French Record Labels Go After Limewire, SourceForge

An anonymous reader notes that TorrentFreak is reporting: "French record labels have received the green light to sue four US-based companies that develop P2P applications, including the BitTorrent client Vuze, Limewire, and Morpheus. Shareaza is the fourth application, for which the labels are going after the open source development platform SourceForge. ... Putting aside the discussion on the responsibilities of application developers for their users activities, the decision to go after SourceForge for hosting a application that can potentially infringe, is stretching credibility beyond all bounds." SourceForge is Slashdot's corporate parent.

Comments

Juristiction?

[Tubal-Cain]

SPFF had already sued the various companies and organizations last year, but until now it has been unclear whether the US based companies behind the applications could be prosecuted under French law. A French court has now ruled that this is indeed possible, which means that they can proceed to court.

How are non-french companies not operating in France (so far as I know) subject to French law?
Someone should let them know that only America can get away with that.

Re:Juristiction?

[saihung]

That would depend on France's conflict rules, which (unusually, if I remember correctly) are that the courts of France have jurisdiction over any matter harming a French national. You are broadly correct - in the USA or most other countries, the courts would likely NOT have jurisdiction over the case. But France is France. That doesn't mean that the defendant would be able to enforce the judgment though. A US court could examine the question of whether the French courts had jurisdiction over the matter before agreeing to enforce the judgment, and that probably wouldn't fly.

Re:Juristiction?

[Xenographic]

I just hope there are no French people who have contributed code to Shareza. I wouldn't put it past them to go looking for someone with any sort of connection to the project at all to hold accountable for the entire thing...

Then again, maybe French law is different in that regard, but these crazy litigants all seem to be the same about doing that sort of thing, no matter what country they're suing from.

Re:Juristiction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone should also tell the RIAA to stop sending threat letters to non-american ISP not operating in the US...

Re:Juristiction?

[Atlantis-Rising]

Actually, from what I understand (and I do not claim to be an expert on these matters at any extent) the courts generally consider, when looking at matters of jurisdiction, in which way justice is better served; in some cases, that might mean that the Courts will decide they have jurisdiction over an act that took place entirely in a different jurisdiction because of fairness.

For example, look at all those laws that make it illegal to go to other countries and have sex with children there.

Re:Juristiction?

[lysergic.acid]

that's because stupid is contagious. it's no big secret that other countries emulate the U.S. culture is our greatest export, and so what happens in the U.S. becomes a precedent for other nations. unfortunately, this also includes our political/legal culture.

the U.S. passed the DMCA in 1998, and soon other countries started getting their own DMCA-analogs. so it shouldn't be surprising the RIAA's legal shenanigans are being copied by their foreign counterparts. that's globalization for you.

Re:Juristiction?

[sumdumass]

You really need to look past your ignorance. The DMCA was required by WIPO treaty and as an extension to part of the berne convention as changed to allow the US to ratify it (which BTW, caused the copyright extensions).

The US didn't create the DMCA out of nothing. It was literally response to a treaty that all of Europe and other countries signed on to before we made the DMCA. The DMCA goes beyond the treaty a little but the meat is the same as the treaty requirements. The other countries creating their own DMCA are doing it for the same reason's the US did and that is because of treaty obligations.

Now you can claim that RIAA influenced the treaty and so on, this might be true, The recording industry was responsable for implementations of other treaties which more or less made Phonographs, tapes and CDs compatible across country borders which I would think most people see as a good thing.

Something else about the WIPO treaties, there are portions of them that basically say if the law in one land doesn't address something in the treaty, then the law of the aggrieved land can prevail. This will give France's court Jurisdiction over an American country just like it gives the US courts jurisdiction (including extradition rights) over other countries when violations occur that aren't violations in the other land. If France can pin the Source Forge action to a treaty, a US court must honor it unless the Supreme court finds something unconstitutional in some way. I suggest you look into the treaties we are obligated to if you actually want to effect any meaningful changes instead of blaming the wrong people. You can charge windmills all you want and probably never see changes in what your railing about because you don't understand the concept behind it.

Re:Juristiction?

[Gorgonzolanoid]

I think you're wrong about one point: AFAIK US courts, according to US law, DO have jurisdiction over foreign nationals for acts committed on foreign ground, as soon as US citizens or companies are affected (as alleged victims).
There was even some dismay in the news media here in Europe when the US adapted a law allowing US Marshals to arrest (read "kidnap") foreign nationals abroad to drag them before US courts. I don't remember what period that was exactly, but it's at least 10 years ago.

Re:Juristiction?

[CSMatt]

Someone should let America know that they can't get away with that either.

Re:Juristiction?

[TubeSteak]

The US didn't create the DMCA out of nothing. It was literally response to a treaty that all of Europe and other countries signed on to before we made the DMCA.

LoL
Yes, the USA created the DMCA out of nothing.

Clinton formed a working group under a guy named Lehman,
BUT, there was resistance in the USA to the anti-circumvention recommendation.
In response, Lehman took a shortcut through WIPO and a bad international treaty obligation was born.

As a result, the USA had to harmonize* the law with their treaty obligation.
The real tragedy is that because the US didn't want to pass the law in the first place,
everyone has to modify their copyright law.

*sometimes this is good and sometimes this is bad. It is rarely good when it is used to shove an unpopular law through your country's backdoor.

Re:Juristiction?

[HuguesT]

Thanks, very informative

Re:Juristiction?

[ta bu shi da yu]

It's called Universal Jurisdiction, and although controversial is applied more frequently than would otherwise be expected.

Re:Juristiction?

[dbIII]

OK - so you are seriously suggesting Europe is to be blamed for some weird broken US IP laws inspired by Mickey Mouse and submitted by Sonny Bono? It is such a weird situation that people can easily remember such things instead of convenient revisionism a decade or two later.

Nice urban myth you've got there, but it's not going to work on anybody over thirty or anyone of any age that has paid attention to the subject. Your IP laws are your nations own fault and even those countries that accepted them (eg. a watered down version implemented in Australia as part of a condition for a "free trade" agreement) could have chosen not to so they are also responsible for their own IP laws.

Re:Juristiction?

[Smivs]

I think it's quite reasonable for the French to want to protect this multi-trillion dollar industry. I mean, where would we be without all that great French music from companies like....er.....um.....Ooooh......oh, never mind.

Re:Juristiction?

[bersl2]

Speaking of Berne, let's not forget that the French were the ones who pushed hardest for that treaty in the first place. So thanks a whole lot for the shitty version of copyright.

Re:Juristiction?

[Smauler]

Non-french companies not operating in France are not subject to French Law. However, these companies are operating in France, if there are customers in France.

Imagine a situation in which Massive company no. 1, based in Canada, supplies all of the US's need for one thing. Massive company no. 2, based in the US, supplies all of Canada's needs for the same thing. Why on earth should Canadian legislation apply to exclusively to company 1, and US legislation exclusively to company 2?

Bottom line - I think if you want to do business in our country, you follow our rules, end of. And no, I'm not French.

Re:Juristiction?

[Ihmhi]

[citation needed] Can you cite what law this is you're speaking of?

If they're important enough that we want them, we'll try extradition first. If extradition fails or extradition treaties don't exist, then the States would likely send in special forces to kidnap them. Depending on their profile, they may or may not ever see a court.

If they're not important enough to warrant sending in commandos, then we'll just go with extradition. And if the country doesn't have extradition, well - then we'd probably send in special forces in this scenario, too...

Re:Juristiction?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't imagine how peaceful the French digital rights scene was before Vivendi bought Universal and its legal team.

Nowadays France gets to experience Hollywood legal stupidity even before it's tested in the USA.

Though I guess that this way at least, the bribery flow also benefits Europe a little.

Re:Juristiction?

[sumdumass]

Bruce Lehman was the Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks under Bill Clinton. Clinton did form a working group but it didn't submit any laws until after WIPO. And yes, because of his positions in the Clinton administration, Lehman would have have direct input in the WIPO treaties, he did serve as the chair of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights, and so on. The WGIPR did nothing but submit reports for revew within the group's parent structure.

Then in 96, the WIPO organization met and came away with two treaties requiring the DMCA to be corrected. These treaties were the "WIPO Copyright Treaty" and the "WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty," which were adopted by consensus by over 150 countries. A goof portion of the DMCA, especially title one and two, comes directly out of the WIPO treaties and over 150 countries are required to make the same laws.

You should look at the report they put forward. (PDF warning) In which they recomend a general structure and highlight points that should change. If you look at the recommendations portion, you will see that the terms of the WIPO as well as the DMCA are only similar in spirit but the real meaty portions of the DMCA aren't really there. By Meat, I mean the stiff penalties and so on.

Re:Juristiction?

[sumdumass]

OK - so you are seriously suggesting Europe is to be blamed for some weird broken US IP laws inspired by Mickey Mouse and submitted by Sonny Bono? It is such a weird situation that people can easily remember such things instead of convenient revisionism a decade or two later.

NO, I'm seriously suggesting that Europe is just as much to blame for a treaty that require DMCA like laws be put in place. The So called weird broken US IP laws inspired by Mickey Mouse and submitted by Sonny Bono was actually inspired by Bill Clinton, Bruce legman and two WIPO treaties that 150 of countries signed on to. In fact, Title one and two of the DMCA was almost word for word of the two treaties. Perhaps you should learn a little about what you think your talking about before demonstrating how ignorant you really are. BTW, I'm over 30 myself so I'm not sure what the hell you think Age has to do with things unless your thinking your slipping into senility.

Your IP laws are your nations own fault and even those countries that accepted them (eg. a watered down version implemented in Australia as part of a condition for a "free trade" agreement) could have chosen not to so they are also responsible for their own IP laws.

My god, a simply Google search for History of the DMCA would have told you different. Let me guess, You were burnt by Wikipedia and your favorite Bashing site again. Most people would learn but go ahead and take your time, you might get a clue before it's too late.

Re:Juristiction?

[djmurdoch]

two WIPO treaties that 150 of countries signed on to.

Which treaties are you talking about? The relevant one is the Copyright Treaty, and only 68 countries have ratified it. Another 26 or so have signed it but not ratified it, which means it's not in force in those countries. (Of the G8, only the US and Japan are among the ratifiers.)

The signature on the treaty is used as an excuse by the proponents of it to say that countries have international obligations to put a DMCA-like law in place, but it doesn't mean that at all. The signature is a general sign of support for it, but it implies no legal obligations.

Re:Juristiction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Our "goverments" are responsible for our laws...
We are, to a lesser extent, responsible for our goverments...

Re:Juristiction?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

"Depending on their profile, they may or may not ever see a court."

So, it is "USA - the most advanced country in the world, the country of freedom and laws making everyone feel safe...unless is does not suit somebody"?

And instead of "In Europe, nobody is sentenced without a due process", it should be actually "In Europe, nobody is sentenced without a due process unless it does not suit the Americans?"

Re:Juristiction?

[dbIII]

Pretending round 45 is the start of the fight will not really convince many.

The "over 30" bit was because this was going on for a long time before Clinton's term and any more recent attempts to bring international commitees into it. Perhaps over 40 might have been better since the Sonny Bono thing was a long time ago. Thanks for the senility crack however since it does really put your argument into perspective, as does the rather odd bits on the end of the reply. I really do not understand what has gone so badly wrong that so many now use personal attacks instead of discussion - perhaps you will blame education under Clinton for that one although I'd go much furthur back (and yes, use the defence of belittling me for my spelling errors if that makes you feel superior).

The current state of international war crimes laws demonstrates clearly that if a country doesn't like what the comittee says they really don't have to do what it says. If that's too emotive consider things like the Kyoto agreement. These IP laws came out of the USA, got fed into international comittees and then were approved by the USA to use - you can not blame some faceless evil minion in Brussels no matter how convenient the fiction is. Europe had nothing like it until it was suggested that the USA's Mickey Mouse IP laws (of which the DCMA is the current manifestation) were suggested for global consumption.

Re:Juristiction?

[Fusen]

sometime within the last 10 years a British citizen was nearly kidnapped by American authorities in Canada and thankfully the Canadians said "erm, no" and he was sent back to the UK. So even though the US may think they can do this sort of thing, most other countries won't allow it.

Re:Juristiction?

[sumdumass]

The copyright treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty brought about around the same time. And when I said Signed onto, I didn't necessarily mean that they have adopted it. Generally, when a country signed on to a treaty, they only express a commitment to adoption so they have a say in the organization and structure of it. By all means, all members of WIPO had opertunity for a say in both of them.

Currently there are 184 members of WIPO which is more then the 1996 levels. I pullede the 150 number from here

Re:Juristiction?

[gavron]

It's cute that you say this but reality says differently. The DMCA _was_ created by the US. Foreign law does _not_ have effect in the US. People who make up stuff on Slashdot postings do _not_ create new law.

Cheers and all that.

Ehud

Re:Juristiction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because France claims jurisdiction doesn't mean they have it. As an American, their philosophy of when they can sue an American has no bearing on me. I am only required to follow American law. (me of course filling in for any company that doesn't do work in France)

Re:Juristiction?

[Skye16]

Daft Punk is about all I can come up with.

Re:Juristiction?

[Ash-Fox]

I think it's quite reasonable for the French to want to protect this multi-trillion dollar industry. I mean, where would we be without all that great French music from companies like

Like Vivendi, which own,

• A&M Records
• Barclay Records
• Decca Records
• Deutsche Grammophon
• DreamWorks Records
• Geffen Records
• Hollywood Records1
• Interscope Records
• • G-Unit Records
  • Vagrant Records2

  • Island Def Jam Records

  • MySpace Records
  • Island Records
  • MO Records (Montreal)
• Jazzland Records
• Lost Highway Records
• MCA Nashville Records
• Mercury Nashville Records
• Mercury Records
• Motor Music Records
• Polydor
• Philips Records
• Stockholm Records
• Triple Crown Records
• Universal Classics Group
• Universal Motown Records Group
• Universal Music Group Nashville
• • Universal Records
  • Universal South Records
  • Blackground Records
  • Motown Records
  • Republic Records
  • Cash Money Records
  • Bad Boy Records
  • Casablanca Records
  • Street Records Corporation
  • Univision Music Records
  • Urban Records
  • Verve Records

Re:Juristiction?

[djmurdoch]

1. Less than 100 countries signed onto either of those treaties. The page you refer to says they were adopted "by consensus", but that doesn't imply any countries signed onto them. It just says that at some WIPO meeting they were adopted by consensus.

2. The page you referred to says:

Both Congress and the Clinton Administration used these international treaties as an excuse for passing a broad, sweeping changes to U.S. copyright laws that were urged by the entertainment industry , despite the fact that such changes to U.S. copyright law were not required by the treaties themselves.

This contradicts your main point, which was that the WCT and WPPT obligated the US to pass the DMCA. No, the DMCA was passed because lobbyists convinced your government to pass it. It's a US invention.

Re:Juristiction?

[Smivs]

Well obviously I meant other than Vivendi, Doh!

Re:Juristiction?

[lysergic.acid]

look past my ignorance? well, aside from the fact that i prefer to identify and remedy my own ignorance rather than looking past it, i don't think i'm the ignorant one here.

firstly, i never claimed the DMCA came out of nothing--few laws ever are. my argument was that, culture being our primary export, the U.S. has set many of legal precedents regarding IP enforcement. in the age of globalization, no country can exist inside a vacuum. and being the dominant superpower and cultural hegemon of the modern world, our actions ripple through other nations.

secondly, considering that the two WIPO treaties passed in 1996 were written and passed by the same industry lobbyists who pushed for the DMCA here in the U.S., i think it's fair to say that our domestic industries were the ultimate impetus for those public policy changes. do you really think that other countries are more worried about maintaining an IP monopoly than U.S., home of Hollywood and a $50 billion a year music industry?

Re:Juristiction?

[SEE]

The "kidnap and try" situation, which is established by no statute, is actually dependent on the fact that US courts are not claiming jurisdiction over what happens in foreign countries.

The court ruling in question is that US judges are in the business of evaluating and applying US law, not foreign law. Accordingly, a judge cannot free a defendant on the grounds that the circumstances by which he was brought before a US court violated the laws of, say, France. That's a matter of French law, and thus beyond the jurisdiction of a US court. Similarly, since a US court doesn't have jurisdiction in France, the court doesn't have the power to punish crimes that happen in France. Again, that's a matter for French courts.

