Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

French Senate Passes Anti-Piracy Internet Cut-Off Law

Posted by Soulskill on from the trois-coups dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The French Senate has approved a three strikes law for Internet users who download copyrighted entertainment media without paying for it. If, after two warnings, a person continues to download pirated music and movies, the internet service providers would cut off access for a year. Quoting: 'The legislation passed with a massive cross-party majority of 297 votes to 15. Only a handful of conservatives, centrists and socialists voted against, while the Communists abstained. In passing the bill, the senators rejected an amendment proposed by senator Bruno Retailleau of the right-wing MPF party replacing internet cut-off with a fine. ... The bill sets up a tussle between France and Brussels. In September, the European Parliament approved by a large majority an amendment outlawing internet cut-off." We discussed the introduction of this legislation several months ago.

154 of 225 comments (clear)

  1. (Cynacism Alert) Good by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'll take the cynical stance and say that this is a good thing. We need fewer people on the Internet. We need to return the 'net to the state it was in circa '92.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is a very good idea. But I want due process, not some pissant ISP pulling the plug because I'm using bittorrent to download an Ubuntu ISO.

      Anyway, if my internet is disconnected then I'll be forced to do productive stuff like read books and hit the gym...and if I need the internet that badly then I'll get it in my girlfriend's or roommate's name.

    2. Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good by Hojima · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It sucks that there seem to be so many people that don't understand how impossible it is to prevent pirating with conventional technology (and it's always them that are in charge). The reason you can't win is because there will always be a way to circumvent the methods implemented, unless you want to utterly eliminate freedom on the internet or the freedom to purchase what technology you want. It's like the war between virus and anti virus, except the "enemy" has a MUCH greater incentive with MUCH more people supporting them. Making drugs illegal has only make an incentive to distribute them more, and pirating has become a market due to its illegality as well. Fighting harder will just make more of an incentive to start a pirating company that fights back more for profit. And fighting harder in this manner usually uses tax money, not money directly from the company.

      --
      Help fight spam
    3. Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good by an.echte.trilingue · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sometimes I think it would be acceptable to sacrifice a certain amount of due process in return for reasonable sanctions. A few people who receive the injustice of losing their internet connections is better than the mockery that the RIAA has perpetrated on the US justice system.

      By the way, while I could not find the reference to the parliamentary action noted above, the summary is way off in its assessment of the weight of the European Parliament's action. The EU does not have the power to outlaw these kinds of things, only to issue directives that the member states transpose into their laws. The parliament itself is the weakest of the three European institutions, and if we are in traditional first pillar decision making in this case, its amendments do not really mean anything until the Council has approved them. In many cases, the Council can just reject an amendment and pass the legislation in its original form, or at the very least force the EP into negotiation. Historically, the EP yields to the council as soon as the Council makes an issue of something.

      Once a piece of legislation (we'll assume that this is a directive and that the EP's amendment stands) is approved, France still has quite a long time (in general, 3 to 5 years) to transpose the directive. Only once this time limit is reached can any hypothetical tussle between France and the EU begin. These are, however, very rare as the EU is ultimately an inter-state, diplomatic body. It would require that either (a) the Commission place a complaint before the European Court of Justice, (b) that the French courts themselves ask the ECJ to interpret the situation, or (c), that another member state accuses France of not fulfilling its obligations.

      None of these situations are very likely over something this insignificant. The Commission is aware that it depends on the good will of the member states to accomplish its duties. The French courts are historically reticent to ask the ECJ for opinions. Member states have attacked each other in front of the ECJ on less than a dozen occasions AKAIK as such actions are politically very sensitive.

      In short, I would not hold my breath for a Eurocrat in shining armour to save the French internet users.

      Please forgive my misuse of technical vocabulary in this post, my studies are in French.

      --
      weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
    4. Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good by Ghubi · · Score: 1

      Most of the productive stuff I do is on the internet. I get my news from the net. When I need to know something I google it. Recently I've been viewing CS107.

    5. Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It sucks that we haven't taken the steps to create a citizens mesh network to replace the centrally managed networking we're relying on. Bitching and moaning isn't going to do anything if you're still materially dependent on systems under other peoples control.

      Take the steps to build a mesh network by the citizenry for the citizenry, then when they start passing laws to shut it down and sending the police out to force everyone to stop, THAT is when you should be protesting. Well, probably fighting on the defensive rather than protesting, but you get the idea.

      At this point, the only thing stopping this from happening is the laziness of a citizenry who would rather demand their rights to be dependent consumers be affirmed than actually take responsibility and take effective steps to remedy their situation.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    6. Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good by Fourier404 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's right, find new ways to circumvent laws, instead of dealing with the actual problem.

    7. Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It sucks that we haven't taken the steps to create a citizens mesh network to replace the centrally managed networking we're relying on.

      1. You haven't defined what a "citizens mesh network" will be.

      2. A citizens mesh isn't going to lay fiber 4,000+ miles (6.400+ km) across the Atlantic Ocean and send out multi-million dollar repair ships whenever it breaks

      3. Unless your citizens mesh is running parallel to/separate from the existing internet infrastructure, you've accomplished absolutely nothing. Also, creating a parallel/separate infrastructure is hard: See #2.

      4. Even if it is parallel/separate, you may have still accomplished nothing if courts and legislatures decide that existing laws still apply.

      5. Depending on your response to #1, I reserve this space for a generic argument that an unmanaged mesh network will have bottlenecks that will eventually lead to a managed spoke and hub system like we have now.

    8. Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "At this point, the only thing stopping this from happening is the laziness of a citizenry who would rather demand their rights to be dependent consumers be affirmed than actually take responsibility and take effective steps to remedy their situation."

      Most people are too ignorant of technology, it's not that they are "lazy", most have no idea of the implications of what is going on. So companies simply take advantage of the ignorance of a population at the time of the net's development. Most people are not tech savvy, they're essentialy zombies in that they use the net to 'get stuff done' but don't give a shit otherwise.

    9. Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good by HanzoSpam · · Score: 1

      I'll take the cynical stance and say that this is a good thing. We need fewer people on the Internet. We need to return the 'net to the state it was in circa '92.

      Not only that, there's a bonus:

      The bill sets up a tussle between France and Brussels. In September, the European Parliament approved by a large majority an amendment outlawing internet cut-off."

      Anything that creates contention with the undemocratic EC is a good thing indeed. Especially when it's the French, who have been it's staunchest advocates.

      Bring back one man, one vote!

      --

      Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
    10. Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good by enos · · Score: 1

      What are you smoking?
      Show me some LARGE mesh networks. There were some attempts, but most seem to fall apart once the person that built them goes away. Mesh networks are hard.

      So you're going to do this with your home wifi router, with crappy range, that won't even cross the road between your neighborhood and the next? How are you going to go between cities? Most people would rather take the capitalist approach: hire someone to do it for them. Then you're just forming an ISP, and you're back to where we are today.

      --
      boldly going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse
    11. Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good by celle · · Score: 1

      Or see what kind of government you have and start protesting.

    12. Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good by erlehmann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sometimes I think it would be acceptable to sacrifice a certain amount of due process in return for reasonable sanctions. A few people who receive the injustice of losing their internet connections is better than the mockery that the RIAA has perpetrated on the US justice system.

      Wait, what ?

      Just because the USAsian system doesn't work out, the alternative should be this ? I'll tell you something: In Germany, state attorneys apparently have enough of the music & film industries' claims and apparently only act if hundreds to thousands of files are shared (link in German).

    13. Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good by earlymon · · Score: 1

      I'll take the cynical stance and say that this is a good thing. We need fewer people on the Internet. We need to return the 'net to the state it was in circa '92.

      Absofreakinglutely correct!

      With all of this distributed crap, we've lost the best of it. Sigs - bah! A dreary shadow of finger. I want my gopher holes back. I want to use tin. I'm still ok with the @ for email and automatic routing (sure, bang routing was fun, but it was too traceable by the unwashed (read, the boss)). Let's get stochastic about it - like God intended.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    14. Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't mind going back to pre 1990 CompuServe myself. Where you had to dial their number to hook up. It all seemed so...professional, you connected to actually talk to people, and downloading anything over 50K was a real chore, and movies came on 12 inch disks... *sigh* Innocence lost...

      --
      What?
    15. Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good by crossmr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only way to deal with the problem would violate too many laws. The US is too corrupt at that level and there are too many people in the country who are too goddamn clueless to make any meaningful change since in eyes of the law on election day and other things the clueless idiot's opinion carries as much weight as the education person's. Through political activism, etc you might make some advances, but probably not before you and are I long in the ground.

