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."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In this day and age are there still people who think that the laws apply equally to everyone?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
"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 ?
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
Comment removed based on user account deletion
is the fact that they removed the publishers name actually criminal?
It's all about getting punished. I'm sure this will be swept under the rug in no time, by the French RIAA to boot. You know, don't bite the hand that feeds you...
Let's see, he's pushing a law that enforces copyright by punishing those whom violate it and yet can't keep his own people from violating it on his behalf?
Looks like the problem isn't as clear as he would lead you to believe if even his own staff and himself can't stay within copyright laws.
Well he could write a book, that sounds very cultural, no? And it's someone who obviously has had a serious taste of foreign cultures, no? Sounds that he fulfills at least some of the requirements of a CULTURE minister.
Fascinating. Though he doesn't say how old they were, as has been pointed out in blogs on this, its not uncommon for an older man to use terms like young boy to refer to people in their teens and 20s. Also there is some question as to... what is too young? or is it about age or about power? The more damning admission for me is NOT age, but the fact that he knew he was in a world of slaves and forced prostitution.
Thats what gets me about the Polanski thing. So what if she was 13! A 13 year old has probably gone through puberty. Being attracted to 13 year olds and having sex with them is just human nature. Its the fault of stupid ideas in parenting that have caused a culture of sexually retarded 13 year olds. Or as was said in that kinsey movie (I don't know if its an acutal quote by the man) "In an uninhibited society, a 12-year-old
would know most of the biology which I will have to give you in formal lectures."
In any case... a paedophile is someone attracted to pre-pubecent children. He is CLEARLY not one of them.
On the other hand, he got her drunk and she didn't want to do it. Thats rape. Thats wrong at ANY age. I have seen blog post after blog post, and even now this man's defense of polanski who keep mentioning "sex with a 13 year old" and just seem to forget that it was RAPE. Why is sex with a 13 year old somehow worst than RAPE.
I find that disturbing.
The only saving grace here for him in my eyes is that it was so long ago. I see no real benefit in prosecurion of 30 year old crimes, unless the offender is believed to still be doing it.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
No seriously... a country does not suck because they have shitty representatives.
If they have enough shitty politicians their government might suck, but I don't know if I would be calling that particular kettle black
Have you even been to France?
No seriously, google it:
And so I did....
French minister in 'boy sex' row
The Bad Life: A Memoir by Frederic Mitterrand (Author), Jesse Browner (Translator)
But I would also like to point out that people on both sides of the political fence are unhappy. From the BBC article:
Socialist Party spokesman Benoit Hamon told Reuters: "As a minister of culture he has drawn attention to himself by defending a film maker accused of raping a child and he has written a book where he said he took advantage of sexual tourism. To say the least, I find it shocking."
Marine Le Pen, vice president of the right-wing National Front, read excerpts of Mr Mitterrand's book aloud during a television interview, and said it left "an indelible stain on the government".
She called for the culture minister to step down.
"Resign, Mr Mitterrand and perhaps, afterwards we'll be able to give lessons to other people," she said.
Mr Mitterrand said it was an honour to be dragged though the mud by the National Front, and criticised the Socialists for making common cause with the extreme right.
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
I think in an elected official the hypocrisy, though arguably expected by most of us, is probably the worst thing here and makes everything he's done in this instance questionable. Do we need the law to protect content-producers? If so he shouldn't be responsible for piracy himself. Or should we not have such a law, in which case he should come out against it.
Even if I thought copying were OK, I'd still think that doing it whilst overseeing the introduction of anti-copying legislation was morally wrong.
We didn't make him culture minister, Sarkozy did.
Please don't mix up our joke of a governement with our entire country. The public opinion here is just as appalled as you are by this affair (even if the medias try to downplay it), this minister and this governement as a whole.
You (assuming you're american) had your G.W. Bush, we've got Sarkozy. I hope we'll get our Obama in 2012...
Summary is incorrect. He would be disconnected the next time he is alleged to have pirated something.
