Slashdot Mirror
French "3 Strikes" Law Returns, In Slightly Altered Form
suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica: "The French Senate has once again approved a reworked version of the country's controversial 'three strikes' bill designed to appease the Constitutional Council. Instead of a state-appointed agency cutting off those accused of being repeat offenders, judges will have the final say over punishment. The approval comes exactly one month after the country's Constitutional Council ripped apart the previous version of the Création et Internet law. ... Not content to let the idea die, President Nicolas Sarkozy's administration reworked the law in hopes of making it amenable to the Council — instead of HADOPI deciding on its own to cut off users on the third strike, it will now report offenders to the courts. A judge can then choose to ban the user from the Internet, fine him or her 300,000 (according to the AFP), or hand over a two-year prison sentence."
Do they have the internet in French prison?
At least now it requires a judge to declare guilt. This takes the responsibility away from the ISPs which is also a good thing.
Here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/its-baack-french-3-strikes-law-gets-another-go-from-senate.ars
It sounds to me like saying that the defendant doesn't have the option of defending the charge might get it torn up, but I know nothing up French law... I know remarkably little about US law, either, since IANAL.
Since there is no article linked in the summary, how long before someone links one in?
Cheers
I'm wondering if the gambit is being done of pressing for Draconian lesligation repeatedly, so something that is "moderate" ends up getting passed like how the DMCA got passed (original bills would lock someone up for 20 years if they possessed "cracking tools" like a debugger or the strings command). First, it was three strikes, now prison time. France doesn't have the percentage of population the US does that is locked up, but all this would do is put non violent people in prison, and remove potential tax revenue (people in prison are not earning taxable income, especially for something that is a white coller issue).
As Robin Williams said in a great comedy routine, "So There! You Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys!" Or Monty Python's "Your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries" Well at least they are willing to put up with our merde.
This new legislation may also be declared unconstitutional.
This time they try with a special court consisting of one judge to decide cases. The judge may not hear the parties involved, but is only allowed to give his decision solely based on a report from the new state antipiracy office. He is supposed to work expediently and not use more than 45 minutes per case.
Also language has been changed in the new law text possibly making it legal to eavesdrop private communications like email for antipiracy purposes.
The law text passed the senate wednesday, and is expected to pass the national assembly soon.
Links in french: Numerama Le Monde
This parody of a law Still have to make it in front of constitutionnal council.
Naboleon Sarkozy is playing a "W Bush" card... constitution... that's just a piece of paper...
I wonder why politician who purposefully push -illegal- laws don't end up in jail...
Rape a 13 year old girl and that's no problem. Downloading three Roman Polanski films could mean two years in prison.
Should soon be heard around France in response to this law.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
And "American" is defined as "imbecile" in French dictionaries.
Shouldn't it be something like "five free kicks", instead?
... become so bourgeois?
Guaranteed anyone in power will not have to actually be found guilty of it. Sarkozy can violate this all he wants, he'll never have to answer for it. For those in power the judge will always find the charge was unwarranted. If you're a commoner, well too bad. Let them eat dialup!
atleast the french are likely to riot and turn over a few police cars to show their displeasure. american's will form a few facebook groups and register to show their outrage...
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
what difference 'banning from internet by judges' does make compared to 'banning from internet through a privately sponsored decereipt govt. instutition' in regard to freedom of speech and information. can you ban people from free speech ? can you ban them from getting information ? are french lawmakers THAT stupid not to be able to establish the correlation ? no. therefore, we can only conclude that the bribes fucking RIAA dogs have expended in france are SO big that lawmakers dont hesitate to even ridicule themselves by their own hands.
observe the power of money. if you let 'businesses be', like that moron alan greenspan preached us in the last 30 years and put on mouths of EVERY goddamn economist everywhere, this happens. they start to buy laws through the money they made from you.
another medieval experience brought to you by the church of holistic economy. enjoy.
Read radical news here
Every time you think you've defeated a bad law, it just comes back in time for the next legislative cycle. Politicians and the interests that control them are patient and persistent, while regular people can only take so much time and energy from their lives to fight these causes. Especially today, when five or six examples of gross injustice come across your average news feed every single day.
And thus corruption and greed prevail; this is how we can all belong to something that nobody wants any part of.
This would be the ultimate ban hammer.
I know this is offtopic, but is anyone else having problems getting the comment slider all the way down to show comments -1 and below with Firefox 3.5?