    16. Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good by cailith1970 · · Score: 1

      Personally I think this is a far better system than the STUPID net filter that they're trying to pass here in Australia. If they can't go after the people running the websites (hello, start here Conroy!), then rather than making EVERYONE pay for the sins of a few, catch the hits in the logs. That way they can verify it after the fact and catch those doing truly illegal things without a) slowing things down for everyone; and b) infringing on the rights of the citizens to a free and open internet.

      --
      I intend to live forever, or die trying. - Groucho Marx
    17. Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good by Dan541 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't forget the neighbours WiFi

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    18. Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good by giorgiofr · · Score: 1
      Dunno about you, but

      the only thing stopping this from happening

      where I live is the Data Retention Law passed by the EU gov't a few years ago requiring compulsory, ID-validated registration of all users of any ISPesque service together with retention of visited URLs (and other internet activity I cannot remember) for 2 years. If that's not enough to stop any mesh networking initiative then I don't know what is.

      --
      Global warming is a cube.
    19. Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good by electrictroy · · Score: 1

      >>>"The bill sets up a tussle between France and Brussels. In September, the European Parliament approved by a large majority an amendment outlawing internet cut-off."
      >>>

      If this was the United States, the State (for example California) would lose. The American Congress supersedes local laws unless the Congressional law is declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

      How would a similar France v. European Union case be decided?

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    20. Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good by electrictroy · · Score: 1

      >>>A few people who receive the injustice of losing their internet connections... .....or their heads.....

      >>> is better than the mockery that the RIAA has perpetrated on the US justice system.
      >

      I strongly disagree with your stance. Even one innocent person unfairly punished is one too many. The solution is not to take away due process of law, but instead block RIAA's ability to exert criminal-level punishments (~$5000 per song) in a civil court. The civil court should only award damages - $1 per song plus RIAA's expenses, and nothing more.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    21. Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      When the laws are criminal, only criminals will show respect for the law.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    22. Re:(Cynacism Alert) Good by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I see the Internet's solution to the current problem not like the fight for women's suffrage or anything where there are political battles to be fought. Instead, it's more akin to the fight against prohibition in the early part of the previous century. The government says we can't drink when the vast majority of people want to drink? Simple solution: screw em and keep drinking. Eventually the government will back down from any law that is ignored wholesale, because without the will of the people it matters little what the lawbooks say.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  2. Common sense? by Loibisch · · Score: 1

    This is akin to if you'd murder someone with a knife for the third time, they'd not let you cut your own bread for a year...err, actually you wouldn't be able to cut your own bread for far longer than a year, seeing that you'd be in a maximum security prison...but anyway.

    That really was a horrible example, someone want a car analogy?

    1. Re:Common sense? by Matt+Perry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That really was a horrible example, someone want a car analogy?

      Sure. It's like getting caught driving drunk in the US. They'll give you a fine, even though you are putting the lives of all around you at risk. They might even throw you in jail for the evening until you sober up. When you finally end up killing someone because of your drunk driving, the government might maybe, begrudgingly, take your license away.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    2. Re:Common sense? by schnikies79 · · Score: 1

      Not quite. I closely know a guy in jail now, for 2 years (3 years probation after that), because of 3 DUI's. He never had a wreck and never killed anyone.

      You won't get it taken away the first time, but after the 2nd or 3rd, you will.

      --
      Gone!
    3. Re:Common sense? by kramerd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Car analogy:

      You are a truck driver. You are caught on 3 occasions driving your truck through a gas station to skip a traffic light, regardless of whether or not you actually stopped to buy gas (in some states in the US, this is considered an illegal use of private property). As a result, you are prohibited from using public roads. Whether for driving your truck or your bicycle or even taking the public city bus, you are not allowed to do so for 1 year, because you didnt pay for something you may have had the right to access.

      Seems only 15 out of 312+ members of the French Senate have managed to keep their heads out of their asses long enough to realize how much this law stinks.

      Never mind that the government of a country should not be using its resources to protect private businesses from their own failing business model.

      The internet has become an essential service for most people in today's world.

      The law doesnt address how to resolve an issue of employees using the internet to download copyrighted material at work, if 4 employees do it at once, the entire business would lose internet for a year.

      The law doesnt even specify that the downloading of copyrighted material must be illegal. If I go to cnn.com and download a podcast, I have downloaded copyrighted material from the internet and have not paid for it.

      On the other hand, in many cases the validity of whether material is copyrighted is not apparent. If I download a torrent that contains copyrighted material that is not labeled as such, I have permission to do so from whoever uploads the material. If the source material is in fact copyrighted, I could lose my internet for downloading it from someone who downloaded from someone who downloaded it from the original host. I would have no way of knowing that the material was copyrighted. And thousands of people could lose internet access because of one person's actions.

      This is a slippery slope that ends in transfer of information without a fee or a EULA impossible, which in the long run, turns the internet from the information superhighway into the worlds biggest electronic shopping mall.

      Its not like we didnt have reasons to hate France before, but if this passes the lower house of the senate, I for one will be boycotting all things French (admittedly, that means I have to give up bottled water, but still, thats about 2/3 of France's economy, right?)

    4. Re:Common sense? by binarylarry · · Score: 1

      In Michigan, I believe you lose your license for a year.. the first time.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    5. Re:Common sense? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Loss of license for from 90 days to a year is typical in the US. Sometimes you get back a restricted license that lets you drive to and from work. Jail time is also typical. Second offense penalties are much more severe. DUI in the US

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    6. Re:Common sense? by negRo_slim · · Score: 1

      DUI=Arrest, at least here in Idaho. And we be one of dem backword states!

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    7. Re:Common sense? by Ghubi · · Score: 1

      Oh no! Give up bottled water?

    8. Re:Common sense? by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      The law doesnt even specify that the downloading of copyrighted material must be illegal.

      Citation needed.

      Here's what the article says:

      Under the so-called three strikes or "graduated response" legislation - which still needs approval by the lower house before it becomes French law - illegal downloaders are first sent an email warning them of their infraction. They are subsequently sent a warning letter in the post.

      If after this second warning they continue to illegally download copyrighted content, the internet service provider will cut off access to the internet for a year.

      Who's got anything better to go by?

    9. Re:Common sense? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Fly carefully. Northwest seems to buy a lot of their planes from France.

      Also, it would probably pay to get a dictionary that had decent etymology, so you could avoid using words that are borrowed from French.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    10. Re:Common sense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I for one will be boycotting all things French

      Yes, THAT is gonna teach them for taking away their own freedom!

      admittedly, that means I have to give up bottled water

      Oh, the sacrifices you have to make. I salute you, brave soldier of freedom and The American Way(tm)!

    11. Re:Common sense? by fyoder · · Score: 1

      It's the virtual equivalent of the old punishment of cutting off a hand for theft. If they're going to return to this way of thinking, perhaps for consistency's sake they should return to to that. And, of course, reinstate the use of that classic of French justice, the guillotine.

      --
      Loose lips lose spit.
    12. Re:Common sense? by w000t · · Score: 1

      About what?

      About you being that dense. I though it was pretty clear.

      You mean you actually think people choose to be stupid? Do these people all choose to join the french senate?

      I'm guessing that you're joking here, but then again you've already failed to grasp the obvious (it was sarcasm). I should probably clarify that I'm not French nor I particularly care if you criticize their country (even though I do object the gratuity with which you do it). I'm however offended as a citizen of the world by the idiocy of the views you project on it (including your characterization of it as a very stupid and homogeneous mass that runs to daddy every time there's trouble).

      Just....wow. You seriously think that the elections are in a few days (they are tomorrow) and that the outcome of the election has anything to do with the intelligence or lack thereof of individuals in the US. Moreover, regardless of who wins, it isn't going to be by more than 5 points, so claiming that the not winning candidate is a minority is equally stupid.

      If don't live in the USA so I'm not constantly reminded of when the election is. I though it was on three days, but I wasn't sure so I used "a few days". Considering I've seen the start of 2 days since, I think I can say I was close enough. Regarding the elections results, I was obviously aware that, at least in popular vote, it was going to be a close election (and the phrase starting with "hopefully" points precisely at that). When I said it could prove morons like you to be a minority, I meant that they would no longer be enough to be in charge (you see, with only 2 parties not being the majority is the same as being minority). I still think that McCain wining the election would have prove the majority of the voting population to be morons like you (as in extremely ignorant and arrogant, not necessarily of low IQ). So maybe I should have phrased that as "hopefully, the elections will not prove the majority to be morons like you" but that had to much of a negative spin (and in any case, the "within constraints" remark was a hint that it was not to be taken literally). Fortunately, Obama has already won now, even though I think it could have just as easily lost if it were not for the economic debacle.