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
And as you're all nodding your heads in agreement, please keep the parent's words in mind next time you're tempted to rail on what a terrible country the USA is.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I think you presume too much when you say "13 is immature" because it depends on the person.
I went to college with a 15-year-old and he was more mature than I was at age 19. And of course being in college, he had sex with coeds five years older than he. Although that was technically illegal (statutory rape), I don't consider it immoral. A young adult is still an adult and should be free to make his own decisions.
>>>The brain hasn't fully developed at 13.
If this was our standard, people would not be considered adults until age 25 - that's when the brain finishes making its final connections. I think the onset of menarche (typically 15) is a better point to call someone an adult.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Too bad that most Western law insists that the law apply equally to everyone. Lawmakers would write simply the greatest laws . . . if they themselves didn't have to be bound by them.
We'd have the greatest family values, the greatest IP protection, the greatest right to life . . .
If only the lawmakers could be above the laws . . .
If this was our standard, people would not be considered adults until age 25 - that's when the brain finishes making its final connections. I think the onset of menarche (typically 15) is a better point to call someone an adult.
You don't have a daughter, do you. I think 25 is fine.
its not good enough to consent
you also have to be considered psychologically mature enough to know what exactly you are consenting to, what it implies, what its effect on you will be in terms of self-esteem, etc
physical maturity is not the same as psychological maturity
even if the 13 year old girl, perfectly sober, had agreed to have sex with polanski, its still rape, because by any coherent standard, a 13 year old is not ready to fully understand the implications of the arrangement. 15 year old? 17 year old? look: there's some 11 year olds who are more mature than some 51 year olds in certain aspects of life. but by any coherent standard, 13 year olds by and large simply don't understand what the hell is going on PSYCHOLOGICALLY (they understand what id going physically) when it comes to sex. this is valid observation for a binding legal standard by any rational effort
yes, some archaic societies and historical ones pretty much agree 11 year old girls were fair game for marriage/ sex/ etc
and these same societies also had things like slavery, absolute monarchy, cannibalism, etc. so there's no validity in pointing to brutal societies to justify burtality
in other words, we live in a modern advanced society. as such we recognize concepts like psychological maturity and informed consent and human dignity. and we respect them, and we incorporate them in our legal codes and we punish people who violate the concepts. why? so that we can stay being a modern advanced society. so should you respect the concept of "informed consent", not if you wish to remain a part of this society, but if you want to consider yourself a modern rational human being who understands and respects human dignity and who has a human conscience
or don't. and we'll rightfully punish you for your willful transgressions
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
yes, there are 13 year olds who are more mature than some 33 year olds on some issues. but your average 13 year is not psychologically mature enough for informed consent with an older person. 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
15 year olds? 17 year olds? where do we draw the line?
well, we have to draw it somewhere
look, there are guys who can speed 110 mph down the highway all year long and not get in an accident. most of us can't do that. is it fair to the guy with amazing advanced driving skills that the speed limit is 70? no. but that's not the point of laws: the point is a standard of justice for society, not the gifted drivers. nor preternaturally mature youngsters
because what you have to understand about human beings is that even though most of us can't drive 110 mph, a lot of us would say that yes, we can do that. its called hubris, we all suffer from it. at 110 mph speed limits, we'd have a lot of accidents because its a simple human failing that we overestimate our abilities, underestimate our simple human fragility. plenty of 13 year olds would even say "yes, i'm ready for sex with an elder" according to the same human failing of overestimating their abilities. and then later, when they are building their sense of self-esteem and thinking about who they are and what they are here on this planet for, they've done themselves permanent damage: "i'm just a monkey hole. i'm not a future scientist, i'm not a future leader. i'm a port of call for the horny." this is damage to the psyche, they aren't ready yet to incorporate something as potent as sex properly into their self-image. a 13 year simply has no INFORMED CONSENT about what sex means yet to them
so you err on the side of caution, and you make the age of consent the late teens
