France Seeks To Push 3-Strikes Law Across Europe

quanticle writes "As you may recall, France previously threatened to cut off broadband access for file sharers. However, after lobbying by the public, the legislation failed in the National Assembly. Now, the government of Nicolas Sarkozy is trying to revive the the measure by pushing it as an amendment to the pan-European Telecoms Package. This amendment has the potential to impose 3-strikes across Europe, not just in France."

Comments

so we can hate the french again?

[Anonymous Coward]

well i doesn't really affect me, im american... damn

Re:so we can hate the french again?

[azgard]

If you would hate just Sarkozy, it should be quite enough. Most French don't like him either (and no, not just because of filesharing).

Re:so we can hate the french again?

[discord5]

If you would hate just Sarkozy, it should be quite enough. Most French don't like him either (and no, not just because of filesharing).

Oh trust me, the rest of Europe isn't too keen on him either

Re:so we can hate the french again?

[IBBoard]

If you're American then surely you'd be hating the Freedoms from that European country called Freedom that's between Germany and Spain?

(This post is a dig at the American tantrum where they changed "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries" and not an implication that France is the nation of Freedom ;) )

Re:so we can hate the french again?

[jessica_alba]

that was a press thing, do you really believe we americans would add an extra syllable to our fries, we actually prefer to communicate in grunts as we stuff our faces.

Re:so we can hate the french again?

[audunr]

Sarkozy is a filesharer?

Re:so we can hate the french again?

[OrangeSpyderMan]

Most French don't like him either (and no, not just because of filesharing).

As a brit living in France for the past 12 years or so, this is one of the most annoying traits of the French vox populi. They forget very, very quickly that most of the French actually voted for him. His politics since he's been in power aren't that different from what he announced, and certainly not that different from his opinions in previous government positions. Short memory, and quick to criticise, the French - they did pretty much the same thing when Jacques Chirac got a landslide victory when most of them couldn't be bothered to vote and so Le Pen got to the second round.

Re:so we can hate the french again?

[digitig]

The rest of Europe (indeed, the rest of the world) should have no say in the democratic election, but is free to have an opinion on the resulting democratically elected official. After all (checking carefully for Godwin), the fact of his initial democratic election did not prevent much of the rest of the world taking a view of Adolf Hitler, did it?

Re:so we can hate the french again?

[Urkki]

The rest of Europe should have nothing to say with a democratically elected president.

But of course they should, if they feel like it! That's freedom of speech and freedom of opinion and all that crap. Being democratically elected, saying something about him becomes saying something about the people that elected him, of course. But all the more reason to say it, and perhaps the voters of that country will think more carefully at the next election!

Re:so we can hate the french again?

[PopeRatzo]

Most French don't like him either (and no, not just because of filesharing)

Geez, he didn't get elected all that long ago. What did he do to piss everyone off so quickly? Or was it a case of George Bush-style "elected, but not really"?

Re:so we can hate the french again?

[zappepcs]

From what I'm told by the few French citizens I know, there are many that call Sarkozy Bush's lapdog. or poodle or something similarly flattering. As far as I know as a US citizen, being politically associated with Bush in any way is an insult. Here it's been something like the kiss of death in the current political circus atmosphere. One thing in Sarkozy's favor is his lack of airtime on Faux News.

I've been trying to figure out lately why it is that the neocons seem hell bent on protecting IP? Or at least that of the entertainment industries. I don't know if it's just a bid to regulate the Internet or something nuttier. Has anyone seen any tinfoil hat links for this?

Re:so we can hate the french again?

[Ihlosi]

I've been trying to figure out lately why it is that the neocons seem hell bent on protecting IP?

Because doing so is good for the profit of big companies (i.e. big donors).

Has anyone seen any tinfoil hat links for this?

No need for any tinfoil hats ... this is so obvious that no conspiracy is necessary.

Re:so we can hate the french again?

[zappepcs]

In America, the technically correct and longer name for French Fries is potassium delivery system. Of course, to be effective they must be first heated and saturated with animal fats. Despite the glorious skill used to hone the techniques for loading potassium into the potato strips, 'fries' is all the effort we put in when order... with a 'supersizem' at the end.

I do find that there seems to be a lot of job searching advice that mentions the delicacy, far to often I might add.

Re:so we can hate the french again?

[feathersmg]

Most French don't like him either (and no, not just because of filesharing)

Geez, he didn't get elected all that long ago. What did he do to piss everyone off so quickly?

Well, he just did what he promised to do : help rich people to earn more money, throw more and more dark skinned people in jail, etc ... Indeed, at least 53% of french people can't read and vote for the candidate most seen on TV. The problem is : all elections are over, president and national assembly are elected and we're stuck with him and all his friends for the next 4 years.

Re:so we can hate the french again?

[Hognoxious]

It's no mystery how Mr Bean got elected - you just have to remember who his opponent was. She'd have everyone in a burka by now if she'd been elected, the stupid cow.

Short memory, and quick to criticise, the French

Indeed, they're not happy unless they 'ave zomzeeng to grumble about.

Re:so we can hate the french again?

[armareum]

Poodle or lapdog don't sound flattering. Tony Blair was described the same, and it definitely wasn't as compliment.

Re:so we can hate the french again?

[theJavaMan]

Aren't you stuck with him for 7 years, since presidential terms are 7 years in France?

Re:so we can hate the french again?

[carnalforge]

You can say the same for people all around the world ... Expecially lately, when nearly in all western countries you have to choose between 2 parties being forced to choose the least worst ...

Re:so we can hate the french again?

[feathersmg]

Aren't you stuck with him for 7 years, since presidential terms are 7 years in France?

No, the constitution was modified in october 2000, so the presidential term is now 5 years (which will sadly be enough for him to completely ruin the country).

Re:so we can hate the french again?

[Heather D]

Hmm, Sarkozy, Carcosa, coincidence or not?

Re:so we can hate the french again?

[tdcarrol]

No one calls them "Freedom Fries" but most people don't call the french fries either. When ordering they are either included in a numeric combo order, or referred to as the monosyllabic "Fries".

Re:so we can hate the french again?

[hostyle]

Perhaps this is his revenge attempt against the nekkid pictures of his wife currently winging their way across the interwebs.

This and G8...

[vilgefortz]

I don't like those recent initiatives. First G8 tries to stir things, now France spreads the badness. Not that any of these ideas is going to work, but you never know with those damn politicians. And i do live in Europe, you know.

Re:This and G8...

[azgard]

There are two kinds of democracies. Representative and direct. They go under the same name, but they are very different. Unfortunately, we are stick with the first type. People need to realize there is a difference between those types, and not rely on honesty of politicians.

There is an excellent book about direct democracy: http://www.democracy-international.org/book-direct-democracy.html

Re:This and G8...

[mdwh2]

Although I think direct democracy would have its own problems too - we'd be under the will of the masses.

There are some things that referendums are appropriate for (issues that affect everyone), but just look at what happens when you put questions like "Should gay people be allowed to marry" to referendums as I believe has happened in some US states.

I'm not sure how things would work in this case - whilst few people would care about the record industry and most people happily copy CDs/tapes, filesharing is still something only done by a minority of people AFAIK, and most people probably don't see the Internet as some fundamental need, so I fear that a proposal to ban filesharers (especially with a bit of campaigning that associates "filesharing" with not only "stealing", but terrorism and p0rn) would still get passed in a referendum.

Here in the UK, our unelected second house is the only thing that can stop some of the authoritarian measures the Government is pushing through (similarly with the unelected Supreme Court in the US being the thing which protects the Constitution).

Re:This and G8...

[andyh3930]

The trouble is that people in power are there because they have pushed there way to the top, To quote Mr Adams "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job".
As the ruling classes with only ever allow the 'right' people to put themselves forward as candidates for the people to vote on and so the situation will continue.
When the people are allowed to vote they make the 'wrong' decisions, take the Irish EU, vote they, voted no and from polling the majority of the rest of Europe would vote it down, but to the leaders this is the wrong decision and they are madly trying to spin the vote so it doesn't look so bad. Another tactic used to keep the ruling classes in power is fear, Terrorists, communists paedophiles, and further back in time in England catholics or protestants.
These power structures are nothing new, the Christian church has had the same power structure with only priests being able to spread God's word, but other religions such as paganism have been called evil as they allow individual communion and knowledge from the elements.
       

Re:This and G8...

[Z00L00K]

Politician and honest - I thought that they were mutually exclusive attributes.

And shutting of people from broadband for one type of offense will also shut them off also from a lot of other services. We are going toward a society of people with broadband access versus people lacking that access - and the people lacking broadband access are becoming second-grade citizens with less ability to get information, access bank services and communicate with friends and family.

Essentially - the penalty of the 21'st century will be to get disconnected instead of imprisoned.

And if you aren't disconnected all your traffic is being monitored. Eric Arthur Blair was right - just a little premature. We just have to wait for the all-seeing cameras in our homes and the TV screens that can't be shut off (as in Max Headroom).

It seems to me that the darker Science Fiction that we can see and read is more likely to come true than the more utopic of Star Trek and likewise.

Re:This and G8...

[azgard]

I am not saying that politicians are honest, I am saying that most people rely on their honesty. They expect someone to come in and solve their problem.

I like Linus Torvalds' quote: "People can trust me because they don't have to." With (semi)direct democracy, you wouldn't have to trust politicians, because you could decide the issue directly.

Re:This and G8...

[Eudial]

Although I think direct democracy would have its own problems too - we'd be under the will of the masses.

I do believe that's pretty much the exact definition of democracy.

Re:This and G8...

[azgard]

Read the book. These issues are addressed there.

I don't know why are people so afraid of "will of the masses". That's exactly what democracy is about. If you don't like it, then you expect, by definition, that someone else will act in your interest. You have to trust that someone else, but you have no veto power over his decision. This is the difference between direct and representative democracy.

I am not saying direct democracy will solve all the world's problems, but I am saying it is gives better outcome over the time then representative government. It may happen that the interests of government (or some part, as you show in the second example) are aligned with your interests, and then it will decide in your interest. But that's no reason to give up the power of veto over the government's actions.

Re:This and G8...

[mdwh2]

I will resist being dragged into an off-topic gay rights debate - the point is that it's not clear that going by what >50% of the population think is always going to get what you want (or what the OP wants), and anyone in a minority group (including groups that we don't think of as "minorities", such as "people who use filesharing software") may be more likely to lose their rights than in a representative democracy.

One could just as easily refute the OP I replied to's comment by stating "If the elected Government decide such-and-such, then that's what should happen", or in particular, "If the EU decides that filesharers should be banned from the Internet, then that's what should happen. It's not a fundamental right. It is determined by law".

Obviously "It is determined by law" - the law is what is being debated, whether it's gay rights, or being banned from the Internet.

(Shall we take a vote on what rights you should be allowed to have?)

Re:This and G8...

[mdwh2]

Well, there's more scope for allowing a "veto" of some kind - whether that's a veto to remove politicans from power, or a veto for new laws. That would be better than simply putting full control of every issue into the hands of a popular vote.

I don't know why are people so afraid of "will of the masses". That's exactly what democracy is about.

This is not an argument. I might as well say "I don't know why are people so afraid of elected politicians. That's exactly what [representative] democracy is about".

You have to trust that someone else, but you have no veto power over his decision.

My veto power in a direct democracy is little more than in a representative one where I can choose to vote for someone else - it's one-in-however-many-millions.

Re:This and G8...

[Bastard of Subhumani]

The problem with the public is this.

Think of how stupid the average person is; well, half of the public are stupider than that.

Re:This and G8...

[Rocketship Underpant]

And democracy, strictly defined, is a pretty bad idea. Ask anyone who lives in a country where a hostile ethnic majority gets to vote on what happens to minorities it doesn't like.

Re:This and G8...

[azgard]

Do you have any particular reason why you think it wouldn't scale? I don't see any reason why it wouldn't, it works in Switzerland pretty well, and there are 7 million people (I suspect that you chose large city exactly for that reason). I would, for example, say that some human institution won't scale if it relies on bounded number of humans somewhere, or if the people cannot meet or know each other personally. But none if this is relevant in Switzerland.

I agree that not everything should be voted on, and I agree that voting should be about rules that hold for everybody (or everybody who has a particular behavior), and not a specific group or person.