      As for faith in humanity, clearly mine is higher than yours. I believe that if our government didnt force us to be the humanitarian country of the world, there are enough people who would still give such that our actions would still encourage others countries to believe that Americans will take care of the world's problems, and that they can choose not to help while lambasting us for doing so.

      You only have more faith in humanity because (judging by the "yourself" standard) you set the bar outstandingly low. About your views of your government ("forcing us to be the humanitarian country of the world"...) and it's foreign policy I will only say that your kind of ignorance is exactly what's fucked up about this world.

  3. How would they know? by Matt+Perry · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The article is short on details. How will they know that the downloader didn't have permission to download the copyrighted work? There are movies, music, and video games that are copyrighted but freely available. Does French law require that copyrighted works be paid for rather than distributed at no charge?

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    1. Re:How would they know? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      They don't really care if you have permission. What is in it for them to do their research?

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    2. Re:How would they know? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Unless they've thrown all ISP privacy laws over board, I guess it means every C&D letter (in the US you'd call it a DMCA notice, but it's not the US) will be counted towards the limit, three letters and you're offline for a year. The ISP probably won't do any fact-checking at all...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:How would they know? by jonaskoelker · · Score: 2, Funny

      How will they know that the downloader didn't have permission to download the copyrighted work? There are movies, music, and video games that are copyrighted but freely available.

      One would hope the law says "unlicensed" rather than "not paid for". One would fear that the law is made by lawyers (just because we don't like lawyers). A fortunate side effect is that they probably know to distinguish the two.

      If not, then because due to the fact that

      There are [...] video games that are copyrighted but freely available

      We would have that apt-get is a tool for software piracy: nexuiz, openarena, wesnoth; that's three strikes. Be sure to add the music to your playlist (dpkg -L $pkg; unzip the pk3s).

      The french are trying to outlaw Linux? They're probably still angry at the Germans (who are adopting it, as we have all read) ;)

      Or they're pissed at the freedom fries thing and want software frenchness rather than software freedom... ;)

    4. Re:How would they know? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > I gueI guess it means every C&D letter (in the US you'd call it a DMCA notice, but it's
      > not the US)

      No. I'd call it a C&D letter, because that is what it would be. It would have nothing to do with the DMCA.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    5. Re:How would they know? by Beretta+Vexe · · Score: 3, Informative

      First, the French copyright law "droit d'auteur" ( author's rights ) are significantly different of US copyright law.

      Second, the article isn't accurate. The HADOPI (Haute Autorité pour la diffusion des Å"uvres et la protection des droits sur Internet, " hight authority of protection of broadcasting right on internet" approximative translation ) only investigate cases after copyright holder request.
      So it's pretty unlikely that the author or the copyright owner request intervention of the hadopi for a work he distributed for free by himself.

    6. Re:How would they know? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Proof is a burden they should not have to deal with.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    7. Re:How would they know? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Well that's how they see it.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  4. Will they do the same to business & government by theodp · · Score: 1

    Seems only fair, eh? :-)

  5. 297 votes to 15 by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    So now you know who in your government was willing to sell out, and who wasn't ( or had a higher price then the industry was willing to pay ).

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  6. All they need(ed) was a Reichstagtd fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    A fire which they started to justfiy Internet2. I'm not a music studient, though I attend a college with a music class and department. A friend of mine were practicing with our "violent axe" (a homemade quasi 8-string guitar half-violin we made). We have a synthesizer arm we made for our robotics class that we have strum the guitar with songs that would not strain a man's hand if he tried to recite the same without robotics. A principals assistant, hearing the music, thought we were running copyrighted sheet music through OUR instrument. We dprogrammed the thing directly, and don't have any "paper" to show so they get the dean on me. This happeneded at a California University in Long Beach.

    I am absolutely sick of unqualified people makin dertmations on our work. I've been listening to Alex Jones a bit because a friend said my favorite Willie Nelson has been talking alot on there. Even Jesse Ventura was on their of many times just two days ago. They all say the same thing: it's a criminal govenment inspiring people nag and mis-report events to spread jurisdiction determinied by all these lobbying of corporations. Even Jesse Ventura said all of them just need to be voted out, but I don't think that's possible. What really caughy my ear from Alex Jones about Internet2 is that he can't get his SYNDICATED station to and website to qualify for Internet2! He's selling inexpensive FM micro-repeaters for shortwave re-transmit, but that is only so far a dated ancient method. Is the FCC mad? Is the music recording companies mad? What is going on here?

    First time on Slashdot. Thanks for the replies for me to read about.
    Jenny

    1. Re:All they need(ed) was a Reichstagtd fire by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      So.. You programmed the thing, right?

      Just write your own sheet music that corresponds to what you did. For bonus points, get a graphic artist to design you a "robot clef" for the machine parts.

      Assuming, of course, that what you did corresponds well enough to the standard scales.

      Welcome to /., btw.

      (also, you might wanna get a free account, even if you just post anonymously. Lock in your user-number today, they're only going to go up!)

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:All they need(ed) was a Reichstagtd fire by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      I agree.

      The government seems to think it's safe picking on small "minority" groups, or those marginalized by a self-interested press (run by copyright cartels).

      This will come around to bite them. Pennies add up to a dollar, and small minorities add up to a large segment of the population.

      When enough people feel disenfranchised, then connect with one another, things will get really nasty and unstable in the western world. (seems like a win-win opportunity for various "terrorist cells", leverage the populations of the western world against oppressive corporations and war profiteers, remove them from power, and get a huge collective "thank you" when it's all over... shame they don't take a more nuanced outlook in this regard)

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  7. never get to France by redcaboodle · · Score: 1

    So for every 3 comments you read on Slashdot, your access gets cut of for a year? Each comment is copyrighted and you never paid the copyright holder.

    And who says you have downloaded something in the first place? This would be the perfect moment for all big media to branch out into webdesign and similar as they can effectively wipe out all competition be declaring the filesharers 3 times.

    --
    -- Put crudely, the world is an extremely large problem instance. (Russel/Norvig Artificial Intelligence)
    1. Re:never get to France by KGIII · · Score: 1

      If you click the link to RTFA (I do that, I'm odd) you'll see that they mention that it needs to be illegally downloaded. The copyright here allows for viewing and, most likely, caching would be considered fair use as well.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  8. Heh by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Some people should release some 'copyrighted' material they created then lure some of the political figures to download it. Once a couple of people get banned from the net, that law will disappear quickly.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    1. Re:Heh by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Do you seriously believe that such people would ever be banned?

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:Heh by DeadDecoy · · Score: 1

      I'd be surprised if political figures downloaded content from the intertubes much less used it. Keep in mind that most people who are in political office were alive before computers became ubiquitous and over their lifetime, never had to learn how to use it out of necessity. That's why these laws get passed. It doesn't effect those voting for it. If it did, it would have been shot down much faster.

    3. Re:Heh by Loibisch · · Score: 1

      Seeing how far removed some of those figures are from reality, you'd probably have to teach them what a download is, let alone how to download something.

    4. Re:Heh by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Seeing how far removed some of those figures are from reality, you'd probably have to teach them what a download is, let alone how to download something.

      Most of them have kids.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    5. Re:Heh by tmosley · · Score: 1

      No, but media bringing up the application of a double standard is a pretty good way to stop politicians from doing stupid stuff, and to get foolish laws taken off the books.

      If only Ted Kennedy's problems at the airport had been enough to get rid of the Patriot Act.

  9. Bad. by twitter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A censored internet will look nothing like the free net of '92. It will look like broadcast TV because the same people who censor that will be deciding who gets kicked off.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  10. Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does by Simonetta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Passing a law against What everyone does is a risky affair. Sure, legislators have to go along with the concept that recorded media is property. As in the idea that a corporation can actually own a song or a movie, which is quite absurd, although accepted. A slight change in a note makes a different song, a minor re-edit or re-filming of the same plot makes a different movie. Which according to the bizarre theory of corporate ownership of 'intellectual property' creates an entirely new piece of property.

        Add to this strange notion that everyone has the means to quite easily break this so-called law, since computers and telecommunications are ubiquitous, and you have a situation where it is easier to break a law than it is to obey it.