sure, there are historical societies where age of consent like 10 years old. these same societies also had things like human sacrifice, slavery, cannibalism, absolute monarchy... in other words, pointing to what they did in brutal times is no justification for brutality
and sex with with minors IS brutality. we live in a modern advanced society. we respect concepts like psychological maturity, human dignity, informed consent. this helps us remain an advanced society
so respect the rules, or be punished for transgression. but fear of being punished shouldn't motivate you to respect the laws against having sex with minors. you yourself, if you have a human conscience, should simply understand that sex with minors is a transgression against your own human conscience, your own abilit yto empathize with the fact that 99% of 13 year olds are not psychologically ready to handle sex with an adult. you need to understand that, and understand why it is simply wrong
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Polanski probably isn't a pedophile in the sense he doesn't like prepubescent girls, as a 13 year old would have hit puberty. But in our society, 13 is still too young for people much older than her. Don't point to older societies or views because you can go talk about cavemen times all you want but keep in mind you would be lucky to reach 25 or 30. Age is much more spread out now and a 13 year old should be hanging out with other 13 year olds, not creepy old men. It is always disgusting and predatory when an older man finds his way in with a young girl who just hit puberty. Sexually, the attraction may not have been deviant but the motives and acts were in the sense that he abused his position of authority to corrupt a minor. As long as 13 year olds don't have adult rights and have to obey adults and are still treated like children, they are not of age to have sex with (unless you are the same age or within 3 or 4 years).
> I don't think it's worse, but I do think that having sex with a 13 year old is both predatory and pathetic,
> if you're a [physically] grown adult anyway. The brain hasn't fully developed at 13.
When has the organ that changes over the course of your entire life from birth to death "fully developed" in your eyes? As a 31 year old myself, I would put it somewhere around 26 years old.
As for "predatory and pathetic"... I guess that depends on how you see sex. I don't tend to see it as bad or dirty. Its just something that people do with eachother, and hopefully both enjoy. Danger wise, on par with getting into someones car. In fact, with some people, its probably far less dangerous than getting in the car with them. Especially since we have simple medical protocols for dealing with the most likely possibilities.
The "dangers" are mostly overblown FUD, and I think comes out of the irrational fears of parents, who want to delay as long as possible their children having to experience the emotional pain that can come from falling in love with someone and having the relationship go sour and end.
I tend to believe that emotional growth only comes through those pains and experiences and as someone who did delay that until his 20s, I can say that I don't think I benefited from that. It took me until the age of 30 to mature emotionally enough to have a good stable relationship of the kind most people are starting to have at 24.
Will 13 year olds get into relationships with older people that will cause them pain. Yes, they will. Its part of being human, growing up, and mating. I think we vastly underestimate them to think that they need to be protected from such things and do them harm by delaying their natural development.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Yes, and I can confirm that it does indeed suck. Its not just the politicians, most of the general public can be considered a bunch of douchebags as well.
Have YOU ever even been to France?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I am not fond of my minister of culture nor my government. But that is false. The book is not about his sexual relation with young Thai boys but about his life and the things he never told anyone before. It is like "Confessions" by Rousseau.
There is a chapter where he says he paid for sex with male young ADULT. I read an excerpt and there is no confusion possible. Perhaps he had relation with minor (that I don't no) but the book does not say so.
An article (in french) on this subject : http://www.rue89.com/2009/10/07/ce-que-frederic-mitterrand-a-vraiment-ecrit
It's because the French people allow a Frenchman with a penchant for little boys to remain their Minister of Culture.
That suggests the French people are pretty fucked in the head. Even if the average Frenchman does not want this person to be in that position, it is the French people who created the situation that allowed the man in that position, and keeps him there. The blame for the government of any democratic system rests on the people who put that government in place - that is the voting population. That holds true for the US, and I think we are soon going to feel the impact of electing a president who has absolutely zero business experience in the middle of a financial crisis.
One bad apple spoils the whole truckload?
Yes, actually, it does. You realise that old saying (One bad apple spoils the bunch) came about because if you found an apple spoiled with worms in a bucket full of apples, you could no longer trust the apples in that bucket, because worms spread.