Second, I also believe that very important and overlooked property of democracy should be reversibility, i.e. we can change the law back if we don't like the outcome. This is not a bad thing. People do learn by mistakes, and human societies are no different. This by itself prevents voting out some group of people.

Third, I think that competition of law systems is important. Switzerland has a rule that every law gets decided on the relevant level (federal, canton or local). That way some new law can be tested on small scale first and then, once the result is known, it can be (if people wish so) applied on the larger scale.

Re:This and G8...

[LEMONedIScream]

There are two kinds of democracies. Representative and direct.

Is a democracy "what the people want, the people get?" Your assumption is yes however, consider how you put people into power; you vote for someone who is representative of your needs and in general takes the same stance as you on views. Unfortunately this politician won't be 100% agreeable upon and will have some fringe policies which you can't control.

This is the only level at which the people can really control, the further away you get through other assemblies the less direct control the people have. For instance, you won't vote in the EU bodies but your MP will vote on your behalf.

The real reason why being "under the [direct] will of the masses" is not necessarily a good thing is because, while voting for gay marriages a large portion will vote with regard to their religious inclination not whether it's needed or unfair to those unable for it. On the other hand I would personally probably vote for it but also purely out of my principles. Essentially we would both be disregarding the facts/real arguments at hand here. Is this really a good thing? Is this really what democracy is about? Shouldn't we be making more educated decisions?

You could probably write many many theses on this subject, however.

Re:This and G8...

[ultranova]

Think of how stupid the average person is; well, half of the public are stupider than that.

Yeah. Some of them don't even know the difference between median and average :).

Re:This and G8...

[azgard]

I'll give you example from my country (Czech Republic). Most people here (70%) supported gay marriage before politicians supported it. Last year (I believe) it passed, but just so-so.

Anyway, Switzerland has 150 years of experience with this. So there are some empirical results. And they show, for the most part, that voters are very conservative, and usually resist any change. Switzerland had voting rights for women until very recently, for example. On the other hand, they have pretty decent human rights record.

I don't know why you assume that elected government is somehow able to protect minorities better. In fact, I would challenge you to come up with a historic example where the elites protected some (non-elite) minority better than the majority of people would.

Oh, I see why you think that. You believe that politicians protect minorities because they will gain their support. But it's an illusion. If the protection of minorities is unpopular, why would they risk doing something unpopular and lose the majority? If you think about it, there is no way they could support a minority view and gather more support than by supporting majority view. Unless, of course, the majority doesn't really care about the minority, which is in fact most commonly the case.

Re:This and G8...

[azgard]

First, democracy is about interests. People have moral right to voting, even if they would make the wrong decisions. You are assuming here that you can make objective determination of what is right and what is wrong. But this is generally not true.

But even if we assume there is objective criterion of what is right and wrong, and this criterion is somehow related to intelligence, you are very mistaken. You assume that if people vote, the result is average of their intelligence. This is NOT true.

Even if the average person is very stupid, if they vote, the outcome can be very smart. The reason is central limit theorem. Consider a simple yes/no vote. If people just vote randomly, they will vote yes and no with the same frequency. If they are slightly smart, they will vote for yes with higher probability. But the voting is nothing more than averaging these results. And probability that this average will tend to "yes" will go to 1, because, according to central limit theorem, the distribution of the average will tend to normal distribution with decreasing variance. So if you have a lot of people with very little chance to vote "yes" over "no", it will result in "yes" with _very_ high probability.

But don't worry, lot of other people who consider themselves smart are making a similar mistake.

Re:This and G8...

[dfghjk]

...and if the public think we should own slaves then we should own slaves. If the public think we should kill savages, then we should.

Re:This and G8...

[damienl451]

The fact is that the question you mentioned is precisely the kind of things that the average voter can understand and, therefore, directly vote on. You don't need any special knowledge or expertise to have an opinion on gay marriage. In the end, it all comes down to your political philosophy and whether marriage is a right or a privilege.

In most other cases, especially when we leave the area of ethics, the average voter is not adequately equipped to decide which policies should be implemented. The most he can say is what outcome he favors. If you simply ask people whether rent control laws ought to be enacted, it is likely that they will answer affirmatively. After all, who wouldn't want housing to be more affordable? Yet, most economists would argue that rent control is bad, because although it makes housing cheaper for some, it also creates shortages and negatively affects the quality of housing. If people were asked whether they wanted cheap housing, but shortages and lower quality apartments, or more expensive (but plentiful and high quality) apartments, it is not clear that they would favor rent control laws as much.

The key: ask people what outcomes they favor, and leave the process to experts.

Re:This and G8...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Swiss are a nice example of direct democracy (partially at least).
They can do it since they are a relatively small country and have the necessary 'culture'

Re:This and G8...

[azgard]

Well, there's more scope for allowing a "veto" of some kind - whether that's a veto to remove politicans from power, or a veto for new laws. That would be better than simply putting full control of every issue into the hands of a popular vote.

If I can decide whether to veto the law or not, why shouldn't I decide about particular law directly? What's the reason for this additional obstacle? I see only one reason - you have an irrational belief that politician will somehow decide better in your interest than the majority of people (with which, by the way, you share more interests than with the politicians).

I don't know why are people so afraid of "will of the masses". That's exactly what democracy is about.

This is not an argument. I might as well say "I don't know why are people so afraid of elected politicians. That's exactly what [representative] democracy is about".

As someone above noted, "the will of the people" is the very definition of democracy. I am afraid of elected politicians, because they are an unnecessary element I have to trust.

In other words, if can choose between the tyranny of majority and tyranny of minority (politicians), I will go with the first, because it's more likely aligned with my interests.

My veto power in a direct democracy is little more than in a representative one where I can choose to vote for someone else - it's one-in-however-many-millions.

That's why I don't want just veto power, I want full decision-making capability. I don't want to rely that some politician will come along and implement the solution I want.

Re:This and G8...

[damienl451]

Well, for starters, maybe it's also impossible to determine whether the right to vote is objectively good or bad?

Regardless, the major problem with your analysis is to assume that people do indeed vote randomly. If it were the case, your argument would be spot on and one of democracy's biggest flaws would not be a source of concern. If uneducated people vote randomly, their votes basically cancel out (as your correctly pointed out) and smart people choose which policy will be implemented.

In the real world, however, voters do not simply vote randomly. They have systematically biased beliefs that influence the way they vote.

In the world you describe, if asked about NAFTA, average people would basically flip a coin and vote either in favor or against it at random. Economists, however, would know better and choose the right policy, which would then be implemented. In the real world, people are much more likely to vote against it because they share the same misconceptions about NAFTA and free trade! Thus, although some people know better, their voices are not heard and bad policies get chosen.

You should read Caplan's The Myth of the Rational Voter , he makes this argument very convincingly.

Re:This and G8...

[Hognoxious]

The median is an average, as are the means and the mode. A layman's understanding is probably more akin to the latter (avergage man = typical man).

A statistitician would tend (97.3% of the time) to eschew the vague word in favour of a more precise term. Unless he was just joking, which (at a 1% significance level) they never do.

Re:This and G8...

[The Master Control P]

If the public think non-whites should be rounded up and exterminated, then they should be.

You fail - here's your heaping helping of argumentum ad populum.

/And fark slashcode for not allowing <strike>

Re:This and G8...

[Bastard of Subhumani]

People have moral right to voting, even if they would make the wrong decisions.

And I said otherwise where, exactly? It doesn't make those decisions any less wrong.

You assume that if people vote, the result is average of their intelligence.

No I don't. I assume that unintelligent people might not make very good choices. You dispute that? I'd say it's almost a tautology.

Got any other strawmen you want to bring out?

Even if the average person is very stupid, if they vote, the outcome can be very smart. The reason is central limit theorem.

How does that apply to something - like voting in a candidate - which has a small number of discrete choices that don't lie on a quantifiable scale? Even if we were guessing the number of beans in a jar, it's somewhat dependent on the underestimates cancelling out the overs. That's by no means a given.

What you're saying is just a warmed up version of last year's fad, the wisdom of crowds. Tell me, if 75% of people think the sun goes round the earth and 25% think the earth goes round the sun, what's the central point we're converging on there? Perhaps the conclusion is that they both go round the moon, which is made of cheese?

But don't worry, lot of other people who consider themselves smart are making a similar mistake.

At least you're original. But don't worry, I wasn't suggesting we take your vote away.

Re:This and G8...

[J.Y.Kelly]

Think of how stupid the average person is; well, half of the public are stupider than that.

Yeah. Some of them don't even know the difference between median and average :).

Or maybe they know that IQ is normally distributed - therefore the median and the mean would be the same :-)

Re:This and G8...

[sumdumass]

If we had a direct democracy then simply yet important concepts like equal rights and the abolition of slavery and perhaps woman's suffrage would be a lot harder to implement.

I mean sure, the common sentiment today is that those institutions are abhorrent but back before they were abolished, they weren't. Attempts to abolish them or even jump to the right side of the issues would have been met with resistance and resentment that could push the majority beyond the way it is now. There wasn't a need for a majority of the people to have an opinion one way or another in order to implement the changes that were made under a representative democracy. All you had to do is get enough people in "power" to see that there is/was a lot of support for the changes. In a direct democracy, you would have needed more then half of the people to have a favorable opinion for the change which would have been extremely difficult with the limited communications of the times.

Something like not having equal rights and even slavery could be possible to be happening today in America had we been under a direct democracy. It is even more alarming when you think that the support for the civil war which effectively brought an end to Americans owning other Americans or people in general, didn't have much support if you include the south into the mix. (It isn't likely that they would have left the union if representatives from the industrialized north didn't impose economic restrictions on them)

Anyways, I'm not sure a direct democracy would be favorable to much of anything we hold dear. Our current mindset is shaped by historical events and we wouldn't likely have moved forwards to obtain the positions that citizens grab hold of today. I can see it as halting progress in other areas to. But something more interesting might be that people stop thinking with their feelings and start thinking more analytically about things like commerce and so one which could leave some of us sitting alone in the very opinions that we think a direct democracy might help with. I'm happy with the system we have because even though politicians ignore us, they also save us from ourselves we what we want is detrimental to our prosperity or even freedom and security. Maybe if we went back to the constitutional mandates and intents of the federal government were it doesn't have powers not given to it by the constitution as well as being limited in what it can do by specific restrictions in it, you would agree with me more.

Re:This and G8...

[azgard]

That the there exists an objective criterion about something was the parent's assumption, not mine. I argue that in absence of objective criterion we should all have same rights, which leads to democracy.

I don't know about the book, but from the review on amazon.com:

"Caplan discusses ... why it's in politicians' interest to foment that irrationality"

My point is, if you compare representative democracy with direct democracy, the former is no worse than the latter. And the author seems to agree, if he really says this.

You can find bad decisions under any system (although, in particular, I don't agree that NAFTA is a good thing; the assumption that it is objectively good for everyone is pretty strong). There is no perfect system.

Furthermore, I can counter with studies that have different results. For example:
http://www.iandrinstitute.org/New%20IRI%20Website%20Info/I&R%20Research%20and%20History/I&R%20Studies/Cato%20-%20Policy%20Report%20on%20Tax%20Limitations%20IRI.pdf

Or this one:
http://www.iandrinstitute.org/New%20IRI%20Website%20Info/I&R%20Research%20and%20History/I&R%20Studies/Feld%20and%20Matsusaka%20-%20Fiscal%20Evidence%20from%20Swiss%20Cantons%20IRI.pdf

There are more studies like that on the I&R institute web site.

Re:This and G8...

[sumdumass]

Lets look at some things in recent times that might have been different is the will of the people was allowed to jump in. right after 9/11, Many people wanted to nuke the middle east and turn it into a glass parking lot. We can drill through glass and even radioactive glass. How many things have happened when an overwhelming "redneck" portion of America was demanding was or some act of violence against another country. Perhaps we would have invaded France for their declaration of veto for any resolution in the UN pertaining to invading Iraq just before Saddam stopped cooperating with the inspections teams yet again and we ended up going to war over.

I'm comfortable with politicians being able to ignore us when we aren't thinking clearly. I'm comfortable with politicians being able to ignore us when we don't have the full story or don't realize the consequences of a certain actions (like nuking the middle east). In short, I'm thankful that we have a system capable of heading this off.

