Slashdot Mirror
French President Violates His Own Copyright Law, Again
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been caught violating someone's copyright again. This time, presidential services made 400 unauthorized copies of a DVD when only 50 had been made by the publisher. Mr. Sarkozy, of course, is the one pushing the HADOPI law, which would disconnect the Internet service of an alleged pirate after three allegations of infringement. This isn't the first time he's been connected to copyright violations, either. His party had to pay some €30K for using a song without authorization. If he were he subject to his own law, Mr. Sarkozy would be subject to having his Net disconnected the next time he pirates something."
host the waving white flag website?
Better than the "we come 3 years late do very little then claim we're responsible for the victory" flag.
You know, I have both British and Canadian passports. And both of my parent countries did much more, per capita, than the US did in Europe. Give France a break. Had the Zimmerman note never been intercepted (by the British), you would have had Panzers in Washington DC before you knew it, and YOU WOULD BE SPEAKING GERMAN NOW TOO. The world just wasn't ready for that kind of warfare. The fact that the Germans lost the initiative in 1942 (Stalingrad) yet it took THREE MORE YEARS for Russia, the US, and the British Commonwealth to push Germany back speaks for itself. Americans would have surrendered too.
So take your blasé, naive attitude and shove it up your arse. I respect the French, and I respect the fight that the French resistance put up all throughout WW2. But I'm sure you have no idea what I'm talking about, since you obviously went to American "school". PS - make sure you paid your mortgage this month.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The foul and most foreign, French!
they simply don't understand the long term psychological effects on their self-esteem, their happiness, their sense of identity, etc. maintaining these aspects of self are often not even concepts most of them recognize yet
Ah because, when I look around me in todays world, those things are really important to non-molested kids. Yeah, right.
Also, I find it interesting how you judge sexual relations with an adult as having a negative impact. Is it really so hard to think of positive scenarios to actually make a fair decision?
As for self-esteem, don't you think that it would be something to be proud of, being included in an adult situation even though age-wise you're considered a kid? At that age, I always felt proud being included as an equal in any activity adults performed. Not that that included sexual things, but imagine the sex is good, where would the negativity you proclaim come into play?
To destroy happiness, you need negative input, no? So if sex with another 13 year old is enjoyable, why not with an adult who has experience and does not need so much instant self-gratification? Ever think about that?
See, I don't doubt that a lot, even most, such relationships are not built upon true consent, but acting as if this could not happen and making one involved party look like hellspawn surely is not the way to deal with a problem in this day and age.
Even if you were right, what is the intent of pointing it out? Are you trying to omit fact and rational thought by looking down upon his opinion just because he is, again assuming, under the age of 25?
Your post contributes nothing to this discussion.
"Mr. Sarkozy would be subject to having his Net disconnected the next time he pirates something"
As president / head of France does it mean whole France would be disconnected ?
Would anyone notice?
My favorite quote doesn't fit into 120 characters. Now no one will like me.
what the fuck does that mean to you?
your attempt to rationalize the concept away is retarded, at best
a child who consents does not yet have the faculties to know what they are fucking consenting to PSYCHOLOGICALLY. do you fucking understand the simple concept? you really think you can argue away the simple logical concept of informed consent?
the situation with the 3 year old is an ANALOGY. do you know what an "analogy" is? how much intellectual charity do you fucking need here anyway? here, follow the bouncing ball and see if you can engage in this radical thing called "abstract reasoning." do you know what that concept means?
1. i ask a three year old if he wants to watch the horror movie hostel
2. the 3 year old says yes
3. i am now innocent of any wrongdoing if i show him the movie because the 3 year old said yes
now i will hold your hand most condescendingly moron, and ask you if you see the problem there. and maybe it will give you some idea why your mental diarrhea above about a minor and sex with an adult is pure fucking fail
INFORMED CONSENT
learn the concept dimwit
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it