How much do these top guys get payed for this, by whom... This has noting to do with fair businesses or upholding the law... This has everything to do with same very rich influencial people who can buy everything. Even a profit on a lousy businessmodel. It's the same as me, making steamengines and getting a hefy reward for every combustion engine that is being sold. Those combustion engines are stealing money away from the steamengine afterall... When will people finally stand up to this abuse? (everything is so clear after a good bottle of whiskey, I can recommend it to anyone here)
fine him or her 300,000 (according to the AFP)
"Your honor, on the slight chance that this court does not accept either the termite mound or the truck-load of bottlecaps, I have also brought this bag containing a sufficient quantity of dead skin cells."
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Funny how no new laws protect us from really BIG crimes - the government and corporate crimes of willful destruction of the planet, waging illegal war, torture, etc.
I wonder why politician who purposefully push -illegal- laws don't end up in jail...
Because they are politicians. They have root access to the laws. Therefore, everything that they do is legal.
Worry more about GI's on the hundreds and hundreds of US bases on foreign soil and that cant be prosecuted by the local authorities.
THEN worry about Polanski.
I wonder if they shouldnt work on a 3 strikes law for the executive office where every time they resend the same law for vote, they have a gradual disconnection of powers to prevent abuse... that way way we'd do away with frivolous passing of laws, wasting tons of debate time in the parliament, where the whole country's legislative body is mobilized just so that a bunch of crying failing record industry stop crying wolf... especially when their apetite is not helping creativity (the original goal of copyright) because authors will continue to publish whatever the laws... and they stop increasing penalties for hypothetical loss of revenues when taxes already exist on empty media... if nothing is done, it'll be more easy to get away with murder than to download a song.
Seriously something is wrong with the system. Maybe the anti trust laws should be ammended to prevent continuous abuse from record labels on systems worldwide. Among deceptive practices that should be punished.. ... damn it if I buy a cd, I should be able to play it any way I want .... ....
1) rootkits
2) region locking
3) RIAA trials - justice system flooding, racketeering like practices, deception, borderline illegal detective work , manipulation of laws, waste of public/ defendant ressource, unfair trials
4) Law keeps changing, increasingly detrimental to consumers
5) Copyright laws keep getting extended... the original idea of 10 years was good... but damn it, life + 70... wtf? if someone makes a hit which derives continuous profit 50 years after... they have no incentive to keep creating.
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that
and remove potential tax revenue (people in prison are not earning taxable income
Duh, haven't you read the financial impact studies from music industry? Putting these people in prison will prevent six hundred trillion dollars in piracy, which means eighty two hundred trillion in extra tax revenue to the government.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Maybe there's an explanation for the madness.
They want to have their cake and kill it too.
The idea of a "3 strikes" law makes me irate. Murders', rapists', and child molesters' past offenses are assessed during sentencing, but someone selling small quantities of pot is treated like a drug lord for their third offense. Of course, someone with two murder convictions will be sentenced appropriately in most cases. If you need a law that mandates outrageous sentences against the will of judges and juries, the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
For those who read French, here is the actual text of the law.
Perhaps it is not the Europeans who are more civilized after all.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Which would you rather have, be banned from the internet for life, or serve two years in prison? I figure nearly all the /.ers will go for the prison jumpsuit.
Perhaps it is not the Europeans who are more courageous after all.
if I might also suggest this is true.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
whoops, forgot to remove the "not"
Perhaps it isthe Europeans who are more courageous after all.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I suppose I could touch up the grammar mistakes made by an automated translator, but the message comes across quite clearly and eloquently as is.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Those are only the Muslim French
If that is true, then we need more more muslims in Europe to defend our civil rights.
Sarkozy will never give up on this because he's doing it for the love of his wife, Carla Bruni. The two first met at a function where Bruni had come to promote stronger intellectual property legislation. Bruni is an artist/singer who feels that artists are being hurt by copyright violators. She is the real brain behind the law.
Like so often before, the devil is in the details.
While I have no major principal objections to copyright infringers being kicked off internet (if they use internet for the infringement), I would want to know more of the details before making my mind up.
For starters, I would want everybody to be given a fair trial, and only when they have been found guilty three times should they be kicked off internet. I get the impression that with the present suggestion it's enough to be accused of copyright infringement three times to be kicked off. That is taking other people's right too easily: it should require a trial according to the country's requirements.