Re:This and G8...

[azgard]

Oops, should have been that direct democracy is no worse than representative democracy, of course.

Re:This and G8...

[Bastard of Subhumani]

I don't know why you assume that elected government is somehow able to protect minorities better.

Perhaps he's read some Mill or Tocqueville. You should try it.

In fact, I would challenge you to come up with a historic example where the elites protected some (non-elite) minority better than the majority of people would.

Germany in the early 1900's versus forty years later.

Re:This and G8...

[azgard]

I assume that unintelligent people might not make very good choices. You dispute that?

Yes, they may make individually bad decisions, but collectively not quite. That's why we vote - to get rid of any outliers. We don't, for example, pick randomly one person and let it select the outcome.

By the way, that was not a strawman. It is a very common argument, that people are stupid, therefore the outcome is stupid. It's not true.

The point is that the gain from having all people to vote is bigger than if only a selected group votes. Even if you would assume that selected group is always right (good luck), it votes with their own interests, which is ultimately worse.

How does that apply to something - like voting in a candidate - which has a small number of discrete choices that don't lie on a quantifiable scale?

There cannot be any objective criterion for selecting a person, unless you are a psychic and can read his mind and see the future. That's why I want direct democracy, where you vote about specific proposals and not (unreliable) people.

Anyway, if the issue is multiple choice, you can use range voting, which has been proven to maximize voter satisfaction. Central limit theorem will apply here as well.

Re:This and G8...

[Nursie]

"ou have an irrational belief that politician will somehow decide better in your interest than the majority of people (with which, by the way, you share more interests than with the politicians)."

Do I really?

As a well off, well educated, middle class professional, I have far more in common with the set of people in politics than I do with the slavering masses. Even when I disagree with them and think they're complete idiots, they're a step above mob justice and they generally have their own interests (similar to mine) at heart.

Re:This and G8...

[celle]

Actually, with the internet, a direct democracy is quite possible. Just the political pricks won't let go of the power they currently have.

Re:This and G8...

[Eudial]

And democracy, strictly defined, is a pretty bad idea. Ask anyone who lives in a country where a hostile ethnic majority gets to vote on what happens to minorities it doesn't like.

Because democratically elected people never wipe out ethnic minorities.

Re:This and G8...

[azgard]

Actually, considering that there is more direct democracy in US than in Europe, your comment is kinda funny.

Oh, and by the way, does the separation of powers really work?

Re:This and G8...

[Wildclaw]

Or maybe they know that IQ is normally distributed - therefore the median and the mean would be the same :-)

Of course IQ is normally distributed. It is defined that way. Great way to argue isn't it. Define something that "measures" intelligence using a scale that is normally distributed. When you have done that you can point at the results and say that intelligence is normally distributed. :)

Still, IQ is a lousy way to measure intelligence. Although a great way to measure an individuals ability to recognize patterns.

On topic, intelligence has little to do with making good laws. A good sense of moral and ethics goes far further. And in that area politicians are at a huge disadvantage.

Finally, the tyranny of the majority is basically always used as an excuse to implement a tyranny of the minority. And if you have to have one of the two I would go with the majority since it is statistically more likely that I will benefit in any specific issue.

Also, the tyranny of the minority will blow up some majority issues and play them out of proportion so that they can more easily get elected. So the tyranny of the minority does in no way mean that you won't get the bad side of the tyranny of the majority also.

Re:This and G8...

[azgard]

I am also well off, well educated middle class professional.

I don't know about you, but I don't get offers to managing boards in the industry every day, just like members of parliament do. On the other hand, I want cheap energy, good services, low taxes, justice and human rights just much as low class working people want them.

Politicians (and specially those with real powers) are a special class. That means you have very different interests than them.

It actually helps them that you believe you are special. If you are special and deserve more than others, then you don't share interests of others. Therefore, you will not be able to defend your interests, because you can only defend your interests in the connection with other people who share them.

In some comment above I gave a link to two studies that show this on budget policies. It has been shown, both in Switzerland and U.S., that common people enforce more strict budget policies than politicians. I guess that efficient budget is in your interest, no?

Re:This and G8...

[MenTaLguY]

The main problem with the consolidation of power in super-national governing bodies like the EU is that it creates a single point of failure for freedom.

Re:This and G8...

[sumdumass]

Are you sure that median is an average? I always thought it was a halfway point between to distinct groups concerning a specific measurement or piece of data. You can use averages to reach the median and the median can have the same value of a median but my understanding is that it isn't an average by any normal means.

Re:This and G8...

[ady1]

>>Although I think direct democracy would have its own problems too - we'd be under the will of the masses.

Thats what democracy is: Will of Masses

>>There are some things that referendums are appropriate for (issues that affect everyone), but just look at what happens when you put questions like "Should gay people be allowed to marry" to referendums as I believe has happened in some US states.

In that case, its a troll question to ask and it wouldn't help whether the democracy is direct or representative. Both can be manipulated all the same.
The correct question to ask would be: Should anyone be allowed to marry regardless of their sexual orientation and gender?

Re:This and G8...

[toriver]

No it is not. Median is the middle point in a data set. Which is something entirely different than average even if they sometimes coincide in the "a stopped clock is correct twice a day" way.

For instance, in the data set "1, 2, 3, 4, 40" the median is 3 (in the middle) while the average is 10 (50 / 5).

(Because of that last data point's "spike" the standard deviation is high, at 16.8...)

Re:This and G8...

[Nursie]

Yes, efficient budgets are in my interests.

OTOH, gay rights and not bringing back the death penalty, are two areas where the mob would probably be fiercely illiberal, but the political classes are not.

Again, I believe I have more in common with the educated and wealthy politicians than I do with the half of the population that have below average intelligence and believe what the tabloids tell them.

There's a lot wrong with politicians, and there's a lot wrong with my views (that effectively lead to a denial of self determination for the people), but I am better off without the morons being in charge.

Re:This and G8...

[azgard]

Germany in the early 1900's versus forty years later.

This is a bogus argument. Nobody really knows what the general public thought in this period. Opinion polls were not known until 30s, and I would expect any opinion poll in Germany after 1933 to be strongly biased towards Hitler (because of fear). You know, you shouldn't try to guess the German sentiment from the rallies - I know quite well from my (former communist) country how these events were organized. Also, it makes no sense to compare different time periods, only to compare opinion of public and politicians (or other elites) at the same time.

Re:This and G8...

[azgard]

As you said, it's a matter of your belief. You can change it, you know, if you are not afraid of facts.

About gay rights and death penalty - funny, I always considered them as minor issues that politicians have popularized. Politicians emphasize issues that are divisive, so they could stay in power (it's actually the side result of political parties adapting to the opinions of people and trying to outsmart each other).

On the other hand, politicians try to keep people in dark when it comes to opinion of others, because it could contradict their cause.

Anyway, if we look at the facts, there were quite a few referendums on death penalty in the U.S. The results are quite mixed, and people mostly voted like politicians - in blue states against death penalty, in red states for death penalty. So if you would let this issue to people, to your surprise, you would get more-or-less the same result.

And as I noted above, in my country, gay marriage was supported by a lot more people than the members of parliament (but on the other hand, more people supports death penalty than members of parliament). So neither in this case you can say that the "mob is fiercely illiberal" - this is a big simplification.

I wonder, is really gay marriage and death penalty more important for you than for example universal health care? For me yes, and in our country, politicians are currently dismantling it (and want the american system, which is twice as expensive as average EU system and gives often worse results). They are dismantling it against the will of most people and healthcare professionals. And once they have done it, it will be very very difficult to put it back, much more than get rid of death penalty or instate gay marriages.

I think you should think twice about what things in life (and ultimately in politics) you really care about. ;-)

Re:This and G8...

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Yes, they may make individually bad decisions, but collectively not quite.

Only if the stupidity, in some way or another, cancels out. That's a big if. These are people, not atoms in a gas.

That's why we vote - to get rid of any outliers.

No it isn't. It's because everyone is equal before the law and should have an equal say in governance. Or (foil hat on) because the man wants to give that impression.

A strawman is when you attack apoint that was never made, namely when you brought in the moral issue and accused me of wanting to ban stupid people from voting. Even if I'd meant that (and I didn't) then frankly your tangential rantings are making a better case for it than I ever could.

It is a very common argument, that people are stupid, therefore the outcome is stupid. It's not true.

So, in what way is it not true? On one hand you certainly can't say that group of people X are stupid so when they take a specific decision Y they're 100% guaranteed to make a stupid choice Z.

But in the long run, if you bet that way, you'll be right more often than wrong.

The point is that the gain from having all people to vote is bigger than if only a selected group votes.

THat depends on how the group is selected. Say the question is about stem cell research or nuclear power. You really think 7,000 streetsweepers and 900 priests would make a better decision than 30 appropriate scientists?

That's why I want direct democracy, where you vote about specific proposals and not (unreliable) people.

Good luck on anything involving complex issues then. You'll be back to stoning heretics and burning witches in less than a generation.

Anyway, if the issue is multiple choice, you can use range voting, which has been proven to maximize voter satisfaction.

I dont see the relevance, sorry. Is this something to do with the discrete choces I mentioned? Because if it is, you've misunderstood yet again.

Central limit theorem will apply here as well.

Stop about that - you don't know what it means. There is no central point for a nominal (i.e non numeric) scale to converge on. It's like asking what the average of chicken and beef is. And no, it isn't pork.

Re:This and G8...

[azgard]

Yes, they may make individually bad decisions, but collectively not quite.

Only if the stupidity, in some way or another, cancels out. That's a big if. These are people, not atoms in a gas.

If you completely don't know (you are completely stupid), then the chance of voting correctly in the yes/no proposal is 50%. If you are a bit clever, than the chance is more than that. Aside from getting manipulated by someone (case I will deal with shortly), there is no reason why your probability shouldn't increase monotonously with your smartness, that is, why on any level it should be lower than 50%.

If there indeed is some party that is trying to manipulate the voters, then such a party probably disrupts representative system even more. In representative system, you have less information (you have to rely on the future behavior of the people you voted in) than in direct democracy, so your decision-making capability is even more limited.

That's why we vote - to get rid of any outliers.

No it isn't. It's because everyone is equal before the law and should have an equal say in governance. Or (foil hat on) because the man wants to give that impression.

Yes, but the reason why we select voting instead of randomly selecting a person which will decide the outcome (both are perfectly fair systems) is to get rid of the outliers, whether we realize that or not.

A strawman is when you attack apoint that was never made, namely when you brought in the moral issue and accused me of wanting to ban stupid people from voting. Even if I'd meant that (and I didn't) then frankly your tangential rantings are making a better case for it than I ever could.

To question voter stupidity means to assume there exists objectively measurable quality of the outcome. I brought the moral issue in because most of the issues (if any at all) have no such objective measure. If there is objective measure, then we can all agree on it, therefore there is no reason to vote.

In any issue, there is usually the normative part (what to do) and positive part (how to do). You can leave the positive part on the experts, but the normative part you want to decide by yourself. In case there is disagreement what is normative and what is positive, you decide, not experts.

The reason why people should vote about complete proposals of laws, even though they can contain positive part too, is that it's quite easy to objectively tell that the law was broken. It's not so easy to objectively tell that politician has broken his promise. It's analogous to a written contract. We have contracts to prevent this kind of disputes, and we should vote about complete proposals to prevent disputes about broken promise to voters.

It is a very common argument, that people are stupid, therefore the outcome is stupid. It's not true.

So, in what way is it not true? On one hand you certainly can't say that group of people X are stupid so when they take a specific decision Y they're 100% guaranteed to make a stupid choice Z.

But in the long run, if you bet that way, you'll be right more often than wrong.

I don't think you understood the argument with the central limit theorem. If people are completely stupid, they still have 50% chance to do the right thing in the yes/no choice.

THat depends on how the group is selected. Say the question is about stem cell research or nuclear power. You really think 7,000 streetsweepers and 900 priests would make a better decision than 30 appropriate scientists?

No, I am saying that 7000 streetsweepers and 30 scientists will make a better decision than 30 scientists. That's a difference.

That's why I want direc

Re:This and G8...

[Nursie]

We have universal health care in my country too, and it's doing fine, thanks. There is no need to choose betwwen that and anything else.