So, a US court cannot punish a marshal or free a defendant over what happened in a foreign country, precisely because a US court does not have jurisdiction over what happens in foreign countries.

Re:Juristiction?

[Simonetta]

How are non-french companies not operating in France (so far as I know) subject to French law?

Puisque nous sommes français. Notre vision de justice est parfaite.
Elle est nous qui sont les balises de la lumière divine brillant sur
l'obscurité de l'humanité. La sagesse, la vérité, l'éclaircissement et l'espoir d'Utimate est la définition fondamentale de toutes les choses françaises.

Because we are French. Our vision of justice is perfect. It is us who are the beacons of divine light shining upon the darkness of humanity. Utimate Wisdom, Truth, enlightenment and hope is the fundamental definition of all things French.

Re:Juristiction?

[budgenator]

So your saying that French law is a communicable disease?

Re:Juristiction?

[budgenator]

Are you implying that facilitating music piracy is legally equivalent to genocide, crimes against humanity, extrajudicial executions, war crimes, torture and forced disappearances?

Re:Juristiction?

[Xenographic]

> OK - so you are seriously suggesting Europe is to be blamed for some weird broken US IP laws inspired by Mickey Mouse and submitted by Sonny Bono?

While the US is responsible for exporting a lot of the copyright insanity, Sonny Bono's tragedy was just an excuse for them to attach his name to the law.

It's my understanding that he would not have been a fan of it.

Re:Juristiction?

[ScrewMaster]

So your saying that French law is a communicable disease?

Well, given the popularity of this stuff around the world, I'd say it's definitely viral in nature.

Re:Juristiction?

[Ash-Fox]

Well obviously I meant other than Vivendi, Doh!

So the unique record labels like Ed Banger Records, which currently are publishers for all the well known electronic music artists?

Re:Juristiction?

[ScrewMaster]

"Depending on their profile, they may or may not ever see a court."

So, it is "USA - the most advanced country in the world, the country of freedom and laws making everyone feel safe...unless is does not suit somebody"?

And instead of "In Europe, nobody is sentenced without a due process", it should be actually "In Europe, nobody is sentenced without a due process unless it does not suit the Americans?"

Exactly, because we're currently a superpower and we can get away with it. And when we're not, when someone else takes the top dog position (maybe China, who knows) then they'll get to behave the same way. And believe me ... they will. Just ask the Soviets how they treated people from other countries when they were a superpower. It's just human nature and all that.

Some of you seem to think that international politics is some kind of a popularity contest, where the nicest country wins. In reality, it's exactly the opposite.

Re:Juristiction?

[ScrewMaster]

Are you implying that facilitating music piracy is legally equivalent to genocide, crimes against humanity, extrajudicial executions, war crimes, torture and forced disappearances?

I doubt the GP is, but you know perfectly well that the media companies would have no problem making that claim. To them, there is no higher crime than copyright infri^H^H^H^H^Htheft of copyrighted materials.

Re:Juristiction?

[Toll_Free]

Think Panama for a reference or citation.

Good post.

--Toll_Free

Re:Juristiction?

[Toll_Free]

No, he said good music, not noise.

I think his point was, mostly all we hear coming from .fr is noise.

--Toll_Free

Re:Juristiction?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a (former) developer, let me be the first to say:

Yes. There are French people who have contributed. France is the third most common country that Shareaza is used in, too.

This is after they already put legal pressure on the man who owned our domain name, used it to set up what is basically a scam site, and has even filed for a trademark of "Shareaza", filing under oath that it had never been used before they got their grubby little mitts on it.

Re:Juristiction?

[tirnacopu]

my argument was that, culture being our primary export..

you are joking, right?

Your friendly neighbourhood Europeans

Re:Juristiction?

[sumdumass]

look past my ignorance? well, aside from the fact that i prefer to identify and remedy my own ignorance rather than looking past it, i don't think i'm the ignorant one here.

The WIPO organization created the treaty before the US created the laws. WIPO is an international organization that consist of many other countries who would have had a say in the treaty. Currently, there are 184 member countries.

The idea that the US is forcing something onto other countries who had a full say in the treaties that they signed on to as well as the US laws being made after words is nothing but ignorance. That's like saying if I asked you if you wanted to watch some movies, then I asked you what movies you wanted to watch, then when your watching them, you attempt to claim I forced you to watch the movies you picked just because I got them from the video store first.

And no, it doesn't matter if the same industry insiders were promoting their agenda, it still doesn't mean that anyone pushed anything on a sovereign nation and I seriously don't think that Mickey Mouse held 150 countries at gun point and said make this treaty and sign this law. The signatory countries negotiated on their own behalf and found enough common ground that they felt comfortable enough with the treaties that they signed on or signed their intent to sign on.

BTW, what legal president have we set? I'm interested in hearing how based in reality you really are.

Re:Juristiction?

[sumdumass]

Lol.. The DMCA was created by the US because it is US law. It was created through uppon the ratification of the WIPO treaties, The WIPO copyright act and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty.

Why don't you look those treaties up and actually read them, then look at the time line between those treaties and the DMCA. Hell, while your at it, compare the text of the DMCA to those two treaties and you will find almost word for word similarities in the First two Titles of the DMCA.

Just because you don't want to believe something is true doesn't mean that it isn't.

Re:Juristiction?

[lysergic.acid]

hey, i didn't say it was particularly good culture. big macs, pop music, action movies, reality TV, etc. are culture too. it's not "high culture," but it's culture all the same.

just look at all the $country's Got Talent spin-offs that were launched after the success of American Idol. hip-hop culture also originated in the U.S. and then gradually spread to other countries, as did fast food and coronary heart disease.

naturally, we needed to create new IP laws to protect these valuable cultural exports. and these IP laws were similarly disseminated and foisted onto other nations through our global influence via international treaties and U.S.-dominated international organizations like the WTO.

Re:Juristiction?

[dbIII]

He was alive at the time and for some years afterwards! This is a long running saga of broken IP law and the Sonny Bono copyright extension act (or similar name) was where it all changed to keep Mickey Mouse in copyright long after Walt Disney's death. The DCMA is just the latest little bit of icing on that cake.

Re:Juristiction?

[sumdumass]

Pretending round 45 is the start of the fight will not really convince many.

What the hell are you talking about? Are you drunk and not composing complete sentences or something?

The "over 30" bit was because this was going on for a long time before Clinton's term and any more recent attempts to bring international commitees into it. Perhaps over 40 might have been better since the Sonny Bono thing was a long time ago. Thanks for the senility crack however since it does really put your argument into perspective, as does the rather odd bits on the end of the reply. I really do not understand what has gone so badly wrong that so many now use personal attacks instead of discussion - perhaps you will blame education under Clinton for that one although I'd go much furthur back (and yes, use the defence of belittling me for my spelling errors if that makes you feel superior).

yes, the Sony Bono thing was so long ago, it was actually after his death and name for him in spirit while being presented by his wife who took over his seat in congress upon his death. The thing, lol.. You don't even know what your talking about and attempting to school me in your ignorance? Common, don't make a fool out of yourself.

And the Mickey Mouse copyright extension act was a direct result of the Berne convention and the US ratifying it. It took us 10 years in order to pass the laws covered by the convention.

No, I'm not making this shit up, I don't have to, it is all public information and you can find a lot about it from a google search. I suggest you do it before repeating any more crackpot conspiracy theories and prove your intelligence to everyone.

The current state of international war crimes laws demonstrates clearly that if a country doesn't like what the comittee says they really don't have to do what it says. If that's too emotive consider things like the Kyoto agreement. These IP laws came out of the USA, got fed into international comittees and then were approved by the USA to use - you can not blame some faceless evil minion in Brussels no matter how convenient the fiction is. Europe had nothing like it until it was suggested that the USA's Mickey Mouse IP laws (of which the DCMA is the current manifestation) were suggested for global consumption.

You really have no clue do you? What commities were the fed into? How does the operation work? do you know the definition of Sovereignty or the rights of a sovereign nation/state?

Or are you all about ignoring reality and substituting it with one of your own? Here is a hint, Look into the implementation of the Berne convention with the US ratification, look into the WIPO copyright treaty, look into the WIPO performances and phonograph treaty and then look into the DMCA. I guarantee you will learn something important. Something important like you are wrong and don't have a firm grasp on the situation.

Re:Juristiction?

[ta bu shi da yu]

No, but the concept of criminal jurisdiction over people who don't exist within the states purview is still all part and parcel of Universal Jurisdiction.

Re:Juristiction?

[sumdumass]

1. Less than 100 countries signed onto either of those treaties. The page you refer to says they were adopted "by consensus", but that doesn't imply any countries signed onto them. It just says that at some WIPO meeting they were adopted by consensus.

The point is that 150 countries have a say in the treaty as it was being created and before it was finalized. Do you understand that If I asked you what you want for dinner and you get that, I'm not forcing you to eat that food for dinner?

This contradicts your main point, which was that the WCT and WPPT obligated the US to pass the DMCA. No, the DMCA was passed because lobbyists convinced your government to pass it. It's a US invention.

It does not contradict my point. What did is say, the treaty enabled Clinton to pass sweeping changed to copyright law. Well now, I guess your right, the treaty that other countries had part in developing required us to create the DMCA in which Clinton used as an excuse for passing a broad, sweeping changes to U.S. copyright laws. Oh my god, look it is exactly what I was saying.

Re:Juristiction?

[gavron]

Like I said. It's US law. I don't know what "uppon" is and it was created by an act of Congress after lobbying by the MPAA and RIAA and other "Big Content."

It was SO anti-WIPO that WIPO whined about it for ages.

And... still... foreign law has no effect in the US. Thanks for agreeing with that.

> Just because you don't want to believe something...

Exactly. Like I said, DMCA is US law not inspired by WIPO, and French law has no impact in the US. Your refusal to believe reality doesn't change that reality.

Ehud

Re:Juristiction?

[HiThere]

The DMCA is an evil law. It may have not evil applications, but they appear to be in the vast minority. That it would be such a law was predicted before it was passed.

I've seen the way the US implements treaties. The US only implements treaties to the extent that the government wants to. The DMCA goes far beyond what the treaty requires, and is probably, in a logical system, unconstitutional. (Granted the constitution is too vague to form a complete specification as a logical basis. Many terms are undefined, and much is presumed as common knowledge...including much that is no longer common knowledge. Still, this seems to clearly be a law regulating speech or the press.)

Re:Juristiction?

[Anonymous Coward]

More like gay_full than toll_free

Re:Juristiction?

[carou]

just look at all the $country's Got Talent spin-offs that were launched after the success of American Idol.

Ah yes, American Idol, 2002, spin-off of the popular British series, Pop Idol, 2001.

If America's biggest export is culture, then its biggest import is credit for other people's ideas.

Re:Juristiction?

[HiThere]

I can't cite the law either, but I remember the occasion. I couldn't have told you whether it was a law or a judicial decision. I think the other country involved was Norway, but I'm not even certain of that.

Still, I remember the event, if not the specifics. I can't remember whether it was about copyrights, patents, or something else. I don't remember whether the US actually invaded, or just threatened to. I do remember being quite upset about it.

Re:Juristiction?

[djmurdoch]

What did is say, the treaty enabled Clinton to pass sweeping changed to copyright law.

I think you should read your own post, difficult as that may be. "Required" is stronger than "enabled". Even "enabled" is stronger than the page you cited, according to which "was used as an excuse" is more accurate.

Re:Juristiction?

[russotto]

Accordingly, a judge cannot free a defendant on the grounds that the circumstances by which he was brought before a US court violated the laws of, say, France. That's a matter of French law, and thus beyond the jurisdiction of a US court

However, in the case where an extradition treaty does exist, and forbids this sort of thing, the judge CAN (and if the treaty so specificies, must) free the defendant on exactly those grounds -- because the treaty is also a matter of US law.

Re:Juristiction?

[russotto]

Non-french companies not operating in France are not subject to French Law. However, these companies are operating in France, if there are customers in France.

Only if the transaction takes place in France. Often, there's a middleman who (legally, if not physically) takes the product across the border, so the company doing the selling isn't operating in France at all. And for free (as in beer) software on the Internet? There's no transaction at all.

Imagine a situation in which Massive company no. 1, based in Canada, supplies all of the US's need for one thing. Massive company no. 2, based in the US, supplies all of Canada's needs for the same thing. Why on earth should Canadian legislation apply to exclusively to company 1, and US legislation exclusively to company 2?

Because company 1 is based in Canada and Company 2 is based in the US. Pretty simple, that. Realistically both companies are going to have subsidiaries and/or partners operating in the opposite country, and those subsidiaries and/or partners will be subject to the law of the country where they operate. But it would be madness for company 1 to have to follow US law on their internal operations. (and yes, the US has pushed that sort of madness, e.g. forbidding company 1 from doing business with Cuba. Canada has pushed back, forbidding company 1 from adhering to that law).

Re:Juristiction?

[Anonymous Coward]

that's because

"That's".

it's no big

"It's".

culture is

"Culture".

unfortunately, this

"Unfortunately".

the U.S. passed

"The".

DMCA-analogs. so

",".

that's globalization

"That's".

P.S. Not capitalizing the first word in each sentence makes you look like a moron.

Re:Juristiction?

[Anonymous Coward]

hey, i didn't

"Hey, I".

big macs, pop

"Big Macs".

it's not

"It's".

just look

"Just".

hip-hop culture

"Hip" (and, possibly, "Hop").

naturally, we

"Naturally".

exports. and

",".

P.S. Not capitalizing the first word of a sentence makes you look like a moron. (You are not e.e. cummings, not by a long shot.)

Re:Juristiction?

[sumdumass]

The treaty said the government would make laws covering the items in the treaty. Jesus Christ, why are you even arguing this when you obviously havn't even looked at the damn treaties in question? I mean if you have at least skimmed over them, this comment wouldn't even had been made by you unless your simply trolling. But I don't believe your intent is malice and I am left to assume ignorance is the cause. Just look the shit up before replying again ok.

The treaty was made, The us ratified it, the treaty said we had to make certain laws, the DMCA is that law, other countries who have signed onto the treaty have to follow the fucking rules to so the treaty is forcing them to make DMCA like laws. It is that simple.

Re:Juristiction?

[sumdumass]

Actually, no the DMCA does not go far beyond what the treaties require. It does so on the punishment side because the Treaty doesn't require or mandate the punishment, it simply says that the country will make laws to the effect of the requirements in the treaty.

Evil or not, I think maybe you should look into it a little more before making accusations about the constitutionality of it. The constitution either gives the government the power to make the laws or it prohibits it, there is no probably about it. You also living in a liberal fantasy land when you think the constitution is undefined or the intent isn't understood. You can't make something up or claim we can't tell because your too ignorant or intellectually lazy to look at the time the constitution was written and the works by the authors that determine the meaning of the clauses. This is exactly what the Supreme court does when a conflict arises and it isn't something unexpected of people who want to make statements about it. The constitution is not a living document which the meaning changes with the definitions over time. Treating it as such will only embarrassed you.

Re:Juristiction?

[Eth1csGrad1ent]

You are broadly correct - in the USA or most other countries, the courts would likely NOT have jurisdiction over the case. But France is France.

Bullshit. There are many, many cases where the US courts claim jurisdiction for breaches of US law that occur outside the United States, where US citizens or companies are harmed, and the courts will freeze any US-based assets of the foreign entities in question if the court rules against them, to pay damages.

To say this is a "French" thing is ridiculous.

Re:Juristiction?

[sumdumass]

I think you need to take a highschool civics class and pay attention. After that, you need to look at the actual WIPO treaties in play, the WIPO copyright treaty and the WIPO performances and phonograph treaty. You will find that Tittles one and two of the DMCA almost mirror those two treaties.

You can't honestly say with any authority that the DMCA doesn't follow WIPO guidelines or that the WIPO complained about it.

And... still... foreign law has no effect in the US. Thanks for agreeing with that.

The same two treaties retain clauses that says when a party of the treaty hasn't address something required by a part of a treaty in law, then the agrieved parties law will prevail. This means that if the US made a law based on the treaty obligations, and another country hasn't, the US judgment will be honored in the other country. This has happened when the US extradited an Australian national from Australia to face criminal charges for something that wasn't illegal in the AU. Under the same principle, is the French law is connected to the same type of circumstances, then the US courts will have to honor the french ruling. When both countries have the law, the country where the violation took place will have complete jurisdiction.