Secondly, I think there should be a time limit to how long you are banned from internet. I see no reason why a mere copyright infringer should be banned from internet for life. It's not like you can use copyright infringement to kill someone...
Thirdly, I would like to know what provisions the law provides to protect the technically challenged. Suppose my neighbour hacks into my WLAN, and starts sharing files. I suppose the recording industry would like to hold me responsible, but should they be able to do so? In my opinion, no. Granted, the recording industry will not like the "I am an idiot with technology"-defence, but this kind of trial should be held to the same standards as all others: the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable (or similar) doubt.
Fourthly, what of family members? Suppose I get kicked off internet for copyright infringement. What of my wife and my children? As far as I know, no modern democracy allows collective punishment, so it should be acceptable for my wife and children to get internet access at home. So why then bother with banning me, if the effect is that the internet connection is simply passed to my wife?
For an interesting comparison, move the "getting banned from internet for copyright infringement" to the world of printed matter: any person or company thrice accused of copyright infringement gets banned (for a short period of time, eg a year) from reading and writing. The effects would be quite devastating... You would have to have somebody read the bus timetable to you, you would have to have somebody write your checks for you, you would have to have somebody read your letters to you... And if a newspaper were accused of infringing someone's copyright three times, they could obviously not print a single letter the next year!
Laws based on baseball rules ("three strikes and you're out") or morality based on "cowboys and indians" games ("we are the good guys and you are the bad guys") seem to be fine when you're 8 years old. But for adults in the real world? Please, I thought we'd left that behind with George Bush and Ronnie Reagan.
The real world is far too nuanced and complicated for child-logic to fairly run a society.
Oh really? Find out who exactly it was that was rioting and turning over cars/setting them on fire. It wasn't mainly the french though it happened in france.
It is home sickness. If you ever lived abroad you will know just how strong the desire can become to have something familiar.
I have lived abroad in several cultures where I was welcome. Nobody looked overly down on me. Oh they might think I was a crazy foreigner and a bit akward but nobody wanted me deported. And still the desire for even something as simple as a "boterham met pindakaas" can become overwhelming. No, peanut butter is NOT the same thing. That american stuff is disgusting.
It is also sometimes a great relief to read or hear something in your mother tongue. Almost all media to me is english even in Holland but when I am abroad for a while, it is comforting to hear something in dutch. I never follow soccer at home but when I am abroad and read something about Oranje, then it... well it feels like a bit of home.
No greater patriot then those abroad.
If your new enviroment is not accepting you and you are unwilling/incapable of fitting in then this desire can become extreem. People want to belong to something. Gangs work on this principle as does religion (the institution, not the faith). It becomes a downwards spiral. The (often second generation) immigrant (is a second generation still an immigrant?) rejects the new culture he is in by having differently from that culture. His new culture sees this behavior and becomes more resistant. He feels more rejected and starts to rebel more and try to find a group that does welcome him. Voila, an extremist is born.
Both sides are at fault here. Europe has two choices, keep immigrants out or accept them into their culture. You can't want the cheap labor immigrants supply and not give them some space to life their own lives. On the other hand, immigrants should realize that it was their choice to move to a new enviroment and that the price for that is giving up part of your identiy and adopt to a new culture. Naomi Campbell does not walk around in her native costume does she?
The original turkish immigrants were NOT pissed off. But new immigrants are arriving in an enviroment where they are resented for the problems caused by others and there are subcultures willing to accept them and give them a home.
This is similar to the reborn christians with their holier then thou attitude. Alienation is a ripe breeding ground for extremism. Wether that is gangs, religion or politics. White kids who feel alienated by society join extreme enviromental groups or become neo-nazi's. Muslims become members of extremist muslim groups. Simply because those groups give them a home.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
According to a recent, anonymous study done in my country, if they catch everyone they'd have to lock up about 2/3 of the population between the age of 16 and 25.
Time to build some more prisons, France. And get used to a lack of people knowing anything about computers at all.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Probably. But can you buy content in prison?
I know your comment is in jest, but the content industry seems to think just that. The problem is, though, that the people copying are wholly a subset of the set "people who might buy content". Because, well, if they didn't want content (yes, such people exist), they wouldn't copy it either. Now, not everyone engaging in filesharing bought or would buy content (yes, there are people who refuse to buy anything), but the majority did, does and will do it. There are actually people doing both, buying and p2p'ing.