Do you even think before you write?
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
The UK age of consent is 16
18 if the other person is in a position of trust, such as their teacher (at least in England and Wales, not sure about Scotland)
drinking and smoking are both 18
Not so simple. As Wikipedia correctly points out:
Children under 5 must not be given alcohol unless under medical supervision or in an emergency (Children and Young Persons Act 1933, Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937). However, children aged 5 and over may legally consume alcohol in their own home or someone else's as long as they are under the supervision of an adult.
The minimum age for the purchase of alcohol is 18. People aged 16 and 17 may consume wine, beer or cider on licensed premises (pubs/bars/restaurants) with a table meal. In England & Wales, an adult must order. In Scotland, no adult is required to be present. The legal age for the purchase of alcohol from an off-licence (store/supermarket) is 18 (16 for liqueur chocolates).
Purchasing alcohol on behalf of a minor is illegal in Scotland, England and Wales. This means acting as the young person's agent.
18 is right for buying tobacco products, but I don't know what the law is on whether younger people can smoke tham.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
A lot of other things have also changed. Including lifespan. And scientific advances. And not dying from diseases we now see as trivial.
Just because we've made the best part of life last longer doesn't mean we should have to wait longer before we can enjoy it.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
The state of their personal satisfaction with life is frickin' irrelevant. What matters is the HE IS STILL MINISTER OF CULTURE. Until he resigns or is fired, Sarkozy and his party are condoning him.
I don't recall Bush promoting little boy rapping bastards as 'culture minister'.
boy
Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of Lil' Bow Wow either, though "bastard" might be a little harsh.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Ahh, another victim of Poe's Law.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
So according to you, Spain and Argentina are countries of monsters (age of consent is 13), Not to mention Canada (which allows 12 years old to have sex with their peers).
Let me assume that, in spite of resorting to ad hominem, you are capable of reasonable discussion of complex and emotionally loaded topics.
The real problem is not sexual relations and age, it is exploitative relations (sexual or otherwise), which should be illegal at any age.
I agree that most modern 13yo lack the necessary emotional maturity and understanding and therefore an adult entering into sexual relations with them will be, ipso facto, exploiting them. However, that is a consequence of how society treats and shelters young people and not of their age per se.
So firstly, I suggest that, regardless of the law in your jurisdiction, you spend the time and effort to educate your children to the point where they are able to to give (or, more likely, withhold) their informed consent. It will be much better for them if they choose to avoid sex until they are ready for any consequences that may arise instead of being held back by an arbitrary number set by the legislation.
And secondly (and I'm going to get a lot of heat for that), I believe that a cookie-cutter approach is not suitable and instead of a hard-coded age, the decision should be made on a case-by-case basis, should the minor in question prove to be mature enough to make these decisions. After all, assuming that all people automagically gain insight and wisdom precisely on their 18th birthday (or a different one, based on their geographical location) is just silly.
I don't recall Bush promoting little boy rapping bastards as 'culture minister'.
May I remind you of this fine fellow named Dick Cheney ? How about Donald Rumsfeld ? They may not be pedophiles but they have fucked up the lives of much more people than Mitterand.
If you get Obama in 2012 it'll be awesome, your government's political parties will have a majority so powerful there is no way anyone can stop them from doing what they want, and yet nothing will continue to get done because they can't agree with themselves. I guess you haven't been paying attention to the actual politics in America, but Obama's presidency and the Democrat majority in congress has been nothing short of a joke. They have their entire team in office, everything is under their control, [...]
That's already the case for us. The opposition is a pathetic joke, Sarkozy has control of the governement and the media, he can do whatever he wants without any risk of backlash. He gets things done, problem is he's headed in a completely wrong direction.
[...]and they still can't get anything useful actually accomplished.
That's not the impression I'm getting from here, the healthcare reform seems much needed despite the public outcry (which I don't really understand BTW), but what do I know ? Guess I'm just a retarded european...