I don't expect people to be constitutional lawyers or foreign offairs professors, but shit, a simple reading of the treaties and a little looking on your part would have cleared that up for you before you even had to write me about it.

Exactly. Like I said, DMCA is US law not inspired by WIPO, and French law has no impact in the US. Your refusal to believe reality doesn't change that reality.

You are wrong, your making your statement's up, you haven't even looked at the texts of either the treaties or the DMCA law and your ignorance does not make you right. It doesn't make me wrong either. You can't substitute your own reality for the real thing because you decided to listen to others instead of learning about the stuff your talking about yourself. Here is a hint, look at the real deal and stay away from wikipedia and stay away from P2P sites that have an agenda concerning the DMCA when looking for the information.

Re:Juristiction?

[gavron]

Your[sic] repeating yourself but it doesn't make you right.

I guess we read simple English differently.

You think that foreign law has effect and jurisdiction here. I don't.

You think that a statute here is "caused by" foreign laws. I don't.

You're repeating yourself. I'm not needing to. You can't convince the prejudged ignorant.

Have a nice day :)

E

Re:Juristiction?

[Xenographic]

I think you're thinking of Mary Bono (who took over Sonny's Senate seat). Sonny Bono died in a skiing accident. Though Wikipedia claims that someone said Sonny wanted unconstitutional, eternal copyrights. So go figure.

Re:Juristiction?

[lpq]

You really need to look past your ignorance. The DMCA was required by WIPO treaty and as an extension to part of the berne convention as changed to allow the US to ratify it (which BTW, caused the copyright extensions).

---

And what part of the constitution requires congress to pass laws to enforce treaties unilaterally created by the president?
Seems like that would override the normal constitutional protections in our society. While the president can negotiate treaties with foreign powers, does the constitution specify how treaties must be enforced on the people? Which comes first? Constitutional sovereignty or treaty obligations?

 

Re:Juristiction?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

"Just ask the Soviets how they treated people from other countries when they were a superpower. It's just human nature and all that. "

I do not need to ask. I have lived through it. And I personally had trouble because of it. Thanks for the offer, though.

Re:Juristiction?

[thunderclap]

Solution: IP geolocation for sourceforge blocking. And a nice note stating that once French govt gets its head out of its ass, the site will be unblocked to them.

Re:Juristiction?

[sumdumass]

Like I said, take a damn highschool civic's class then get back to me. This is elementry stuff. The laws were made because of the treaty. Yes, check the constitution out, it provides for that. The treaty- that the constitution says is the highest law of the land besides it and laws congress makes, say that when one country signed on to the treaty but doesn't adress an aspect with it, the law in the injurred country can prevail.

This doesn't mean that France is making US law, It means that a treaty has obligated us to follow a specific rule made within the treaty. When we violate that rule, we have to follow what the treaty says, which in this case would be that if we don't have the law, France can prosecute our citizens if the offense breaks one of the rules of the treaty.

You see, if you would have paid attention in your civics call, you would know that a Treaty that is ratified by the Congress and signed by the President becomes law and the constitution holds this law as one of the highest laws of the land. Article 6 says "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;" Do you see where it says that the treaties will be the supreme law of the land? Do you see why you need to pay attention in school?

Now do as I say and go learn something before you make more of an ass out of yourself.

Re:Juristiction?

[sumdumass]

BTW, this is not a "I think" situation. The constitution of the United State is not a relative document that applies some times and not others depending on how you think it might. You can't just make shit up and think your right, you have to look at see if you are. If that is too hard for you, then I suggest not engaging in discussion that you not willing to put any effort into. And I suggest not attempting to correct people that are obviously your intellectual superior. And yes, that's saying something when Sumdumass makes that statement.

Re:Juristiction?

[gavron]

Shhh. Adults are talking. E

Re:Juristiction?

[gavron]

Shh. Adults are talking. E

Re:Juristiction?

[sumdumass]

Are you repeating what someone just told you? Or are you taking your quasi trolling to the next level? I mean if you really think I'm wrong, you can actually point to where I'm wrong, if you know so much, it would probably be easier then reading the stuff I told you to read. My guess is that you can't so your just avoiding it.

Tell me, do you cry at night for no reason? I mean your awful cocksure about being wrong but you don't have the balls or fortitude to actually learn where your wrong at. If you would have taken the ten minutes.. Well, It took me ten minutes, it might take your an hour or so, to read the treaties and the DMCA, apply what you learned to a little common sense and a basic understanding of the constitution, you would know that your completely wrong.

Oh, I get it, you do know your wrong and your attempting to back out without looking bad to you make comments about nothing.. I get it, you can exit now, I don't care.

Re:Juristiction?

[djmurdoch]

You can repeat this as often as you like, but it's just not true. The US ratified the WCT *after* passing the DMCA, not before. It had signed the treaty before, indicating non-binding support for it, but it had not ratified it, so it was not obligated to do anything.

And take the language in Article 11 of the WCT. It says

Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.

Yes, this requires some sort of protection of DRM, but the DMCA goes far further. Look at the last four words: "or permitted by law". That means that fair use could trump DRM, but in the DMCA, it does not. There's nothing there to prohibit software that breaks DRM, but the DMCA does that.

The US didn't need to do *anything* until it had ratified the WCT, but instead it chose to go far beyond the requirements of the treaty. Don't blame others for your bad decisions.

Re:Juristiction?

[Syberz]

Before flipping out on whether or not French courts have jurisdiction, I'd ask whether or not this even makes sense in the first place.

Why aren't they suing car companies? People use their products to kill, hurt and maim frequently.

Why aren't they suing weapon manufacturers? People use their products to kill, hurt and maim frequently.

Oh, that's right... nobody important is losing money, there's the state and victim who have to pay healthcare costs and the family who have to pay for a funeral but they might have insurance for this.

Re:Juristiction?

[alecwood]

Ah yes, but they can,




and do

Re:Juristiction?

[sumdumass]

You can repeat this as often as you like, but it's just not true. The US ratified the WCT *after* passing the DMCA, not before. It had signed the treaty before, indicating non-binding support for it, but it had not ratified it, so it was not obligated to do anything.

Common, the slightest bit of reference on your part could have avoided this. Even Wikipedia has us listed as being bound by the WIPO treaties in 1996 where the DMCA was in 1998. The two WIPO treaties (and yes, 2 of them, not just the copyright treaty) were employed and discussed in 1996, congress ratified it on October 21 1998. (look up treaty # 105-17 at http://thomas.loc.gov/home/treaties/treaties.html ) The DMCA was signed into law on October 28 1998. It isn't uncommon to make the laws concerning the treaties as the treaties are being considered because most of the times the treaties specify the law that is required as well as goes through the same discussion as to why provisions of the treaties are valid or not just the same as provisions of laws. It is obvious that we were passing the law for the treaty and technically, when we ratified the treaty before the law was actually law... Well, I should have to go on.

Yes, this requires some sort of protection of DRM, but the DMCA goes far further. Look at the last four words: "or permitted by law". That means that fair use could trump DRM, but in the DMCA, it does not. There's nothing there to prohibit software that breaks DRM, but the DMCA does that.

This isn't a trick question but what do you think the words pertaining to "this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts" actually mean. Here is a hint, Two other treaties have created a set laws or the obligations for laws in which must be followed. If you would look at the Performances and Phonographs treaty, the WPPT, Tou will find the clause under sections 18 that says

Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by performers or producers of phonograms in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty and that restrict acts, in respect of their performances or phonograms, which are not authorized by the performers or the producers of phonograms concerned or permitted by law.

Now I will admit that the US law goes a little further and carries the effective technological measures anti circumvention into more then performances and audio/video recordings to all covered copyrighted works but it isn't like it is totally unfounded. You have to remember, the DMCA was the result of not just the copyright treaty but the Performances and phonograhs treay too. The short title of the law is actually, `WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act of 1998': I don't really know how long that link will be available ( I have seen links to Thomas.loc.gov last while some break within a day) so if it doesn't show up, just look for H.R.2281.

The US didn't need to do *anything* until it had ratified the WCT, but instead it chose to go far beyond the requirements of the treaty. Don't blame others for your bad decisions.

Lol.. You know, often you don't have to stop for a red light until you reach the intersection. But the reality is that when people know something is inevitable, they will prepare for it somewhere along the way so it is viable at the time it is necessary. Sure, some don't, but some do. Both WIPO treaties were going to pass ratification. The DMCA wasn't created in isolation of the WIPO treaties, it was created in tandem with it. If you look at th

Re:Juristiction?

[djmurdoch]

Common, the slightest bit of reference on your part could have avoided this. Even Wikipedia has us listed as being bound by the WIPO treaties in 1996 where the DMCA was in 1998. The two WIPO treaties (and yes, 2 of them, not just the copyright treaty) were employed and discussed in 1996, congress ratified it on October 21 1998.

You are not bound by it until you ratify it. So you were bound by it as of Oct 21, 1998.

Sorry I got the date the DMCA was passed wrong: it was introduced long before you were required to introduce it, but it wasn't passed until after the ratification.

Tou will find the clause under sections 18 that says...

That paragraph also ends with "or permitted by law". There is no obligation to prevent fair use. There is no obligation to prevent any legal use.

Two quotes from your message. I hope I haven't left out any important context, but I don't want to quote your whole message:

But the reality is that when people know something is inevitable, they will prepare for it somewhere along the way so it is viable at the time it is necessary.

and

Make no mistake, the DMCA would have happened because of the WIPO treaties regardless of if we waited 20 years after their ratification or created the laws in parallel with the ratifications.

Now these are bizarre claims. I think you are claiming that the US had no choice but to ratify the treaty, so it was in effect bound by the treaty as soon as it signed it. But the whole point of ratification is this: there are no obligations on the country until their support for the treaty is ratified by the legislative bodies. Before ratifying a treaty, there is *no* obligation. The democratic institutions need to decide whether to ratify the treaty or not.

In the case of the WCT, only 68 countries have taken that second step and ratified it. The US and Japan are the biggest ones, no other members of the G8 have done so. Most of the 68 are small countries, presumably doing it to try to curry favour with the US. (Australia ratified to get a free trade agreement. Canada already had a free trade agreement, and hasn't ratified. I can't see any large European country that has ratified. China has, Russia hasn't. Etc.)

Re:Juristiction?

[sumdumass]

You are not bound by it until you ratify it. So you were bound by it as of Oct 21, 1998.

Sorry I got the date the DMCA was passed wrong: it was introduced long before you were required to introduce it, but it wasn't passed until after the ratification.

Damn dude, you don't need your car keys until your at your car but you often grab them before leaving the house. You often pull them from your pocket and get the door key ready before you get to the car. There is nothing insidious about getting a law ready that you know you will need before you actually need it. The WIPO treaties were created about 6 month to 1 year before the Fist DMCA law was introduced too. This doesn't by any means means that something else is at hand.

That paragraph also ends with "or permitted by law". There is no obligation to prevent fair use. There is no obligation to prevent any legal use.

Two quotes from your message. I hope I haven't left out any important context, but I don't want to quote your whole message:

You not taking the entire statement into context it was presented and with what your wanting to claim. You suggested that the anti-circumvention clause in the DMCA didn't need to be there because of the wording in section 11 of the one treaty. The other treaty in section 18 says it does. The permitted by law is talking about actions against the copyright as afforded by laws. In other words, fair use as described the library of congress. It doesn't mean that the treaty allows the anti-circumvention tech to exist except in narrowly defined situations. The rest of the treaty defines what protections there are and those are the exceptions by law.

As for fair use, the library of congress keeps lists that were submitted by the copyright or the patent office which declares what fair use under the DMCA law is. I'm pretty sure that there are strict allowances directly related to those exceptions.

Now these are bizarre claims. I think you are claiming that the US had no choice but to ratify the treaty, so it was in effect bound by the treaty as soon as it signed it. But the whole point of ratification is this: there are no obligations on the country until their support for the treaty is ratified by the legislative bodies. Before ratifying a treaty, there is *no* obligation. The democratic institutions need to decide whether to ratify the treaty or not.

Lol.. Don't get the cart before the horse. What I was saying is that the US was planning on signing the treaty and the laws would have had to been created regardless of when they actually were. Like I already showed, the treaty was ratified first, then the law was passed. The treaty was created then the DMCA was submitted as a law to be passed. The original title of the DMCA was the WIPO treaties acts. The short titles still are. It does'nt matter that we weren't obligated to it technically until the treaty was ratified, we knew we were going to ratify it and we knew we needed the laws associated with it.

I don't know why that is such a difficult concept. If you know all the towels are dirty, do you do laundry before your completely out and needing one after a shower? Or do you do a load when you realize the last one was used? Does that somehow make you evil if you did the load before you had to do it because you knew you would need a clean towel eventually because you were planning on eventually taking another bath? I mean common, this isn't something out of the ordinary or some sinister plot. The congress was set on passing the treaty that the US was a part of negotiating which meant that they would need the laws it required.

In the case of the WCT, only 68 countries have taken that second step and ratified it. The US and Japan are the biggest ones, no other members of the G8 have done so. Most of the 68 are small countries, presumably doing it to try to curry favour

Re:Juristiction?

[badkarmadayaccount]

Not been to Thailand recently, have you?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Cool!

[zmollusc]

I hope they go after those evil, piracy-enabling, hard disk manufacturers next.

Re:Cool!

[Arimus]

No, they need to go after the evil people who produce the silcon used in chips, no wait - add the mining companies who mine the metals used, the oil companies for the oils used to make plastics, for producing the stuff in the first place for us to find it and (ab)use it.

Re:Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

and nasa for making the building block for the internet, without it there wouldnt be that much pirating eh...

Re:Cool!

[MrNaz]

You're not seeing the real force behind the evilness here. They need to sue monkeys for evolving into humans who would then go on to commit copyright infringement. Damn those tree-dwelling purveyors of immorality!

Re:Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

None of this would ever be possible without electricity.

Best sue the electric companys. It's ALL their fault.

Re:Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor. We're their distant cousins, not their children.

Re:Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean DARPA. Let them take on Pentagon and after that why not God who created the infringer...

Re:Cool!

[eddyk]

Already done. In France there is a special tax on hard disks (and CD, DVD,..) to pay for private copies ! (Even if you don't use your hard disk for music...)

Re:Cool!

[mrinvader]

they should ban methane, carbon, water, and electricity, precursors to those evil nasty pirates! VIVE L' REVOLUtION lolz

Re:Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

don't forget the record labels that produce the music enabling us to steal it

Re:Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

IE8
Firefox
Safari

All next...

Re:Cool!

[Gorgonzolanoid]

Absolutely! Who needs a terabyte of storage at home, if not for illegal purposes?
640K should be enough for anyone, even Gates already knew that in '81.

Re:Cool!

[sam0737]

Hell! they should sue the singers and artists! without them making those songs, we have nothing to pirate!

Or they should shoot their own foot! If there is no recording label, there will be no song published by recording label to be pirated!

Re:Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot.

Please don't post here anymore.

Re:Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

No. They didn't. Composers produce music. Record labels are merely parasites, unneeded middlemen.

Re:Cool!

[pipatron]

Obviously Al Gore is to blame for all of this.

Re:Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

This just reveals how poor the knowledge of everything open source, and of IT itself is among the french top-rankings. As a french citizen, I'm ashamed of that clueless, inquisitorial attack. I just hope the french judges (who are often as IT-ignorant, but more open-minded and impervious to big companies pressure) will realize how ridiculous the grounds of the complaint are.

Re:Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not seeing the real force behind the evilness here. They need to sue monkeys for evolving into humans who would then go on to commit copyright infringement. Damn those tree-dwelling purveyors of immorality!

The monkeys don't even need to evolve into humans. Given enough typewriters the monkeys would eventually infringe upon every single piece of copyrighted textual information.

Re:Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me but that's a stupid idea. Suppose they win, what will the compensation be? You can use only so many monkey butlers.

Re:Cool!

[AmonTheMetalhead]

This sadly also applies to Belgium, there's even a bloody 'piracy' tax on paper & printers for crying out loud. Bloody leeches

Re:Cool!

[Puls4r]

We're lucky Monkeys didn't patent opposable thumbs.

Re:Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

you could go a step further and sue the whole entertainment industry. If they wouldn't produce any content at all then it couldn't get "pirated"..

Re:Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well let's sue that distant ancestor then!!

Re:Cool!