What I really care about is not being at the mercy of the reactionary, stupid underclasses in this country.

Re:This and G8...

[fastest fascist]

That's why you need freedom of association as well as direct democracy. People need to be able to choose where and with whom they live. Can't be done in huge, centrally controlled countries like we have now. Someone always gets trampled on, no way around it.

Re:This and G8...

[TheLink]

I don't see that as a good argument against direct democracy.

At worst it means the blood is directly on their hands. If that's what they want then so be it. If 90% of the people vote to do some evil, it does make it a lot easier to hold them responsible for it.

For example if 90% of a country voted to declare war on your country, it sure makes it easier to justify using WMD on them (the 10% better start running). They want a war, they get a war.

The normal case is the whole nation gets dragged in even if only the leaders wanted a war.

That's why I think referendums should be held for _offensive_ wars (not defensive). And if the referendum fails to get enough votes the proposers of wars should be put on Death Row, and referendums held later to Redeem each of those on death row (not enough votes - Mr Warmonger dies).

If it turns out later that a war was justified, we can hold some ceremony and present the families of the executed ones their Purple Heart awards, cry a bit and all that.

I think it's only fair. If the leader is not willing to risk dying for the war then that leader should have no right to get soldiers and civilians of both countries killed. In the old days the kings would ride out in battle leading their soldiers. I think this is one way of doing it in spirit.

Where representative democracy works is for less important matters that can be delegated to representatives. Most voters would not want to vote every week over smaller issues - so they elect a representative to do the job (or at least not do too crappy a job ;) ).

It's like me delegating cooking to a restaurant. If the food turns out to be crap later on, I might pick a different restaurant the next time. Even if I were a great cook I'm not going to stand in the kitchen and tell them how to cook something, it defeats the purpose.

Re:This and G8...

[Bastard of Subhumani]

This is a bogus argument. Nobody really knows what the general public thought in this period.

You challenged people to come up with a historical example. No doubt you'd use that exact same "rebuttal" in any case.

Well, this is why France is not the United States.

[Ryan1984]

Lobbying from the PUBLIC seems to have an effect there.

For fuck's sake

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

Why are politicians so retarded?

You are there to represent the people and your country. If you find yourself having to subvert the will of your public, your constitution, your own justice system etc., then take that as a big fucking clue that YOU ARE WRONG and the best way for you to help is to STFU.

Re:For fuck's sake

[Krneki]

They represent whoever pays for their election campaign, they don't give a damn about people as long as it doesn't affect their vote too much.

Re:For fuck's sake

[Lafeek]

In France, the money for presidential campaigns comes from taxes, is limited, and of the same amount for every candidate. But if you got less than 5% of votes, you have to give back this money to the government (this can be painful).

Re:For fuck's sake

[Lafeek]

Oh, and I forgot to say that they all have the right to the same amount of time on TV. And all of this is controlled and enforced.

(Well, that is in theory.)

Re:For fuck's sake

[incabulos]

On the other hand, there will be a certain malicious delight in seeing this proto-fascist slimeball force this law through backed by hefty bribes from media companies, only to watch Frances economy shut down. When all DNS records become illegal to serve up for access, when all index.htmls and the servers they live on become illegal, and essentially the internet in France is switched off over night.

Its nearly as silly as mandating CPUs lacking CPY or MOV, or operating systems that cannot open or copy files. Staggeringly retarded, yet so typical of politicans in general who know their own precious snowflakes will never be arrested for modded playstations or burned cdrs full of music regardless of how illegal its made.

Re:For fuck's sake

[eulernet]

They are not retarded: they try to make a profit, and they don't care about the consumers.

Sarkozy never hid his friendship with the big bosses in France (Bollore, Arnault, Lagardere, etc...), and his own brother is vice-president of MEDEF.

In France, we have some systems to avoid corruption, but the politicians always find a way to bypass them.

France has two big political parties: UMP and PS. UMP is rightist and PS is leftist.
They both are pushing for these regulations.

There are some other parties that tend to better protect the consumers, but they don't have enough political weight.

Re:For fuck's sake

[Therefore I am]

You just don't get it do you? These days politics is all about getting brownie points for when you are out of office. Three or four directorships of big companies will rapidly make up for the less than stellar political earnings. Some might look at this as a just reward - Why not see it as it is. It is bribery of a public official. The significant difference is that the pay-day is deferred some years and comes disguised as a seat on a board.....Usually with a bunch of crooks who have taken the same bait.

Re:For fuck's sake

[digitig]

Why are politicians so retarded?

You are there to represent the people and your country. If you find yourself having to subvert the will of your public, your constitution, your own justice system etc., then take that as a big fucking clue that YOU ARE WRONG and the best way for you to help is to STFU.

Wrong.

De jure they are there to represent the people. De facto they are there to represent their own self-interest. When these come into conflict (which is the normal state), de facto will win. The politicians are not "retarted" or "wrong", they're doing exactly what is built into the system. No, I don't know of a better system, but at least regognising that this behaviour is built-in leads to less political surprises, and gives (some) politicians credit for intelligence if not honour.

Re:For fuck's sake

[digitig]

And there is no way that lobbyists could get around this by lobbying the opinion formers (eg, the press) rather than by directly funding the political campaigns, is there?

Re:For fuck's sake

[Alibaba10100]

Its a consequence of the fact that people are to god damn lazy to research anything themselves, so they get all their information from campaign ads. Why bother doing things your constituents would like if they will never know about them? Whether you're a perfect democratic angel or a complete douche, your campaign ads will look pretty much the same. But when it comes to paying for them, if you kiss the asses of people and organizations with money to spare, you can afford a hell of a lot more of that wonderfully educational TV time.

Re:For fuck's sake

[Luke_22]

If you find yourself having to subvert the will of your public, your constitution...
Hey, this is not against the constitution.
If you want to see something against the costitution you have to come here in Italy. We're just discussing 2 laws for that.

One would make 5 people in our country _totally_ "immune" to the law, the other is against press: nothing of a trial can be published in newspaper, not even the subject of the trial, not even who is involved.

Oh, and we're about to make telephone bugging (don't know how to translate, sry) illegal for almost everything...
And, obviously, the recording can not be used in trials others than the one you're facing....
So if they're bugging you for mafia, and you confess a homicide, you don't have to worry!
Great, uh?

Re:For fuck's sake

[Reality Master 101]

You are there to represent the people and your country.

That's correct.

If you find yourself having to subvert the will of your public...

This is where you go off the rails. The job of a politician is NOT -- repeat, NOT -- to implement the "will of the people". That's because they can't. Everyone has a different opinion on what should be done. For example, you think your opinion on filesharing should supersede everyone else's. Believe it or not, a LOT of people think sharing copyrighted material should be illegal (probably even a majority).

A politician's job, in theory (rarely in reality), is to totally ignore what the idiotic public thinks they want. He/she's job is to study each issue in more detail than the public has time for, and to vote in the *best interests* of the public. This may or may not match what public opinion polls say.

Re:For fuck's sake

[Carewolf]

And there is no way that lobbyists could get around this by lobbying the opinion formers (eg, the press) rather than by directly funding the political campaigns, is there?

Of course there is, but they don't; maybe because they haven't got the idea, because their morale is too high, or because they are afraid it would backlash their candidate.

I think the main difference between elections in the US and Europe is not the amount of regulation, but the amount of shit the electors tolerate.

Re:For fuck's sake

[digitig]

I think the main difference between elections in the US and Europe is not the amount of regulation, but the amount of shit the electors tolerate.

The amount of shit most of the UK electorate is willing to take appears to be however much the media tells them to, and I'd guess it's the same in the USA. Glad to hear that it isn't so in France.

Re:For fuck's sake

[You are not listenin]

The caimpaign contributers and lobbyists aren't the factor here, but that's not to say the media isn't subservient to big business (music industry) in this instance. The mass media get's the loyalty of politicans because it dictates what the people think. If politicians don't submit to the demands of the media establishment they're just not going to get elected again. It's as simple as that. It may not even take any lobbyists at all if the music industry has any professional connections with the journalists in a country (not so unlikely, they could be owned by a common parent company for example). Alternatively, the music industry makes up a significant advertising force, and the media makes its money off of advertising. If a company refuses to advertise while the messages of a political opponent are being broadcast those messages are likely to be marginalized (read: not broadcast at all in exchange for broadcasting a more profitable message) the same effect is acheived as with direct influence over the mass media (via parent company example or lobbyists).

There's not even anything to blame the politicians for in their behavior, it's what any person could be expected to do. The mass media on the other hand, in particular the music industry pushing for this legislation are to blame. They're visibly trying to force laws onto a people without democratic consent to those laws (this is a good example of fascism btw). That's morally inexcusable, and in response to legislation like this the opposition, and anyone who values democracy for that matter, should be protesting the media conglomerates that are responsible, if not flat out boycotting them for their fascist ways. This sort of behavior makes me want to download and distribute as many copywrit things as I can. It would be a very effective form of protest. All the power of a boycott and more (because data distribution actually promotes the spread of the boycott) without sacrificing anything as the consumer.

Companies need to be told who's boss and it's not their CEO's or boardmembers or shareholders. It's the consumer. If we don't want to pay for their product we're not going to, and they can't make us do so against our will. They need to be sent this message loud and clear, and maybe then there will be some convergence between the desires of the market (those who are downloading illegally) and what the market actually provides (e.g. iTunes is a step in the right direction).

The market clearly needs to be restructured and digital rights clearly need to be redefined to accomodate for the desires of the market (music piracy constitutes a significant portion of the market, which testifies to the need for reform to coopt that market), but that's not going to happen until we show the music industry that they can't bend us to their will through legislative loopholes and tricks.

Re:For fuck's sake

[trenien]

They don't need to.

The main newspaper now belong to various private interest who are very interested in seeing such laws pass.

Re:For fuck's sake

[ScrewMaster]

No, this is a largely American site, and when we refer to ourselves as "we" most people here (those from other countries as well, I've noticed) assume that the participant means "American". Deal with it. And if I were to say, "The problem with the French is widespread ignorance among the French population" you'd probably take offense, if you were French. Beware of idiotic generalizations ... they only make you appear mindless.

Re:For fuck's sake

[catxk]

Well, the beauty of democracies is that they are suitable for generalizations. Since the US is a democracy in the sense that the people collectively actually could make changes if they would want to, one can easily generalize and blame stupid regulation (f.ex. unlimited private funding to political campaigns) on general stupidity among the people.

And yes, this is largely a US site, but the topic and the discussion is clearly non-US. Thus, from an international perspective, it is only common sense and common manners to not take for granted everyone defaults a "we" to "the US population". But then again: All Americans suck because they don't realize "international perspective" does NOT mean "the international community's perspecitve on the US".

Re:For fuck's sake

[Walter Carver]

There is but it's much more difficult, don't you think?

Re:For fuck's sake

[digitig]

In many cases it's easier -- when it's the media barons who are doing the lobbying, for instance.

The worst since Berlusconi

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarkozy is the worst leader in EU since Berlusconi.

Re:The worst since Berlusconi

[WingedHorse]

Aye but well, even though they might seem to have most power in EU, in reality most of Europe doesn't get much worried when they try to push through some idiotic rulings like that. The french and the italians are doing that constantly and it is not often they get something actually through.

Re:The worst since Berlusconi

[Hognoxious]

Hate to break it to you, but Berlusconi is still there.

Re:The worst since Berlusconi

[armareum]

Sorry, why is it not allowed to criticise, or lament upon, the voting criteria and choices of an electorate?

Re:The worst since Berlusconi

[catxk]

Italians voted for Berlusconi. When it comes to human rights, democracy, liberties, etc., Italians are stupid. It's no coincidence that Italy is the home of the most publicly visible crime organizations in Europe, the most totalitarian political leader in Europe and the most corrupted football league in the world. Italians just don't seem to care.

Re:The worst since Berlusconi

[Hognoxious]

Do you know what since means? It cannot, in the temporal rather than the causal sense, refer to something that is ongoing. Got that?

the general impression in this thread is that there's a consideration that electors were stupid or misguided in voting for a certain leader.

What's wrong with that? Don't you think it's possible that (hindsight being 20-20) they made a bad choice - not necessarily in this case, but anywhere, ever? To avoid Godwin's law I won't mention the obvious example.