- Gallic Wars
- Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.
- Hundred Years War
- Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman." Sainted.
- Italian Wars
- Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.
- Wars of Religion
- France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots
- Thirty Years War
- France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.
- War of Revolution
- Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.
- The Dutch War
- Tied
- War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War
- Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.
- War of the Spanish Succession
- Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.
- American Revolution
- In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."
- French Revolution
- Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.
- The Napoleonic Wars
- Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.
- The Franco-Prussian War
- Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.
- World War I
- Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States [Entering the war late -ed.]. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.
- World War II
- Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.
- War in Indochina
- Lost. French forces plead sickness; take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu
- Algerian Rebellion
- Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.
- War on Terrorism
- France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.
My favorite quote doesn't fit into 120 characters. Now no one will like me.
Really, that is the truth right there: an imperfect law is much better than no law
While I appreciate that you're trying to point out that no formal legal system can ever deal with the complexity of civilization (true), I'm not sure that this follows that these types of very simple laws are appropriate. The law (and the legal process) specifies an algorithm for society to handle these complexities, and - frankly - laws of the type "If you are of age X, you may do Y; otherwise not" are horrible in that they have (in my experience, anyway) pretty high false negative rates (a younger person being restricted incommensurate with the ability). A more effective algorithm would be to authorize some group (spreading power away from individual assholes) to determine the capacity of specific minors thus removing some of the obvious failures of the law.
I'm not saying this is the end-all solution for this, but I'm not exactly a legal scholar and even I see obvious ways to craft better legislation. We pay our legislators enough -- demand better quality!
you're describing patronization and condescension as the real crime, as a worse crime than child rape
I never said "rape". I'm talking about consensual acts, and they weren't traumatized until society told them what a perverted thing they did (and maybe jailed their partner!). I'm not talking about pedophilia (pre-pubescent sex), either. I'm talking about people whose bodies are mature and who are mentally willing, and I don't care about all this bullshit about them being mentally incompetent to make that decision.
I mean, we've finally admitted that the whole "OMG, he's teh gay, that's perverted!" reaction is harmful (go look for articles about gays committing suicide because of the emotional persecution, I'm sure there are plenty of them out there). Why can't we understand that "OMG she had sex with a grown-up? That's perverted!" is also harmful? The only difference is that, in one case, we have an easy out (blame the grown-up) that lets us claim WE didn't cause the mental distress.
The rest of what you posted frankly makes little sense and you're accusing me of a lot of stuff that I never claimed to think. Please consider what I've said, not all the crazy things you assume I think just because I've said that this whole emotional maturity thing is baloney. Al-Qaeda? Showing a 3-year-old movies about torture and dismemberment?
Watching torture and dismemberment ought to be traumatic to anyone, regardless of their mental maturity; it's just that at a certain point they should be mentally mature enough to deal with some of the crueler things in the world and also to understand the difference between fiction and reality.
Whereas, on the other hand, consensual sex is not emotionally traumatic (to anyone, of any mental maturity), rape or coerced sex always is (regardless of someone's mental maturity). Needless to say pedophilia is both painful and emotionally traumatic, so by all means that's an obviously barbaric and reprehensible action. Lastly, if we're concerned about broken relationships, those are a part of life and they are always traumatic – so just how long are we going to protect them from this? Didn't we just agree that learning is a part of growing up?
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Yeah, well, I never was really talking specifically about young/old relationships in my original post (though the guy I was replying to was, I suppose).
However, I do know one thing: if you do discover an ongoing, consensual, 15/30 year old relationship, breaking it up and making the kid testify against the adult and throwing the adult in jail is going to do a hell of a lot more emotional damage than the relationship ever could – even if it soured and/or the kid grew up and realized they were young and naive.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Who made Sarkozy president?
No sig for you!!
that you actually think the process of dealing with a crime is worse than the actual crime is a statement of such colossal stupidity that i hope for your sake i am just falling for an elaborate troll here. for if you honestly believe what you wrote then that makes you a certifiable low iq asshole
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it