[the_womble]

We're lucky Monkeys didn't patent opposable thumbs.

They did but kept it submarine: they just did not implement the idea, but waited for someone else to use it to sue.

Re:Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

What about going after the people/companies that hold content copyrights? Without their copyrights, there'd be no infringement! Enabling bastards!

Re:Cool!

[budgenator]

actually the original gramophone invented by Tom Edison was purely mechanical, and included both recording and playback.

Re:Cool!

[onefriedrice]

Humans are not distant cousins of monkies. God just used similar DNA for monkies and humans during creation. Being an engineer, He obviously knew perfectly the principle of reuse and not duplicating effort.

Re:Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

A 'piracy tax'... I interpret that as a tax for being able to pirate...

Re:Cool!

[Jorophose]

No silly, we're the descendants of retarted fish monkeys having buttsex with each other!

Re:Cool!

[Jorophose]

No u

Re:Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

...it's all GOD's fault, SUE HIM!!! (he made ,everything they say...)

Re:Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet, I propose we shut down the Internet, this piracy-enabling world-wide network!

Re:Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

retarted

Personally, I wouldn't be bandying that word around if I couldn't even spell it.

Re:Cool!

[redalertbulb]

FYI I think you mean Apes - but why stop there? I say go for the evolutionary jugular - the Amoebas. After all, 'pirates' are pond-life right?

Re:Cool!

[flape]

Same in Czech.

Re:Cool!

[thexile]

No way, go after God. After all he's the one who created human!!!

Wow

[Intrinsic]

The French Record Labels really want to go out of business with a bang. good riddance. they just upped the ante as now regular developers are going to be in opposition against them.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

You *do* realise "French Record Labels" include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivendi Universal, which is the only reason why France gets the full Hollywood-inspired shitty laws treatment nowadays.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Vivendi

Should be a better eye-opener

RIAF?

[Hillview]

Absurd Lawsuits 101: Professor Mitch Bainwol.... first students apparently need interpreters?

Re:RIAF?

[mpe]

Absurd Lawsuits 101: Professor Mitch Bainwol.... first students apparently need interpreters?

This weekend which country is ahead in this "sport" France or Germany?

Pricks

[kramulous]

This scares me a little. I mean, we should sue the gun makers because guns kill people. We should sue the ore miners because they produce the steel that is used in the guns.

If the French have such a problem with P2P why don't they just block it at the ISP level? Why go after the FOSS developers who just write a program? Because you can't possibly blame the citizens who breach copyright.

This is coming from a country that were happy to set off nukes in the pacific because they didn't what to bow to international pressure. Pricks.

Re:Pricks

[Tubal-Cain]

If the French have such a problem with P2P why don't they just block it at the ISP level?

Maybe they couldn't get away with blocking all p2p content (just copyrighted stuff), and since they can't identify a copyrighted file by the small chunks that are sent, they need to block it at the application layer

FTA:

Recent French legislation which inspired the labels to go after the P2P companies, suggests that all P2P applications must have a feature to block the transfer of unauthorized copyright works. The clients that are sued by SPFF obviously donâ(TM)t have such a feature. In fact, it is questionable whether it would be technically possible to develop such a filter. Nevertheless, SPFF demands it, and is claiming millions of dollars in damages for lost revenue.

Re:Pricks

[KDR_11k]

Meh, just specify that all copyrighted works must be flagged with the Evil Bit.

Re:Pricks

[Spillman]

From sourceforge's TOS:

COMPANY offers online resources for open source software development and content creation on SourceForge.net, including communications tools, source code version control, project management tools, online forums, personalized content, a donation system, branded programming, and a beta version of a marketplace


Um, seriously, what the hell!?

I mean, really. who in their right mind comes up with this shit. Can you imagine some well-paid guys sitting at a conference table saying, "Well, we're running out of people to sue. Oh, I got it, why don't we waste some more money and sue the company thats hosts all these projects, that'll shut them all down in one fell stroke. Genius, know we'll all get nice bonuses this year! haHA!"

What on earth are these people smoking? Obviously, they should be targeting Intel and AMD, if it weren't for their processors none of this would be happening. Or maybe take on the US government, for coming up with DARPAnet!

Re:Pricks

[javajawa]

Or maybe take on the US government, for coming up with DARPAnet!

Wasn't that Al Gore?

Re:Pricks

[kkiptum]

Or maybe take on the US government, for coming up with DARPAnet!

I'd go after the estates of Claude Shannon and Harry Nyquist . It was so much easier when everything was analogue!

Re:Pricks

[Walpurgiss]

If you can't get away with blocking all P2P traffic because it may block legitimate traffic, then how can you attempt to sue the companies making the programs that facilitate that P2P traffic that you can't block?

Having that initial premise of not being able to block all P2P proves the case that their software is not only for unlawful P2P, which in turn would make the same argument against blocking all P2P valid against persecuting the companies and sponsors of said P2P applications.

Re:Pricks

[master5o1]

This is coming from a country that were happy to set off nukes in the pacific because they didn't what to bow to international pressure. Pricks.

Not to mention blow up Greenpeace's boat in Auckland's harbour over the same matter, but that's getting a little off topic.

Re:Pricks

[sumdumass]

You can sort of make the accusation under the same thought concept that because most of the defibrillator machines work perfect and save lives, the ones that aren't used properly or malfunction and kill people shouldn't be pulled from the markets. In the same note, the sony laptop batteries that were bursting into flames should be left alone because when used properly, there wasn't a problem.

Now I know that seems ridiculous and off kilter but it isn't to far off. There is an aspect of responsibility for the use of a product even if it is unintended. Just look at all the warning labels on everything that are so obvious that you shouldn't need to see them. I mean a baby stroller has a label that says never collapse for storage with the child still in it, A ladder has the warning that the top step isn't a step (then why the hell is it there) and I have even seen one ladder that said never go higher then two thirds the total hieghth. I have a slow cooker that says never leave it unattended (like I'm going to sit there monitoring it for 12 hours while it cooks my roast). That being said, in most places, the liability extends to unintended use to lesser degrees when there are warnings about it. How this will be effected, I'm not sure.

Re:Pricks

[BESTouff]

If the French have such a problem with P2P why don't they just block it at the ISP level? Why go after the FOSS developers who just write a program? Because you can't possibly blame the citizens who breach copyright.

It's worse than that. We have just passed a law to stop internet access for citizens sharing a file.

For my part I'm happy they sued: I just hope the courts will be intelligent and just throw the case away.

Re:Pricks

[HuguesT]

Hello,

Actually the HADOPI proposed law, which I think is the one you are referring to, has only gone through French Senate for a first reading, but this only means the deputies' Assembly can now vote on it, which is scheduled for early 2009. Then assuming it goes through it must go back to the senate, then to the constitutional council and finally be published for it to become law.

HADOPI is a broad permission and obligation for ISPs to cut off internet access for a set time if users are caught sharing "illegally".

Already there are problems with this proposed law as it is contrary to European rights, in particular rights to access to communications. According to European principles, people cannot have their internet access cut off without a proper trial.

In addition I think technically it will not work as expected, and the results will be unmitigated disasters for all parties involved. I can't wait until deputies and senators have their internet access cut off by some automated script.

Re:Pricks

[Anonymous Coward]

If the French have such a problem with P2P why don't they just block it at the ISP level?

They tried, but hordes of people who weren't even affected whined about it on Slashdot. :P

On a more serious note, how is this different from the MAFIAA suing just about everyone in the USA? Not just P2P companies (from Napster to eDonkey to Grokster to Morpheus), but also BitTorrent trackers, websites, and - most importantly - users. I don't mean to say it's not bad, but your feigned indignation really is looking a bit silly. It's business as usual - just in another country now.

(Also, what have nukes got to do with it? Not that the USA out of all countries should even talk about nukes, anyway...)

Re:Pricks

[kramulous]

Nice assumption with the American citizen thing, but wrong.

I'm not going to bother pointing out the difference between suing P2P proliferation companies/organisations and Sourceforge. If you can't see it now you never will and would be a waste of time and effort.

The nuke comment was valid, beit a stretch. It's the whole disrespect for others. Your countrymen only make right decisions never wrong ones, just what is happening here. Those that breach copyright shouldn't be held responsible, it's the fault of the companies that provide the means.

Your irradiated coconuts are washing up on our shores. Clean up your shit! At least you tested as far from the mother country as possible.

Re:Pricks

[ion.simon.c]

You can sort of make the accusation under the same thought concept that because most of the defibrillator machines work perfect and save lives, the ones that aren't used properly or malfunction and kill people shouldn't be pulled from the markets.

Now I know that seems ridiculous and off kilter but it isn't to far off.

Lemmy see if I understand this.
An automated system that detects infringing uses of works protected by copyright within arbitrary input data is just about as hard as creating a defib machine and user's manual that doesn't kill people to death?

A ladder has the warning that the top step isn't a step (then why the hell is it there)

You can figure that one out, I'm sure.

Re:Pricks

[andr386]

"I mean, we should sue the gun makers because guns kill people." ? It's an insightfull question to ask. When most of your production is finally found out in illegal warfares troughout the world. If you know it, aren't you also responsible ? This would be using the law in the correct direction, using the law to defend the weakest. Whereas in the case of P2P we see strong corporate entities that sue weak targets with the laws they lobbied to be created.

Re:Pricks

[the_womble]

I can't wait until deputies and senators have their internet access cut off by some automated script.

Exactly what I thought. Malware with a P2P client that just downloads a whole lot of material whose copyright is owned by someone litigious. Of course the same could be done with "material useful to terrorists" in Britain, or with child porn anywhere, but this is far more likely to get work because there are well funded people looking for downloaders.

The reason it might not happen is that there is not actual motive for anyone to do it apart from pure malice - i.e. no money in it.

Re:Pricks

[sumdumass]

Lemmy see if I understand this.
An automated system that detects infringing uses of works protected by copyright within arbitrary input data is just about as hard as creating a defib machine and user's manual that doesn't kill people to death?

evidently not, The parent said

If you can't get away with blocking all P2P traffic because it may block legitimate traffic, then how can you attempt to sue the companies making the programs that facilitate that P2P traffic that you can't block?

And I responded with the premise of product liability which basically says that you aren't absolved from liability just because someone used something in a way that wasn't intended or that someone purposely distributing a flawed product could be held liable for it's misuse even if they aren't the creators of that product. The defibrillator machines was just an example just as the results in injury or death was too. I'm sorry that was over your head or I wasn't clear enough for you.

You can figure that one out, I'm sure.

Lol.. Of course the answer is to put something besides a step there. I mean it isn't hard to figure out.

Re:Pricks

[bahstid]

A little aghast as to the fact that you got an insightful mod for this.

This scares me a little. I mean, we should sue the gun makers because guns kill people. We should sue the ore miners because they produce the steel that is used in the guns.

Yes, I agree 100%

But

If the French have such a problem with P2P why don't they just block it at the ISP level? Why go after the FOSS developers who just write a program? Because you can't possibly blame the citizens who breach copyright.

How do you get to equate "French Record Companies" with "the French"? For the next story about RIAA shenanigans, are we all supposed to come troll about "the Americans" being nuts.

This is coming from a country that were happy to set off nukes in the pacific because they didn't what to bow to international pressure. Pricks.

Yes? Nuclear tests bring me no joy either, but do we get get to rant about Hiroshima on RIAA threads??? wtf? or considering your barb about international pressure, are you trying to tell us that almost 100000 civilian deaths are somehow connected to the RIAA, or even most of "the Americans"???

Re:Pricks

[ion.simon.c]

or that someone purposely distributing a flawed product could be held liable for it's misuse even if they aren't the creators of that product.

Except that -in this case- the product is not flawed. It is working exactly as intended.
WRT liability:
An author or distributor of P2P software is no more liable for acts of copyright infringement than a gun manufacturer is for acts of homicide.

Re:Pricks

[sumdumass]

Well, that's something the courts will have to figure out.

BTW, I hear this idea that P2P makers and gun makers are on some equal grounds. I don't think many people remember the 1990's when some gun manufacturers were taken to court and lost because they marketed cheap guns in low income areas where the claim of selling them for crime was supported by a licensed dealer's actions. It is part of the reason Winchester Arms was in such a bad position that they ended going out of business when Walmart backed out of their deal. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about suing gun manufacturers for the illegal uses of their guns, I'm talking about the case that started those lawsuits that said the way the weapon was marketed could be taken back to the manufacturers if they control the distribution. The case was actually lost because a gun store was suggesting to patrons that they should get a gun and take the law into their own hands and because the manufacturer controlled the distribution channels, they were/could be liable to.

Re:Pricks

[janrinok]

Er, I understand the point you're trying to make, but didn't France set of nuclear weapons on French territory just as the US has set of nuclear weapons on its territory? And if you want to argue that France has no real claim to territory in the Pacific, I would welcome your explanation reference a certain part of Cuba that the US lays claim to.

Re:Pricks

[nurb432]

Thy already sue gun makers for the improper use of their products. They don't "win", but they can shut down smaller shops due to the legal expenses so they accomplish the goal.

In theory, the the *aa's could shut down source forge the same way.

SHutting down P2P traffic isn't the answer. I just got the latest FreeBSD ISO via torrent. If you shut down one protocol due to that concept the entire thing has to go.

Re:Pricks

[budgenator]

obviously if they gave everyone a copy of every copyrighted work, we could use those to compare any downloads against and we could avoid unauthorised downloads of copyrighted material!

Re:Pricks

[russotto]

And if you want to argue that France has no real claim to territory in the Pacific, I would welcome your explanation reference a certain part of Cuba that the US lays claim to.

That's not claimed. That's leased. From a prior Cuban administration, granted, but leased nevertheless.

Re:Pricks

[recrudescence]

No no! Sue the company that makes the shovels the ore miners use to produce the steel tha makes the guns that kill people! That will teach those bastards ...

Re:Pricks

[Anonymous Coward]

How this will be effected, I'm not sure.

"affected".

Re:Pricks

[kramulous]

Yeah, I think shutting down P2P traffic would be a horrific mistake as well. It's afterall how I get my distros as well. My 'solution' would be the French ISPs shutting down P2P. Then wait for the French public backlash at such a motion.

Overlord?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

What happened to the overlord description of the relationship between Slashdot and sourceforge? Is that an editorial change directed by legal to lessen the perceived value of the cooperation to reduce any potential monetary judgment against the firm?

Re:Overlord?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a conspiracy involving CmdrTaco, CowboyNeal, SourceForge, the French government and the Illuminati. I'd tell you more, but I've probably said too much already.

Posted AC for the obvious reasons.

Re:Overlord?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Yes. Yes of course... It, it all makes sense now! The single user that has posted the most comments on slashdot: Anonymous Coward!. He's involved in this. No, wait, he is this! This whole "conspiracy" is just one of his mind games to increase ad revenue and developer mind share. No one is really suing Sourceforge, except Sourceforge itself!. Also the french nation is a proxy for Sourceforge. Their crazy laws are just more of his humor. Like troll here on slashdot, but funnier because it actually effects people's lives.

Re:Overlord?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only a lawyer would notice something like that, and we don't take kindly to your type 'round here.

Re:Overlord?

[Anonymous Coward]

Posted AC for the obvious reasons.

Yes. Because you also want to mod this discussion :)

Re:Overlord?

[Anonymous Coward]

The single user that has posted the most comments on slashdot: Anonymous Coward!. He's involved in this. No, wait, he is this!

Oh, shit. They're on to me!

Re:Overlord?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eventually I, Anonymous coward will prevail since I am just as well one of us as I am all of us.

I am anonymous, the voice of people saying what they REALLY think, without bothering about thinking of the concequences.

Enlightenment?

[imroy]

Once again the Enightenment category/icon is misused on a Slashdot story.

I guess it goes to show how long Slashdot has been around, that it has a category for the Enlightenment window manager. And how certain software packages can come and go. But I hear that E is being used on mobile phones now...

Re:Enlightenment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us still use E. It isn't always necessary to have a bunch of useless crap cluttering up the screen.

It doesn't have to go on the cart if it doesn't want.

Re:Enlightenment?

[Osty]

Once again the Enightenment category/icon is misused on a Slashdot story.

Not Slashdot. KDawson. He's the only one who keeps using the category incorrectly.

Re:Enlightenment?

[Anonymous Coward]

While we are on this topic, why don't they have an Ubuntu category? There's a story every 3 days on average. Apple has at lease 3.