People are free to criticize governments, but NOT the electors that voted for them.

Well if you say so, it must be true. I could comment on the irony of someone who goes on about the will of the people in one sentence while issuing royal proclamations in the next, but I won't. Did I imagine those people saying the Americans were pretty dumb to elect Dubya not just once but twice?

Re:The worst since Berlusconi

[armareum]

Ah, so it's just the "holier than thou" arrogant attitudes you can't stand?

It's still fair to critique the choices and voting criteria of people, as long as it remains as a debate. Personally, I respect others' rights to have an opinion different from mine, however I don't necessarily respect that opinion itself.

Your point touches upon the fact that modern democracies allow all to have an equal say: it is clear that "the stupid", "the uneducated" and "the bigoted" will (in general) make less complex and nuanced decisions. I think that sometimes people lament democratic decisions in a way that says "too many of the stupid, uneducated and bigoted" were fooled into for the "wrong" thing. And hence label that portion of the electorate and completely composed of such individuals.

Er, too many ""s there.. oh well.

this can't possibly work

[m0llusk]

At a technical level this appears similar to China's Internet meddling in that it will always be defeatable and the chances of being caught are never going to be especially high. Given that, what is the point?

Re:this can't possibly work

[JustKidding]

This is just going to be yet another arms race, although the stakes are quite a bit higher for the consumers this time.

So stupid it can be improved.

[kanweg]

Given that it appears to be a way of judgment without a court involved, I cannot say I'm a fan. In any case, life without Internet is not really possible (you may even be required to do it in dealings with the government), so third strike should be no more severe than throttling speeds to near 14 k modem speeds. Enough to be major nuisance, but not cut off completely

Bert

Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

The french law project which establishes an independant authority with power to ban users from the Internet (by cutting the Internet access) after three strikes has not failed to pass in the National Assembly : IT STILL HASN'T BEEN EXAMINED THERE !

It is scheduled to be examined soon by the Senate first and then eventually by the National Assembly. You can read it there in french : http://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl07-405.html

What is true is that right now the French ISP association (including every french ISP), the web services association (including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo! and such), the commission in charge of regulating telecommunications, the commission in charge of the defense of privacy and several others have all said they were against this law.

Besides, even though I can imagine Nicolas Sarkozy being pleased if there were european legislation copying his ideas, I don't see any particular lobbying from his part in the European Parliament. Just look at the amendments and who wrote them (in the IMCO, ITRE or LIBE committee).

http://www.laquadrature.net/files/amendements-compromis_ITRE-IMCO_7juil/

And I'm not even speaking of the usual fierce independance of MEP toward national governments. They're much nicer with regular lobbying groups, in this case the music and movie industries.

Re:Wrong.

[yada21]

You can read it there in french : http://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl07-405.html

Sir, i am an american. Let me categorically assure you that i most definatley can not.

Re:Wrong.

[angel'o'sphere]

What the fuck are "three strikes" ... I gave up reading after I was at your posting as I simply don't even get what this fuss is about ;D sorry.

Plx enlighten me and explain the Article and stop using jargon on matters that seem as important as this one.

angel'o'sphere

Write your congresscritter, EU-style!

[PacoCheezdom]

This rule would still have to be approved by the European Parliament for it to become law. If you're an EU citizen, do like the FA says and write your MEP:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members.do?language=EN

drill down the map until you get to the member page; there are three postal addresses at the bottom of page. I'd either write to them in Brussels or their constituency address, since they're only usually in Strasbourg once a month. There's an email contact too, at the top.

On a side note, I've actually been in the mailroom at the EP building in Brussels, and it's really nice. It's in a prominent position right on one of the main corridors between the offices and the hemicycle.

Re:Write your congresscritter, EU-style!

[Tryfen]

If you're in the UK, you can use Write To Them to email all you MEPs at once.

I've done it and had two positive responses so far.

Re:EU != Europe

[Vectronic]

Semantics,

France Seeks To Push 3-Strikes Law Across Europe ...pushing it as an amendment to the pan -European Telecoms Package. This amendment has the potential to impose 3-strikes across Europe, not just in France.

Across, doesn't mean all of Europe, it simply means it stretches across Europe, sorta like the Trans-Canada Highway... goes across Canada, however, it doesn't reach all the Provinces, and actually only covers a really small area of it land-wise.

Hypocrite...

[Kentari]

Pfff, we don't take laws from that hypocrite. He's had more that 3 strikes on his neck because of his reforms and he's still in office...

Ireland

[inamorty]

Being Irish I wasn't too proud of the results of the referendum we had for the recent Lisbon Treaty.
I hope that we can redeem ourselves by scuppering that twat's plans again but for the right reasons this time round..
Sarkozy should stick to diddling his wife and not with our affairs.
How about enforcing stricter bathing laws at home? Or roll out general guidelines for grooming?
(tongue firmly in cheek)

Re:Ireland

[Von Helmet]

Get back to your potato fields, Paddy!

NB: I'm mostly Finnish, so you may require the services of a Swede, Norwegian or Russian to stereotype me.

Re:Ireland

[inamorty]

I'm not walking into that one.
From the little history i remember, the last time the Finns were attacked, the Russians were left red-faced to put it mildly. However, at the risk of beginning a summer war i'll leave you with a quote from Jacques Chirac: "After Finland, [Britain] is the country with the worst food."
I'll stick to my potatoes thank you :)

Shamed of being French right now

[fgaliegue]

Because I am.

Curiously, some French politicians are brilliant, but they're not part of the French government.

A French "European deputy" (for lack of a better name) has opposed this three-strike legislation, arguing (rightly so imho) that "an industry that is not able to make do with new consumer habits [the Internet]" shouldn't impose its rules to the government. The French government hasn't listened.

Michel Rocard is famous for opposing software patents. The French government hasn't listened.

French automobile club leaders, the least of which is not the president of the ACO (Automobile Club de l'Ouest, supervising the 24 hours of Le Mans) said that the pollution tax is a mistake, because one already exists and that's the TIPP (Taxe Intérieure sur les Produits Pétroliers, Internal Tax on Petrol-derived Goods, for lack of a batter name) that one pays for each centilitre of gasoline/Diesel in the tank, and that there's no reason than a guy driving only 3000 miles a year in his Ferrari should pay more than one driving ten times that in his Diesel Renault Logan. The French government doesn't listen.

Just, where has common sense gone?

Re:Shamed of being French right now

[damienl451]

The consumer habits change argument is hardly convincing. Copyright law does indeed secure a source of income for artists but it is not the rationale for its existence. At the root, the idea is that a temporary monopoly over one's works is necessary to motivate artists to devote time to creating new works.

If it were simply a change in consumer habits, I'd happily say laissez-faire . If people are not interested in music anymore, let record companies disappear! Here, however, we are faced with a slightly different situation. It is not that people are not interested in music anymore, but that they have found a way to illegitimately acquire a perfect substitute without having to bear the costs that went into producing it. In other words, we have a free rider problem, and I'd argue that it will lead to societally sub-optimal outcomes

Currently, the problem cannot yet be felt. In the short-term, indeed, people will still buy CDs and legitimate copies of songs, partly out of fear, partly because they think it's their moral duty to compensate artists. As a result, record companies have an incentive to sign artists, who have an incentive to devote their time to music.

In the absence of copyright law, the amount of music created would not be the socially optimal one. Fewer people would choose a career in music (and, contrary to popular misconceptions, it is not true that genuinely talented individuals would play anyway -- you can be incredibly talented and motivated by profit, romantic myths notwithstanding), less good music would be made (since record companies would have less money to spend on new artists), etc.

The fact is that the new regime favored by some would be more restrictive than the current one. At the moment, each artist is free to choose whether he wants to release its works for free, or charge a fee. If this fee is too high, consumers can buy another, less expensive CD, or simply not listen to music anymore. The government's job is simply to make sure that everyone's choice is not violated. Nobody looses out because of copyright law: if you refuse to listen to a song because it is too expensive, you haven't lost anything!

If, however, copyright is abolished or file sharing legalized, the artist's freedom is threatened (since he cannot decide who gets access to his music). How is this an improvement over the current system in which the price of music, which can be equal to zero, is determined by supply and demand?

Re:Shamed of being French right now

[celle]

Seems like maybe you should warm up a few, not just one, head-choppers and use as necessary until government listens.

Re:Shamed of being French right now

[IgnoramusMaximus]

In the absence of copyright law, the amount of music created would not be the socially optimal one. Fewer people would choose a career in music (and, contrary to popular misconceptions, it is not true that genuinely talented individuals would play anyway -- you can be incredibly talented and motivated by profit, romantic myths notwithstanding), less good music would be made (since record companies would have less money to spend on new artists), etc.

This is where you are 100% wrong. A 99% reduction in production of what currently passes as "art" would have no impact whatsoever as the only thing that profit motive motivates is utter kitsch. One artist who does art as art must be done: as an internal calling to express himself, is worth 1000 "for profit" schmucks manufactured by media companies to be "products". And this is all there is to it.

Human civilization was awash in art long before there was a copyright and it will remain so long after the idiotic idea bites the dust.

Unless of course by "socially optimal" you mean for some selected view mega-corporate fiefdoms to be raking in billions running an elaborate scam, at a mere expense of a totalitarian police state required to make the scheme stick in the age of digital communications.

At the moment, each artist is free to choose whether he wants to release its works for free, or charge a fee. If this fee is too high, consumers can buy another, less expensive CD, or simply not listen to music anymore.

You are making the fundamental errors all "greed philosophers" do: that art is a "product" to be bought and sold. Followed by even more grave scientific error: that art forms based on pure information can be traded at all, as information does not posses the required attributes to be a trade-able "private property".

The government's job is simply to make sure that everyone's choice is not violated. Nobody looses out because of copyright law: if you refuse to listen to a song because it is too expensive, you haven't lost anything!

Except a host of personal freedoms. In order for the government to enforce the idiotic copyright regime designed for ink splattered on a by product of dead trees, and which is wholly unworkable in a digital age, the only path available to the government is wholesale monitoring of all communications coupled with draconian "guilty until proven otherwise" measures we see proposed more and more frequently. This is simply a straightforward logical outcome of the concept of "copyright". While it was practically workable in an age where only few select individuals were capable of possessing an ability to copy a book, it is no longer so in a world in which the cost of duplication is approaching zero and the means of which are in the hands of every member of the society. The only way to make copyright workable again is to reverse the technological progress (i.e. to make sure that the cost of duplication becomes astronomical again and/or it is only available to select elites). Which of course has the desired side-effect of restoring control of all mass communications (and thus political speech) to the "right people".

If, however, copyright is abolished or file sharing legalized, the artist's freedom is threatened (since he cannot decide who gets access to his music).

No such control ever existed. It is like trying to control who has access to the photons bouncing off your ass when you walk on a major city street. The very definition of art is a mass dissemination of the artist's expressions. Every artist (as opposed to a greed-motivated kitsch "manufacturer") has an intrinsic desire to spread his message as widely as possible. Attempting to control who gets the message is the very anathema of art. The moment you try you cease to become an artist.

How is this

Re:Shamed of being French right now

[cliffski]

"This is where you are 100% wrong. A 99% reduction in production of what currently passes as "art" would have no impact whatsoever as the only thing that profit motive motivates is utter kitsch."

says who?

Do you atcually KNOW the neural activity of everyone who produces entertainment content? Of course you fucking don't. You have *no idea* whether Jane Austen wrote mainly for the money, or whether Sean Connery only acted for the cash. You just like to tell yourself that everyone who has talent in terms of entertainment MUST be doing it just for the love of it, (despite the fact that there is fuck all evidence of this), because its part of the mental gymnastics people like you are forced to employ in order to justify taking other peoples work for free.

You rate the time of a plumber who is barely competent to be higher than the time of the most talented writer / songwriter / musician and actor on earth.

In order to pay his rent, you would willingly send spielberg to stack shelves in wal mart wouldn't you?
What an incredibly silly point of view.

Re:Shamed of being French right now

[eryksun]

Currently, the problem cannot yet be felt. In the short-term, indeed, people will still buy CDs and legitimate copies of songs, partly out of fear, partly because they think it's their moral duty to compensate artists. As a result, record companies have an incentive to sign artists, who have an incentive to devote their time to music.