Those people will not buy anything when you lock them up or sue their pants off. Either way they can't buy anything from you.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Were they expecting to be able to download whatever they want without any repercussions? Which law DID they want? How can you have ANY law at all and that law being less strict than this?
O hay - I will just take OpenOffice and incorporate it into my proprietary software and sell it, because fuck whatever rights and fuck the authors and their "imaginary property". Or I guess not.
In conclusion: Fuck pirates and their supporters.
You make an intresting point. It is not just families but anyone with a shared connection.
But what you fail to understand is that we the citizens are fighting an enemy who does not CARE about rights and laws. Disney is an evil coorperation who used copyright to avoid having to pay royalties on Pinocio but wants royalties on said cartoon to be extended infinitly. They don't want copyright law respected. They want to control all media and the law is just a tool in their arsenal. If they could get away with using gangs to enforce their desire, they would. Their desire is not justice, it is profit.
If in their goal for profit the internet is destroyed then so be it. They don't care and would have prefered for it to never exist in the first place.
The content industry does not care if some innocent bystander has their youtube access removed. Because said innocent bystander by watching the free content they don't own is denying them their profits.
Because that is what this is really about. Do you think that when I download a game or song the economy is hurt? if so, then you suffer from the broken window problem.
Simple example. A teen has an allowance of say 100. He can then spend that money on CD's. That's 100 into the economy.
OR he rips the CD and spends 100 on clothes. That is 100 into the economy.
The difference? Absolutely nothing.
Know this, if piracy is ripped out, then we can have two results:
A: Content sales stay the same because people are spending their money on different things.
B: Content sales increase but all other sales decrease because money can only be spend once.
If you think C: Content sales increase and the content sellers can now buy more other things. then you lack a fundemental understanding of economy.
The economy doesn't care where money is spend, as long as it is spend. the amount of money does not magically increase because it is spend in one area. The economy adjusts. As one shop in the high street closes another will takes it place.
think about it, look at your local highstreet. Less music stores but more mobile phones stores. As young kids have come used to downloading their music, they can now afford to spend their money on mobile phones. The music store clerk was fired and rehired at the mobile phone shop.
The only who care are those at the top because they don't want to find a new line of business. This is like protecting the horse market against those nasty carmakers.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Let me guess, you're from the USA. Got to love that spin your media puts on international news. French demonstrating in the streets (happens every few months / years when the government does something stupid): no coverage. French Muslims demonstrating in the streets: 'OMG, teh Islamists are destroying western society!!11eleventyone'
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Nearly all those big French demonstrations you see are motivated by unions or by the left wing parties. I'd be surprised if they gave a shit about this law, and I'm not sure there'll be a big enough public outcry for people to do so spontaneously.
Hopefully (for France AND Europe's sake) I'm mistaken.
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
Oh the French riot/protest/strike if the wind changes direction. Does it make any actual difference? Not really but somehow every time they do it seems to cost the UK money.
This is just Sarközy trying to save face. This law is even more unconstitutionnal that the previous one, and it's going to be bitchslapped down by the constitutionnal council once more, and worse. For instance, they've added a crime for not securing one's internet connection, punished by a hefty fine. Given that it is impossible to achieve 100% security, even for a security professional, it is simply absurd to require it of the common net user.
They still don't care that it's technically impossible. They believe their own bullshit.
Everyone knows this won't pass the CC. Even most of the majority. (Many are not pleased that Sarkoléon is marching them towards the cliff, but they are good little soldiers, like GOP congressmen under Bush. Which is fitting, considering how Sarközy got elected by applying Rove's methods.) The Council was damning in its first rejection. Not only did it nuke the damn thing's only mean of coercion, charitably leaving the useless part standing; but it also reserved the right to nuke it further in the future.
Would you rather eat feces or roaches?
It's called a false dichotomy, genius.
Seriously. This sounds like they now just had to buy some judges, who will just do what Sarkozy tells them.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Simple. Because you do not put them there. (If "you" is someone under the government of that politician.)
Yes. That's your job. Because justice is not only blind, but also working for that politician.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
The more people that are convicted mean more people lose their ( dwindling ) rights for life. That is the REAL goal here.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
it requires a judge to declare guilt.
Where does it say that?
That would be the correct legal way to do it, in my extremely limited understanding of french law. But every article I've seen on the matter only says the judge has some say over sentencing, not that either judges or juries will have any say over whether the accused is declared guilty or innocent.
whoops, forgot to remove the "not"
Perhaps it isthe Europeans who are more courageous after all.
well, duh. ever heard of berlusconi?