Re:Enlightenment?

[gzipped_tar]

kdawson has done this before! http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=202466&cid=16567804

Re:Enlightenment?

[Flammon]

No, that's the right icon. Enlightenment was written by Carsten Haitzler who used to work for SourceForge, Inc, formerly VA.. You better have a good reason for not knowing this or I'll report you to the low UID authorities for fraud.

Re:Enlightenment?

[Haeleth]

Some of us still use E. It isn't always necessary to have a bunch of useless crap cluttering up the screen.

Surely "useless crap cluttering up the screen" is practically the whole point of E? All those crazy chunky window decorations and stuff.

If you want minimalist, try *box, or ?wm, or even a suitably-configured Xfce.

Re:Enlightenment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Get enlightened yourself. Enlightenment was/is the project with project ID 1 at sourceforge, so it's somewhat acceptable to use the logo here.

Re:Enlightenment?

[Ant P.]

It isn't always necessary to have a bunch of useless crap cluttering up the screen.

You mean like... animated desktop backgrounds? And a taskbar that consumes as much vertical space as KDE4's?

That comparison's a bit outdated now, I'll admit. KDE's one is resizable.

Why stop with SourceForge

[isBandGeek()]

They should sue Google for not censoring results to sites that host P2P applications.

Then they should target ISPs for not blocking access to Google and all the other "infringing" sites.

And while they're at it, sue Slashdot for talking about this.

Re:Why stop with SourceForge

[Anonymous Coward]

[This post has been removed by the Church of the RIAA]

Re:Why stop with SourceForge

[Anonymous Coward]

They should sue the Internet.

Re:Why stop with SourceForge

[Anonymous Coward]

*Sue the creators and distributors of all programming languages with networking capabilities that don't provide libraries out of the box to easily filter copyrighted material.

*Sue Logitech and Microsoft for making keyboards that don't filter and/or report to police obvious piracy strings like "s**e**" or "DVDrip".

It is the future of the developed world that we're talking about. If ordinary people start to have access to all imaginable media without corporate filtering they might begin to slowly develop individual taste or, God help us, individual and independent thought.

Re:Why stop with SourceForge

[Anonymous Coward]

Next: French sue the English Language for letting P2P developers express and exchange infringement-enabling ideas.

Re:Why stop with SourceForge

[Walpurgiss]

Of course! Printers already are programmed to not print US legal tender, and to include identifiable codes in all things printed for tracebacks, why can't keyboards and mice be made to refuse input of anything covered by copyright?

Re:Why stop with SourceForge

[eddyk]

They should sue developpers of Skype which permits P2P file transfers...

Re:Why stop with SourceForge

[El_Muerte_TDS]

And while they're at it, sue Slashdot for talking about this.

/. is owned by SourceForge inc., so that's aready covered.

Re:Why stop with SourceForge

[sumdumass]

That would be practically impossible. Besides, typing Metallica isn't a copyright violation. What would you do if you have to write a report on the American revolutionary war and Revolution is a copyrighted song title, War is a copyrighted book titles, America is a copyrighted band name as well as a copyrighted self titled album, Founding fathers, patriots, king, and most other words you would use are copyrighted songs, books, movies, or covered somehow somewhere by a copyright.

If you forced a keyboard to ignore any input that could be considered copyrighted, you would effectivly loose the ability to do the majority of the stuff a computer can do.

Re:Why stop with SourceForge

[DMalic]

Sure, and neither is excerpting part of a movie for use in a school project. However, if that movie is on a DVD, the studio has chosen to disallow such an action, and that is why it is against the law to take advantage of fair use in this instance. You can't just do whatever you want without regard to the consequences. Considering this, I don't see anything out of the ordinary with common-sense limitations on pirates. Besides - people shouldn't be able to just type the name of the band in question without paying them anyway.

Re:Why stop with SourceForge

[legirons]

Just print the symbol onto your song...

Re:Why stop with SourceForge

[sumdumass]

Well, no. If the part of the movie is fair use, the copyright owner can't really do anything. Now I think you alluding to the encryption on the DVD or something, well, that wouldn't really work either because you can always screen capture and so on which isn't efforts to defeat copy protection.

They could try to take you to task, but it doesn't mean they would win of anything.

Re:Why stop with SourceForge

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention all network equipment makers and companies making Cat-5/6/Fibre cables because they allow their cables to be used for copyright infringement activities.

DOS

[BountyX]

It'd be nice if they sued my isp, at&t, for me dos'ing them.

This can only end in...

[Anonymous Coward]

surrender! Ha!

In other news...

[mongoose(!no)]

The French have decided to ban the Enlightenment, and all related materials, including the open source desktop environment.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_(window_manager)

Re:In other news...

[alayah]

thats why im not french.

One problem....

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the popularity of French music the final award was $1.20 including $1 in punitive damages.

Those French lawyers...

[Jane Q. Public]

... must have learned to drive in French tanks. Why else would they always be doing things backward?

Re:Those French lawyers...

[4D6963]

French tanks? Oh you mean the tanks we bought to Belgium and imported, around the Maginot line?

Re:And Blame Microsoft in...

[retech]

Ok, but just out of boredom. I can easily see Balmer shouting: "développeurs, développeurs, développeurs!"

Re:Good luck ..

[Hansu]

If US won't do as we tell you, we mobilize our mighty war machines and invade your puny little country. Just like we did with.. ehm... just like... umm...

Ahem, never mind.

Natural progression.

[WK2]

This is just natural progression. Application developers, web hosts, ISPs, and then HDD and computer manufacturers. The RIAA and clones would love for all computers to be mandatorily locked down.

They sort of deserve it.

[alayah]

I love filesharing, hooray for being cheap! However, they have taken sharp turns for the worst as far as quality as time has gone on. I like dback when Kazaa was still good, but now they sort of deserve it. I don't think they'll ever succeed, but we'll find out. Organizations this big don't go down easy though.

Re:They sort of deserve it.

[Keeper Of Keys]

Soulseek FTW!

Step 1...

[Punker22]

French lawyer thought process:

Step 1. - Announce and begin the process of suing a company completely devoid of responsibility for illegal file sharing.

Step 2. - ??

Step 3. - Profit.

Step 4. - Buy lots of smelly cheese and cigarettes!

Re:Step 1...

[Ash-Fox]

Step 4. - Buy lots of smelly cheese and cigarettes!

Good evening, Gentlemen!

Long story short...

[Anonymous Coward]

The French courts ruled that the French record labels have the legal right to make stupid lawsuits. Duh.

It does not mean that the French court system agrees that SourceForge should be tried, it does not mean that SourceForge will be found guilty, and it does not mean that even if they ARE found guilty that it would actually mean anything. (Good luck trying to enforce a ruling made in France, over a company not there.)

My guess is that the French courts are rolling their eyes over the thought of having to hear these cases out. They basically said "yes yes, technically you're right, we have to hear these cases too, however stupid they may be. "

Re:Long story short...

[Repossessed]

While France could not force sourceforge into anything, I believe the courts there do have the ability to get itr (and the places it overlords, like /.) banned in France.

Re:Long story short...

[badkarmadayaccount]

That's a hair short from cutting France off from the rest of the world, you know?

Potential

[jandersen]

... for hosting a application that can potentially infringe,...

This seems to have some interesting ramifications. Are we going to see criminal cases against utility companies for providing water, electricity and gas? All are potentiall murder weapons, much more serious than taking away income from a bunch of useless parasites, wouldn't you agree?

Re:Good luck ..

[Walpurgiss]

I believe the territory you are looking for is most of Europe.

Of course, that was quite some time ago, only 30 years or so after the US became a separate country.

Why not go after weapons manufacturer?

[mach1980]

So why aren't they suing weapons manufacturer making handguns or assault rifles. Their products have a sole purpose - killing people...

Oh, i forgot. Downloading is EXACTLY as killing people - according to RIAA anyways..

Re:Why not go after weapons manufacturer?

[Weedlekin]

"So why aren't they suing weapons manufacturer making handguns or assault rifles. Their products have a sole purpose - killing people"

It probably has something to do with the fact that gun ownership is strictly regulated in France. The only categories of firearms that are freely sold are hunting rifles and shotguns, neither of which are designed to kill people.

Re:Why not go after weapons manufacturer?

[Dutch Gun]

It probably has something to do with the fact that gun ownership is strictly regulated in France. The only categories of firearms that are freely sold are hunting rifles and shotguns, neither of which are designed to kill people.

Actually, it seems like "shotgun" describes this legal technique pretty well.

Re:Why not go after weapons manufacturer?

[Weedlekin]

I gladly concede to your excellent riposte, sir.

Re:Why not go after weapons manufacturer?

[tebee]

Are not hunting rifles not designed to kill things like deer and wild boar?

I would of thought they would be equally effective at killing another creature of similar size, say a person?

I certainly don't intend to test this hypothesis by standing in front of the business end of one in the near future.

Re:Why not go after weapons manufacturer?

[Weedlekin]

"Are not hunting rifles not designed to kill things like deer and wild boar?"

It depends on the hunting rifle. The ones that are (fairly) easy to buy in France are .22 calibre bolt action rifles, and the easy-to-obtain ammo is fairly low velocity. Weapons like these are OK for hunting rabbits and similarly small creatures, not deer, and certainly not wild boar, who are ill-tempered and dangerous at the best of times, let alone when annoyed by being shot at.

"I would of thought they would be equally effective at killing another creature of similar size, say a person? "

You _might_ kill a person with one if you were really, really good with it, but a recent incident in France when some youths shot at police with them resulted in one slightly injured leg and some small dents in the sides of police cars (which aren't armoured), so they're not much more dangerous than the .22 "hunting" air rifles that I had as a kid in the UK during the 1960s, which were capable of taking an eye out, but not much more than that on a human-sized target.

"I certainly don't intend to test this hypothesis by standing in front of the business end of one in the near future."

I reckon you'd be OK if you were wearing some thick clothes as long as you didn't get hit in the face and were a reasonable distance from it. The same is true of shotguns when firing bird-shot, which can be very nasty at close range, but both spreads out and loses velocity pretty quickly with distance. Neither is intended for killing animals weighing more than a couple of pounds, so while both are capable of doing so under specific sets of circumstances, they're not designed or sold for that purpose, and aren't at all well suited to it without applying for (and being granted) a license to buy and use more lethal types of ammunition. That same license would also allow you to buy much more dangerous sorts of guns as well, so anybody who wanted to use a firearm to kill a human would be unlikely to choose one of these little rifles or a shotgun when they can legally buy something that's far more likely to have the desired result.

What will happen?

[w0mprat]

So the french MafRIAA think they are merely suing a software download host?

What they are doing is prodding the FOSS community in the ribs with a stick, which is likely to make it angry. This is not a good idea.

Re:What will happen?

[ZXDunny]

Why is that a bad idea? What are the FOSS community likely to do?

Re:What will happen?

[corychristison]

hehe, MafRIAA.

Re:What will happen?

[budgenator]

how about
1. placing the desired file inside a carrier file and naming the Carrier File the MD5 sum of the payload, which would make it lees than trivial for the RIAA to ID copyrighted files.
2. a mechanism that obfuscated shared files by changing known bit to change the checksums and have every download different, again making it less than trivial for the RIAA to Id copyrighted files.
3. a compression technique that insured that the complete file has to be downloaded before any of it can be uncompressed, so they have to burn some bandwidth to make a case.
and all of that was just off the top of my head.

Slashdot is going DOWN !!

[Anonymous Coward]

and not the good going down !!

Reap what you sow !!

It's in the bible (GALATIANS 6: 7-9) and it has so been foretold !! You are doomed as are all who read these pages !! Repent !! Repent !!

or you'll all be going down - TO HELL !!

Re:Slashdot is going DOWN !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing is going to happen to Slashdot. Try reading your Bible more carefully...

Jesus answered, "My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom belonged to this world, my servants would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But for now my kingdom is not from here." --John 18:36

If you wish to reap the Spiritual rewards mentioned in Galatians, perhaps you should be expending your energy on your relationship with God rather than making unfounded predictions about the fate of a worldly institution.

p00p.

[Anonymous Coward]

the decision to go after SourceForge for hosting a application that can potentially infringe, is stretching credibility beyond all bounds.

I don't find they're stretching their credibility much. If they believe that the software in question is used primarily to infringe on copyright (and filesharing is used primarily for the sake of sharing copyrighted material), and sourceforge makes availible said applications, it would make sourceforge an accessory.

They're stupid if they go after end users, they're stupid if they go after the application devs, and they're stupid if they go after those hosting said applications. I doesn't compute. Disdain for copyright aside, infringing on it is still illegal, and all accessories to it share guilt.

Why even bother mention that sourceforge is an "open source development platform" It's irrelevent, and the suit has nothing to do with open source, this is just an (bad) attempt to pain it as such.

Why attack their credibility? If the people at SF believe the've done nothing wrong, and aren't supporting anythging illegal, then let them prove as much in court, instead of FUDing it up here.

Re:p00p.

[Anonymous Coward]

all accessories to it share guilt.

Sourceforge also host projects involved in network security tools, possession or distribution of which could be considered a crime in many countries. For example German laws over "hacking tools" are hopelessly broad and ill defined. The fact that network tools, programming tools, text editors, web browsers etc can be misused for criminal acts is irrelevant, it'd be foolish to persue a criminal case against distributors.

P2P software is used to share large amounts of data in a network efficient way, people using the tool to distribute copyright material to which they have no distribution rights is copyright infringement. HTTP, FTP, SMB, NFS, rsync, IRC... are vendors of software supporting these protocols in the crosshairs too?

computer and electric companies, etc

[_Shorty-dammit]

Why aren't they suing the computer and electric companies, too? The programs all need computers to run on. The computers all need electricity to run on. And how about suing the schools/books/etc where the programmers learned their programming skills? Obviously they should be suing them, too. And the elementary schools and even their own parents for helping them learn to speak a language that allowed them to communicate in the first place. If they couldn't communicate, they wouldn't have been able to learn any of the skills they needed to write those programs. Evil song-stealing parents!

Stretching credibility? Not in France.

[Gorgonzolanoid]

In France, using encryption has long been illegal. I believe even SSL connections weren't allowed until the law changed in 1999.
So I wouldn't call this "stretching credibility", it's just on par for the course in that country where the government clearly doesn't have a clue about IT.

Worse, they're learning about IT - from the media mafia. For example, a year ago there were voices calling out for a complete internet ban for whoever is caught sharing a file, enforcing ISP's to act as police, attorney, jury and judge. Who came up with that idea? The IFPI. Who fell for it? The government.

Re:Good luck ..

[techno-vampire]

Yes. Thirty years after the US became a separate country with the help of France.

This must be handled in the French way!

[Heddahenrik]

Whenever a stupid (or actually it's mostly about a smart) law is passed in France, they start to block freeways and throw stuff at the ones responsible (and some others).

So now it's up to the French to DOS http://www.sppf.com/ and raise their voice!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Stretching credibility? Not in France.

[Gorgonzolanoid]

Sorry, the link I included didn't clearly illustrate what it was supposed to.
This one should be better (and it's "caught three times", not "caught").

the usa does plenty wrong in this world

[circletimessquare]

but when another country does something wrong in this world, guess what? you blame that country, not the usa

i know, this is some radical thinking i'm playing with over here

to actually suppose that there are, get this, other countries in this world and, i know, floor yourself, they have their own governments and make their own decisions, and aren't just cut out cardboard characters who simply reflect what the usa is doing

pretty far out stuff huh?

Re:the usa does plenty wrong in this world

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps if the US had not spent the last 8 years riding roughshod over human rights a basic legality
you might have a point. Then again the views of somone so shift key disabled are unlikely to be relevant I guess.

Re:the usa does plenty wrong in this world

[Haeleth]

Perhaps if the US had not spent the last 8 years riding roughshod over human rights a basic legality you might have a point.

So, to repeat your argument:

1. The USA has spent 8 years riding roughshod over human rights
2. ????
3. PROFI^H^H^H^H^H Therefore, the USA is to blame for every aspect of French law

I think you might want to work a little on filling that gap.

Re:the usa does plenty wrong in this world

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps if the US had not spent the last 8 years riding roughshod over human rights a basic legality
you might have a point. Then again the views of somone so shift key disabled are unlikely to be relevant I guess.