Your argument assumes the majority of the money is going to the musicians, when in fact it's mostly going to an old, decaying industry that we no longer need. Certainly the equipment (and software) has progressed to the point that an honestly good musician can do his or her own mixing, or pool together with other local artists to get it done, and the Internet (especially with P2P file sharing) serves as the perfect distribution channel. So what are the sound techs and producers responsible for? They're responsible for engineering an artificial product -- taking low-talent, pretty faces and making something that sounds half-way decent using sophisticated techniques that belong more to NASA than good music. Then they've managed to shift the taste of an entire culture toward this spectrum of manufactured sound -- a predictable commodity providing a guaranteed return for their stockholders. Meh.

Providing music online, without record label contracts, artists can increase their income at a fraction of the cost the RIAA companies charge consumers. Just provide a Paypal link where people can contribute a donation. If you're good, you'll get plenty of money. If you're popular enough around the nation, you'll even get enough donations to fund music videos and a national tour (if that's what you want, though a lot of artists aren't interested in becoming celebrities).

Instead of a top-down system where musicians are pushed on us through media hype, commercials, and guaranteed air time (on a Clear Channel station, no doubt), artists will bubble up to the national stage by word of mouth, Internet fansites, and honest journalism (rather than passing off corporate press releases as news).

The RIAA CEOs need to redirect the assets in their companies to emerging industries. They're dying in the long run and they have a fiduciary obligation to their investors to realign their strategy. At the very least, they can focus on the big-budget movie industry. Hollywood movies with obscene budgets are more akin to carnival rides than speech, and I'm willing to pay for the thrill of watching them on a huge screen with the kind of resolution and sound I could never personally afford (I'd have to watch a few thousand movies just to make up for the equipment cost.) In general that's where entertainment companies need to be -- leveraging their assets to provide larger-than-life experiences in semi-public forums, experiences that common citizens desire, and will pay real money for because there's no way they can practically afford the experience on their own.

Re:Shamed of being French right now

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Do you atcually KNOW the neural activity of everyone who produces entertainment content? Of course you fucking don't. You have *no idea* whether Jane Austen wrote mainly for the money, or whether Sean Connery only acted for the cash.

I see. So let me get this straight: you believe that the motivating force for true artistic expression is money? That an "artist" does not feel a need to express himself until a silk-suited agent of a media conglomerate shows up with a contract that "will make you rich beyond all yer dreams, honey!". That is when the "artistic muse" answers the calling, no?

I have news for you: for every over-hyped Connery there are 100s of true artists who create true art while doing other jobs.

And since you asked, yes, Connery is a kitsch peddler. Austen never made any money to speak of (as that was not the case with books in the early 1800s). As a matter of fact she got paid £10 for the copyright to "Northanger Abbey", which languished unpublished, and which she could not get back until she raised the £10 back so that she could re-purchase the rights to her own book. It was more important for her to publish the book then the money (as she no longer owned the copyright)! Talk about shooting your own arguments down, sparky.

You just like to tell yourself that everyone who has talent in terms of entertainment MUST be doing it just for the love of it, (despite the fact that there is fuck all evidence of this), because its part of the mental gymnastics people like you are forced to employ in order to justify taking other peoples work for free.

There is plenty evidence of this (in addition to simple logical reasoning) and it has nothing to do with "taking other peoples work for free". Copyright is a privilege granted to the artists by the society in trade for specific returns! No returns - no deal. And as it stands the society is being leaned on more and more heavily by these "artists" who demand for us to relinquish our basic freedoms for their profit while the quality of their "art" steadily deteriorates.

You rate the time of a plumber who is barely competent to be higher than the time of the most talented writer / songwriter / musician and actor on earth.

It has nothing to do with rating "time". Art is not measured in "time". A brilliant artist can get an inspiration and produce a brilliant poem in 3 hours in a middle of a night. Another will take 3 years to finish same. Art simply does not operate on the same principle as labor of a plumber and so it cannot be measured by the same criteria. And as I pointed out, art is not trade-able in a way that would make it a subject of the capitalist model. Any attempts to do so are desperate and contorted kludges which require outright totalitarian measures in order to enforce them.

n order to pay his rent, you would willingly send spielberg to stack shelves in wal mart wouldn't you?

Given that Spielberg hasn't produced any art in his entire life (and probably couldn't if his life depended on it - although he is consummate in taking credit for the work of others whom he finances - a perfect example of the wondrous effects of copyright on art) then the answer is yes. Him stacking shelves might be actually a net gain for the society, and certainly for art in particular.

What an incredibly silly point of view.

It the only logical point of view on the subject. The fact that you find it "silly" says way more about you then anything else.

Re:Shamed of being French right now

[cliffski]

"until a silk-suited agent of a media conglomerate shows up"

"Given that Spielberg hasn't produced any art in his entire life (and probably couldn't if his life depended on it"

God you are pathetic. let me try in capitals.

DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND THAT NOT ALL CREATIVE PEOPLE WORK FOR BIG MEGA CONGLOMERATES?

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT UNLIKE ELITIST PRICKS SUCH AS YOURSELF TENS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE APPRECIATE PEOPLE LIKE STEPHEN SPIELBERG?

If you don't like popular culture, then fine, fuck off and enjoy your French jazz dance in a little room, just dont try and lecture the rest of us.

Don't bother replying, it will just be more piracy-justifying ego-wank.

Re:Shamed of being French right now

[IgnoramusMaximus]

DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND THAT NOT ALL CREATIVE PEOPLE WORK FOR BIG MEGA CONGLOMERATES?

That is why you focused on Spielberg and Connery (apart from your self-inflicted counter-example of Austen)! Logic apparently was never your strong suite.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT UNLIKE ELITIST PRICKS SUCH AS YOURSELF TENS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE APPRECIATE PEOPLE LIKE STEPHEN SPIELBERG?

The fact that people like stuff produced by Spielberg's minions for which he takes credit does not make any of it "art". People also like tobacco and booze, but that does not make either into "medicine".

Art has a specific definition, integral part of which being the need of an artist to share his artistic expression as widely as possible. And so Austen does fit the definition (as she preferred dissemination of her work over money), Spielberg does not (as he prefers money over dissemination of his kitsch). It is that simple.

If you don't like popular culture, then fine, fuck off and enjoy your French jazz dance in a little room, just dont try and lecture the rest of us.

As soon as you fuck off with your police state which you are diligently attempting to construct to control everything about my use of digital technology and communications for the benefit of this "popular culture" (read: media conglomerates, big business moguls and establishment politicians), we have a deal. Somehow however I do not expect you to do so, given that all your bristling about "popular culture" and "elitism" is designed to obscure your true motives: limitless greed and desire to control others, as brutally as you can get away with, for your own personal profit.

Don't bother replying, it will just be more piracy-justifying ego-wank.

Piracy? I do not even have a sea-worthy vessel, never you mind that the nearest sea is a few thousands kilometers away!

Re:Shamed of being French right now

[cliffski]

i knew you couldn't stop yourself from replying. i haven't read this latest drivel from you.
heres a hint kid

fuck off and get a job ok? then you can talk to the grown ups...

Re:Shamed of being French right now

[IgnoramusMaximus]

fuck off and get a job ok? then you can talk to the grown ups...

That thing you are doing is called projection. You take your own immaturity, your own inability to get another part time job after they said they did not want you anymore at that burger joint, and then you try to project these inadequacies of yours onto your opponents. Next you are going to project onto me your failing grades in that high-school ....

Re:Shamed of being French right now

[cliffski]

the thing you are doing right now is called "talking cock".

Seriously kid, you need to grow some brain cells, and get a job, stop leeching off the honest people in society. Nobody likes fucking thieves and leechers like you.

Re:Shamed of being French right now

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Seriously kid, you need to grow some brain cells, and get a job, stop leeching off the honest people in society. Nobody likes fucking thieves and leechers like you.

Your desperate attempts at labeling me a "kid" are really making me laugh. Those serious Freudian issues you are hiding there are slipping out. Still wanting to suck on Moms tits? Separated too early? Wanna hide from the nasty world populated by villains like me back in the safety of her skirts? Do tell.

For your info, I am just about to retire from the IT industry after nearly 30 years in the field and in my career I have produced more code both commercially and under GPL then you are likely to see in your entire miserable greedy, whiny life. The view I hold on copyright is a result of years of observation and discussions with people who, like me, produce works which are today deemed copyrightable, amongst them musicians and other artists.

You on the other hand let some traits of your psychotic personality rule your "reasoning". That repressed infantile inferiority complex and out of control greed in particular.

One can tell, because beside petulant, squeaky attempts at labeling people "thieves" (as if information could be "stolen") you've offered exactly no logical reasoning in defense of your "position" (and comically you even put forth examples that undermine it). Jumping up and down, whining, shouting and spitting is not a very effective method in convincing people, but that is all you have done. Then again, psychopaths like you don't give damn about reason or logic, only your narcissistic instincts which never developed past the level of a 5-year old: "Mine! Its all mine! Mine! Mine! Moooooom!".

Re:Shamed of being French right now

[huckamania]

The logical problem with your arguments (I'm being generous here) is that you focus solely on the taking of information from conglomerates. I'm sure you would have serious problems with someone taking your personal photos, videos, etc from you. Got any home made pornos you want to keep private? Under your system, anyone could take your filthy videos and share them. Okay, so you don't have any home made pornos, so you don't care about that. Just like you don't care about the kitsch being taken from the conglomerates. So let's try to find something you do care about. Do you have kids? Ever take a picture of them in the bath? It's okay to share them as well because it's information and cannot be stolen. How about digitized medical records? Again, under your system it's information and cannot be stolen. Why it's practically begging to be shared with the world.

Re:Shamed of being French right now

[IgnoramusMaximus]

The logical problem with your arguments (I'm being generous here) is that you focus solely on the taking of information from conglomerates.

That is not true. I focus on properties of information itself, irrespective of who uses it. It just so happens that big conglomerates are at a forefront of promulgation of the insanity of "Intellectual Property" because they are the ones who reap a vast majority of profits from this scheme. But the arguments I make are equally applicable to all entities, small businesses and individuals included.

I'm sure you would have serious problems with someone taking your personal photos, videos, etc from you.

Define "taking".

Information, amongst its many unique properties, has an ability for propagation. That property can be controlled by individuals, i.e. I may simply not give you my photos and videos. Buy if I do however (or you break into my house and steal them) then I do in fact lose the ability to control them (irrespective of my wishes) because all the subsequent propagation is no longer performed (and thus controlled) by me. That is why the Paris Hilton home-made porn video is permanently out, no matter how many lawsuits she files. Any lawsuits to stop propagation of information are like trying to sue the force of gravity.

A good example that illustrates this is a flame. You have a candle burning and it is "yours". If I take another candle, one I bought, and if you allow me to touch that flame with my candle, it will burn. But at that instant the flame ceases to be "yours" because now I can allow other people to touch my candle. At the moment of propagation of the flame you lost all control of it.

Do you have kids? Ever take a picture of them in the bath? It's okay to share them as well because it's information and cannot be stolen. How about digitized medical records? Again, under your system it's information and cannot be stolen. Why it's practically begging to be shared with the world.

See above. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my "wishes", it has everything to do with properties of information. All you can do is to control the initial propagation. After that you no longer have the ability.

It gets even worse for some other kinds of information. Your brilliant invention you are working on just might be discovered by some other dude at the other end of the planet whom you never met because it so happened that he and you got the same idea. It is because information has another unique property: identical information can be acquired by independent entities by wholly independent means. That is why some philosophers keep arguing about the fundamental nature of information, in particular about if information is "discovered" (i.e. it somehow exists outside the physical universe) or if it is "invented".

Re:Shamed of being French right now

[huckamania]

I think you are incredibly naieve to think that the means of propogation of information can not be controlled. You are also incredibly naieve to think that information once released can not be destroyed. There are historical precedents for both and from all ages including our own.

You are correct about some things. Paris Hilton can not stop the propagation of her sex video. However, in jurisdictions where the rule of law prevails, she can stop people from making a profit, or posting it on youtube, or selling tapes or dvds of the video. I don't see anything wrong with that.

If someone steals my credit history or medical records and tries to profit from that act, then I should have some legal recourse. Otherwise, I'm going into the data stealing business and I'm going to start with you and yours, Mr 30 years in the IT industry.

