Slashdot Mirror


French President Busted For Copyright Violation

An anonymous reader writes "ZeroPaid has an interesting take on the story of Nicolas Sarkozy being accused of copyright infringement. The irony, of course, is Sarkozy's pushing of a 3-strikes law — disconnecting from the Internet those accused of file sharing — in France and across the EU. The French president had apparently offered to settle the copyright infringement accusation for one Euro, but the band rejected the offer, calling it an insult. The article notes that each year since 2006, a high-profile anti-piracy entity has been on the wrong end of a copyright infringement notice. In 2008, Sony BMG was sued for software piracy. In 2007, anti-piracy outfit BASCAP received a cease and desist order related to pirated software. And in 2006, the MPAA was accused of pirating 'This Film is Not Yet Rated'."

18 of 317 comments (clear)

  1. Do. by neoform · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do as I say.

    Not as I do.

    --
    MABASPLOOM!
    1. Re:Do. by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Miss Bruni is the French president's wife?

      What I found funny abotu this article was the president's arrogance - "Yes I did violate copyright, but I'm only giving you 1 Euro." Can you imagine any of the rest of us getting-away with that? "Yes RIAA I received you letter demanding $5000. I'll give you 5 instead." Fat chance. ----- Politicians think they don't have to follow the laws that we do. They think we poor schmucks have to pay $5000 settlement to RIAA, or $75,000 per song according to the law, but for THEM.... well now, 1 Euro should be sufficient. Right? After all politicians are "special".

      So much for the 1700s ideal of creating a classless society where everyone is treated equally. Politicians still believe they are nobility.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  2. Re:Smart move by neoform · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe they don't like his agenda?

    --
    MABASPLOOM!
  3. Re:Smart move by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe they don't like his agenda?

    Seriously, artists are not all automatically on the side of big media. And you're right: they probably saw this as a way to make a point, that they don't like where he's trying to take copyright.

    Of course, offering a single Euro as compensation was kinda ridiculous.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  4. Hypocrisy as the norm... by StrategicIrony · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's amazing that most people simply accept that Hypocrisy is the norm. That's sad.

    The copyright organizations call for "zero tolerance" and are then caught themselves.

    The congressmen who rail against finding teenagers attractive are caught lusting after them.

    Preachers who rail on homosexuals are caught fucking gay prostitutes.

    Vigilantes who claim to catch online predators are found to be employing young teens in their exploits and having child pornography on their computers.

    Educators who rail against drugs and demand for instant lockup of drug offenders... are found to be drug users themselves...

    These are all real stories.

    Instead of stepping back and recognizing that their viewpoints may be of questionable value and that they may have made errors in judgment... they just ignore their mistakes and continue in their hypocritical ways.

    And the world is a worse place for it.

    1. Re:Hypocrisy as the norm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People often hate most of others what they hate most of themselves. They're angry with themselves that they can't control their own behavior, so they lash out at others and attempt to control theirs. It's a compensation mechanism. Either that, or it's plain old game theory--an attempt to persuade others to cooperate while one defects, thus maximizing personal gain.

      I once had a lengthy discussion with a mother who was bat-shit loco against people looking at kiddie porn. She thought anyone who looked at kiddie porn should be sterilized, and that producers should be locked away forever. Deeper into the conversation, she admitted to having looked at kiddie porn, and further admitted to having posted pictures of her nude son on her blog (bathtub pictures). She conceded that she was a hypocrite, but defiantly refused to change her opinion about what should happen to OTHER people who did what she did.

  5. Well, if he gets cut off by gringofrijolero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He'll just start mooching off his neighbor's wifi.

    --
    Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
  6. Re:The band in question by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know, it's awful and unfair. But after only 8 short years of Bush being in power, it looks like its going to take a while for these prejudices to subside.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  7. May he get the worst possible treatment by jonaskoelker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    May Sarkozy get the worst possible treatment allowable under law. I hope he gets all his computer (and other electronic devices) seized and thoroughly examined.

    Not out of any hate of Sarkozy, or any need for vengeance for the wrongs committed by the RIAA against innocent people.

    The purpose is this: I believe that those in power should be feel the impact of their decisions.

    You want greater surveillance? Fine, we'll start around your house. You want to wage a war? Fine, any of your eligible children get "volunteered" for army service. You want to give the police power to search people without a warrant? Fine, you'll get searched daily both near your home and near your workplace.

    Then, maybe, just maybe, people would think twice. They tend to when there's something at stake for them.

    This is really an extensions of Schneier's idea about security: the one in charge will make the decision that matches their own agenda. We the people have to make it a part of the agenda of the people in power to make sure their decisions are sane. I've proposed a way.

    May this makes Sarkozy's life really shitty for a while.