I SUPPOSE THAT HE'D BE MORE RELEVANT IF HE WERE TO KEEP HIS CAPS KEY DEPRESSED AT ALL TIMES?

Re:the usa does plenty wrong in this world

[ScrewMaster]

Perhaps if the US had not spent the last 8 years riding roughshod over human rights a basic legality you might have a point. Then again the views of somone so shift key disabled are unlikely to be relevant I guess.

I SUPPOSE THAT HE'D BE MORE RELEVANT IF HE WERE TO KEEP HIS CAPS KEY DEPRESSED AT ALL TIMES?

No. He'd just be louder, and I've noticed that the loudest people are often most irrelevant.

US outsouring juristiction

[PolygamousRanchKid]

The courts in the US are hopelessly backlogged. Maybe France could handle some petty US drug dealing and drunk driving cases, as well?

It would save the US courts time and money, and it might deter crime. Because a potential criminal knows that if caught, he will be defended by a court appointed french lawyer.

But going after SourceForge? That's "just not cricket." Or maybe a "faux pas."

Re:Stretching credibility? Not in France.

[wvmarle]

[...]enforcing ISP's to act as police, attorney, jury and judge.

And so much for the country that brought us the separation of powers.

It's a known FACT that ...

[Anonymous Coward]

guns are responsible for murder,
booze is responsible for drunk driving,
cars are responsible for traffic deaths,
owning a penis makes one a rapist,
having a vagina makes one a prostitute,
AND HELL YES, can't you see that Source Forge is responsible for Pirated Copyright Materials.
Please outlaw all things that will injure, give me a safe padded cell ... before something else might ... kill.

What's the deal with the French? We gave'em Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought all was cool, now that the One had arrived.

Re:Stretching credibility? Not in France.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It is also important to point out that it is "caught" with a piss-poor requirement for quality of evidence.

Problem is French lawmakers not having a clue

[loopkin]

The thing is the French political system is built only on ideas, not people (politicians). As such, there is right wing party, left wing party... but most of our politicians are professional bureaucrats (and the rest are professional politicians, often with a lawyer background). Very very few of our politicians have a clue on science (i mean physics, medicine, ...) in general, let alone IT.
All this gives a pretty one-sided view on a lot of problems, "culture"-related issues being one of them.
About these stupid laws TFA is referring to, the worst is yet to come: a new big law (nicknamed Hadopi) is about to pass, as well as new ISP rules (they want ISPs to filter everything, using such wonderful technologies as DNS blacklisting). And you know what, most of these topics are handled by our culture minister, which, as a job reference, is the former director of the Versailles Palace museum.
But the worst part is that they will sell the ideals of the French Revolution to pure incompetence, helped by our undemocratic mass media system.

Well, thanks god, everybody in France know that freedom and human rights problems are only in Iran, China, Russia and Guantanamo...

Vuze??:

[AgentKeech]

I thought that Vuze (formerly Azureus) was one of the better legally protected torrent programs. Considering they are legitimately trying to use the distributed hosting model I would hope they counter-sue for reputation damages. http://www.vuze.com/Terms.html

Frogs Hopping Mad...

[Anonymous Coward]

*ducks*

Re:Google has lots of money.

[Anonymous Coward]

Record companies only target those they perceive as being incapable of defending themselves

Then they just fucked up, Sourceforge probably doesn't even need to defend itself. I'm not simply talking about digital rights groups or the open source community (although FSF, Mozilla, Apache and Linux foundations should also be worried about the ramifications). For many of the companies who lobbied in support of DADVSI, a ruling against Sourceforge in this case would be the writing on the wall. Do you really think that Microsoft or Apple want to be criminally liable for users who transfer data without license?

Once again, they never learn.

[ZeWaren]

I'm French, and as usual my country is doing completely stupid things and is driving shame on me.

As usual, theses politicians don't have any idea about what they are talking about. Sueing sourceforge? I bet they don't even know what sourceforge is (there is a change they never went to the site either). Wait a few months for them to spoil some of the government money, and then they will find someone else to sue.

Yes, Enlightenment. Icon used correctly...

[Bazman]

kdawson is clearly referring to The Age of Enlightenment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

at which time various rights and entitlements of the common people were expressed. This move to prosecute p2p software writers is clearly an attack at the basic rights that were enshrined in law at that time. Kdawson is clearly a philosopher and post-renaissance man.

  Or he fucked up.

In Australia the filter owns you...

[alpha713]

pretty soon I won't have to know about Open Source anymore. SourceForge is at the top of the list of content to be blocked.

Re:In Australia the filter owns you...

[badkarmadayaccount]

WTF? Are you serious? THis is news to me. What pretext is the government using?

What friggin scares me

[Daimanta]

And what they can do is much much worse. They could try to hijack every DNS-request for sourceforge and redirect it to a french RIAA website. If they try to do that hard enough they could start a split in DNS and starting the end of the internet as we know it.

Re:What friggin scares me

[John Hasler]

Or they could end up with their own private French "Internet". This is all silly speculation, though. It won't come to that or even near it.

Re:What friggin scares me

[budgenator]

we'll just put sourceforge into our hosts file and catastrophe caused by the French weapon of mass destruction's is averted

Re:What friggin scares me

[rts008]

Perhaps we could build a large wooden badger?

Just because its illegal...

[Alterion]

one thing you need to understand about france is that an awfull LOT of things are illegal. France has a huge mollass of breaucratic rules and regulations on multiple levels that semed like good ideas at the time. However, the french attitude is generally to treat the non-classic criminal law as a inconvenience to be ignored or circumvented rather than as something to be respected - and the attitude of the authorities is generally to turn a blind eye

Re:Just because its illegal...

[domatic]

The problem with that is that France has a bushels of oft-overlooked laws that can be selectively enforced whenever they decide someone needs an extra-hard posterior reaming.

Whos next?

[Fredde87]

Whats next, are they going to sue the electricity companies for providing power to the people who make P2P software?

"Backdoor"

[Mathinker]

> It is rarely good when it is used to shove an unpopular law through your country's backdoor.

"Backdoor"? Is that what they're calling it now on Slashdot???

Re:"Backdoor"

[redxxx]

Well, there is way the american people could swallow a bill that awful.

I know just how to implament such a feature !

[tebee]

We need a feature to identify and block the transfer of copyright works? well how about this.....

We simply add a user settable tag to the file description to say whether the file is a copywrite protected work - if it's set on, refuse to copy it.

Well you may say, what if some naughty user didn't flag his files correctly? If the copyright holder finds he can download his works then all he needs to do is set the tag himself and he can rest safe in the knowledge that no one else will be able to download it - from his machine at least........

Re:I know just how to implament such a feature !

[RedK]

How would that work ? Ubuntu is a copyrighted work that contains many other copyrighted works in a bundle. You mean that you'd have to set the flag and then not be able to send the ISOs through BitTorrent ? I don't think Ubuntu would like not being able to use BitTorrent to distribute their own copyrighted work.

Liability and damage escalation

[Mathinker]

I think some of that has to do with juries awarding ridiculous damages to idiots via sympathy. A lot of those warnings are CYA (and required by the liability insurers). I have a suspicion that the average total damages awarded per year is less, possibly a lot less, in countries without jury trials.

Re:Liability and damage escalation

[sumdumass]

Well, the point was that there is usually a liability even when something is used in ways it wasn't intended for. Those warnings are proof of some idiot claiming he didn't know which cased the company to attempt to cover their ass. This same liability concept is also applied when you sell something that you didn't create but know was being used illegally. If I sell you a gun that I own, and you are old enough to own it without any restrictions, we havn't broken any laws. If I sell you the gun after you ask me where you can find a gun to kill someone, I have now became part of your crime. If I sell you a product knowing that the common use is illegal or unsafe, I can be liable to a point along with anything that happens from your use of that.

Suppose I make imitation fire extinguishers and make them so realistic that you think you can get buy saving a buck and using the fake one to be posted where the law requires them to be instead of the real deal. Now, if something happens and someone is injured (physically, finacially, or in any way)I can be just as liable as you are too. That's why when the parent said, how can they expect the manufacturer to be responsible from something they can't do when talking about stopping the program from being used in illegal ways.

The real culprits...

[Anonymous Coward]

What I want to know is when they're going to go after all these musicians for enabling piracy?

Not tax on hard disks

[Nicolas MONNET]

The tax doesn't apply to bulk hard disk, or PC HD. It only applies to removable media.
You have 2 ways of bypassing this nonsense:
1. Order in UK or Germany (yeah common market!)
2. Buy HD and enclosure separately

The *French* recording companies suing P2P apps?

[fgaliegue]

Just a question, has any of you ever downloaded any French music in your lifetime?

People can't be that stupid, can they?

Shooting themselves in the foot?

[slagish666]

I wonder how many IT departments in the French government use and even depend on non-p2p applications hosted on SourceForge.

Of course, no one listens to IT, heh, but if SourceForge were to forced to prohibit downloading by all French sites, including business and government, I'm sure the position of the government would change pretty quickly.

In related news

[gmuslera]

Smith&Wesson and Colt companies has been accused of murder, along with the cities where their factories are located.

Just France

[John Hasler]

From the article: "Perhaps it is even better to shut down the Internet entirely."

As Europeans are wont to say about the US, there is more to the Internet than France. I'd be sorry have to move my domains away from Gandi, but if the French want to leave the Internet they are free to do so.

Three strikes file sharing law nearly there

[horza]

The French Senate has already passed the law banning people from the Internet if they are caught sharing files with each other. It now just one final vote in the National Assembly before it becomes law.

Phillip.

French record labels?

[Anonymous Coward]

They must be desperate to drum up support/publicity for French music...

Seriously, when was the last time anyone pirated a French record/CD OUTSIDE of France? (Damn, forgot about those Canadians...)

They obviously must be targetting the foreign pirates, since their own country already supplies them with plenty of revenue via that little fee for hard disks/blanks sold. Or are they trying to have it both ways? Get revenue for being ripped off (and agreeing to it through a fee on blank media) and getting restitution by suing the companies making "rip-off technology". If so, this suit should be shot down, because I haven't seen a legit artist out of France for almost 20 years.

Re:French record labels?

[HermMunster]

This is the US RIAA using the French labels as a proxy.

Re:French record labels?

[assassinator42]

You do know the RIAA is just representing the labels, right? One of the big members (Universal Music) is owned by Vivendi, a French company. I can't tell if they're involved though, beyond creating the amendment that made this possible.

So, where are the price fixing lawsuits?

[zogger]

It is illegal for companies to collude to fix prices, to keep them artificially high, the recent LCD screen manufacturers article is an example. Digital copies of music and movies and so on can be made by the billions for relatively cheap. No matter their upfront cost, even if it is 100 million dollars or whatever, copies of that can still be produced for micropennies at most. So,where in the legal market are the really cheap digital copies for sale?

  It seems to be beyond obvious there is a "gentleman's agreement" across the entertainment industry, internationally, to keep prices artificially high, to maintain some vague "per unit" profit margin at the serious price gouging thousands of percent markup level, and extremely so for these contentious digital copies. When are all these governments going to address that, and where is a consumer advocate organization that would push for such investigations?

  Perhaps there wouldn't be so much alleged piracy if the market regulations were enforced across the board more fairly and consumers had a place to legally get a copy of some song for a penny or two, which is beyond what it would cost to have a server serve you a copy. Even a nickle a song would be more than adequate, this 99 cents or whatever for example at itunes is still outrageously high. Why haven't prices dropped right along with technological advances, like you expect to see in every single other industry?

  If they came out with the Mr. Fusion unit, and everyone knew that electric power was now ridiculously cheap to produce, would consumers still be forced to pay a dime to a quarter per kilowatt hour, just because that is what the electric companies used to get "per unit" pre Mr. Fusion?

Maybe we need a consumers "per megabyte" law, or define price gouging better, where there is a cap on how much some company can charge for transferring a megabyte of 1s and 0s, and that charge reflected technological and engineering reality, with a good enough profit margin, call it 100% markup over cost of serving. That would still be loads cheaper than what is out there now "legally", and what business could really argue that a 100% markup wasn't enough? And if that causes changes to the entire entertainment industry stack, well, too bad, that's the reality of technological change. Everyone else on the planet in every other possible form gets to deal with that as regards their job, so why are these entertainment people "special" and get to stay legally locked into mid 20th century pricing models, no matter engineering changes, at the point of the government's gun?

Re:So, where are the price fixing lawsuits?

[cdrguru]

Partly the problem is that no matter how cheap the copy might be to produce, the marginal cost of the copies times their projected sales needs to cover the cost of production plus some profit.

Today the number of sales is pretty low and getting lower. There are no more "100 million copies sold" records. The available audience for sales is the people without high speed Internet access and a few Catholics that can't stand the guilt. The rest download for free.

With this arrangement prices will be going up, not down. As sales drop you can expect the $1,000 CD that 10 people buy.

Re:So, where are the price fixing lawsuits?

[drspliff]

The Fairtrade Foundation is quite notable for it's efforts to ensure a fair deal for the producers of goods and a hope to end near slave-like conditions for (among others) coffee and rice farmers; aiming to end exploitation.

The "gentleman's agreement" you speak of is between the large record labels and the shops. It *is* price fixing, for the benefit of the record labels alone rather than the creators of the content. I see many parallels between this and the arguments between trading companies and the "creators" in the crop fields.

Many products already ensure a fair distribution between everybody in the chain or like many charitable or non-profit businesses do they show which percentage of your cost goes where (roughly speaking..)

One example I think could do with this are electronic books. The Amazon Kindle and other readers allow you to buy the same books which are in-store for the same price, but the product you receive is an intangible digital copy with none of the distribution of production costs of dead-tree books.

I'm not proposing that this sort of thing will prevent piracy, price fixing or dishonest companies flogging content to death for mo' monies. It's not as direct as enforcing maximum costs (which brings a whole heap of problems) but brings with it the benefits of transparency and a new level of ethics which is only just being seen with the "carbon neutral" thing.

Re:Good luck ..

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this modded insightful rather than off topic? The GP corrected the GGP's joke that France never had the military strength to trample over another country. Recap: GGP is still Funny. GP is still technically correct. You, P, also point out a fact, but it has nothing to do with this thread.

Mod's: had your morning coffee yet?

Wait, what?

[kevind23]

So what exactly is their case? You can sometimes use the programs to commit crimes?

With that logic, they must be suing everything.

Gotta hand it to Bram

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he hasn't cashed out yet but so far he has managed to remain King of P2P longer than anyone else without getting his ass sued.

LOL Limewire

[Anonymous Coward]

They are also being sued into oblivion by the RIAA.

When tools are outlawed

[nurb432]

We all become criminals.

Re:When tools are outlawed

[ScrewMaster]

We all become criminals.

Yes. And then someone comes up with better tools.

Symptoms of a bigger problem

[symbolset]

Copyright was created as a bridge between creators and the market to promote progress. It has mutated into a troll that prevents progress. Copyright is now a monster that must be slain.

Re:Symptoms of a bigger problem

[ScrewMaster]

Copyright was created as a bridge between creators and the market to promote progress. It has mutated into a troll that prevents progress. Copyright is now a monster that must be slain.

Well, there's not much question that the big media companies are little more than international rogue organizations. They're causing damage to legal systems, corporations and individuals around the world. At some point, there are going to have to be international treaties banning such "industry trade organizations", at least the kind that like to sue everyone and corrupt governments.

Re:Symptoms of a bigger problem

[Jaazaniah]

Copyright was created as a bridge between creators and the market to promote progress. It has mutated into a troll that prevents progress. Copyright is now a monster that must be slain.

Preaching to the choir here, though that is a great way to put the current situation. Too bad it will likely take quite a lot more abuse before it starts making sense to the rest of society.

Well, there's not much question that the big media companies are little more than international rogue organizations. They're causing damage to legal systems, corporations and individuals around the world. At some point, there are going to have to be international treaties banning such "industry trade organizations", at least the kind that like to sue everyone and corrupt governments.

A blanket ban isn't likely to even be mentioned from an official body, as union legal watchdogs would cry foul because it suddenly includes their organizations, and they would likely cite other big organizations that do good work such as ASPAC. However, some heavy hitters in US law have been showing signs of weary patience towards the RIAA's pursuits. What may end up happening is a revamping of legal structure to finally adjust to the culture, but it's still unlikely to make these sorts of actions completely legally impossible.

