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...
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....
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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!!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.