The problem is that in today's society you can't really kick people of the internet any more without robbing them of their civil rights. Freedom of expression? Nowadays almost no one gets unaffiliated communications any other way, so if you can't publish them on the internet you have no free speech left. The right to other people's free speech? Well, ditto, almost all socially and politically relevant free speech is published on the internet nowadays. Similarly, you need the internet to make a politically informed decision in the voting booth. It's one of the defining points of modern civilised society that you do not rob criminals of their civil and political rights. For one thing, we rightly judge societies by how they treat the people at their mercy, but more importantly, it prevents governments from making things that are not immoral illegal and then preventing anyone who objects to vote them out of office. Damaging that very important concept would set a very dangerous precedent indeed.
To return to the article, while I think it's nice to see that at least this version of the law has some accountability in it, in that the decision has to be made by an independent judge, on the whole I think it is a leap backwards because it is at odds with the concept that the punishment should be proportional to the crime. The ban I already discussed, but the other options are similarly draconian. Two years for a bit of file sharing? Or E300k for downloading a E1,-- song? That's a lot worse than a prison sentence in many ways. Most people don't even have that much money and will be completely robbed of their lives. And why? Because a big fat rich conglomeration of corporations doesn't like file sharing. You know what? Corporations can't feel pain, love, hate, desolation, powerlessness, loneliness or joy. They don't have beautiful memories, interesting experiences, nor the certainty of death. They are not worthy of our empathy. The poor sod who would be charged under these laws most definitely is. That alone tells us that these laws are wrong.
Of course they're not. They like to think they are. Yet they don't realize that they're becoming more and more controlled and watched. They're being told what to think and how to think it. And they do all that happily thinking how smart they are. And then comes election time and the smart european runs to the ballots to choose the next dick up his/her ass or votes blank just to use their civic right that he/she loves so much. You don't fit in the way of thinking and you are not taken seriously or you're taken too seriously and run into trouble. Yet, in the end, they're a bunch of arrogant jerks that are only waiting for America to go way with it's grip to start killing each other again like in the last 2000 years of european history... Disclaimer: I was born in Europe and I live in Europe. Bite me my fellow con-continentals!
I suspect this one'll get knocked down on the same grounds as the last one: it places the decision of guilt or innocence in an administrative body that isn't following judicial rules, and just handing selection of the sentence over to a judge isn't sufficient to cure that flaw. I think the only way HADOPI will fly is if their either hand the determination of guilt over to a real court or make the administrative body follow all the procedures of a real court including the presumption of innocence and placing the burden of proof on the complaintant. The proponents of HADOPI aren't going to do either, because those are exactly what HADOPI is intended to bypass.
So you're saying that if you knew you could easily be popped and fined 300,000 euros, or even sent to jail for downloading 20 euros worth of music, you'd still do so?
If that's the case then fine, build the jails. The world will be much better off with all the idiots behind bars as well...
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Sorry, the summary is bad.
The new proposed law is *not* slightly altered. Several main points make is somewhat more acceptable :
1- the internet subscriber is presumed innocent as per the French constitution. The word of the "HADOPI" authority carry no judicial weight other than a denunciation. The courts will have to do their own fact finding, and they are not likely to be satisfied by a mere IP number matching that of the subscriber.
2- The internet subscriber can defend him/herself before any punishment is meted out. In the previous version, the internet connexion was summarily cut, and only then could the subscriber complain and argue his/her innocence.
Most importantly, the decision is now up to a judge. One has to remember that judges are not at all friends of the current French government. Their budget have been cut, their power have been diminished, they are already overworked. It is not likely that judges will favour the Sarkozy approach, which is to punish early, punish often.
My personal opinion is that this is a face-saving law. The new law is 99.9% inapplicable in practice. There is just no way thousands of people can go through the court system every month as is the government's plan. Plus people are *very* likely to put up a good fight, like they have done everywhere. There are no possible settlement.
Soon the entertainment industry will realise that they have been wasting their time all along, and that they will eventually have to offer what everybody wants, which is a cheap, effective, legal system, be it unecumbered VOD, global licence, whatever . Otherwise they will die, simple as that.
Correct. I predict the majority of the world will spoof their IP as a french IP when using P2P just because of this -- so much potential for hilarity.
I am french but have been living in the US for 10 years.