And as for what this really is, it's just an extension of cost/benefit analysis when applied to legal structure and power around the world, much like it was applied to labor laws and relative currency value that gave rise to sweat shops overseas. The problem with trying this sort of BS, is that it IS highly public, and if it goes sour, you can bet more than North American eyes in power will raise an eyebrow and wonder why it didn't work.

This is a good one, what's next Ping/Traceroute???

[sr8outtalotech]

Those applications are dual use so to speak. They can be used for both legal and illegal purposes. This is absolutely ridiculous. Most common every day items have illicit uses. What ever happened to personal responsibility. Take the common knife. It can be used for cutting food or committing an armed robbery. Does that mean some victim's rights group should be able to sue Wilkinson-Sword? The only winners in this situation are the lawyers who'll get a nice payday.

french govt being stupid again

[CHRONOSS2008]

already things like keygens and cracks come up as virii when they are not

i hold a big archive of many things and when i see a file thats 5 years old on a cdr
be told its a brand new virii i have issues.

Sony debacle proved this was an industry out of control and yet you all have forgotten that

Sourceforge, your sueing sourceforge.
EPIC FAIL. THe entire french country just declared war on something they cannot win against.

Spend you taxpayers dollars and ram your country into oblivion. Make sure you ask microsoft for your next govt OS at 200$ per computer.

GPL owners of software should all demand any french govt products in use be pulled.

Any linux based businesses pull out now.
leave them in the MS crap dust basin.
let them see the total cost of PWNEDERSHIP

Re:This is a good one, what's next Ping/Traceroute

[ScrewMaster]

Does that mean some victim's rights group should be able to sue Wilkinson-Sword?

It happens, and sometimes they win.

Re:Jurisdiction? (there, fixed that typo)

[Toll_Free]

And turning a blind eye to the fact that many, MANY countries also are either ratifying it, or taking it, is stupidity at it's finest.

Whether you like it or not, it is currently law, and needs to be enforced. Don't like it, revolutionize and get it tossed out of your country; And then live with the repurcussions, like lack of movies in your theaters and lack of selections of music in your stores.

Like it or not, the US will do what they need to so that US interests are protected. Don't like it, don't do business with them, speak with your wallet.

--Toll_Free

Re:Jurisdiction? (there, fixed that typo)

[djmurdoch]

Thanks for fixing the typo.

I'm Canadian. We have more or less the same movies and music available as in the USA, and no DMCA, though there have been a couple of attempts to pass one. (Canada signed the WCT, but has not ratified it). The Canada-US trading relationship is still the largest bilateral trading relationship in the world.

So the repercussions of not having a DMCA are at least not immediate.

Duncan

US citizens are safe

[arthurpaliden]

It does not matter the United States does not honor its international treaties any way. For example NAFTA, child labor and child combatant treaties.

Yahoo Vs. France

[ducomputergeek]

Didn't Yahoo go before the 9th circuit of appeals about 10 years ago and get a ruling that a US company need not know or comply with all the laws of other countries if they are operating a business out of the US and designed for a US audience?

Next target: Microsoft and Apple?

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

After all, both Windows and OS X allow users to share files across a network. Hmm ... French equivalent of the RIAA versus Microsoft. Who to root for?

Re:And Blame Microsoft in...

[QRDeNameland]

...while throwing a chaise lounge.

Re:The *French* recording companies suing P2P apps

[initialE]

I been there and trust me, the last thing you want to do is listen to "Da Vinci Claude".

bad example

[gravisan]

it's like suing a gun shop for selling guns! guns people!

Re:Jurisdiction? (there, fixed that typo)

[Toll_Free]

Not a problem.

I like Canaduh.... :) I enjoyed, when I drove a truck, coming up into the area. I also have quite a few friends in the ham radio hobby local to the Canadian area.

You have the same movies and music, but start letting TPB and other sites home in on your country (basing themselves there), and see how quickly that changes.

I, for one, welcome our equal trading partners.

--Toll_Free

Re:Next target: Microsoft and Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft. Everyone hates the French and joins against them.

sourceforge?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just fail to see what sf.net has to do with piracy.
They don't even have any ground to sue developers of P2P applications (which btw. don't provide links to pirated content themselves).

Will be interesting to track the progress of this funny and useless lawsuit.

Lehman? This guy wouldn't perhaps have brothers...

[refactored]

...that (were) in the financial field?

In which case, a few pennies may drop.

Who are the French Record Labels?

[3seas]

If we publicize who they are and in regards to this situation...... They will change their mind about going after sourceforge.

And this won't be the first time some companies have done an about face when presented with public perspective on such issues involving the public.... uh err their customers.

Re:Jurisdiction? (there, fixed that typo)

[mrbcs]

They've tried twice before and Harper won't give up yet. Hopefully the Liberals have more backbone this time and they shut down the dreaded C-61 since they are not afraid of voter repercussion.

The Conservative MINORITY government has been told loud and clear that Canadians are not interested in a version of the DMCA. They will try and ram it through to satisfy the Americans but this may become a moot point if the economy tanks big time. We may be selling more to China and Europe than America.

Re:Good luck ..

[Anonymous Coward]

I can just demand the news headline when the US tells the French to go take le jump...

"French demand Statue of Liberty be Returned" citing some tiny inscription in French on the bottom of the foot(*) of the statue that states: "...Allowing the French to do as they damn well please and on their whim for perpetuity, so there."

(*) Yes, a footnote, the French DO 'ave a sense of 'umour, you know.

Re:Good luck ..

[thunderclap]

those french died under napoleon. They never ressurected. French support the Confederates during the civil war. And we had to save them during but world wars. I often wonder how much of their culture would have survived had we not rescued them.

Soda can pipe

[tonto1992]

Does this mean that soda can manufacturers should stop making cans? I mean I can potentially use them to make a nice marijuana pipe when my friends forget to bring a bong.

Someone Call Microsoft!!

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA: "In essence they are saying that everything, or every application which allows a user to share files, will be indeed used for illegal purposes."

Has anyone notified Microsoft of this? What is 'File and Printer Sharing' for, after all?

AC

French company plans to sue Limewire and other p2p

[Mark Montgomery]

I run Limewire 24 hours a day and actively use it 2 to 3 hours a day to download between 1000 and 2000 images per day. None of these images are copyrighted, I get them from other user's shared folders. Why on earth would I allow some obnoxious french company to stick their nose into my business? My advice to Limewire and the other app creators: laugh at the french for their stupidity.

For those that came in late ....

[dbIII]

Let's try a different track. Consider the US copyright act of 1976. Now consider that the things you are blaming various European commitees for come from that and a few minor tweaks that have been proposed to the senate in 1992 and eventually passed with the thankfully watered down legagy of Sonny Bono (it was in the international news long before his death, and IMHO was bigger news). This was discussed for so many years that the death of the senator it was eventually named after is not the huge "gotcha" you are talking about but just another bit of a very long and painful process. Hence round 45 is not the start of a fight. Also blaming "Europe" for the thing because they are there at the finish is IMHO as unusual and incorrect as blaming the USA for WWII because they were there at the finish. To put things furthur into perspective there are portions of the DMCA that have not been implemented in European nations and probably never will be without some pressure from the USA. Australia only accepted after pressure from the USA and a bribe of a free trade agreement - and even then there are portions that were not implemented. I really do not understand how the point can have been missed so badly as to try to blame others for this US grown situation and think it is counterproductive because you don't need to involvement of other nations to get out of the mess. Those details mentioned above about various conventions are what I consider symptoms of process that started long ago and spread to Europe - it didn't come from there so I really do not understand the blame.

do you know the definition of Sovereignty or the rights of a sovereign nation/state?

Hence the reference to the international war crimes tribunal and Kyoto - the USA doesn't have to abide with a treaty that they do not agree to sign as shown by those two examples.

It is interesting that personal attacks continue when the writer knows absolutely nothing about the person replied to or whoever reads it. Perhaps it says something about the writer but more likely it says something about the quality of education and role models since many discussions devolve into such playground name-calling. I don't really care if it is patriotic to blame home grown and then exported problems on the French or whatever - I just think it is really silly.

Re:For those that came in late ....

[sumdumass]

Jesus Christ, do you know what collaboration means? It seems like you actually attempted to look at some things but you still failed to understand them or the concepts behind them.

Let's try a different track. Consider the US copyright act of 1976. Now consider that the things you are blaming various European commitees for come from that and a few minor tweaks that have been proposed to the senate in 1992 and eventually passed with the thankfully watered down legagy of Sonny Bono (it was in the international news long before his death, and IMHO was bigger news). This was discussed for so many years that the death of the senator it was eventually named after is not the huge "gotcha" you are talking about but just another bit of a very long and painful process. Hence round 45 is not the start of a fight.

OK, Read this carefully because I have lost my patience with this type of stuff. The copyright act of 1976 was a response to the UN's Universal Copyright Convention in which the US ratified in 1955 but failed to pass laws until the mid 70's. It also preempted state laws that were in some cases extending the copyright terms longer. We didn't pass the laws sooner because we were already in the Pan-American copyright convention which already had quite a bit of the laws or concepts of the laws in place already. We did a study on the UCC requirements and it was done in 1966 or so which after being introduced to congress, took 10 years of changes to finally become law in 1976. In 1988, we actually signed on to the Bern convention and some slight changes were made to account for the increased restrictions. It should be known that the the Berne convention was modified to allow us flexibility on the moral rights. We chose to have the ability to assign them to others.

The next copyright laws we made was the Uruguay Round Agreements act which wasn't actually a treaty but an agreement to restore copyrights that were in effect in Europe but not covered by US law because of a previous law, Implementation, or something. It should be noted that the Uruguay Round Agreements act was fast tracked through congress as written by Clinton's team at the round tables and was eventually amended in 1997 to correct some mistakes. We also saw the EU Directive harmonizing the term of copyright protection the year before this in 1993.

Now the Sonny Bono copyright act. The Directive harmonizing the term of copyright protection issued in 1993 ended up settling on a term 20 years longer then the requirements of the Berne Convention. The US responded with the copyright extension act which was in the works for several years because we want our terms to be the same as the EU's or longer in order to stop American works from being copyrighted solely in foreign countries to get the extra times. The extension act also exempted small bars and restaurants from royalty requirements if they were under a certain size and altered allowed independent negotiations for royalty payments. It was not named after Sony Bono because he benefited from it, it was named so to honor him when he died. The bill as represented in 1996 Didn't have Sonny Bono's name to it, The name was added to is after his death in the house Judiciary Subcommittee on courts and intellectual property. This happened in the 105th congress with his Wife on the comity.

They also call this the Mickey Mouse Copyright protection act which is nothing but misinformed people attempting to claim ancillary actions like some entity supporting the bill if somehow proof of reason for the bill or law to be passed. Of course you have spent many of pages attemptign to assert the same corruption without actually looking into the stuff.

Now for the DMCA, The two WIPO treaties, the copyright treaty and the performances and phonographs treaty was passed by the WIPO, and ratified by congress in

Re:For those that came in late ....

[dbIII]

Nice cutting and pasting with a few insults thrown in. I suggest you ponder the "only in America" aspect of some of these things before attempting to patrioticly blame it on other countries. That is really the only point I was attempting to make after your insulting and IMHO incorrect reply to lyseric acid above.

First of all, No one is blaming Europe for the DMCA

I made the mistake of thinking that is exactly what you were saying when you wrote:

The DMCA was required by WIPO treaty and as an extension to part of the berne convention as changed to allow the US to ratify it

Thanks for the links, but as I suggested before this has been going on for a very long time for all the world to see with a lot of press coverage and I do not think you understand much about such committees if you think they really have so much power in themselves (which is why I named other examples with high profiles) - if that makes those of us who were paying attention in 1992 senile in your opinion then so be it.

Re:For those that came in late ....

[sumdumass]

My god dude, don't take my words for it, follow the damn links and see for yourself from the sources. That was the entire point of linking directly to bills, laws, treaties, and so on and not to some biased and self serving site that will filter everything into some package designed to keep you ignorant and on their side.

The WIPO made a treaty that a lot of countries had their say in. This includes Europe. There are two treaties that required the DMCA to be made, other countries including European state have signed onto the treaties, the EU has signed on to a commitment for the other countries and they will be making laws according to the WIPO treaties just as the US did. You can't look at it any other way.

I made the mistake of thinking that is exactly what you were saying when you wrote:

We all make mistakes. What was so aggravating is that after repeated attempts to clarify and state the positions accurately as well as to direct you to places in which you could see the real and raw data to figure it out on your own, you refused to do any of the above and stuck to stating something that simply wasn't true.

Thanks for the links, but as I suggested before this has been going on for a very long time for all the world to see with a lot of press coverage and I do not think you understand much about such committees if you think they really have so much power in themselves (which is why I named other examples with high profiles) - if that makes those of us who were paying attention in 1992 senile in your opinion then so be it. I have a pretty solid grasp on this area. And no, it isn't committees making the assertions, it is treaties that have the effects of law. The countries have to accept the terms of them and they can't just be imposed out of nothing without the permission of the country obligated to them. I was paying attention way before 1992 actually, as I have had several works effected by the changes. I was trading Copyrights probably before you even knew who Ronald Reagan was.

Re:For those that came in late ....

[dbIII]

Now I can see where you are coming from, thank you for clearing that up. I see the point was missed where I said "I made the mistake of thinking that is exactly what you were saying", however we cannot have everything.

I was trading Copyrights probably before you even knew who Ronald Reagan was.

That is very likely, I didn't hear about him until he made Californians angry enough about something to make international news since I am not in the USA.

Since I am not in the USA, as you have not noticed, I see these IP laws as spreading out from the USA since that is where they are being imposed first whatever excuses and blame shifting your representatives are using. From my perspective you appear to have be conned by experts while most likely from yours I appear to be stupid because I have only seen the results and have not had expert confidence tricksters try to sell me this bitter pill.

As I see it their argument could be distilled down to "they are all doing it so we have to as well" - when the reality is being the first to move and on some aspects the only one to move.

My final point is that these bullshit IP laws can be reversed without violating the treaty simply because some signatories are never going to implement anything like them - it can be fixed at home and there is no secret world government to stop it.

Re:For those that came in late ....

[sumdumass]

Since I am not in the USA, as you have not noticed, I see these IP laws as spreading out from the USA since that is where they are being imposed first whatever excuses and blame shifting your representatives are using. From my perspective you appear to have be conned by experts while most likely from yours I appear to be stupid because I have only seen the results and have not had expert confidence tricksters try to sell me this bitter pill. Here is the problem with what your saying. All the changes in US copyright in the last century has been directly due to international agreements and treaties that were in place before we made the changes. It may appear to you that the US is implementing them and pushing them out, but the fact of the matter is that the treaties, especially the Berne conventions, were create long before the US made changes to their laws. The WIPO treaties, the US has about as much say in the creation as the rest of Europe and other countries. There is trade connected to the WIPO treaties because it's basic principle is to establish a base line for unified protections on copyright across borders.

No one is tricking anyone, look at the WIPO treaties, look at the Berne conventions, look at the Uruguay round table summit, Look at the UUC, Look at the EU's Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection. They all existed, they all are treaties that countries have digned on to or otherwise agreed to be obligated to, and they all happened before the change in laws relating to them happened in all of the countries. Especially in the US. Don't look at it as someone present's it to you, look at the actual documents, look at the time lines for the laws created. I don't know what your thinking but the truth isn't some secrete in this.

As I see it their argument could be distilled down to "they are all doing it so we have to as well" - when the reality is being the first to move and on some aspects the only one to move.

The arguemnt is really on of, this is especially true with the later changes resulting in the DMCA, the arguemnt is more like we need to make sure that our copyrights have the same protections in all the markets they are in. For the majority of the time in US history, Europe had longer protections because of the Berne Convention. Then the UCC attempted to fix that, we extended copyrights. Then the EU decided to fix the differences between member nations and the Directive on harmonizing the term of copyright protection was issues, the US followed suit and put their terms in line with Europe's. Then everyone got together and worked out the two WIPO treaties that forced the creation of the US DMCA. And yes, because other countries were involved and because the EU signed on, Europe is making the same laws under the same treaties which is why they look so much like the DMCA. Everything in the DMCA, well everything that has meat to it and that people are complaining about is listed in the WIPO copyright treaty and the WIPO Performances and phonograms treaty. You can read both and see where everything came about. It isn't that difficult. The WIPO treaties were made in 1996, the DMCA in 1998.

