hiring a decent recording studio for a day costs about as much as I make in 2 weeks.. and hiring a practice room for an hour costs about as much as I make per hour). Using the "music should be free" reasoning, a coder should always work for free (open source is good, but how do you pay the bills?), doctors should always work for free (I know doctors and nurses that pay to go out to other countries to help out, but again how do they pay for their training or bills if they don't have a job?). People that act like everything should be free that are just freeloaders who pretend to be acting for the greater good, but really are just making the whole situation worse and giving the RIAA et al an excuse to push for bullshit control laws like this. I don't have a problem with this as long as it's just monitoring actual illegal music downloading, but how are they even going to know if someone is downloading music if for example they are using an encrypted network?
which is totally what she said
Exactly. I buy a lot of records for example, and I download them so that I can also listen to them on my computer sound system and mp3 player. I also download music then buy the album if I like it, and delete it if I don't. How is the anyone going to know the difference between what I've done and some dickhead who thinks they can get away with not paying for music because "it's the 21st century now"? The answer is that they can't. They shouldn't continue with this because legit consumers will get screwed over.
I am not saying that there is any right to steal from them, but I'm saying I don't have a problem with it, MS are a bunch of morons and the more their company is damaged the better off the world would be
.DOC file or play wiht spreadhsheets. All you're doing is making any feeble grasp you have on righteousness about pirating some of your music that much more transparently disengenuous. Ripping people off is ripping people off, period.
Here's an idea... get your ethics straight. Situational ethics and moral relativism are the height of craven hypocrisy. Don't like Microsoft as a company? Then walk away. Why not spend the time you spend helping people to rip them off sending them, instead, to an open source or competing product? As people here are so fond of pointing out, there are plenty of ways to edit a
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.