  8. Re:The band in question by endymion.nz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For a fair comparison, ask a non-American what the American capital is. America has fifty states, with fifty capitals. I don't expect an American to know what the capital of a random province in my country is. The reason we think you are stupid is because we are outside of the happy fun curtain. We get to see the effects that American imperialism has on the world, our news agencies actually report on the wars and insurgencies that America funds and / or fights by proxy. We see statistics coming out of America like 92% of Americans believe in a God. This speaks volumes. Do you even know what piracy is? Ask the victims of the boats attacked and hijacked off the coast of Somalia. Copyright infringement isn't stealing, it isn't piracy and it isn't theft. When our (mostly Americas, because the rest of the world is forced into following suit by the WHO and WIPO and UN) antiquated notions of property finally catch up to the reality of digital storage and the internet, we might have a chance at getting it right.

    --
    mediocrity rules, man
  9. Re:Smart move by Handlarn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sigh.

    They were hardly protesting against having their music spread to the big masses. They obviously intented to point out that the most influential politician/pro-copyright spokesman of France is a hypocritical asshole.

    It's incredible how anyone could miss the point.

  10. Re:FUCK ARTISTS by KrimZon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hate yourself more for your failures, and show some humility.

    It doesn't work like that, at least for me. Love yourself more. There's a difference between loving oneself and trying really hard to think of oneself highly. If you love yourself you'll accept your shortcomings, and find it more easy to examine and learn from them.

    I'd rather somebody say something obvious, if it were true. To a child it may be less obvious, and there have been countless times growing up where I've wondered why people didn't just point something out. And once someone knows something is obvious (because other people are constantly talking about it), then they can take it one step further and maybe reach something less obvious more quickly.

    I agree with you on the moderation. I find myself using +1 Insightful for a post I believe is true, and +1 Interesting for a post I don't think is true but which raises a point. There's always some information about the moderator in a moderation, because terms such as 'insightful' and 'interesting' depend upon the opinion of the moderator.

  11. Re:The band in question by regular_gonzalez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This proves a major prejudice about Americans: Most of you don't know shit about the world (outside of your borders).

    Was this some kind of self-deprecating meta-ironic remark, or did you really extrapolate to all Americans (which you accuse us of doing) based on one anecdotal example and honestly consider that "proof"? And here I thought Europeans were more culturally aware than us lowly Americans.

    --
    Due to circumstances beyond my control, I am master of my fate and captain of my soul.
  12. Re:The band in question by endymion.nz · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I'm going to put this as simply as possible. Religious belief requires the suspension of critical and rational thought. At some point, you have to just accept that God Did It, and stop asking 'why'. As a human being, a member of the sentient species of the planet, I'm not ready to ignore my mental faculties and just accept things on blind faith. Frankly, I consider people that do to be mentally ill, and I normally write off everything else they say as unreliable because if they are willing to give up rational and critical thought for their God, how can I be sure that sound judgment went into any of their thought processes?

    The truth is that I am agnostic towards the idea of an almighty being or beings. I believe what I see, what is testable and falsifiable. If you had a testable and falsifiable hypothesis positing the existance of such a being, that didn't require me to accept that 'God Did It' at any stage of the reasoning, I'll gladly eat my words.

    --
    mediocrity rules, man
  13. Re:The band in question by VisceralLogic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm going to put this as simply as possible. Religious belief requires the suspension of critical and rational thought.

    Not at all. One can critically and rationally assess religious doctrine to determine whether it seems to make sense. Or do you also think philosophy is the province of the mentally ill?

    --
    Stop! Dremel time!
  14. Re:FUCK ARTISTS by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For the sake of capitalism, I truly hope your statement has boundaries. There is no media that can't be ripped and distributed for LESS than the folks that produce it, or ever will be

    That is the quintessential form of capitalism.

    If I am producing software, and 1 person buys it, copies it, then distributes it for 1/100 (arbitrary number for "best value") of the cost, what incentive do I have to continue producing software?

    You don't. At least not for money. You would continue writing software for the same reasons musicians will still sing and play instruments, artists will still paint and sculpt, and authors will still write books: because you want to.
    Or maybe some company hires you to work on something they need, much like medieval artists were hired by rich patrons to produce works of art for them. See: Linux

  15. Obligatory by harmonica · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the president does it, it's not illegal.

  16. Re:Presumed innocent? by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't hate Americans. I consider religious fanatics dangerous, I find arrogance offensive, I think excessive patriotism leads to conflicts as does ignorance about history. And I expect higher standards from self proclaimed 'leaders of the free world' where you can find that kind of persons as well as you can find them in other parts of the world.

    When Bush and Rumsfeld proclaimed my country to be part of 'old Europe' because we did not accept their reasons to go to war in Iraq, I was offended.

    Can you imagine what Guantanamo did to the image the free world has of the USA, its previous government - and ultimately those who elected it?

    But hey, I like some Americans, I admire a few and I find some very dislikeable. But the same goes for most other nationalities on our planet.