        Which is not a stable situation. The law enforcers must either ignore the law in general, focus its enforcement on a specific minority group, or enforce the law equally against everyone. Enforcing against everyone changes the conditions that law is supposed to protect and is almost never done. Choosing between non-enforcement and selective enforcement is often a matter of culture. I would believe that the French law enforcement will not enforce this law against French citizens, only against foreigners and then only when the foreigners break other laws (or act outside of French cultural norms) and this law becomes one more weapon that can be used to make them conform.

        Americans on the other hand are basically punitive people. Laws like this are specifically focused on targeted minorities for the specific purpose of incarcerating them for profit into private prisons, to steal their property, and to destroy their political clout. An example is the use of the drug possession laws being used to re-enslave the African-American non-middle-class youth. Each year the drug penalties get harsher and more focused on Blacks while White youth are given warnings and probation for the same 'offenses'. In America, copyright laws will be primarily used against young people who protest against any government actions.

        These laws are perfect for that purpose. They can be widely broken with no ill effect to society as a whole (like the marijuana laws), and still be enforced brutally against specific individuals and groups. As long as the mainstream of people can continue to download music and movies without hassle, they will accept harsh punishments for the same downloading activity against young people who demonstrate against the government.

        If McCain is elected, expect the criminalization of file downloading and harsh penalties applied against only the people who actively oppose government policies. This is the American way of doing things and there are many historical precedents for using harsh laws against harmless activities in this manner.

    1. Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does by Schemat1c · · Score: 1, Troll

      Please be sure to speak for yourself only and not assume that "everyone" does it.

      Ok, everyone except you. Now take your treat and get back to work obedient citizen.

      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
    2. Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does by iminplaya · · Score: 5, Informative

      If McCain is elected...

      Bla bla bla...The DMCA was signed into law by a democrat. It was a republican, probably more than one, that helped to keep Clipper chips out of your computers. In fact one of the louder voices was McCain's. This is not an endorsement. I dislike him more than most people do. But let's try to remember from who's trough both sides are feeding from. And also don't forget that Joe Lieberman, as a democrat, most likely had the patriot act waiting in the wings long before Bush showed up on the scene. These people from either side are not your friends. We need a serious purge.

      --
      What?
    3. Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Please be sure to speak for yourself only and not assume that "everyone" does it.

      Maybe not everyone, but a majority does in some age / sex brackets. Here's the latest stats from Q2 2008 here in Norway in percent of Internet users (which is 84% of all households, the rest mostly very old people). And they didn't have a category for those under 16 either:

      File sharers: 19%

      Males: 25%
      Females: 12%

      16-24: 47%
      25-34: 31%
      35-44: 13%
      45-54: 5%
      55-64: 1%
      65-74: 0%

      While the data isn't on that level, with a 2:1 ratio of males to females and 47% in the 16-24 age bracket overall, I'd estimate about 62% of males and 31% of females 16-24 do file sharing. That's right, if you're a young male and don't file share, you're probably in the minority. Note that this is the "file sharing" numbers, it's NOT the "watched youtube online" numbers. And while there's always the assumption that people will "settle down" when they get older, I think this trend will only continue as today's file sharers grow older.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does by westlake · · Score: 1
      Passing a law against What everyone does is a risky affair.

      .

      Assuming everyone does it is a risky business - assuming they will continue on with it after being warned twice is also a risky business.

      Sure, legislators have to go along with the concept that recorded media is property. As in the idea that a corporation can actually own a song or a movie, which is quite absurd, although accepted.

      As absurd as the F/OSS programmer who thinks his GPL license is enforceable?

      A slight change in a note makes a different song, a minor re-edit or re-filming of the same plot makes a different movie

      No it doesn't.

      Infringement means precisely that. The copyright owner holds the rights to the original and all clearly derivative works.

    5. Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does by Kjella · · Score: 3, Informative

      Grr. And of course the wrong table was in the copy-paste buffer, this is the right one, you'll see the numbers I quoted in the column "Utvekslet musikk, filmer ved fildeling" which directly translated means "Exchanged music, movies by file sharing".

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does by Teun · · Score: 1

      It seems to surprise you but this is an often heard sound in European media and judicial circles.

      Knowing the USofA reasonably well I would say that if this isn't a purposely followed policy it at least is one result of present practises in the US.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    7. Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      *Ahem* - Sorry if I was picking on you. Because after more thought, it is clear that your post all the way up to the McCain bit was absolutely right on and hit the nail perfectly. But it's very important to point out that this is bipartisan effort. People who believe in freedom can count their friends in government on one hand. In fact they constitute a tiny minority of the general population, and the government does reflect that fairly accurately.

      --
      What?
    8. Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      We need a *real* purge, with executions & prison sentences.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    9. Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does by chainLynx · · Score: 1

      Note that the Democrats are more in bed with the media industries, so I think this nightmare scenario might be closer to realization if a democrat were elected. See the Author's Note from Stallman's "The Right to Read": http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

    10. Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does by HappyEngineer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And while there's always the assumption that people will "settle down" when they get older, I think this trend will only continue as today's file sharers grow older.

      That certainly seems likely to me. When I was a kid, videogames were a thing that was done mostly by children. These days the average gamer is over 30 years old. I fully expect that number to continue treding upward as I age until the rate of videogame playing matches the current spread of TV watching among all age groups.

      --
      Cow Cube
    11. Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does by SoapBox17 · · Score: 1

      If McCain is elected, expect the criminalization of file downloading and harsh penalties applied against only the people who actively oppose government policies. This is the American way of doing things and there are many historical precedents for using harsh laws against harmless activities in this manner.

      Wow what a wild assertion. Got anything to back that up? FUD much?

    12. Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Given that this is your very first(!) post on Slashdot, I will forgive the clumsiness in your attempts at sarcasm. Practice, practice, I always say.

      --
      What?
    13. Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does by earlymon · · Score: 1

      Correct. Rock on, iminplaya.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    14. Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does by jalet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > I would believe that the French law enforcement will not enforce this law against French
      > citizens.

      You're missing the point. This particular law precisely tells French citizens that, as far as "piracy" is concerned, law enforcement is to be directly done by private interest holders like the french RIAA equivalents. This negate the rights of each and every french citizen to have such matters decided in a court of law.

      --
      Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
    15. Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does by shmlco · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but your math is off, which means your conclusion is off.

      If only 19% are file sharers, then 4 out of 5 are NOT (81%). Of the 19%, 47% are the aforementioned under-age kids sitting in their parent's basement (or now down to 9% of the statistical universe). And of THAT number, 66% (2/3) are probably male. All given your numbers.

      So even young male 16-24's are 2/3's of 1/2... of 1/5th (got to keep that other 81% in mind). As such, "sharers" in the minority no matter how you slice it.

      Yep, "everyone" is doing it.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    16. Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does by Kingrames · · Score: 2, Funny

      "that helped to keep Clipper chips out of your computers." So THAT's what happened to Clippy.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    17. Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does by Wildclaw · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but you are wrong. I quote the page (http://www.ssb.no/ikthus/tab-2008-09-18-09.html)

      "Andel av de som har brukt Internett de siste 3 måneder, etter kjønn og alder. 2. kvartal 2008. Prosent"

      I am swedish not norwegian, but it roughly translates to "Share of those who have used internet in the last 3 months by gender and age. 2nd quarter 2008. Percentage.". And the column he is quoting says "Utvekslet musikk, filmer ved fildeling" which translates into "Exchanged music, movies by filesharing".

      Of the 19%, 47% are the aforementioned under-age kids

      No, 47% is the percentage of 16-25 years that have done filesharing in the last three months. It is NOT a split of the 47% number. So the grandparent is correct. If 47% of 16-24 year olds are filesharing, and with the mentioned overall male-female ratio it is extremly likely that young male filesharers are in a majority. And that probably stands for the combined 16-34 bracket also.

      The stats become even more telling when you begin to look at the combined usage patterns. Older people are far less likely to view any media on the internet, pirated or not. The usage habit of older people is more in favor of reading news and similar activities, so they simply don't have a reason for file sharing in the first place.

    18. Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but your math is off, which means your conclusion is off.
      (...)
      So even young male 16-24's are 2/3's of 1/2... of 1/5th

      ROFL, did you flunk at math? Even if it was anything like you claim, which you completely misread anyway, your math is complete and utter nonsense since you can't make that calculation without knowing how many are in each age group.