My final point is that these bullshit IP laws can be reversed without violating the treaty simply because some signatories are never going to implement anything like them - it can be fixed at home and there is no secret world government to stop it.

Your probably right that they are bullshit laws but your wrong on reversing them. It doesn't matter how many other countries have signed onto the treaties. You would have to give notice and separate from (back out of) the treaties before you change the laws contrary to the treaties. The treaties are for all intents and purposes, a contract. If your country hasn't left the treaties and they are already committed, don't expect change until they withdraw. Also, don't be surprised if the amount of outside copyrighted works don't start getting rare to find if the country doesn't offer some equivalent protections.

Re:For those that came in late ....

[dbIII]

Missed once again so I'll make this short, simple and to the point.

Many other nations that signed the treaties do not have laws equivalent to or even remotely approaching the DMCA.

Thus the treaty does not mean you have to have a DMCA.

The "contract" you speak of does not compel the action.

That is all I was writing about and that is why I see the blaming of outside agencies as a smokescreen of blame that artful legislators have used to push their own agendas.

Re:For those that came in late ....

[sumdumass]

Many other nations that signed the treaties do not have laws equivalent to or even remotely approaching the DMCA.

The legal systems of other countries aren't exactly the same in which a single US law is directly transferable. The member states who signed onto the WIPO treaties will either need to have the laws in place that the treaty requires or they will need to honor the laws of the country that expresses the complaint. So even if they missed the laws, then it doesn't mean it isn't covered. Look at the guy in Australia who was extradited to the US for prosecution for doing something that wasn't even against the law in Australia. Except it was against the law because the treaty that Australia ratified made it illegal even if the governing body didn't follow through on the law.

You also have to understand that there are many European courts that can actually preside over cases in US law and enforce US laws under some situations. This isn't anything new, it's been around since before WWI.

Thus the treaty does not mean you have to have a DMCA.

You will continue to be disapointed when the countries start adopting those laws (which they all are).You can continue incorectly believing that the US and RIAA is forcing the laws onto other countries, but you will lose the fight when the politicians of those countries look at you like a crazed idiot and ignore what you have to say because the reasoning behind the laws had to do with a treaty. You see, you falling for the old, if I can justify it, regardless of the truth, I'm right problem. You have convinced yourself of something due to your lack of knowledge on the subject and why your end is probably right, as in the laws suck and need changes, everything leading up to that ends is wrong which means your not even close. You sound pretty jaded, I would be too if I was rambling on about things and my government wasn't listening because I had the concept completely wrong. The information is all there for you to read and learn. This isn't about what you think or feel, this is about what is written, there is no room for self interpretation.

The "contract" you speak of does not compel the action.

You need to go back to school and pay attention to your civics class. You obviously have no clue about international law, foreign relations or how government works. It's a shame too, you seem to have enough spunk that you might be able to get something done about the situation if you didn't look stupid in front of every person who knows how this shit works. Perhaps you should drop your system and join in on the ones that the people actually in charge are using.

hat is all I was writing about and that is why I see the blaming of outside agencies as a smokescreen of blame that artful legislators have used to push their own agendas.

The problem is that your wrong and this smoke screen is actually reality. You will be doomed to disapointment because you simply don't understand how this stuff works and the more you attempt to stay away from reality, the more ignorant and crazy you appear to people who know how it works. The onus is really on you, I have from the beginning been telling you to not take my word for it but look for yourself.

BTW, do you realize how stupid your last statement sounds? In order for it to be true, almost every politician in the world would have to be corrupt and on the dole by the same person or group of people, They would have had to set up this extravagant extra governmental system that controls everything including the replacement politicians and so on. And you would have to be one of the few people in the entire world who see things the way you see them contrary to all the education you have received and contrary to everything we know about government, international law/relations and so on. There is one hell of a grand conspiracy a

Re:For those that came in late ....

[dbIII]

Thanks for the very long reply.

Some portions about the credibility of representatives are IMHO rather naive for a person from a country where even a former leader has been open to bribes (Nixon), so I'll leave you to what I consider a rather odd world view and laugh at your suggestions about my lack of education as yet another in a string of baseless insults. As I said before, you don't know anything about me (but get quite personal with insults based on nothing) and I don't know you from some guy cowering in the woods hiding from black secret world government helicopters or whatever fantasy is current.

Good luck with slashdot spying on you - you might want to change your journal if you want to be considered credible.

To sum up - I consider your view that it is all the fault of mysterious outside agencies and not a festering cancer spreading within your own nation as being utter bullshit and no amount of irrelevant verbage is going to change that.

Sometimes it's better to be short and to the point instead of large amounts of text that circle around the topic but really have nothing to do with the central argument. The personal attacks to bully the insecure are also rather annoying but entirely pointless because they get skipped over.

Re:For those that came in late ....

[sumdumass]

Some portions about the credibility of representatives are IMHO rather naive for a person from a country where even a former leader has been open to bribes (Nixon), so I'll leave you to what I consider a rather odd world view and laugh at your suggestions about my lack of education as yet another in a string of baseless insults. As I said before, you don't know anything about me (but get quite personal with insults based on nothing) and I don't know you from some guy cowering in the woods hiding from black secret world government helicopters or whatever fantasy is current.

I think you need to heed my advice and learn about what you going to speak of before you do. Nixon was never accused or charged with taking bribes. O bet your thinking of the Vice president Spiro Agnew who was elected vice president but then had to resign because of bribery allegations stemming from his time in county government. As for your complaints about my insults on your education, how fit comming from a post that is wrong too. In fact, if you were wrong and insisting that somehow in your world, you are right, I would have never made the statements concerning my observations that you call insults.

Anyways, think about what your attempting to say here. You seem to think that the government is corupt so the documents themselves aren't reliable. However, for that to be true, there would have to be some grand conspiracy that not only includes all of the congress over several session, at least four different president, all governmental members of the EU, the heads of 184 different states and their representation that was at the WIPO and other summits on treaties, The government of every European country who was there also, and they all concealed the real set of events just so American can make it look like they passed the laws after the treaties were made and then attempt to force them into the treaties. The documents I offered aren't US documents, they are international documents availible to every country and any one who decides to down load them, the laws passed by congress are open record and would require over 450 elected officials, all their staff, appointed official and so on across four or more presidential terms (16 or more year) and the public watching Cspan and other networks covering the events just to forge the stuff and you to be right while I'm fooled by a vice president that didn't last long because he was gone soon.

Do the fucking math there. Ask your friends and family to help you. For the papers that say what I have said to be forged, it would have been the biggest fucking secrete in the history of secretes or even the world, but.. If all the the rest of the world went along with it, then why wouldn't they just sign onto the treaties in the first place? I mean wouldn't that be much simpler?

Good luck with slashdot spying on you - you might want to change your journal if you want to be considered credible.

Wow, you really are ignorant aren't you. Do you know what was going on when that journal entry was written? Well, I didn't think so, but just so you know, it was a new wave of viruses infecting website that would infect users as they logged in. But hey, I even said that in the post I made so you new that and purposely chose to ignore it. Is that some sort of conspiracy too? Did I not write that part and go back and add it later with the help of some secrete slashdot employee or something?

It was a legitimate question and NO, I didn't say anything about Slashdot spying on me, that is yet one more fucked up thing that exists in your mind.

To sum up - I consider your view that it is all the fault of mysterious outside agencies and not a festering cancer spreading within your own nation as being utter bullshit and no amount of irrelevant verbage is going to change that.

Now, I'm convinced your just fucking irreparably stupid. I didn't fucking say that

Re:For those that came in late ....

[dbIII]

A suprising amount in reply to so little, and words put in my mouth taken to such extremes. "Straw man" and personal attacks are a pointless waste of time unless the only goal is to win a pointless argument.

I suggest rereading your post above when you are less angry - paticularly the bits like "would have never made the statements concerning my observations that you call insults" and then "Perhaps your parent would have been better off aborting you or something."

As stated above in other ways I thought your original premise was wrong. Unless you can convince me of the original premise showing me the entire house of cards built upon it isn't going to help and is just going to get ignored and frustrate you when people see it as irrelevant to the discussion. To push this analogy you've been writing about stuff in the attic, so it has gone over people's heads since there is not a strong connection to the original subject.

I didn't fucking say that if was because of outside agencies

That was the original premise - that the IP laws in the USA are somebody else's fault. I disagree.

Re:For those that came in late ....

[sumdumass]

A suprising amount in reply to so little, and words put in my mouth taken to such extremes. "Straw man" and personal attacks are a pointless waste of time unless the only goal is to win a pointless argument.

I suggest rereading your post above when you are less angry - paticularly the bits like "would have never made the statements concerning my observations that you call insults" and then "Perhaps your parent would have been better off aborting you or something."

It is not pointless in the least. It is the only thing left beside shoving a boot up your ass to get you to pay fucking attention. I mean had you been someone able to engage in dialog that didn't consist of "well, those are the facts but I don't believes them and I'm thereby imposing my own made up view" the swear words and so called attacks wouldn't have ever made it into the reply. BTW, something that your doing or acting like is not an attack it is a rude statement of observations. And to illustrate how appropriate those observations are, the term your looking for to describe the attack is ad hominan not strawman. You can't just use a word because you found it in your power words to look elite dictionary if you don't use it properly.

As stated above in other ways I thought your original premise was wrong. Unless you can convince me of the original premise showing me the entire house of cards built upon it isn't going to help and is just going to get ignored and frustrate you when people see it as irrelevant to the discussion. To push this analogy you've been writing about stuff in the attic, so it has gone over people's heads since there is not a strong connection to the original subject.

And as I showed, it wasn't wrong, you refused to look at what I said for what was said and instead imposed your alternate view of reality and then imposed your own versions on everything following. The entire point of telling you to look at the shit for yourself was so that YOU could see the times lines, so that YOU could see when the laws were made, so that YOU could see the connections to the laws and the treaties, but instead of you doing anything, you have closed your eyes claiming that You already know it all and that You refuse to look at anything presented if it doesn't already fit with YOUr preconceived notions surrounding some made up and incorrect set of events that would require everyone in the world but you to be in on the biggest lie and cover up in the entire world and somehow, despite that lie and coverup, you in your vast glorious reals of intelligence figured it all out.

That was the original premise - that the IP laws in the USA are somebody else's fault. I disagree.

I have never said that, I have never held that premise, I have never attempted to convey that premise, and you cannot go back into this thread and find anywhere where I said the laws were someone else's fault. I said that the laws and changes in the laws were attempts to conform with treaties and laws in place in other countries and those other countries have just as much access to establish, change, or otherwise control the wording of those treaties. I also stated that by the nature of the berne convention, the treaty was largely negotiated in the absence of the US. That does not say the blame belongs anywhere else but it does say that your idea of the US creating then forcing the laws on other countries are fallacious and perhaps malicious and based on nothing but ignorance. Of course you have shown your affinity towards ignorance all throughout this thread so I am not surprised anymore.

Re:For those that came in late ....

[dbIII]

You are saying you never did post that stuff I replied to? Cool. You have won by moving the goalposts and playing the man instead of the ball while I was not even aware until now that it was a game.

I apologise for any misconceptions about condescening "power words to look elite dictionary" - it's just a natural consequence of going through a different school system in a different country where the use of english is a bit different. We all have to get used to it on an international network.

Reply if you wish but I am not going to bother any more, I think I've repeated my point that "the IP laws in the USA are not somebody else's fault" often enough and don't know enough or care enough to argue side issues like Nixons innocence or guilt.

Re:For those that came in late ....

[sumdumass]

You are saying you never did post that stuff I replied to? Cool. You have won by moving the goalposts and playing the man instead of the ball while I was not even aware until now that it was a game.

No, I'm saying I never posted the stuff you claimed I did and that you can't go back and find where I did. I'm saying that you have looked at reality, and even after being corrected, that you have chosen to substitute it for one of your own. I wrote the stuff I posted, you simply aren't replying to what I posted.

I apologise for any misconceptions about condescening "power words to look elite dictionary" - it's just a natural consequence of going through a different school system in a different country where the use of english is a bit different. We all have to get used to it on an international network.

There shouldn't be alternative definitions across schools or countries that can't be found by using a dictionary. That is slang but even with the urban dictionary which is an attempt to define slang, your usages still didn't match the definitions or what was in use. The power words for the elite is actually a cultural joke where some company produced a book claiming to increase your communication skills by the use of powerful words, they sold it from infomercials on at 2am, and in months after it, all the less educated people who purchased the book started using the words contrary to their definitions, they just thought that throwing words out that sounded smart made them sound smart even though their usage made them sound more ignorant then their normal hood slang.

Reply if you wish but I am not going to bother any more, I think I've repeated my point that "the IP laws in the USA are not somebody else's fault" often enough and don't know enough or care enough to argue side issues like Nixons innocence or guilt.

Lol.. It is probably best if you stop replying. As for not someone else's fault, sure but we weren't alone on making them which is why you see other countries trying to make the same ones.

Re:Next target: Microsoft and Apple?

[AliasMarlowe]

After all, both Windows and OS X allow users to share files across a network. Hmm ... French equivalent of the RIAA versus Microsoft. Who to root for?

Finally, I understand the allure of Mutually Assured Destruction...

Re:Good luck ..

[CmdrGravy]

the French DO 'ave a sense of 'umour, you know

Well thats a relief, it would be simply too awful to be French and not have a sense of humour.

Perhaps like the iPhone case?

[Kyreas]

Didn't the french force apple to only sell unlocked iPhones in France? Perhaps the courts will decide ownership of the software itself as a crime. Or possibly not. That IS stretching it a bit.

Re:French company plans to sue Limewire and other

[Shadowmist]

If you're actually downloading on the average 1500 images a day from other users, it's [b]extremely unlikely[/b] that you're not downloading material which is either copyrighted or derivative work which is also subject to copyright restrictions.

We allow the French to legislate on this matter for the same reason American companies expect the French to honor our copyrights and in the main they do.

Going after Sourceforge makes a lot of sense, Sourceforge is a major access source of software like this.

Re:And Blame Microsoft in...

[Corporate Troll]

That would be "chaise longue"....

at least we are two such french then :-/

[Herve5]

While I intensely regret both the energy spent in locking the music and the one spent in rediffusing it... count me in...
FWIW, let me mention a small, reasonable and french-located online music reseller that doesn't encrypt anything, a bit like Magnatune in the US: Zig-Zag Territoires, http://www.zigzag-territoires.com/?lang=en (yes even in english), mainly classical and jazz.

Re:The *French* recording companies suing P2P apps

[permaculture]

Yes, I have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Safari

It's a great album, that I bought on CD twice before downloading.

Re:Good luck ..

[b04rdr1d3r]

Stop the flame war here folks: you are just falling over and over again into this one...

There is no point in re-writing and distorting history either way... put an end to this French bashing that does not do them justice (yes: they held their ground fine in WWI and yes: they are grateful for our intervention in WWII after their defeat in 1940)

By the way, those interested in reading a french point of view on the defeat of 1940 should read Saint-Exupéry : Pilote de Guerre... where the author of Le Petit Prince while describing his combat missions in May 1940 also gives his feelings on why the defeat is inexcusable yet unavoidable at this stage.

Re:The *French* recording companies suing P2P apps

[pterjan]

A lot of people do. Two French bands that I have heard a lot abroad are Air and Daft Punk.

Hope they include french broadcasters as defendant

[Anonymous Coward]

While they're at it, they should include French Broadcasting companies for hosting content that can be pirated, and don't forget Microsoft for writing an operating system used on computers that are used to pirate content online, Oh Oh, what about the internet. no not the individual ISP's, the entire Internet. It's just a haven for piracy. Oh, Oh, and Nikola Tesla, that radical inventor of Radio, what was his responsibility.

For that matter, I blame the Jesuits, they were the ones copying all those books by hand that got Piracy started to begin with, what about them?

and now for something completely serious ................
I'm going to start billing the recording companies that are so suit happy every time I have to arrange my life to meet their greedy demands. $300US per hour for time spent waiting for DVD previews I can't fast forward through or movie trainers in theaters.... you get the picture.
Call it a service charge. First notification includes a TOS statement. By locking player functionality or inhibiting my ability to use a "purchased use license" on any consumer electronic device I posses, _______ agrees to pay me a service charge for any and all inconveniences I deem appropriate.