Everytime I chat with french friends I am amazed at their views on illegal downloads of songs/movies.
One friend was even saying that at the bank where he works, there was a shared drive just to let people share songs, shows, movies. That included some porn. It had been set-up by one of the IT guy.
To me this is mind boggling.
I could understand students with little money doing this, but most of my friends now have jobs making good money.
I think in France there is this mentality that if you pay for something that you could have got for free (even illegally) you are an idiot.
To the point where it has become a national sport. I personally find that very sad.
One french friend was visiting me in the US recently, I had some Netflix DVDs, I told him how it worked and asked him if they had something similar in France. He was very surprised about the whole Netflix concepts and replied: "that would never work in France, everybody downloads (illegally) movies".
So if you don't happily comply with anything the fascists may come up with, you are stupid.
Are you french or something?
You wouldn't believe how many people don't know what is legal and what is not.
They grew up in a world where you would readily pick up a tape or CD from a friend and copy it. And nobody cared. They taped music on the radio and they taped shows on TV. To them, "taping" it from the internet is no different. The subtle difference, that the radio or TV station broadcasting the show paid for this, and also their possible recordings, was never explained to them, nor did they care. They were used to swapping records and later CDs with friends and they look at you very strangely when you tell them that no, you won't copy that song for them.
I work for a company that also deals with our version of the RIAA. They are in the same building, and they outsourced their IT requirements to us. Just recently, a woman working for them asked me whether I could help her unlock the Nintendo DS of her daughter.
For a moment I was wondering whether she tried to set a trap, but she was straight up and honest with me. And somehow I doubt that her 9 year old dauther is in any way interested in developing homebrew software. Informed about the legality with "copies" she shrugged with an "everyone does it".
Straight from the mouth of someone working for the local RIAA.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
When you skip voting and participating in government and then decide things are suddenly not to your liking and then protest violently that is not courage. That is failure. It never ceases to amaze me that people would rather do something violent than do something sane and boring like keeping a close watch on government to begin with.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
When you skip voting and participating in government and then decide things are suddenly not to your liking and then protest violently that is not courage. That is failure. It never ceases to amaze me that people would rather do something violent than do something sane and boring like keeping a close watch on government to begin with.
Tell me which candidate to vote for in my nation (which is not canada or sweden) which is for the repeal of the DMCA, legalization of filesharing and marijuana, letting failed companies die, and stimulating the economy through "trickle up" rather than 'trickle down'.
I don't hear you..
people who don't vote actually ARE making a choice. They don't put "none of the above" on the ballots, so they leave the ballots blank.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
That is exactly how they are doing this!
That's what the "participating in government" part of my comment was about. It takes letter writing and peaceful agitation to keep a government honest and accountable. Politicians are going to interpret low voter turnout as a sign that they're doing a bad job. They'll likely take it as a sign that they're doing an OK job and that people are just apathetic.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
That's what the "participating in government" part of my comment was about. It takes letter writing and peaceful agitation to keep a government honest and accountable. Politicians are going to interpret low voter turnout as a sign that they're doing a bad job. They'll likely take it as a sign that they're doing an OK job and that people are just apathetic.
In the US there are two major parties, moderate centerist corporate sellouts and ultra-fascist corporate sellouts.
Most others can't even get on the ballot.
They know damn well they can ignore your letters, most responses are form letters telling you why you, the constituent being represented, are wrong and need to be "set right" by the elected official.
so are you saying I should, as a liberal, be voting ultra-fascist instead of centerist? Exactly what do you suggest that will actually make a difference?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Your argument is totally irrelevant. I could go with "ignorance of the law is no excuse," as that's a well established legal principle.
But this is a three strikes law. Download and you WILL BE TOLD to stop. Continue and you WILL BE TOLD to stop, and hit with a temporary disconnection. Do it again, after you've been told twice, and the hammer falls.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Nevermind.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Those people will not buy anything when you lock them up or sue their pants off. Either way they can't buy anything from you.
You don't get it. You just want to steal our stuff.
These people are thieves, they're stealing our stuff and we're losing money. You have to put thieves in prison where they can't steal any more stuff and so they can't keep stealing our money from us.
You're just another thief, and you're funding bin Laden and Hamas and other terrorists when you steal our music.
Not only that, but P2P is filled with kiddyporn. You're a pedophile. By the way Britteny Spears is getting a bit old now, so we're re-releasing her debut album in a combo pack with Miley Cyrus.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.