      (
      47%*(people age 16-24) +
      31%*(people age 25-34) +
      13%*(people age 35-44) +
      5%*(people age 45-54) +
      1%*(people age 55-64) +
      0%*(people age 65-74)
      )
      /
      (people age 16-74)
      =
      19%

      I think you fundamentally don't understand percentage math because one of the only sensible points you understood was that the total is 19%. That means there'll be age groups with considerably higher percentages and lower percentages that average out to 19%, at least the way everyone counts it.

      Easy example, take 200 people at random. About 100 are male, 100 are female. 25 males file share, 12 females file share.
      File sharers in population: 37/200 = ~19%
      Male sharers among males: 25/100 = ~25%
      Female sharers among females: 12/100 = ~12%

      Of course, you can take the percentage of the total population which is much smaller, but noone does it:
      Male sharers in population: 25/200 = ~12.5%
      Female sharers in population: 12/200 = ~6%

      What I estimated was:
      Male 16-24 file sharers among males 16-24 = 62%
      You're trying to say:
      Male 16-24 file sharers in population = 62%*(males in population)*(age 16-24 in population) = some very small number.

      To which I can only say "well, doh!" but it's also completely meaningless.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    19. Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does by BradMajors · · Score: 1

      I assume this law only applies to individuals. If the French version of the RIAA downloaded illegal content (which it does) they are not going to cut off internet access to the French RIAA.

    20. Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does by mpe · · Score: 1

      Passing a law against What everyone does is a risky affair.

      Especially anywhere which wants to be considered "democratic". Though similar things happen in respect of drug prohibition.

      Sure, legislators have to go along with the concept that recorded media is property.

      Actually they don't, since the whole idea of "intellectual property" is a creation of legislation on the first place.

    21. Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      ...never got around to having a third party in the mix

      Well it has a little to do with "battered wife", Munchausen, and some city in Sweden Syndromes. Some are just too scared of the unknown.

      Surely the best thing you could do for your democracy would be to outlaw the lobbyists though.

      No. That, and even the money conflict with free speech issues, which is more important to me. It's much better to encourage the politicians to resist by simply not voting for them. And actually it's the voter who is more influenced by money than the politician him/herself. The politician is just using what works. Holding them responsible is the voters' obligation.

      --
      What?
    22. Re:Passing a Law Against What Everyone Does by shmlco · · Score: 1

      I think you're the one that doesn't understand math, because the age totals add up to 97%, which tells me that the numbers given were rounded off, and as such equal 100% of the 19%. Second check, Divide 97 by the 6 age groups, and you get 16%, not 19%. (16.16%, to be precise)

      Third check, the very first line says file sharers 19%.

      So, you start with 1 in 5 households. And of THAT number, 47% are age 16-24, and so on.

      Which still means 4 in 5 do not steal... sorry, "share" files.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  11. The worst part.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The worst part is that this doesn't really require any evidence. It's "three warnings", not "three convictions". There's no due process.

    Also, cutting people off the Internet is a way disproportionate punishment. For me, this would mean:
    - Not being able to participate in the work of my political party of choice (The Swedish Pirate Party, if you're wondering..)
    - Heck, it will cut me off from lots of vital information that I need to practice my democratic rights.
    - Not being able to pay my bills without going to the bank regularly.
    - Not being able to make phone calls (I use Skype as my home phone)
    - Not being able to check my school schedule
    - Not being able to check my school assignments.. or hand them in.
    - Even if I could get a friend to print the assignments for me or something, I'd have a hard time programming without access to online documentation.

    And those are only the ones I could think of in two minutes.

    The Internet is a vital part of participating in modern society. Even if you're a supporter of current copyright law, you can't allow alleged copyright infringement to interfere with people's access to information.

    The lawmakers don't understand the importance of the Internet. There is no way they would ever even consider banning someone from the phone networks.

    1. Re:The worst part.. by erlehmann · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Internet is a vital part of participating in modern society.

      Exactly. Try getting by on a somewhat modern western university without having access to the online materials (Stallman wrote about that.)

    2. Re:The worst part.. by crossmr · · Score: 1

      You're not allowed to have service. It doesn't say its illegal for you to use a computer.
      1) Get the service in someone else's name
      2) I didn't read it, but can you switch ISPs?
      3) go to an internet cafe
      4) use the school library
      5) piggy back on someone's wifi
      6) use a coffee shop's wifi
      7) move the fuck out of france

  12. This is a non-story... for now by Cochonou · · Score: 5, Informative

    In France, a law has to be examined by the higher chamber (senate) and the lower chamber (national assembly) before it can be enforced. The national assembly has not yet examined this law. That means that the law which has been approved by the senate is not yet in its final form, and might undergo deep revisions before it is enforced.

    1. Re:This is a non-story... for now by Kjella · · Score: 1

      That means that the law which has been approved by the senate is not yet in its final form, and might undergo deep revisions before it is enforced.

      In theory. How often does it happen with a law that flies through 295-16? Everyone has clearly bought into this.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:This is a non-story... for now by philspear · · Score: 1

      It's not a non-story. If in the US the house had approved a bill to do something ridiculous, say only teach creationism in schools, even if it were definitely going to die in the senate, that's still a scary situation. Here, the story is important because one of the two houses passed such a dumb law. That's only one legislative body away from internet fascism.

  13. punishing illegal downloaders is good, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm against illegal download of copyrighted content.
    But this legislation is a shame. And in clear violation of European law.

    The warnings are in fact optional.
    Once again, the punishment is overkill. I don't think they understand all the implications in today's society.
    With this law, if your internet is cut-off, then you can't do anything about it.
    Oh, my bad, yes you can contest. But if you do so and can't convince the judge that you're innocent, then you face a fine of 300000â and 3 years of prison.
    And of course, everyone who use your connection are impacted, you have to continue to pay for your lost connexion, and you are referenced in a database so that every ISP knows that you can't subscribe to an internet access.

  14. The new ISP dilemmna... by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If I obey the law and send a letter the customer won't need my bandwidth any more...

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:The new ISP dilemmna... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      No worry for them : even when the customer is cut-off the internet, this law requires the customer to continue to pay the bill.

      (note: mod me informative)

    2. Re:The new ISP dilemmna... by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      Your post just made me think of a positive use for this insane 'allegation=conviction' law:

      You're in a 12 month lock-in contract with your ISP and a cheaper, better alternative has just come to market. You send 3 allegations of copyright infringement, accusing yourself. Voilla! New ISP. :)

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    3. Re:The new ISP dilemmna... by digitig · · Score: 1

      Your post just made me think of a positive use for this insane 'allegation=conviction' law:

      You're in a 12 month lock-in contract with your ISP and a cheaper, better alternative has just come to market. You send 3 allegations of copyright infringement, accusing yourself. Voilla! New ISP. :)

      ...after a year of no internet at all. Not quite sure what you've gained there.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  15. Uh lala by meist3r · · Score: 1

    Liberte ... mon derriere!

  16. The Vivendi law by pieterh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This law was mainly pushed by Vivendi but there are powerful backers from all across the spectrum:

    * Telecoms firms that want a mandate to filter all Internet traffic so that they can block all P2P, and then VoIP, and then video streaming and then anything which competes with their monopoly products.
    * Large ISPs, because these are now all owned by the telecoms firms.
    * Vendors like Cisco because they want to sell loads and loads of expensive filtering equipment.
    * The music industry, because it still thinks it's going to sue its way back onto the right side of history. Stupid kloten, when will they learn?
    * The movie industry, because they've drunk the music industry koolaid.
    * The TV industry, because they want to sell more DVDs and because their distributors in the digital age are, of course, the ISPs.
    * And finally, certain software firms, because the only way to implement this law, finally, is to use a fully locked down operating system that only runs authorized software, so no Linux.

    The French tried so hard to get this same law pushed through the European Parliament, but that seems to be saner.

    There are similar legislative pushes all around Europe, at the national level, and for the same reasons.

    The Internet is, really, under attack from concerted and powerful forces that hate what those free packets represent.

    --
    My blog
    1. Re:The Vivendi law by vally_manea · · Score: 1

      I've lost the link for now(I just have one in Romanian) but I understood that the European Parliament was looking at a law that wouldn't make it illegal to download and watch movies if you aren't making a profit. PS: For all american listeners, please note that you have it good, in most European countries it is a crime to break the copyright law, home people were sent to jail for downloading something from DC++.

    2. Re:The Vivendi law by Chep · · Score: 1

      You forgot: the prez's mistress (ok, technically "wife", but the primary reason why they got married in the first place is for protocolar reasons. Most states are still too frigid to allow an official visit of a technically forgeign celibate head of state accompanied with his free and wild "very special best friend". With visits to the Vatican and the UK scheduled early in 2008, Sarkozy either had to marry Carla or had to abstain from sex for a couple days (each time).