"That is why some philosophers keep arguing about the fundamental nature of information, in particular about if information is "discovered" (i.e. it somehow exists outside the physical universe) or if it is "invented"."

This sounds like the same BS the materialists are trying to pull with 'free will', framing the question while putting the target up on a pedestal to knock it down. A better question is whether information existed at or before the time of the big bang. If it did exist, is it the same information today or did it change? Obviously, much of what we call information has changed since the big bang. So, how do we know when information will change and will we even be able to recognize the change (think speed of light not being a constant).

OTOH, if what we call information didn't exist before the big bang, then it must have been created. This raises even more questions. Can information also be destroyed? Does newly created information have to follow the precepts of older information?

OTGH, we have to consider that this could be a false dichotomy and that the universe doesn't really give a rat's ass what we think.

Re:Shamed of being French right now

[IgnoramusMaximus]

I think you are incredibly naieve to think that the means of propogation of information can not be controlled.

Naive? The only possible method of controlling propagation of information is to control all means of such propagation. That means a totalitarian police state whereby all digital communications are continuously inspected by the police and no digital communication outside of the police controlled channels is (physically) allowed. Due to the properties of information there is simply no other way.

You are also incredibly naieve to think that information once released can not be destroyed.

Really? OK, let's try this experiment: I am hereby releasing the information sample, in form of a numerical sequence "6617721636173". Now it is out. You destroy it. Prove your case by demonstrating that no copies remain anywhere on Earth.

There are historical precedents for both and from all ages including our own.

Such as? Even if you burn down all the "heretic" books, there is no guarantee that some "heathen" did not hide some copies somewhere to be found in 2045.

However, in jurisdictions where the rule of law prevails, she can stop people from making a profit, or posting it on youtube, or selling tapes or dvds of the video. I don't see anything wrong with that.

No, she cannot. Unless some sort of global "Intellectual Property" police gets to inspect all digital communications on Earth in real time, it will take hours if not days before each new copy is removed from some random website, YouTube included (which happens daily). As to selling, you must be kidding. Every second spam email from some "porn site de-jour" contains the phrase "Paris Hilton Video".

If someone steals my credit history or medical records and tries to profit from that act, then I should have some legal recourse.

You are completely confused. Your recourse is against the use of information, i.e. physical objects (such as money) changing hands based upon it (if you can track such exchanges down). Not the propagation of information itself, which cannot be stopped for reasons outlined above. No matter what you do the identity thief or whomever used that information, you cannot stop the propagation after the fact! Personal data leaked to the Internet is permanently leaked, unless of course the totalitarian global police state comes to be.

A better question is whether information existed at or before the time of the big bang. If it did exist, is it the same information today or did it change? Obviously, much of what we call information has changed since the big bang.

Really? OK, how did number 4 change? Number 9? Any other integer? How about properties of mathematical equations? Etc and so on. And since all other information can be expressed in form of numerical sequences, the same applies to all other possible information. But in fact we do not know the true nature of information, only that it is directly tied to various phenomena such as consciousness. But this is an entire other discussion.

OTOH, if what we call information didn't exist before the big bang, then it must have been created. This raises even more questions. Can information also be destroyed? Does newly created information have to follow the precepts of older information? OTGH, we have to consider that this could be a false dichotomy and that the universe doesn't really give a rat's ass what we think.

See above. The important point however is that even if we do not know the true nature of information, we do know some of its properties. And those are incompatible with the notion of "Intellectual Property", "copyrights" and other means of attempting to create artificial pretenses of, amongst other things, scarcity, so that some select few individuals get to become very rich by controlling and dominating all the future means of communication of our society (as that is the only way to achieve their desired effect).

Re:Shamed of being French right now

[jgoemat]

You rate the time of a plumber who is barely competent to be higher than the time of the most talented writer / songwriter / musician and actor on earth.

Interesting... Actually, I would have a problem with a plumber that decided I had to pay him every time I wanted to turn my faucet on or off, even though he wasn't there and didn't actually have to lift a finger if I did it myself.

Re:Shamed of being French right now

[jgoemat]

Seriously kid, you need to grow some brain cells, and get a job, stop leeching off the honest people in society. Nobody likes fucking thieves and leechers like you.

Read the calm logic in his posts and compare it with your swearing, your use of profanity and ALL CAPS. In words you can understand, "Put on your acne medicine and get ready for the bus, junior."

Re:Why do Politicians actually care?

[PopeRatzo]

They're a bunch of bureaucratic, cheese crazed socialists and that's not the sort of place I want to live in.

To anyone who's had their financial life destroyed by medical bills here in the US, I bet it sounds pretty good, actually.

Re:Well, this is why France is not the United Stat

[Anonymous Coward]

And the public generally supports Protectionist policies, which any one who knows anything about economics (or a takes a brief look at history) knows doesn't work.

Re:EU != Europe

[EnglishSteve]

Not ALL EU legislation is "unwanted". For example, the laws that allow me (as a British citizen) the RIGHT to live and work wherever I please within the EU (right now I happen to be in Sweden) are pretty sweet.

You people better not be sharing...

[jskline]

You people had better not be sharing that illegal copy of Linux distro on your file sharing software!!! Three times you share that and we'll shut you down and ban you from any Internet connections for the rest of your life!!!

IP Companies employ people...

[cliffski]

errr... could it be that big companies, by definition, pay a lot of tax to the government, and create a lot of jobs. If a government is not looking after big companies, its likely not looking after the economy either, and not surprisingly, that would be a bad move.
There are people whose jobs depend on IP law. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of them. Those people vote, and pay taxes.

Re:IP Companies employ people...

[NoOneInParticular]

Big companies don't pay a lot of tax, big companies don't create a lot of jobs. It's small companies that have the tax burden and small companies who employ most people.

It's just easier to cater for big companies, because there are so few of them. Easier to get money from.

IP laws favour big companies, stiffling innovation. Small companies pay the price, and the economy likewise suffer. Hundreds of thousands also depended on the horse industry, we're all richer because we didn't cater to them.

Re:oh noes

[Saint Gerbil]

The last I heard they had a way around that in the pipeline. they reckon that up to 60% of the internet using UK is sharing music. I cant see ISP's wanting to kick off 60% of their business.

11 pirate party's are the only hope left.

[coretx]

82 % of the college students is against the current copyright system. Exactly the same group, are supposed to be the rulers of the world, by "Tomorrow"

Almost all EU country's have a so called Pirate Party, their target is something i probably don't need to explain.

Towards the US citicens i would like to say, that their leaders are a bunch of hypocrits. & I can tell you why !

I quote from your constitution : "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

This is a contradiction since exclusive rights no longer promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, or atleast not always do.
What this means is, that the current US copyright laws are against their own constitution.

Re:Where are the Nazis when you need them??

[Bastard of Subhumani]

And he made the trains run on time!

Re:Gerr

[Candid88]

Kind of ironic to say that on the day that France won the USA's independance.

Um why do you have to ask?

[nurb432]

It about money. the *AA has lots of it. Politicians listen to money.

I a bit confused here.

[nickjennings]

I don't understand how the use of file sharing software immediately implicates the user as a pirate. As you all know, many thing are made available for download with torrents.

They would either have to go after everyone detected using a file sharing protocol (with no knowledge of what the contact was) or somehow determine what was being download, which would take much more resources. Either way, it's impractical.

What's the difference between downloading a free eBook or a copyrighted one? A Linux ISO or a Windows ISO? A copyrighted game or a patch for the same game? The differences are very slight and most torrent trackers provide all of this content together without differentiating.

So are they basically saying the use of torrents would be illegal in the EU (if this law was passed)? Direct content from legitimate companies, would be all we would could legally access?

Let's not forget one thing

[Pig Hogger]

Sarkozy (le sarcôme) is a yankee-sucking scumbag. He is pretty well all-aligned with the americans, thanks to his bourgeois and scientology connections. And the fact that he married a showbiz slut gives him a dangerous exposure to the "media" "industry", hence his lopsided approach to the subject.

A telling fact is that his popularity after one year in office has plumetted to levels never seen in France.

Re:Let's not forget one thing

[zwei2stein]

I take it you don't like him?

Re:Let's not forget one thing

[DanJ_UK]

Not many people this side of the pond do.

Re:Let's not forget one thing

[Pig Hogger]

"Don't like" is an understatement... :)

Re:Let's not forget one thing

[NeutronCowboy]

Scientology connection? That's a new one. Hadn't heard that one before... got a source for that?

Re:Gerr

[Hognoxious]

That's totally wrong. It was France and Spain.

People need to focus more on...

[A beautiful mind]

...European issues, particularly issues of transparency. I'm glad the Irish had the guts to throw away the stupid mistake that was the Lissabon pact. It would have reduced transparency a lot (come on, 200+ pages of legalese as a constitution?! You've got to be kidding!), which we need more of and not less! In most countries in the EU, the EU and the way it operates seems to be a distant thing, barely interrupting the constant stream of local politics. The positions some parties take on European issues are often the result of internal, local, interior pacts and struggles.

Highly annoying that it has come to this. Sarkozy is just another fool, but with power.

Re:Why do Politicians actually care?

[damienl451]

Maybe it's because his wife is a singer?

How did this asshat get elected?

[damburger]

I thought the French had (marginally) more sense than the anglosphere in their choice of politician. Sarkozy just strikes me as a neoconservative dick.

Re:How did this asshat get elected?

[A.K.A_Magnet]

Yes, this is sad.

How was he elected? First, the opposition (Ségolène Royal) was unable to talk properly and had a fucking irritating voice and no mind of her own. She was bad, very bad. Sensed people still voted for her at the second turn because we knew who or more appropriately what Sarkozy was and is (you put it right, a "neoconservative dick" but he may be worse than just a dick, he is a very dangerous man). Hands down the worst President France ever had. But, obviously, Ségolène Royal being bad wasn't enough for him to get elected. His campaign was supported by 90% of the French media, he was quoted daily, the main TVs are owned by his friends (he is currently passing a bill to authorize more ads on private TV networks, and the right to nominate himself the president of the public TV networks -- last remnants of an era where France tried to preserve a decent cultural level of his citizens by having publicly funded networks). Sarkozy's being elected is the direct result of the lack of intelligence of French citizens and we are paying the high price for it. I'm afraid we have no right to criticize George W. Bush, Berlusconi, Uribe or Putin anymore (not that Chirac was good either, but at least he wasn't insane and knew how to show some decency).

Re:How did this asshat get elected?

[the eric conspiracy]

What a wonderful irony. After all the complaints by Europeans about the US and its president they end up with somebody WORSE.

LOL.

Re:How did this asshat get elected?

[o'reor]

Amen, bro.

Besides, let's not forget that 6 years ago, extreme-right-wing nationalist Le Pen ended landed in the second turn of the presidential elections whereas lots of people expected a Chirac vs Jospin (Socialist) second run. It seems that 5 years after, the nationalists were only too happy to give their votes to the neo-con Sarkozy. The guy did not even need to make a pact with the Front National (contrary to what Berlusconi did with Fini) but still his policy is getting tougher everyday on individual liberties, and police pressure is getting stronger on everyone -- except his son.

More and more people are getting pissed at him (and the reasons mentioned by polls analyst Jean-Daniel Lévy are all but ridiculous), but there are not enough checks and balances in the constitution of the French Republic to get rid of a fscked-up president, except the rare cases where he can be proved to be a traitor to the nation.

Here is an excellent blog about French politics for those who are interested.

...a Carla Bruni torrent!

[ClarisseMcClellan]

I thought poetry was the unique preserve of left-leaning intellectuals until I discovered the music of Carla Bruni. Somehow she found poetry compatible with the instincts of the neo-conservative and set it all to music. Lots of people seem happy to file share her music, not that I will be 'daring' to do so myself.
Unique amongst the politicians Sarkozy has a vested interest in file sharing. It will be interesting to see if this ever gets a mention.

Why "Three Strikes"?

[Jeremy Erwin]

Is baseball that popular in France?

Re:Why "Three Strikes"?

[gemada]

Exactly! Why would any country base its laws on sports analogies? It is completely idiotic. next we will have "2 yellow cards and you're out" or "a touchdown and you're out" - well at least a touchdown would give you 6 chances instead of 3 - and i don't even want to get into the cricket analogies as it is completely baffling to me.