      It happens that Mrs Sarkozy, through her continuing work in the music industry as a composer-singer, has a significant personal interest in seeing this law implemented.

      The law now has to go through Conseil d'Etat, which might shoot it down for violating the rule France once signed and ratified, which says that national parliaments shall refrain from voting on issues the EU parliament is currently voting on (since the EU law will probably cause the national law to change again anyway).

      All in all, this is a waste of my tax €€€ (yes slashcode this is the euro symbol, thrice) in order to line up the pockets of mostly Mr. Bouygues, Bolloré, Fourtou and of course Carlita. At the expense of that famed but so seldom seen innovation we dearly need but our politicians so love to stifle. Sigh.

  17. Extra penalties by Brandybuck · · Score: 4, Funny

    I heard there will be extra penalties if the downloads weren't in French...

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  18. "tech support? my net doesn't work.." by ypctx · · Score: 1

    "well you have been warned 2 times son, good bye!"

    "But I haven't received any warnings! Plus, my WiFi router only supports WEP, easy to crack and ..." BEEP BEEP (hangup tone)

  19. Danish politician wants to legalise filesharing by jonaskoelker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Let's compare this with a danish politician (I'm from Denmark).

    http://www.computerworld.dk/art/42432?a=newsletter&i=1393 says (my translation from danish)

    "Enhedslistens"* candidate for the parliament, Johanne Schmidt-Nielsen, thinks tha file sharing should be legal, and digital rights management, DRM, illegal

    "I think it's an illusion to believe that it's possible to stop copying. I amounts to sticking one's head in the sand. The politicians have to realize the necessity of forming a committee that will address the question of how artists can be compensated for their work."

    *"Enhedslisten" is the leftmost party in danish politics, left of The Socialist People's Party. I'd guess they compare with the greens; the environment is also one of their big issues, they're all for taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

    I remember them branding themselves as the Robin Hood party one time, but I don't recall them using that term again. If they get into parliament, they often hold around four seats out of 179, which is the smallest possible amount (less than 2% of the votes and you don't get in).

    Be aware that this statement was during election season.

    I hope this gives you nutrition for cognition :)

  20. Better way... by Xenographic · · Score: 1

    I'd release my stuff as freeware with a EULA that said that politicians weren't allowed to use it, then go after only them. Nobody reads EULAs if they can help it.

  21. Your analogy stretches credibility a bit. by an.echte.trilingue · · Score: 1

    I have heard of filesharing cases being brought against grandma's, mentally disabled dead people, single mothers who had never used a computer, and on and on, but I think that this is the first time that I have seen somebody argue that they were going to be used to target minority youths. Please, do elaborate, perhaps with the help of a real life example or something else resembling evidence.

    By the way, although your rhetoric about re-enslaving black people in the US was quite vogue in the 1990's, I like to think that the fact that we are potentially about to elect a half-African president pretty thoroughly debunks that. Drug laws in the US are broken, drug laws do hit poor people unfairly, but they are not a racist conspiracy.

    --
    weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
    1. Re:Your analogy stretches credibility a bit. by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      By the way, although your rhetoric about re-enslaving black people in the US was quite vogue in the 1990's, I like to think that the fact that we are potentially about to elect a half-African president pretty thoroughly debunks that. Drug laws in the US are broken, drug laws do hit poor people unfairly, but they are not a racist conspiracy.

      Lead us to freedom, Uncle Tom!!

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    2. Re:Your analogy stretches credibility a bit. by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...but they are not a racist conspiracy.

      No?? Think again... Here's a few choice words from some who responsible for those laws...

      "There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."

      "...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."

      "Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."

      -- Harry J. Anslinger

      "Was it marijuana, the new Mexican drug, that nerved the murderous arm of Clara Phillips when she hammered out her victim's life in Los Angeles?... THREE-FOURTHS OF THE CRIMES of violence in this country today are committed by DOPE SLAVES -- that is a matter of cold record."

      -- William Randolf Hearst

      Prison is indeed the new slavery.

      --
      What?
    3. Re:Your analogy stretches credibility a bit. by headpushslap · · Score: 2, Insightful

      we are potentially about to elect a half-African president
      Obama is not half-anything, he is a U.S. Citizen by birth, born on 4 August 1961 at the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.

    4. Re:Your analogy stretches credibility a bit. by crapdot · · Score: 1

      "/.../, mentally disabled dead people,/.../"

      I think you missed a comma :D ... but thanks for the joke.

    5. Re:Your analogy stretches credibility a bit. by headpushslap · · Score: 1

      This has nothing to do with being proud of one's heritage, it's just the facts.

  22. Some precisions about the vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    'The legislation passed with a massive cross-party majority of 297 votes to 15. Only a handful of conservatives, centrists and socialists voted against, while the Communists abstained.

    Actually the 297 against 15 wasn't the actual vote, it was just an amendment trying to substitute the disconnection with a fine. The final vote for the law was unanimous, every political group voted "for" except the communists who preferred the abstention.
    That was a sad day.

    See the report from the advocacy group LaQuadrature:
    http://www.laquadrature.net/en/graduated-response-will-france-disconnect-europe

  23. Money / ISP income by theReal-Hp_Sauce · · Score: 1

    From the article, I get the impression that it's the ISP who does all the decision making here. "That person is downloading illegally, cancel his service." "This person is not, allow him to continue", etc.

    So, does the person who's internet has just been cut off still have to pay? If so, then what a scam, I'm not even going to go there.

    I assume that the person who's internet was just cut of does not have to pay for the service any longer. But this means that the ISP's will be deciding to lower their own revenue... which is not good business in my opinion.

    How long until the ISP's start turning a blind eye to rule breakers in favor of keeping their books in the black?

    -hps

    1. Re:Money / ISP income by azgard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe it will work differently. You will get cut off, but you still have to pay. Then, there is no problem for ISPs, in fact, more bandwidth can be overselled to others.

    2. Re:Money / ISP income by Aetuneo · · Score: 1

      But if you don't pay for a service which they are not delivering, what do they do to you? Stop refusing to give you access to the Internet? That would make sense if the service they're delivering is the refusal to give you access, I suppose.

      --
      Everything is subjective.
    3. Re:Money / ISP income by azgard · · Score: 1

      That would make sense if the service they're delivering is the refusal to give you access, I suppose.

      That seems like an excellent business proposal.

      I was actually joking.

  24. Unanimous vote! No handful against... by jeremie_z_ · · Score: 1

    The pure bullcrap law was voted *unanimously* by all the political groups of the senate who expressed their vote (right wing, socialist, centrist). Only the communist group abstained (*sic*). There wasn't even *one* courageous senator to vote against! Let's hope the same won't happen in the National Assembly, which members are directly elected (which is not the case for the senators) The author probably messed the score for the final vote with the public record vote for Retailleau's amendement, the only one published on the French Senate website (where 15 persons voted for after the executive branch felt it could easily pass, suspended the exam and made a few phonecalls). Look at http://www.laquadrature.net/en for more details about the vote, and soon a translation of the most disturbing parts of the law (help needed ;). Be also aware that Nicolas Sarkozy's plan is to spread such a mechanism to the European level! Every European shall take action on his Member State's government, so Bono/Cohn-Bendit/Roithova's amendement to Telecoms Package remains into the Council's position! (more infos soon)

  25. Re:lol, here is a thought by WTF+Chuck · · Score: 1

    What if someone's computer got a virus, which then downloaded pirated content to no fault of their own? Oops! Strike three! You lost your internet to a virus. :) GENIUS!

    Sounds like a great way to reduce spam.
    1. Install proxy server on vulnerable spambot.
    2. Download all the copyrighted material you want through the spambot.
    3. Move to new spambot when the old one gets removed from the internet.
    4. Profit

    --
    Note - Liberal use of <sarcasm> tags may or may not need to be applied.
  26. Well then its irelevant by Alterion · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "The bill sets up a tussle between France and Brussels. In September, the European Parliament approved by a large majority an amendment outlawing internet cut-off."" If this does conlfict with the EU amendment/directive then this will be thrown out by the ECJ whe it comes before them, simple.

    1. Re:Well then its irelevant by muadda · · Score: 1

      The French law is not yet passed. The EU directive neither. This is a race: which law/directive will pass first?

    2. Re:Well then its irelevant by Chep · · Score: 1

      There is no race at all, it doesn't matter.