Re:11 pirate party's are the only hope left.

[damienl451]

What objective indicator do you suggest we have to determine whether copyright promotes the progress of the arts? Since copyright gives an incentive to create, I'd say it does promote the progress of the arts. It's not because you don't like the music that's being made today that it's not "useful"...

As for college students, maybe if they were better informed as to what copyright accomplishes, they would have a different opinion. Seriously, is that even an argument? Most college students I know also fail to understand what comparative advantage is. By your reasoning, we should implement protectionist measures immediately since, eventually, these students will rule the world. Or maybe the 18% of students who support the current copyright system will be the rulers of the world?

Re:Why do Politicians actually care?

[the eric conspiracy]

Yeah, the French public medical system works so well that 92% of its residents carry supplementary private medical insurance and there are copayments or deductibles ranging from 10-40%. And despite the public oversight it still manages to be the 3rd most expensive system (in terms of % of GDP) in the world.

Democracy = majority != lobbies

[noddyxoi]

A true democracy never proposes artificial and unenforceable laws that goes agains the freedom and will of the majority (majority = democracy) of their citizens. If such a crap like this is even proposed those proposing it should be have their salaries as politicians confiscated.

Three strikes for politicians !

[noddyxoi]

I propose a three strikes for politicians law: if you pass crappy laws that goes againts the people will then all your earnings as politicians are confiscated and you are no longer welcome in the country were the laws were proposed.

Re:Three strikes for politicians !

[o'reor]

Yay ! Let's take a look at the Constitutional Treaty/Lisbon Treaty, which has already been turned down by three nations and won't die...

More and more like the USA...

[Firethorn]

You know, Europe's government is starting to sound more and more like the USA's to me?

In this case, I'm referring to when a special interest(IE the ones trying to push punitive punishments for minor copyright infringers), failing to get what they want on the state level, going to the federal level to change it.

Happening right now with the anti-gay marriage* types in California. Since the ruling they've started pushing for federal law, or a state constitutional amendment banning it(only way to overrule a supreme court).

It's only a matter of time before the powers of individual nations start being subsumed over the larger one. Oh, and individual's rights are trashed one way or another. The problem with a national government of the sort of the EU is it becomes far more difficult for the people to affect things. I mean, at least the US has the advantage that we all more or less speak the same language.

I noticed another poster lamenting the representative democracy we have vs direct democracy. Personally, I think that in large systems a representative form is generally best. The rest of us don't have the time to go reading through the various spending bills and such. Still - at this point we COULD afford, rather easily, to have all 'major' legislation end up before the people. I'm talking about things like changes to common law(like gay marriage), criminal law(murder, theft, etc), overall budget(what the representatives are allowed to spend this year). The representatives worry about regulation, splitting up the budget they're authorized, and negotiating changes to the law to be put before the people next election.

*Don't want to touch this with a ten foot pole, but my general position is that the .gov shouldn't be in the marriage business at all. Civil Unions backed up by proper contract law, and if you want to call yourself married, find a priest, rabbi, mullah, witch, druid, or whatever to perform the ceremony.

Well, Mr Sarkozy

[rootpassbird]

History books are waiting for you.

Re:In Soviet Russia.....

[MightyDrunken]

and the law is Vladimir Putin.

What the ISPs have to say?

[holiggan]

I wonder what will be the opinion of the European ISPs about this mess, when clients of their 16MB+ subscriptions start to quit/change to 2MB...

has he any actual accomplishments?

[jbr439]

Isn't Sarkozy the chap who has a big announcement/idea/plan every minute of the day and absolutely none of them actually go anywhere?

Is so, then nothing to see here, folks, keep moving along.

Re:has he any actual accomplishments?

[DanJ_UK]

Bingo!

Eloquent statement on the situation.

[moxley]

Le fuck you France!

Lets see...

[Eternal Annoyance]

We want to stop piracy, but instead of investing energy in sales, we invest energy in piracy (or actually, moving it further and deeper underground).

Next thing we know we'll have a piracy mob, prepared to kill to make sure they are not exposed! How nice.

Does the music industry even care? Of course not! All they care about is their falling profits. Well, they'll keep falling, because they're making sure the people will hate them (and thus avoid buying their products or working for them).

Re:Well, this is why France is not the United Stat

[phayes]

Both you & the article submitter are mistaken.
As the three strike law has not been withdrawn is on it's way to becoming a law by the end of this summer. France has more than it's share of unpopular laws being passed by a ruling class disconnected from what the public wants.

Re:11 pirate party's are the only hope left.

[Wildclaw]

Since copyright gives an incentive to create, I'd say it does promote the progress of the arts.

Does it? What incentive does a copyright larger than 3-5 years give to create. In actuality it is the opposite, as you can rely on income from past creations instead of creating new ones. 3-5 years is the time I mention, because no investor would plan ahead longer than that except in a few rare exceptions mostly relating to huge constructions.

Incidently the swedish pirate party program currenly aims for a 5 year term for commercial use, although with no restriction on non commercial use. Also, certain "rights" such as the right to be recognized as the creator goes beyond those 5 years.

Is this the best solution. Maybe, maybe not. All we know is that it got to be better than the current system that intends to criminilize a large portion of the population for sharing information.

Re:Why do Politicians actually care?

[QuoteMstr]

The percentage of GDP really doesn't matter so long as the burden is distributed equitably. I imagine there's a progressive income or property tax system in France, so that problem is solved. As for the supplementary insurance: you haven't given enough information. Source? It could be some minimal, 5/month supplement for TV in the hospital.

And as for copayments - I doubt your figures. Source? But even if you're right, the existence of copayments doesn't negate the usefulness of insurance, especially under catastrophic loss.

Re:Why do Politicians actually care?

[QuoteMstr]

So? My university health plan wasn't any better. It took days to see a real doctor (not a nurse practitioner who was basically a conduit between a hearing aide and a prescription pad), and months to see a specialist. Plus, it was obscenely expensive. Your point?

3 strike, out!

[Wowsers]

What's for sure is that if the corrupt measure came into law, the ass-licking British will be the ones that will implement it to-the-letter, just like all the other idiot EU laws - "to be good Europeans", and will be the only idiot country* to bother implementing it.

* Yes I know Britain is a collection of countries not just one country.

Re:Well, this is why France is not the United Stat

[modmans2ndcoming]

except that they do work when done properly.

they don't? hmm...

[sum.zero]

what do you think gates and sarkozy discussed during their dinner date?

sum.zero

Citizen juries rather than referenda

[Geof]

There is another option. We are currently represented by professional politicians. Their expertise is politics - not copyright, technology, economics, what have you. Yet they make critical decisions about specialized fields. They are not necessarily less ignorant (I see people saying "stupid") about these issues than the ordinary voter.

It is folly to expect the mass of the population to be able to be sufficiently expert on every issue to make an informed decision. But it is no less unrealistic to expect professional politicians to be experts. (There are additional problems, like the corruption of professionals or the inability of masses to delegate expertise.)

However, it is possible to have democracy without professional politicians or mass votes. Following a jury model, such proposals argue that decisions should be made by groups of ordinary citizens who come together to learn about a specific issue. They draw on experts and expertise, then make what they believe is the best decision - and then they disband. They are not corrupted by being professional, and they are not expected to acquire expertise in many fields.

Here is Benjamin Barber arguing for what he calls "strong democracy":

Pure democracy suggested a form of government in which all of the people governed themseves in all public matters all of the time; . . . Representative democracy . . . [is a system] in which some of the people, chosen by all, govern in all public matters all of the time. . . . Strong democracy tries to revitalize citizenship without neglecting the problems of efficient government by defining democracy as a form of government in which all of the people govern themselves in at least some public matters at least some of the time.

How well this would work I don't know. I do know professional politicians (as a group) would fight tooth and nail to prevent it.

Re:Citizen juries rather than referenda

[azgard]

Actually, some of the supporters of direct democracy argue for a similar model, where such jury would only have advisory role before referendum. Several such groups would be created, and would independently weight various arguments and technical details (from invited experts) for several days. The people then could decide on the basis of their final recommendation.

I agree that it is a good idea (in advisory role), but not that crucial as referendum and initiative itself.

The virus of Fascism

[moogyboog]

Now that the French hate information I suppose the rest of Europe should follow suit. Seems to be a bit psycho to take information and make it illegal. reminds me of the Inquisition trying desperatly to force people to believe that the sun revolves around the earth.

Old europe happily bringing about the conditions that created massive wars and massive destruction by blocking the free flow of communication and information. Total control equals total tyranny. Which brings about global war. Since they can't get you to go to war for them they will now make you live a life of exclusion. The taboos must be enforced and the heathens kicked out of the holy church of tryanny.

Here comes professional disabling, an attempt by "experts" to project amature and inferiority upon the masses and to make their media a one way communication. Actually this could create more dysfunction more crashing of economies. Who would want to contribute anything to a society that excludes free expression and free speech? Oligarchy here they come. Anarchy will be the reaction of course and these people are already agent provocaturing by trying to exclude criticism. They only want their ideas and solutions to be followed and known. Instead of increase of knowledge and communication these governments are advocating anti-communication, anti-freedom, anti-intellectualism.

Re:Why do Politicians actually care?

[the eric conspiracy]

Some Sources:

http://www.iedm.org/uploaded/pdf/avril2008_en.pdf
http://www.aoninsurexpat.com/Health/health-insurance-france.jsp

English, motherfucker - do you understand it?

[Hognoxious]

Which is something entirely different than average even if they sometimes coincide in the "a stopped clock is correct twice a day" way.

I wrote it was an average. You know, indefinite article? You know, which implies there's are several, of which this is but one? I even named some other measures that are also averages. See that last word, in the plural? Is the concept that average is a generic, nonspecific term sinking in yet?

It's like I said dogs are mammals, and you're saying they can't be, because cats are.

For instance, in the data set "1, 2, 3, 4, 40" the median is 3 (in the middle) while the average is 10 (50 / 5).

No. The mean is 10, specifically, the arithemetic mean. If you knew anything about statistics that's the term you'd use, unless you were intending to mislead. (It's a pretty well known book, see chapter two)

That's a low id for someone who clearly hasn't graduated highschool yet.

Re:Why do Politicians actually care?

[PopeRatzo]

Yeah, the French public medical system works so well that 92% of its residents carry supplementary private medical insurance and there are copayments or deductibles ranging from 10-40%. And despite the public oversight it still manages to be the 3rd most expensive system (in terms of % of GDP) in the world.

That does not change the fact that in France, people don't go broke, lose their homes, declare bankruptcy just because their child got sick. More important, the French don't have to make the Sophie's Choice of whether to fix a daughter's asthma or a son's nearsightedness.

We're going to be hearing a lot more about how awful universal health-care is and how being able to afford an operation takes away a person's liberty, but increasingly, people just aren't buying that baloney.

Re:Why do Politicians actually care?

[PopeRatzo]

Eric, I don't think those sources say what you think they mean.

Re:Why do Politicians actually care?

[PopeRatzo]

Stop frivolous malpractice suits, and health care costs would be much more reasonable.

This is the Number One lie in the entire health-care debate. If you added up all the "frivolous malpractice suits" and multiplied them by a few hundred, you still wouldn't approach the profits of the managed-health care industry for two months.

Re:Why do Politicians actually care?

[PopeRatzo]

...and Sarkozy isn't much of a socialist.

He's not much of a president, either.

Re:Why do Politicians actually care?

[ivan256]

You can't reasonably expect children to povide for themselves, so let's say we give children full coverage (still issues with this, but let's throw it out there as a hypothetical)...

You're living *right now* in a time where economic weakness is causing people to declare bankruptcy and lose their homes. Universal coverage will not prevent that from happening. It will merely shift the problem around a bit... And given the stellar lack of efficiency that many governments (especially our own, which covers more people as employees as there are residents in canada) have shown in providing coverage, the economic issues are likely to be huge.

Then you get to the bigger problem. The one that people in canada, france, etc... always complain about. What is worth coverage? What level of cost causes your government to let you die?

That decision should be left in the private sector. The outcome (in terms of dying) is the same anyway.

You say people "aren't buying that baloney", but that's mostly because they want a handout. They think that universal coverage means one less expense that they're responsible for, and all that money is back in their pocket. That's not how it works.