      Even if HADOPI (national law) passes, which means it passes the Assembl&#195;&#169;e Nationale then the Commission Paritaire Mixte, it will have to be reviewed for lawfulness by the Conseil d'&#195;&#8240;tat if about anyone smells rotten fish and asks for that review. Then D&#195;&#169;crets d'Application (technical ordinances) will have to be signed to mandate its implementation.

      Finally, the thing will start to be implemented. Should EU law then mandate the contrary, uses of the HADOPI law can first be automatically shot down at the ECJ like you said, but also the Parliament will *have* to vote on a law which has the same effect as EU law (the so-called "transposition" process). It will be able to drag its feet for 2 years before EU fines for failure to transpose EU law kick in. On the other hand, dragging feet on the transposition (unwind) law while the original law was voted on so-called "emergency" procedure will probably not be seen well at the ECJ.

      Plus, add on top of this the fact that Sarkozy's gigantically overinflated ankles are starting to piss people off big time in Europe (hi, Vaclav!) and you can bet chances that even the EU Council agrees to shit on the EU Parliament's face again on that issue are slim (OK, not that slim, the Council meeting are so long and boring the Ministers need somewhere to shit on, the Parliament is the usual convenient place)

    3. Re:Well then its irelevant by Cochonou · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For sure. But the article is slightly misleading: what is controversial in this law is not really that the internet access can be cut off, but that it can be cut off without a court decision. In fact, the law is proposing to create an "administrative authority" which would take care of these matters, without a trial, in order to speed things up. This is precisely what the european parliament aims to outlaw: the ability to cut off an internet connection without a court decision.
      To make matters more complex, since the reforms promised by the European Constitution (which failed to be approved at a referendum in france and netherlands in 2005, and a revised version was rejected by ireland in 2008), the european parliament still has very limited powers: it shares its decisional power with the european council, which is made of the representants of the executive governments of the member countries. As far as I know, the european council has not yet taken a stance on this topic.

  27. They don't know / don't care by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All those objections have been raised. I know personally the people at the main advocacy group opposing this nonsense, and from what they tell me, they are in complete in denial. They are impervious to the technical arguments. The entertainment industry feeds them their talking points, and that's good enough for them.
    But the technical aspect is just a part of the whole problem; constitutionnally, it's on grounds just as weak. And the European Parliament, backed by the Commission, has shot it down premptively.
    It doesn't make any fucking sense.

  28. Re:Stop living in the past by iminplaya · · Score: 2

    They use code now. We can simply use "us and "them". What you do think "welfare queen" means? Or "crime-ridden neighborhoods"? You might here some people even use the word "Canadian". And of now course you hear the word "dangerous" and "inexperienced" and "real, hard working Americans". The reasons to maintain prohibition have not changed one bit. As it is obvious to any rational person that it's not for public health. Otherwise alcohol and tobacco would be long gone. As the original post said, these laws are targeted. Most laws are. They are designed to provide probable cause to mitigate any tendency to get "uppity" Wake the hell up!

    --
    What?
  29. Cry for "la belle france" by redelm · · Score: 1
    It is a crying shame the people who gave the world "The Rights of Man" must now seek protection against their own lords from foreigners in Brussels.

    For make no mistake -- corporations are merely updated feudal lords. For they have gathered power and exercise it for profit. And now they wish to enforce it by ritual excommunication.

    1. Re:Cry for "la belle france" by muadda · · Score: 1

      Our Brussels lords are not foreigners. In fact the amendment 138 which forbid this three strikes law has been brought by French Members of the European Parlement.

    2. Re:Cry for "la belle france" by redelm · · Score: 1

      Thank you. So then this looks most like a court intrique -- a factional fight where dominance is the only thing which counts, and the subject is irrelevant.

    3. Re:Cry for "la belle france" by lepidosteus · · Score: 1

      Oh it's much more simpler than that. It's Nicolas Sarkozy trying to be king.
      The guy even put this law into emergency procedures without any good reason, to make sure the final vote occurs before the European's one, so that France does not technically pass a law the EU forbids.
      In case you're wondering: yes, he's doing the same thing in every aspect of french law he touches.

    4. Re:Cry for "la belle france" by redelm · · Score: 1

      Without sufficient safeguards (power sharing), a democracy can easily become an elected dictatorship.

  30. How to fight this by houghi · · Score: 1

    Just say that this is great to protect all the American music and movies. In about 20 seconds it will not stop the law, it will be a requirement to at least download 1 movie per week, wether you have Internet or not.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  31. Re:Will they do the same to business & governm by bpjk · · Score: 1

    From TFA: Companies and other enterprises where multiple computers have access to one network however, would instead be required to install firewalls to prevent workers from illegal downloading.

  32. No more redundant software licenses by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

    You mean they have the technology now for a computer to be able to tell if you bought something before? I guess then they can tell that I've already got a license to use the MP3 codec, so now when I download a program that tries to sell me an MP3 license, they can automatically discount it from the price, or automatically enable it in the referred program!

    --
    Twinstiq, game news
  33. Abstain? by boguslinks · · Score: 1

    Only a handful of conservatives, centrists and socialists voted against, while the Communists abstained.

    What happened to the good old days when the Communists at least had the courage of their convictions?

    1. Re:Abstain? by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      Well, it's kind of iffy. They're technically against it, but basically for it because they want to nationalize every industry and THEN control it "for the greater good".

  34. It won't last, as usual by ZeWaren · · Score: 1

    This law isn't against downloading copyrighted files, it's against using tools that "can" lead to piracy. When you will be accused of piracy, you will have to "prove" that you weren't pirating anything at the exact time (up to 6 month behind).

    For example, seeing torrent traffic out of your internet connection will be enough proof to charge you of piracy, whatever you will be downloading. The law also include the fact that if you watch too much 'illegal' videos on youtube, you are a pirate.

    If someone get an access to your internet connection and to something illegal, your internet will be cut off. Well, it won't really be cut. Your access will just stop working. You'll still be a client of your ISP, and you will continue to pay it, unless you want to break the contract (and pay); which is good because in France many phone lines work using the internet.

    Also remember that the law was passed in emergency, and that the ones responsible for it don't even know what they are talking about. For example, if you own a free wifi hotspot, and that someone used it to do piracy, you will be able to identify him with... his IP (the one your DHCP gave him). They don't know any technical think about what they are asking. For an ISP, it should cost about $15 per client per month to log everything you are doing on your internet connection.

    They tried many times to achieve their goals by procedures like this before. But since each time they don't even get information about what the world really is; they fail. And they will fail again this time.

    1. Re:It won't last, as usual by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      . For example, if you own a free wifi hotspot, and that someone used it to do piracy, you will be able to identify him with... his IP (the one your DHCP gave him).

      In France, service providers (including free hotspot providers) have to obtain information on each user logging on (address, phone number, name, date of birth) or you will be held accountable for their actions.

      This is why all the ISPs in France require the information, including free ones like free.fr.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  35. I wonder ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... if the French Senate has an open WiFi connection I might borrow for a while.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  36. Re:What if not necessarily illegal? by philspear · · Score: 1

    Something is wrong with you. The law as it's worded IS actually that vague. If it passes, it won't be enforced like that, but technically it could be. His question is not stupid, you are.

  37. Constitutional Court by andersh · · Score: 2, Informative

    First of all, even if the second chamber does approve the law it also has to stand the test in the Court of Cassation (Cour de cassation). If the law is deemed unconstitutional there it will have to be changed.

    P.S. Vi har ikke noe liknende i Norge, vi "tester" ikke om lovene er konstitusjonelle eller ikke på samme måte. Det er mer likt det amerikanske systemet hvor man også kan utfordre lover i Høyesterett (føderal).

    1. Re:Constitutional Court by Khalid · · Score: 2, Informative

      You made a confusion with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conseil_constitutionnel, which duty is to ensure that the principles and rules of the constitution are upheld

  38. Re:The Vivendi law [slashcode sucks] by Chep · · Score: 1

    slashcode sucks and produces mojibake when I input proper UTF-8 content. Slashcode sucks.

  39. What's French for 'lickspittle'? by mkcmkc · · Score: 1

    The French seem to be following the US example, and in this case it doesn't seem like a good idea...

    --
    "Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
  40. Re:The Vivendi law [slashcode sucks] by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

    slashcode sucks and produces mojibake when I input proper UTF-8 content. Slashcode sucks.

    Just use "EUR".

    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  41. Malware will make this moot by Midnight+Warrior · · Score: 1

    Whether it be a rules designed to stop folks from stealing media, violating their monthly transfer cap, or even using a competitor's VoIP package, they are all susceptible to malware attacks. Given an interesting enough malware that doesn't seek to steal your data, but rather use you as a conduit, we all finally have plausible deniability.

    Every time they get into this, there is an assumption that I am in complete control of my hardware and software. History has clearly shown that even with tightly-controlled systems, including those with TPM (Click to read about cracking TPM), a compromise is easy for a determined individual with even limited cracking skills. And what if there's malicious hardware (Click Here for PDF)? Anything can happen.

    We may have the hardware sitting on our desk, but every security guy will tell you that physical access is everything. They'll probably try and turn my computer into a multitouch kiosk, but they'll leave a USB or serial port open on the back for bootstrapping. They may dumb computers down, but somebody has to be smart enough to build them, and some will be left to write malware that allows not so honest folk to channel their black market traffic through otherwise unsuspecting innocents who will take the fall for the infraction.

    Do this a few times and courts around the globe will rule the laws an unenforcable leaving us with more trash computers and companies with too much power to see into our private lives, which is what this is partly about anyways.

    Go ahead, Britain. Keep leading the way.

  42. Re:The Vivendi law [slashcode sucks] by Chep · · Score: 1

    Just use "PERIOD" instead of "." ...

  43. Yes but by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nazi-douchebag Sarkozy had his government use "emergency" procedure to pass it, so it will only be discussed once in each chamber.
    Of course, just the mere fact that they claimed it to be an emergency is yet another proof that those assholes are just doing Vivendi's bidding.

  44. Re:Stop living in the past by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    And don't forget the Crack VS Powder laws passed in the '80s where you would need 100 TIMES the amount in powder(used by whites) to equal the sentence given out for crack(used by blacks). While I agree we have come a long way,the drugs laws do screw the minorities a lot worse. I wonder if anyone has run the numbers to see what the incarceration rate is in black VS white with regards to drug cases? Because I bet the white guy gets to walk out a lot more than the black guy,if what I saw when I had to go to court was typical.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  45. Cryptography by cpghost · · Score: 1

    France also had one of the worst anti-cryptography laws worldwide... until they gradually replaced them with saner laws in 1996 and 2004.

    So is that a reason for the French to be optimistic? No. Relaxing the anti-crypto was done for the sake of equalizing laws with other countries, while tightening the screw on file sharers is just one way to kowtow before the almighty WIPO and their representatives like IFPI, RIAA et al. So things are probably going to worsen rather than improve. France have been dragging her feet in crypto matters, while nobody else was willing to go along; now she's running ahead of everybody else... and I'm afraid other countries will be all too eager to follow her lead.

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    1. Re:Cryptography by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > France also had one of the worst anti-cryptography laws worldwide... until they
      > gradually replaced them with saner laws in 1996 and 2004.

      So you are saying that France still has laws regulating the use of crypography?

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  46. Look at the bright side by aplusjimages · · Score: 1

    The French consumer should see a price decrease in movie DVDs and Blu-Rays as well a price decrease in CD music. Am I right?

    --
    Can I bum a sig?
  47. Re:The Vivendi law [slashcode sucks] by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

    Just use "PERIOD" instead of "." ...

    I didn't need to know you were on your period >.

    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  48. Re:Poppycock by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    McCain specifically would extend the DMCA regime.

    So will Obama. What's your point?

    The Democratic party, as an entity extending back to the founding of this nation, is not running in this election.

    Oh please. The candidates represent the interest of the party. And the party represents the interests of its owners. And it changes hands like a tanker full of crude as it crosses the ocean from Saudi Arabia. If they didn't do what they are told, they wouldn't be up there. The party would have another set of mannequins placed in front of cameras for you all to drool over. Got news for you. There is no Santa Clause. This isn't third grade social studies. FYI The party used to actually be called the Democratic-Republican party. And it has simply split into competing factions. Though they really don't "compete" now. It's more like collude.

    --
    What?
  49. This is utterly unjust by samantha · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately as Lawrence Lessig has pointed out repeatedly the laws concerning IP are increasingly whatever various media and other entrenched "rights" holders want to impose to maximize profits. The "laws" are not even run through a legislative process but may be enshrined in software code and hardware that "laws" are then passed for us to be forbidden to even look at. What seems simple on the face of it is actually very complex. Who claims I violate who's rights and are those claimed "rights" valid and what best serves the people including the creators of the content?

    In the face of corrupt or lagging legislative processes the people do what they think best for them or simply what they wish. Do we really want to yank their access to what is increasingly the connection to most communication, knowledge, computation and access to variety of non-state/corporate controlled information and opinion on the basis of so shaky a charge and without defense? How is this remotely just? How does it remotely fit the "crime" of downloading a few tunes without paying the media middlement by so draconian a punishment?

  50. Mod Parent Up Please. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    Nazi-douchebag Sarkozy had his government use "emergency" procedure to pass it, so it will only be discussed once in each chamber.
    Of course, just the mere fact that they claimed it to be an emergency is yet another proof that those assholes are just doing Vivendi's bidding.

    This bill is being rammed through faster than the patriot act on 9/12..

    This WILL become law, and when it does I expect a great wave of refugees to come spilling into germany, britain, and quebec.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  51. Mod parent up! by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    With this law, if your internet is cut-off, then you can't do anything about it.
    Oh, my bad, yes you can contest. But if you do so and can't convince the judge that you're innocent, then you face a fine of 300000Ã and 3 years of prison.
    And of course, everyone who use your connection are impacted, you have to continue to pay for your lost connexion, and you are referenced in a database so that every ISP knows that you can't subscribe to an internet access.

    And this is why there are NO isp's raising holy hell right now.

    They're being handed an out-and-out license to commit en-masse consumer fraud, with severe penalties to anyone who attempts redress.

    Why do I get the feeling this will not pass muster under the current french constitution?

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  52. And Usenet is reborn. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    SSL encrypted accounts on offshore usenet services should provide the user's fill of illicit files without providing an identifiable IP to (insert enforcement company here).

    The only thing visible to the ISP is an encrypted bulk transfer.

    The public adopted BT pretty easily enough, there are much friendlier newsreaders.

    Yep.. newsgroups are suddenly no longer passe'

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  53. Shooting themselves in the foot by bentcd · · Score: 1

    Right, so I suppose that if this law manages to pass largely intact through the remaining legislative hurdles, the French govt, French businesses and, in particular, French banks will have to contend with the fact that at any given time a significant proportion of the populace will be legally barred from being online. And we were looking at a situation where 10-20 years down the line, near 100% of the population would otherwise have been accessible over the net.

    I guess we shouldn't be expecting France to be much of a pioneer(*) in building the society of tomorrow then. Instead, 20 years from now we may all be using a French word for the term "brick-and-mortar" :-)

    (*) - obBush: The French don't even have a word for "pioneer". (**)
    (**) - obDisclaimer: snopes.com says that Bush never made the infamous entrepeneur statement.

    --
    sigs are hazardous to your health
  54. Lé Morons by unity100 · · Score: 1

    again we see french headstrongness, stubbornness and self centric behaviour.

    for decades they have been trying to force their views on eu, hell, even the world. even french language. so far, not only they failed, but also alienated other nations to themselves. just imagine - they left nato's military wing decades ago, only to return to the military wing recently. what happened ? did nato flounder without them ? no. just they lost credibility.

    excuse me 'mon frere's, but you have to wake up and be a team player.

    --
    Read radical news here
  55. Re:I think you deserve the "d'oh". by Kjella · · Score: 1

    I think you deserve the "d'oh"

    No I don't, but damn if I can find a good english source for it:
    "Nesten halvparten av den yngste aldersgruppen har drevet med fildeling av musikk eller filmer over nettet."
    "Near half of the youngest age group has been doing file sharing of music or movies over the net."
    http://www.ssb.no/vis/emner/10/03/ikthus/main.html

    "I aldersgruppen 16-24 år oppgir (..) 47 prosent sier de har utvekslet film og musikk gjennom fildeling."
    "In the age group 16-24 years 47 percent say they have exchanged movies and music through file sharing."
    http://www.klikk.no/teknologi/nyemedier/article332320.ece

    This is quoting a different study of 12-29 year olds:
    "56,1 prosent av de spurte i Pandoraundersøkelsen laster ned musikk fra fildelingsnettverk."
    "56,1 percent of the participants in the "Pandora" study downloads music from file sharing networks."
    http://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/2005/11/10/448948.html

    Why I'm even bothering to dig all this up for an AC is beyond me...

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings