French Court Levies First Fine Under 3-Strikes Piracy Law

Keep the woman in line? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-13 08:46 · Score: 4, Funny

Apparently in France, it is a man's responsibility to police the behavior of his wife. After all, women are property.

Re:Keep the woman in line? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-13 09:00 · Score: 5, Informative

According to the 3-strike law, it's the responsibility of one who signs a contract for internet access contract to make sure that his/her computer cannot be used to breach law. The lady will not be fined because it's just too difficult for the Court to prove she downloaded the file (and not a neighbour or a relative on a visit). But the guy can be fined, because the contract was in his name, and it can be proven that his connection was used to download a song illegally.
Re:Keep the woman in line? by cheekyjohnson · 2012-09-13 09:34 · Score: 2

because it's just too difficult for the Court to prove she downloaded the file (and not a neighbour or a relative on a visit).
Yeah, due process is pretty hard. Why don't we just get rid of all of it? Just throw people in prison based on mere accusations.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:Keep the woman in line? by Em+Adespoton · 2012-09-13 10:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

Prisons have free Internet access, don't they? I wonder what happens if someone downloads music while incarcerated....
Re:Keep the woman in line? by AK+Marc · 2012-09-13 10:53 · Score: 1

Due process was followed. He breached his contract, and was punished for it. Due process followed.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Keep the woman in line? by shentino · 2012-09-13 11:21 · Score: 1

We already have that in police states.
Re:Keep the woman in line? by misexistentialist · 2012-09-13 11:57 · Score: 1

Sort of depends on how clear the contract was, and whether it was signed, not just presumed accepted.
Re:Keep the woman in line? by cheekyjohnson · 2012-09-13 12:23 · Score: 1

I was just objecting to the "it's just too difficult" line of reasoning.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:Keep the woman in line? by davester666 · 2012-09-13 18:26 · Score: 1

Double-secret probation.

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Re:Keep the woman in line? by wvmarle · 2012-09-13 18:37 · Score: 1

According to the article, his wife admitted to downloading the two songs, and even gave the court (a police tribunal actually) a written statement saying so.
Re:Keep the woman in line? by tehcyder · 2012-09-13 22:26 · Score: 1

because it's just too difficult for the Court to prove she downloaded the file (and not a neighbour or a relative on a visit).
Yeah, due process is pretty hard. Why don't we just get rid of all of it? Just throw people in prison based on mere accusations.
Oh please, it's just the same as when your car is caught speeding by a speed camera. The ticket goes to the registered driver, and they will be liable unless they can prove they definitely weren't driving.

No big deal. Not The Evil World Government infringing on your human rights.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Keep the woman in line? by Peter+Bortas · 2012-09-14 00:07 · Score: 2

In your country perhaps. In Sweden the photo must be matched up to the person driving.
Re:Keep the woman in line? by Baki · 2012-09-14 00:39 · Score: 1

I read the original article elsewhere: The man was divorcing his wife, he didn't know how to download anything himself and had terminated his ISP subscription just after the 2nd "strike".
I think this is an excellent case to demonstrate the idiocy of this law.
Since the new government was already critical and was planning to evaluate the law and maybe revert it, this is a good first case. It should help to get rid of it.
Re:Keep the woman in line? by cheekyjohnson · 2012-09-14 02:22 · Score: 1

The ticket goes to the registered driver, and they will be liable unless they can prove they definitely weren't driving.

I actually disagree with that, too.

No big deal.
It doesn't matter to me if the punishment is big or small. I expect them to have evidence.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:Keep the woman in line? by firewrought · 2012-09-14 03:23 · Score: 1

Due process was followed. He breached his contract, and was punished for it. Due process followed.
But the same thing that makes it impossible for them to go after The Real Offender (TM) also makes it too hard for the contract signer to meaningfully police his own internet connection, unless French law expects one to be a real a** to their family/friends/flatmates for the sake of a pre-internet industry.

--
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
Re:Keep the woman in line? by AK+Marc · 2012-09-14 07:02 · Score: 1

He gets two free warnings. If you framed your second warning, then refused guests access to your wireless, pointing to your warning as why, most would not fault you for your paranoia.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Good job France! by dyingtolive · 2012-09-13 08:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

France, out of nowhere, is suddenly showing surprising competitiveness in the "Passing dumbass laws so the rest of the world can see what a bad idea they are" department.

--
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...

Re:Good job France! by Dynedain · 2012-09-13 08:52 · Score: 4, Informative

What do you mean "out of nowhere"? France was the first country to pass 3-strike laws for copyright violations and has been pushing this crap for years. /. covered this extensively 4 years ago... and I'm pretty sure it was on here even before that, but I'm too lazy to do more Googling.
I'm just surprised it's taken them this long to enforce the law.

--
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Re:Good job France! by dyingtolive · 2012-09-13 08:54 · Score: 1

Well, yeah, but the lack of enforcement up to this point left me kind of assuming (hoping) it was just an empty platitude.

--
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
Re:Good job France! by girlintraining · 2012-09-13 09:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

France, out of nowhere, is suddenly showing surprising competitiveness in the "Passing dumbass laws so the rest of the world can see what a bad idea they are" department.
A lot less dumbass than elsewhere: 150 euros is a slap on the wrist. I bet speeding tickets go for more. This is downright enlightened by G20 standards. In the United States, people get thrown in jail, or face hundred thousand dollar fines -- thus ensuring permanent poverty for life.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:Good job France! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-13 09:06 · Score: 1

Not at all. USA is exporting political corruption and bribery via the media companies. It doesn't matter what the first world country it, once palms have been greased, it's game over.
Just look at the president and his media lacky, Obama and Biden. Done almost nothing for the people, but pushed more draconian media company laws through under the radar. When we don't do anything about blatant BS on our doorstep, why would anyone else?
Re:Good job France! by amanaplanacanalpanam · 2012-09-13 09:09 · Score: 1

thus ensuring permanent poverty for life.
As opposed to temporary poverty for life.
Re:Good job France! by ThatsMyNick · 2012-09-13 09:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

Good riddance I say. Let the rich leave, and other entrepreneurs start new businesses that actually make the economy grow.
Re:Good job France! by gl4ss · 2012-09-13 09:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

France, out of nowhere, is suddenly showing surprising competitiveness in the "Passing dumbass laws so the rest of the world can see what a bad idea they are" department.
doesn't sound quite as dumbass as fining him 2 345 423 dollars for it.
150e doesn't cover the expenses generated by the proceedings though.. so I guess it's true french.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Good job France! by Threni · 2012-09-13 09:27 · Score: 1

Uh...who gives a fuck about athletes? Leave, then? You're not bringing any money in, as statistically more events will be in some other country than your own. More importantly, it's your hobby/job - it's no more interesting to my than anyone else's. As for the rich - well, we'll cope. Someone else will take their place. And, of course, they're not currently paying as much tax as they perhaps should anyway, so leaving won't make a lot of difference.
Re:Good job France! by pdabbadabba · 2012-09-13 09:37 · Score: 1

Please show me the US case where someone has been thrown in jail for downloading music or videos. (Except, of course, videos that are criminal to own, like child porn.)

--
caritj.org
Re:Good job France! by girlintraining · 2012-09-13 09:43 · Score: 3, Informative

Please show me the US case where someone has been thrown in jail for downloading music or videos. (Except, of course, videos that are criminal to own, like child porn.)
They don't, not directly. What they do is get a judgement against you. Then the debtor repeatedly files motions to have you appear in court, which when they have a judgement against you, they can do, so the judge can assess your income, pay back plan, etc. The key word here is repeatedly, sometimes several times a month. Since these judgements are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, there's no hope for them to repay it. And as you might imagine, when you have an appointment two or more times a month for the rest of your life, sooner or later circumstances are going to arise where you miss your court date.
And that is when you go to jail: For failing to appear, or contempt of court. The sentence in either is indeterminate; An increasing number of jurisdictions have laws in place saying you can't get out of jail until you repay any legally owed debts -- statutes originally intended to repay victims of actual crime, not civil cases. So you do forced labor, at minimum wage, in jail.
God Bless America.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:Good job France! by Kjella · 2012-09-13 09:58 · Score: 1

Except he got it for failing to "secure" his internet connection, not for copyright infringement. Imagine you're a building owner renting out the apartment to tenants with internet connection. They download, you get fined. That level of indirection is a new level of stupid.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Good job France! by DM9290 · 2012-09-13 10:04 · Score: 1

Please show me the US case where someone has been thrown in jail for downloading music or videos. (Except, of course, videos that are criminal to own, like child porn.)
They don't, not directly. What they do is get a judgement against you. Then the debtor repeatedly files motions to have you appear in court, which when they have a judgement against you, they can do, so the judge can assess your income, pay back plan, etc. The key word here is repeatedly, sometimes several times a month. Since these judgements are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, there's no hope for them to repay it. And as you might imagine, when you have an appointment two or more times a month for the rest of your life, sooner or later circumstances are going to arise where you miss your court date.
And that is when you go to jail: For failing to appear, or contempt of court. The sentence in either is indeterminate; An increasing number of jurisdictions have laws in place saying you can't get out of jail until you repay any legally owed debts -- statutes originally intended to repay victims of actual crime, not civil cases. So you do forced labor, at minimum wage, in jail.
God Bless America.
can you cite the case where this happened? it sounds a bit fishy to me. there is something called 'abuse of process'.

--
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Re:Good job France! by Hentes · 2012-09-13 10:04 · Score: 1

Neither does sentencing a murderer to jail. The point in both cases is deterrence.
Re:Good job France! by niado · 2012-09-13 10:04 · Score: 1

An increasing number of jurisdictions have laws in place saying you can't get out of jail until you repay any legally owed debts -- statutes originally intended to repay victims of actual crime, not civil cases. So you do forced labor, at minimum wage, in jail.
I'm going with citation needed here...a quick googling only picked up one anecdotal instance of a judge sentencing someone to indefinite incarceration until he could raise a payment. This is obviously a questionable ruling but so was the source, which provided very little detail of the case.

I can't find evidence of laws such as you describe in any US jurisdiction.
Re:Good job France! by CrashandDie · 2012-09-13 10:20 · Score: 1

The 75% income tax does not apply to athletes, artists, "creators" (whatever that means), etc...
Working from this, you'll have CEOs say the tax doesn't apply to them, because they're magicians. "Look, 75000 jobs, DISAPPEAR! Poof!"
Re:Good job France! by AK+Marc · 2012-09-13 10:57 · Score: 1

There have been a number of them, but the one that shows up most is where a person was jailed for contempt. He owed his ex lots of money, and claimed he lost it all. He was held in contempt for years, waiting for him to produce either the money or proof of where it went. The court didn't accept the assertion that he didn't keep receipts for so much money lost (and filed inaccurate IRS reports regarding the money as well).

But not for a copyright case.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Good job France! by Xandrax · 2012-09-13 11:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

The problem, of course, is that the rich are the entrepreneurs. That's how they become rich in the first place. The other problem, of course, will be the need to kick those awesome entrepreneurs you speak so hopefully of out of the country once they commit the sin of actually making some money and magically morph into one of the damn dirty rich people.
Re:Good job France! by governorx · 2012-09-13 12:01 · Score: 1

Sentencing is not about deterrence. It is about punishment.
Re:Good job France! by Kurrel · 2012-09-13 12:20 · Score: 1

Is there a useful purpose you have in mind other than deterrence that is achieved when one is punished?
Re:Good job France! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-13 12:55 · Score: 1

I dunno, protecting civilians? Doesn't apply in this case, but when you punish a murderer with a jail sentence, the fact that they are in jail rather than outside serves a purpose.
Re:Good job France! by Schmorgluck · 2012-09-13 12:59 · Score: 2

France, out of nowhere, is suddenly showing surprising competitiveness in the "Passing dumbass laws so the rest of the world can see what a bad idea they are" department.
A lot less dumbass than elsewhere: 150 euros is a slap on the wrist.
Well, that doesn't make the law any less dumb. In theory, the fine can be ten times that, and can be accompanied with a one month suspension of internet access.
Now, courts can't just ignore the law, but it just so happens that they have a lot of leeway about the effective penalty they pronounce (to the point that, very rarely, a person can be condemned without penalty). This is a case of the courts, not the law, being reasonable.
Maybe the current government, too: the procureur (prosecuting magistrate) required 300 euros in fines, of which 150 euros suspended (still nothing absurdly harsh). The judge decided for just 150 euros, and the prosecutor, it seems, wont appeal. In France, prosecuting magistrates are hierarchically under the Minister of Justice, who defines the general policy of prosecution (this link bears many kinds of issues that are a common matter of debate, but that's not the point here).
The coalition in power since last spring had shown (granted, not uniformly) some hostility to the law when it was voted, and managed to cause some hiccups (which were reported on Slashdot, but I feel to lazy to find the links). So maybe, just maybe, the current government instructed the prosecutors not to be too heavy-handed (the government can't jusk ask prosecutors to ignore the law, either).
The entire three-strikes system is being audited, by the way. Unlikely to be totally nullified, but who knows? For one thing, it's extremely expensive (tens of millions since its creation) and yields very little. And French magistrates (both prosecuting and judging ones) are generally reluctant to pronounce high penalties just "for the example", so it's unlikely that this will ever yield significantly more.

--
There's nothing like $HOME
Re:Good job France! by girlintraining · 2012-09-13 14:02 · Score: 3, Informative

can you cite the case where this happened? it sounds a bit fishy to me. there is something called 'abuse of process'.
Here's your fish. Many more can be found by simply googling for 'debtors prison'.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:Good job France! by manu0601 · 2012-09-13 14:56 · Score: 1

A lot less dumbass than elsewhere: 150 euros is a slap on the wrist.
Tell that to someone that earns about 1000 euros a month...
Re:Good job France! by rtb61 · 2012-09-13 15:51 · Score: 1

It was that little slug Sarkozy getting blow jobs from his RIAA/MPAA wife foe legislation. Don't be surprised if the law isn't revised to death before too long. He would keep trying to force the law through and it was continually knocked back by the government, until the very end.
Obviously the law is corrupt as it requires the level of expertise equal to degree in computer science with security experience to truly effectively defend against, rather than something the general user has any hope of managing. Plus of course they have criminally penalised an individual with only circumstantial evidence, way less than is required for a traffic fine, as the vehicle with a physical number is present at the location of the crime. In case it was purely the digital representation of rotating IP address.
Why did they pursue it know, obviously to stick it to that little slug Sarkozy and anger his wife by killing the law.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:Good job France! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-13 16:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

" the rich are the entrepreneurs"
Not quite true for 2 reasons.
The first is that the means of becoming or being rich aren't necessarily entrepreneurial. Corporations demonstrate this every day by enjoying government protection from having to actually serve the market. These types are not entrepreneurial at all.
The second reason is in your own claim. 'That's how they become rich in the first place'. This necessarily implies existence of entrepreneurs that are not rich. This fact is overlooked(particular by the left leaning members of society) when it comes to classifying 'the rich' as some impenetrable unchanging group. You can see this a lot when people cite figures like 'the top 1% rich have x percent of all wealth now, up from y', ignoring the fact that people enter and exit the category at a high frequency. This is not some non-human entity constantly growing a larger pile of money each year. These are individuals gaining and losing fortunes in the marketplace.
So, there is a difference between the rich and entrepreneurs. The overlap is still there for sure, but it dwindles more and more as creation and cooperation lose ground as the means of getting wealth in favor of other means like theft and coercion.
Re:Good job France! by Joce640k · 2012-09-13 16:55 · Score: 1

Why would they throw you in jail? Dragging you through the court system for years is far worse. Jail is easy time compared to that.

--
No sig today...
Re:Good job France! by aaribaud · 2012-09-13 18:21 · Score: 1

150e doesn't cover the expenses generated by the proceedings though.. so I guess it's true french.
Well, this is assuming that EUR 150 is all he'll have to pay.
However, in France (just like in many other places and possibly even yours), the losing side of the trial may have to pay a fine (here, the 150 euros), but also bears the costs of the trial, or "dépens"), which I think are the proceeds you are speaking of.
So I guess it (meaning your comment) is true... lacking in the fact-checking department. :)
Hope this (meaning my explanation) helps, if ever so slightly, a lessening of broad-prejudice-based commenting in the future.
Re:Good job France! by wvmarle · 2012-09-13 18:40 · Score: 1

It seems no lawyers involved; it was a police tribunal - some tribunal that handles minor offences.
So there's another major difference between US and France in dealing with such copyright violations: the fines are on a much more reasonable level, and it's considered a minor issue handled by a small tribunal instead of going through the major courts, wasting judge's and jury's time for years.
Re:Good job France! by BlackPignouf · 2012-09-13 19:02 · Score: 1

150e doesn't cover the expenses generated by the proceedings though.
Yep, only 5 orders of magnitude are missing.
HADOPI cost 12M€ last year.
Source : http://vidberg.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/09/13/hadopi-la-premiere-condamnation/
Judge : You'll be punished for your crimes. You'll get a 150€ fine.
Defendant : 150 only? But I downloaded way more than that!
Judge : You don't get fined for downloading, but for being stupid enough to get caught. 150€it is! And stop downloading, I mean, stop getting caught!
Re:Good job France! by dkf · 2012-09-13 19:59 · Score: 1

Sentencing is not about deterrence. It is about punishment.
Sentencing has many purposes, including both punishment (persuading the convicted that they did the wrong thing and really shouldn't do it again) and deterrence (persuading others of that). It is also used to protect the general public (more in the case of violent crimes or the various types of fraud) and to pay restitution to the injured parties.

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:Good job France! by tehcyder · 2012-09-13 22:34 · Score: 1

A lot less dumbass than elsewhere: 150 euros is a slap on the wrist.
Tell that to someone that earns about 1000 euros a month...
A married couple in France are not going to be earning only 1000 euros a month.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Good job France! by tehcyder · 2012-09-13 22:37 · Score: 1

The problem, of course, is that the rich are the entrepreneurs. That's how they become rich in the first place. The other problem, of course, will be the need to kick those awesome entrepreneurs you speak so hopefully of out of the country once they commit the sin of actually making some money and magically morph into one of the damn dirty rich people.
Entrepreneurs do it becaus it excites and interests them, capping their earnings at a million euros wouldn't make any difference.

If you're the sort of cunt who likes exploiting people, taking risks with the law and generally being entrepreneurial, you'll do it whatever it earns you, even if it's less on average than getting a normal job.

Entrepreneurs are like career criminals. They enjoy bucking the system, and do it even if they don't end up financially better off than Mr Average working 9 to 5.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Good job France! by tehcyder · 2012-09-13 22:38 · Score: 1

And then the other entrepreneurs get rich and have to leave the country as well.
If growing rich turns you into a sociopathic, self-centred, equality-hating turdbasket, then good riddance.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Good job France! by manu0601 · 2012-09-13 23:51 · Score: 1

You assume there are two people in the house, and that both found a full time job. Big assumptions in crisis time.
Re:Good job France! by Buchenskjoll · 2012-09-14 01:08 · Score: 1

Athletes move to Monaco or Dubai anyway.

--
-- Make America hate again!
Re:Good job France! by niado · 2012-09-14 02:36 · Score: 1

That would be an interesting case, and it sounds on the surface that it was a weird circumstance where the court thought he was lying to avoid the judgement, hence the contempt ruling. I would deem that ruling to be questionable, as he's basically being punished due to assumption of guilt by the court. This is not really the same situation as a debtors prison, however, as the 'debt' is not really the reason he's being jailed. The court determined (however correctly/incorrectly) that he had the money, and was willfully withholding payment.

While disconcerting, and possibly abuse-of-power by the court, that is still an anecdotal case, and not evidence of a systemic issue or that "An increasing number of jurisdictions have laws in place saying you can't get out of jail until you repay any legally owed debts". I can find no evidence of such laws.
Re:Good job France! by AK+Marc · 2012-09-14 07:01 · Score: 1

he's basically being punished due to assumption of guilt by the court.
No, there was a full on judgment against him. He wasn't "assumed" guilty. He was found liable in court, and failed to live up to the responsibilities of losing that properly held case. The only "assumption" by the court is that someone wouldn't lose millions of dollars, have no evidence whatsoever of where the money went, then commit multiple felony counts of tax fraud to essentially claim he still had it, if he didn't actually have it. His defense was "I destroyed all evidence of the loss and lied about it because I felt stupid for losing it all in a bad investment."

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Good job France! by niado · 2012-09-14 07:36 · Score: 1

Yes, well, "assumed" was probably the wrong terminology there. :)

Those details certainly support my conclusion that people are not being "jailed indefinitely until they can pay their debts". This guy was jailed for refusing to pay a judgement that the court believed (evidently with good reason) that he had the means to pay.
Re:Good job France! by Xest · 2012-09-16 22:52 · Score: 1

Just keep in mind it can be as high as 1200, it was only this low precisely because of the circumstances of the case (i.e. that he didn't actually do the downloading, nor did he know how, and he also paid for a 3rd party to document removal of the illegal downloads from his system).
The 120 euros in this case doesn't make it sane, the fact given the circumstances of the case, that this guy got any kind of punishment is insane.

what if don't WANT it "secure"? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-13 08:48 · Score: 1

802.11 for example provides for the ability to either encrypt the connection or leave it open for anyone to access. It will broadcast the SSID if you want it to, and the intended purpose of that is to let other people connect.

How is it reasonable to prosecute person A for what person B does with person A's equipment? Is the ISP also liable in this case? How about Linksys or whoever made the networking equipment? Or Intel, for the cpu that allowed the alleged infringement?

Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? by Desler · 2012-09-13 08:50 · Score: 1

Well if you keep it open you face liability. As the article mentions, it's the subscriber's liability.
Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? by nurb432 · 2012-09-13 08:54 · Score: 1

More than that, why is he liable for what his WIFE did? If she committed the crime she should be fined. Not him.
I can understand the ISP cutting service due to a violation of TOS by sharing with your neighbors, but sharing with your own family is a ( potentially criminal ) TOS violation??? WTF?
I hate to use a car analogy, but if you loaned your car out to a guy across the street, and he robbed a bank and used your car for the getaway ( but you didn't know he was of course, or we would have a different legal issue ) would you be liable? Or if he solicited a hooker on the street corner? Yes, under these rules.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? by Desler · 2012-09-13 09:03 · Score: 2

Because the law states it's the subscriber's liability for any infringement done on the connection. This also has nothing to do with e ISP's ToS. Lastly, this is not a criminal matter.
Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? by Urza9814 · 2012-09-13 09:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

The fine wasn't for her copyright violation, it was for his negligence.
Here's a more appropriate analogy:
In my state, you're required to have an emergency exit for every bedroom. The apartment I used to live at, before my roommates sued, had a bedroom with only one exit. This would be equivalent to punishing the landlord had my roommate fallen asleep with a lit cigarette and been killed/injured in the fire because he couldn't escape easily due to the building not being up to code.
The appropriate thing to be outraged about is not that he is being held responsible for his wife's crimes -- they're saying he was negligent and that's a pretty well accepted concept. The thing to be outraged about is that they've decided that having an open wifi network is negligent. I intentionally disable the security on mine...what would they call that? Conspiracy? Aiding and abetting?
Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? by Desler · 2012-09-13 09:13 · Score: 1

No, it is quite right. The law states that liability for infringement is on the subscriber of the internet service.
Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? by Shagg · 2012-09-13 09:38 · Score: 1

Because the law states it's the subscriber's liability for any infringement done on the connection.
Which is completely idiocy. The husband is negligent because he let his wife use the connection that was in his name? Are they kidding?
What that effectively means is that each individual must have their own connection, and not share it with anybody. I'm sure the ISPs would love that, but it makes no sense.

--
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? by Githaron · 2012-09-13 09:39 · Score: 1

Does the law hold one accountable if they take basic measures to void unauthorized use? If a hacker somehow cracks someone's secured WiFi and uses it to torrent a bunch of files, is the liability still on the subscriber?
Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? by Githaron · 2012-09-13 09:42 · Score: 1

If they are going to have this stupid law, why do the ISPs get a pass? After all, they subscribe to other ISPs' networks in order to facilitate global communication.
Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? by gnasher719 · 2012-09-13 09:44 · Score: 2

No, it is quite right. The law states that liability for infringement is on the subscriber of the internet service.
No, he is not liable for infringement. He is responsible for securing his connection so that others can't infringe, and failing to do this is what he was fined for. The infringer is liable for infringement, but since the connection was not secured (for which he was fined), it is very, very hard to prove who the infringer was.
Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? by CrashandDie · 2012-09-13 10:18 · Score: 2

There are no search warrants in France. The police (and especially the Gendarmerie) is allowed to enter any building, any house, any property, within certain conditions (for example, they're not allowed to wake you up before 6AM). The only time that a DA has to sign something off is if there is no official case yet, and the owner of the property did not agree to it being searched.
Other than that, they can just walk in and have a coffee for all they care.
Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? by AK+Marc · 2012-09-13 11:02 · Score: 1

It will broadcast the SSID if you want it to, and the intended purpose of that is to let other people connect.
And, in an odd twist, it's more secure to broadcast your SSID than not. Broadcast and encrypt.

How is it reasonable to prosecute person A for what person B does with person A's equipment?
Ask that to the people convicted for loaning a car to someone that used it in a crime. Happens regularly in the US. So quite absurd for the Americans to complain about others doing the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Holle for one.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? by QuasiSteve · 2012-09-13 11:16 · Score: 1

Which is completely idiocy. The husband is negligent because he let his wife use the connection that was in his name? Are they kidding?
Why would they be kidding?
I think somebody else said that 'wife' may not be the correct translation, but let's run with that. When you marry, you generally tend to take on joint responsibility on shared resources. But let's also run with the idea that, in fact, you don't take on joint responsibility.
Don't you think that, in such a case, it would be wise to ask your wife not to download songs, given that - as the legal entity the bill is sent to - you'd be liable for it?
And if she then does it anyway, and you get that first warning, wouldn't it be prudent to have a chat with her on why she shouldn't be doing that?
If she then continues anyway, perhaps dropping the subscription and having her re-open it in her name would be good?
Obviously you can still ask her to pay the fine anyway.
I don't see any need for each individual having their own connection - I do see a need for understanding that any legal matters pertaining to the shared resource falls on one person (in this case), and respect that said person wouldn't find it particularly enjoyable if they have legal action brought against them due to another person abusing that resource.
Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? by manu0601 · 2012-09-13 14:54 · Score: 3, Informative

There are no search warrants in France. The police (and especially the Gendarmerie) is allowed to enter any building, any house, any property, within certain conditions (for example, they're not allowed to wake you up before 6AM)
They still need a Commission rogatoire delivered by a judge, which is almost they same thing as a warrant. The exception is the flagrant délit, when a policeman just witnessed a crime. But I bet that it is the same in other country: if you kill someone in front of a policeman and then hide in your house, in what country the police needs a paper to arrest you?
Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? by TranquilVoid · 2012-09-13 18:31 · Score: 1

It's like being fined for not locking your gun safe. You're not being charged with the murder somebody committed using your gun.
Obviously a gun is something that generally requires a license in most countries, unlike the internet, so the expectation of access point responsibility is a little far-reaching in my opinion.
Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? by CrashandDie · 2012-09-13 20:44 · Score: 1

Actually, that's not entirely accurate. A magistrate has to authorise the search through a warrant (Commission rogatoire) only if the enquiry being made is an Enquête Préliminaire. The Enquête Préliminaire depends solely on the DA, and is hence often abused.
However, when the enquiry at hand is an Enquête de Flagrance, which is not limited to having an officer be a first-witness, the search does not require a warrant, and does not require a written statement of the suspect accepting the search (as is the case during an Enquête Prélimiaire). An Enquête de Flagrance can also take place when an alleged victim denounces the crime, and the search can then be conducted in any location owned, or used as a residence (e.g.: hotel room), by any person who can be suspected of being related to the events.
Simple suspicion is enough to allow officers in your home. For having been on that end of the stick (and not knowing the law at the time), I asked the Gendarme trying to enter my house to present a "mandat". He simply replied "This isn't the movies, now get out of the way." (I know, I know, the plural of anecdote isn't data, but still).
Source: http://www.e-juristes.org/expose-enquete-preliminaire-flagrance-et-commission-rogatoire-1377/
Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? by Cederic · 2012-09-13 21:37 · Score: 1

Except that someone's said the infringer provided a written statement admitting the infringement.
Tell me, how would you secure your wireless connection from your wife, who you live with, who you sleep with, who you share your entire life with?
I ask only because that appears to be what the French authorities are demanding.
Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? by Cederic · 2012-09-13 21:39 · Score: 1

Which is why if I lived in France, I'd become an ISP. Hell, I have an open access point in my house, so I am intentionally providing internet services to people walking past or living nearby anyway.
Re:what if don't WANT it "secure"? by tehcyder · 2012-09-13 22:41 · Score: 1

That's not quite right, it was his ex that used the service and not just an open wi-fi. He was fined because he cooperated with police and the court. What this tells me is when they come knocking the answer is always NO get a warrant.....
Yes, because obviously if he had been as obstructive and un-cooperative as possible, he would have received a much more lenient sentence than a whopping 150 euro fine.

Buffoon.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Failing to secure it, from his wife?!?!? by crazyjj · 2012-09-13 08:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

Either marriage is very different in France or this is a bizarre ruling.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?

Re:Failing to secure it, from his wife?!?!? by MozeeToby · 2012-09-13 09:02 · Score: 1

The law will punish who it likes and however much it likes. It doesn't matter out tortuously or illogically the law needs to be interpreted, it only matters who the defendant managed to piss off.
Re:Failing to secure it, from his wife?!?!? by girlintraining · 2012-09-13 09:07 · Score: 2

Either marriage is very different in France or this is a bizarre ruling.
Er, both? In France, marriage is a private affair between the husband, the wife, and the personal trainer. And it's a bizarre ruling because nobody went to jail or had their lives ruined... which is common in both french marriages and file sharing cases.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:Failing to secure it, from his wife?!?!? by crazyjj · 2012-09-13 09:09 · Score: 2

RTFA
Sir, I'll have you know that's a curse word on this site!

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:Failing to secure it, from his wife?!?!? by steelfood · 2012-09-13 09:36 · Score: 1

It's a mistranslation. The actual term is more closely translated to "domestic partner."
The tell-tale sign is that they had been properly married, the man would have been fined $10,000 per song instead of a measly $150.

--
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Re:Failing to secure it, from his wife?!?!? by godrik · 2012-09-13 12:59 · Score: 2

I just read the story in a french newspaper. They are in divorce.
Re:Failing to secure it, from his wife?!?!? by wvmarle · 2012-09-13 18:45 · Score: 1

The subscriber to the Internet service is responsible for preventing unlawful acts using that service. That doesn't necessarily mean securing it in a way that no-one else can gain access to it.

2 songs - France:150 euros - USA:16,000$ by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-13 08:55 · Score: 1

oh, and 150 Euros is pretty much like a parking ticket. Is the US, I would imagine you have to sell your house to get a lawyer.

Re:2 songs - France:150 euros - USA:16,000$ by Doctor_Jest · 2012-09-13 09:17 · Score: 4, Funny

Give them time... they only sent out 1,000,000 warning letters so far... there'll be some poor sap who downloaded a Disney movie and he'll be on the hook to bail out Greece...

--
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Re:2 songs - France:150 euros - USA:16,000$ by HeckRuler · 2012-09-13 09:23 · Score: 1

You could take this the other way and say that the USD is facing some major inflation.
Re:2 songs - France:150 euros - USA:16,000$ by AK+Marc · 2012-09-13 11:08 · Score: 1

So Disney will trade Mulan to the EU in exchange for Greece?

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:2 songs - France:150 euros - USA:16,000$ by funkboy · 2012-09-13 12:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Funny, that's about the ratio for health care costs in those two countries as well...

That's strangely sane and oddly normal. by julian67 · 2012-09-13 09:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/09/11/1740241/8th-circuit-upholds-220000-verdict-in-jammie-thomas-case

In the USA it's $9250 per song. In France it's â75 ($190 US) per song.

The penalty in France seems to me to be proportionate and sane. The person penalized did, or allowed to be done, something illegal but not especially malicious or very damaging. They face a penalty which will certainly be unwelcome and which will probably encourage them to act within the law. No huge court case, no lives wrecked, no lawyers riding the gravy train. *This is how a legal system is supposed to be.* That is the difference between "The Rule of Law" and "The Rule of Lawyers".

Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. by Alan+Shutko · 2012-09-13 09:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, behaving within the law means the guy turned off his broadband completely. Needing to defend your home broadband against members of your family is crazy.
Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. by Hazel+Bergeron · 2012-09-13 09:14 · Score: 2

Until you've accidentally left a drive open containing your legitimate collection of 5,000 MP3s amassed over the last decade.
We cannot excuse stupid laws by being hopeful that the sentence is lenient, or that the executive may have mercy.
As to lawyers... while I do speak as someone with some legal education, if you honestly don't think you can get anywhere representing yourself then a lawyer's lied to you. (And, as you may be able to tell, having representation may not get you any further - indeed, it'll only mean that the judge is more strict about you getting your shit right. (But don't do anything without taking some legal advice, for which you should always find the most experienced lawyer for precisely the shit you're in.))
Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. by niado · 2012-09-13 09:34 · Score: 1

From what I can tell (IANAL, and am particularly unfamiliar with French law) this 3-strikes thing is not a 'per-song' deal. It's just a somewhat flat fine for failing to sufficiently police your internet connection. Pretty interesting concept, actually.
Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. by Hazel+Bergeron · 2012-09-13 09:47 · Score: 1

English familiarity, here, though US not wildly different. I know very little French beyond what's common to EU law - if you are right, it is interesting! though it would also be necessary to see whether French law admits multiple counts of the same offence spaced apart in time...
Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. by julian67 · 2012-09-13 09:47 · Score: 1

"accidentally left a drive open"????
I use p2p applications such as bittorrent (Transmission and rtorrent clients) and ed2k (aMule). Since the demise of Kazaa and similar there hasn't really been a circumstance where the p2p user might have "accidentally left a drive open". If I get caught I will be pissed off but I won't really have a right to complain if the penalty is proportionate.
I didn't make any claims about self representation, so your attempt to take me to task for this is a straw man argument.
The person has been penalised because they are responsible for an access point that has been used to acquire copyrighted works in breach of the copyright holder's rights. The penalty isn't heinous or draconian, it's of the kind that will be slightly uncomfortable and probably memorable. What is so unfair?
The penalties imposed in the USA are vicious, vindictive, disproportionate, greedy, shameful, life destroying and disgraceful. The penalty in France is proportionate and rational: no special interest group is gaining vast unearned riches by collecting it, and nobody's life is being crushed by suffering it. This is exactly how the law should operate.
Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. by WillAffleckUW · 2012-09-13 09:55 · Score: 1

Under French law you are considered Guilty until proven Innocent.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. by Hazel+Bergeron · 2012-09-13 09:59 · Score: 1

there hasn't really been a circumstance where the p2p user might have "accidentally left a drive open"
Windows share? NFS? FTP? Vulnerable machine, perhaps not updated properly? We're assuming someone borrowing yer wireless, yes? It sounds like you're saying that there is no way a home user could leave files available to anyone within 100 metres unless he tries, and that just ain't so.

I didn't make any claims about self representation, so your attempt to take me to task for this is a straw man argument.
You are unnecessarily confrontational. I was making a general point that people should not feel helpless when confronting the law.
Having said that, conspiracies about a gravy train for lawyers just disempower the individual. It's not the greedy legal opportunists who are moving the pieces.
Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. by Hazel+Bergeron · 2012-09-13 10:03 · Score: 1

Going to have to be a bit more specific than that - your assertion would be at least contrary to ECHR art.6(2). Perhaps you mean that a prima facie case shifts the burden onto the defendant?
Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. by WillAffleckUW · 2012-09-13 10:19 · Score: 1

Originally, my words were the ones used. Only later did they obfuscate it.
It's like me saying "if you broke it, you own it" and you described a 4 page addendum in contract language that says what I just said, and insisting your version is correct.
Now, would you like to discuss what light spectra the sky is?

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. by julian67 · 2012-09-13 10:28 · Score: 1

"Windows share? NFS? FTP?"
Making these shared is a deliberate act.
"Vulnerable machine, perhaps not updated properly?"
That would be negligent. If I fail to maintain my vehicle and I crash it into your garden fence because the brakes failed I am still responsible. I can try "I forgot to check the brakes work" as a reason/excuse in the correspondence with the insurance company but it is doomed to failure, along with "the dog ate my homework" and "it was my twin" and "I thought the fence was communal property with me being a part owner".
"We're assuming someone borrowing yer wireless, yes?"
No, we're not. According to the article the acquisition of copyrighted works was done by a member of the household (the account holder's wife) but the account holder was eventually fined for failing to secure his wireless access point. There was no suggestion that any unknown 3rd party used the access point. Please remember that this was a third strike penalty, so notice had been given. The man failed to control his wife, who likes Rihanna. Some kind of penalty is not only inevitable but, if it helps one husband have a quiet life and one apartment block become free of the sound of generic R&B, also a kindness for all concerned and a public service.
Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. by Hazel+Bergeron · 2012-09-13 10:49 · Score: 1

Making these shared is a deliberate act.
Or maybe you misconfigured your server, or forgot that you had shared a folder which you later use for storage. Maybe you chose a password so obvious that it is effectively null, not thinking/knowing that a stranger could access your local network.

That would be negligent.
And you had said:

there hasn't really been a circumstance where the p2p user might have "accidentally left a drive open".
To clarify in English law: intent requires the outcome to have been your purpose in doing whatever. What you might be describing is subjective recklessness, i.e. you do something even though you are aware of a risk of the outcome. For example, if you throw stones around glass houses and you break glass, you could still be guilty of criminal damage - but the breakage was clearly an accident.
Of course, the typical clueless user may have no idea of the risk.

If I fail to maintain my vehicle and I crash it into your garden fence because the brakes failed I am still responsible.
In Anglo-Saxon law, it seems you're now getting at the civil tort of negligence, based on duty of care. This is something different.

No, we're not. According to the article the acquisition of copyrighted works was done by a member of the household (the account holder's wife)
So you're saying that there's no excuse for not being so clued up about security as to prevent your own wife from accessing stuff via your wireless? Wow, man, that's... odd.

Please remember that this was a third strike penalty, so notice had been given.
So he was already found guilty twice in a court of law by criminal standards?

The man failed to control his wife,
Sir, what is wrong with your country?
Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. by Hazel+Bergeron · 2012-09-13 11:03 · Score: 2

Your expression is as giddy as your message apocryphal.
Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. by AK+Marc · 2012-09-13 11:20 · Score: 1

You must "accidentally" leave open your wireless, as well as "accidentally" leave open an unsecured file share. It's an absurd assertion, and one not related to Internet file sharing, as you are talking about local shares, not Internet sharing, the *only* thing being talked about in the article.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. by Jonathan+C.+Patschke · 2012-09-13 11:53 · Score: 1

The person penalized did, or allowed to be done, something illegal but not especially malicious or very damaging. They face a penalty which will certainly be unwelcome and which will probably encourage them to act within the law. No huge court case, no lives wrecked, no lawyers riding the gravy train. *This is how a legal system is supposed to be.*
Granted, that's a far sight better than how things are here in the US, but to say that's how things are "supposed to be" is aiming pretty low. That's still a legal system that spends taxpayer money to defend the "property" of copyright holders from nebulous threats, and punishes people for activities that have no provable harm to anyone. Wouldn't it be far more preferable to have a system that spends its time restituting actual victims instead of collecting arbitrary fines from people who aren't hurting anyone, perhaps a system that considered impact instead of looking at who's coloring outside the lines drawn by politicians?
I will furthermore submit that "The Rule of Law" will always be "The Rule of Lawyers" so long as the lawyers are the ones constructing laws prohibiting whatever behavior the well-connected consider inappropriate.

--
Pining for the days when The Glorious MEEPT!!! graced SlapDash with his wisdom.
Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. by Hazel+Bergeron · 2012-09-13 12:01 · Score: 2

No it isn't. Stop thinking like a perfect geek.
Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. by AK+Marc · 2012-09-13 12:38 · Score: 1

It takes work to make a share. Every WAP I see today in stores comes with encryption on. It takes work to fail so spectacularly in so many ways. The lazy and inept will, by default, have secured wireless and no open shares. It takes work to fail in the manner you suggest. So much so, that it's illegal, just like it's illegal to leave your car running with the keys in it. Stupid and negligent.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. by Hazel+Bergeron · 2012-09-13 12:49 · Score: 1

If by "lazy and inept" you mean "anyone who wants to temporarily give access to a group of other people" or "anyone who finds out that WiFi devices don't always interoperate with all the security turned on" or "anyone who doesn't buy modern equipment first hand" (my WiFi equipment from 10 years ago still works fine), then yes, "lazy and inept".
Since we're illegalising lazy and inept, can I bring a private prosecution against you for your lazy, inept argument? I was hoping you had something clever, but it turns out you're just another "everyone should be an expert in the narrow fields in which I know stuff" dork.
tl;dr You're making it hard for me to learn to love Alaska...
Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. by AK+Marc · 2012-09-13 12:58 · Score: 1

I mean anyone who goes out of their way to be an illegal idiot. It takes work to break the law. Nobody has to be an expert, but if you "fix" your car to let more people ride in it by modifying the seat to fit 4 rather than 3, it's not surprising when you are fined.

There's nothing about needing to be an expert required. Just be able to read the external packaging on a box, and the quick start guide (almost always a single sheet of paper these days, even if it fold out big). OMFG, requiring that someone either know the law or read directions for a new purchase requires a PhD in home computers!

tl;dr You're making it hard for me to learn to love Alaska...
Yeah, I hope you hate it, we don't need any more arrogant pricks, we just got rid of Palin to tour the lower 48, and we don't need you coming up to fill the void of ignorance left behind

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. by Hazel+Bergeron · 2012-09-13 13:17 · Score: 1

if you "fix" your car to let more people ride in it by modifying
A WiFi router is not like a car. It is not a deadly box zooming around at 30+ mph. Its usage is not regulated by licence.

the quick start guide
Never seen a "blaming the victim" section in a manual for a wireless router.

OMFG, requiring that someone either know the law

Ignorance of the law is not being plead, merely its nitwittedness.

Yeah, I hope you hate it, we don't need any more arrogant pricks, we just got rid of Palin to tour the lower 48, and we don't need you coming up to fill the void of ignorance left behi
Hey, thanks for showing me how she managed to get elected in the first place.
You are a dullard. I shall not be reading any further response.
Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. by AK+Marc · 2012-09-13 16:02 · Score: 1

Its usage is not regulated by licence.
It is regulated by license (FCC), though not in France, as well as contract. It is the contract "license" that is in question.

Never seen a "blaming the victim" section in a manual for a wireless router.
The "victim" in this is the poor innocent media company who had their valuable works of art stolen by raping and pillaging pirates. When you accuse someone of blaming the victim, you should at least bother to identify the victim first.

Ignorance of the law is not being plead, merely its nitwittedness.
Yes, I understand you are pleading nitwittedness with every post you make. I can't dispute that. If the person understood the law, and their responsibilities under it, they'd have set it up themselves (fi they were able) or hired someone to do it, same as most people do with electrical work.

You are a dullard. I shall not be reading any further response.
Ah yes. I repeatedly prove you wrong on every points, so you "win" by posting a final "I'm right and you are wrong, and I have nothing logical or facutal that supports me, so I won't be reading your response that will undoubtedly prove me wrong, again." OK, you win. I'll take your silence as agreement.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. by swilver · 2012-09-13 18:43 · Score: 1

I agree, if you take it all at once, they won't work anymore to generate more income for you later. You have to squeeze them gently and let them have hope for the future.
Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. by wvmarle · 2012-09-13 18:54 · Score: 1

It is even more sane than that. And maybe a bit insane.
First of all he's not fined for the copyright violation (his wife admitted to this, through a written and signed statement), but for not policing his Internet connection well enough, so someone could use it for unlawful purposes such as illegally downloading these songs. That may be a bit insane, but it's not that crazy - under French law the "it's an open access point, it's not my responsibility what happens on it" argument is simply not a valid defence. Whether you agree with it or not, it's from a law enforcement pov a very sane rule.
Secondly the fine I think is reasonable for the offence. Far more reasonable than the claims in the Jammie Thomas case.
Thirdly, it's a police tribunal, not a full-fledged court. From the wikipedia page, this I think is the court mentioned in the article, it appears to be a very simple and fast form of jurisdiction so costs will be low. And, assuming defendant accepts the judgement, it's not going to drag on for years and years. Probably no lawyers involved even, there is at least no mention of lawyers.
It is not clear to me who is initiating this suit, but from the article I get the feeling Hadopi falls under criminal law, so that would be the state prosecutor. Also under criminal law, the defendant normally doesn't have to pay court costs other than the fine.
Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. by Eunuchswear · 2012-09-13 22:03 · Score: 1

Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen:
Article 9:
As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by law.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Re:That's strangely sane and oddly normal. by rfrenzob · 2012-09-14 00:35 · Score: 1

According to this last year's total album sales for the US was 330.57 million. Compare to 1996's sales of 616.6 million. The solution here seems simple. To save music/movies/games/life as we know it, we only need to asses a fine of say $100/month to each person who has ever used any form of computer. Programmable coffee pots, cruise control, pocket calculators, etc all count here.
Based on current US population of 311,591,917 the proposed fine nets us a nice 31.1 billion in revenue. At $15/album only 4.1 billion of this is needed to bring the album sales revenue up to 1996's numbers, leaving 27 billion for movies and games.

Re:Heh by Hazel+Bergeron · 2012-09-13 09:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

No, it's advocating violence against men - which, my political correctness compass tells me, is absolutely fine.

150 euro fine, in fact.

Doesn't sound too bad... by ChinggisK · 2012-09-13 09:09 · Score: 1

I didn't follow what this three-strikes law is all about very closely but from what I gather from the article it doesn't sound nearly as bad as the crap that goes on over here in the US. You get three warnings and then they slap you with a $150 fine? Sounds way more reasonable than Jammie Thomas getting $80000 per song or whatever. Could someone who knows more be kind enough to explain the issue?

Re:Doesn't sound too bad... by niado · 2012-09-13 09:29 · Score: 1

This appears to be an actual fine, not damages awarded in a civil trial. I'm not familiar with the French legal system, but this seems to be similar to a speeding ticket or other semi-trivial fine.
Re:Doesn't sound too bad... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-13 10:13 · Score: 1

Disclaimer : I'm french.
The 3-strike law is about sending downloaders two warning, then bringing them to trial on third count.
Maximum fine is 3000 € and 1 month of internet access suspension.
Now, the ugly :
- The 3-strike law does not punish downloading or uploading counterfeited IP, because you can never prove which physical person has been doing the download. So the ugly hack has been to create a new "misdemeanor" ("délit" in french). The law doesn't state you are guilty of downloading, it says you are guilty of not having secured your connection. Now, having put things this way, you can prosecute the owner of the connection, without having to prove who was the person initiating the illegal download. This explains why the husband has been punished, even though it is his wife who has admittedly launched the downloads.
Now, the very ugly :
- As stated above, you can be fined for not having secured your line. Thing is, the definition of "securing your line with due diligence" has never been written by the lawmakers. The law stated that the new organism responsible of applying the 3-strike law (the HADOPI) should have written and published such specifications, but the HADOPI didn't (and they probably never will), and still pursued their prosecution mission. The result is that you just cannot prove that you secured your connection, because there is no such thing as a list of things you have to do to consider it secure enough. Actually, if some roaming script kiddie uses your wifi access and downloads stuff, you shall be fined for it. There is no way you can prove you have done enough to secure your connection, and so the breach is proof you did not do enough. You cannot even argue you were hacked and did not do anything : it's your fault if you've been hacked, and it's the fact you've been hacked that is the basis for suing you. Welcome to France.
- In practice, right-owners rely on third party company, which they hire to monitor P2P networks and collect IP address of clients sharing illegal files. This third party company (Trident Media Guard) relies on unpublished methods to collect those IP adresses. There is no way we can assess the method is reliable, and from what you can read on the french forums, it's completely unreliable. Actually, the man who has been fined today had canceled his broadband connection after the second strike ! Epic fail.
Re:Doesn't sound too bad... by celle · 2012-09-13 13:30 · Score: 1

"The law stated that the new organism responsible of applying the 3-strike law (the HADOPI) should have written and published such specifications, but the HADOPI didn't (and they probably never will), and still pursued their prosecution mission."
Then the entire case and the law should have been argued and thrown out on those grounds. If that doesn't work the next set of riots should be after the rights holders, government officials who passed this crap, and the judges who didn't toss it out when it slammed into their courts.

Re:I'll suck your dick. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-13 09:14 · Score: 1

This, this right here is why I love the internet. In my life, no one, and I mean no one would say to me, "I'll suck your dick. Wanna meet up? I have an abuse fetish. I'll do both anal and oral. You don't even have to make me cum." No one.

BUT, you put a little anonymity between two people, and this is what you get.

I fucking love technology. Free speech and free-action for the win on this one, folks.

Ah, FRANCE by HeckRuler · 2012-09-13 09:16 · Score: 1

Where 100% of the intellectual property rights of the original owners is fully respected within the Louvre.

Much cheaper than the US by nighthawk243 · 2012-09-13 09:20 · Score: 1

150 Euros for 3 offenses is nothing compared to a majority of the settlements the RIAA/MPAA seem to extract out of people in the states.

Re:No, NOT a troll by newcastlejon · 2012-09-13 09:24 · Score: 2

EXCUSE ME? Is this advocating violence against women supposed to be funny on Slashdot? On any website? I hope the mods not only -1 this post, but every post of yours they can get their hands on, you little shit.

Be careful what you wish for.

--
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.

Re:Just goes to show you by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-13 09:30 · Score: 3, Funny

Downmodded because: 1. you can't even spell "faggot" and 2. the only people who use "faggot" as an insult are those that are too stupid to think of anything else.

Now, kindly piss off and get back to doing your homework. Those fractions aren't going to denominate themselves! Before you do go, since I'm not all bad, I'll even help you with your book report; the dog gets his red ball back then goes to rabbit's birthday party.

Re:75 Euros per song as oppposed to 1000s by nospam007 · 2012-09-13 09:34 · Score: 1

"Kudos to the French for getting it only half wrong, when we in the US have it completely stupid."

As we recently were told, they only spent 12 millions to get this result of a fine of 150€.
For the customers, it's cheaper than cable.

Re:No, NOT a troll by newcastlejon · 2012-09-13 09:41 · Score: 5, Funny

I also wish for a pony.

Rare, medium or well done?

--
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.

Re:bad car analogy by Githaron · 2012-09-13 09:44 · Score: 1

I heard that in some states if you ignore it, they drop the ticket.

Arrr! Ye shall ne'er catch we pirates from Bahama! by WillAffleckUW · 2012-09-13 09:54 · Score: 1

Rihanna may be a wee bonnie lass from the Islands, but no French court shall capture a free pirate folk from thereabouts, what with these letters of Marque from the English Queen we be having!

Do yer worst, Frenchies! Do yer worst!

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Re:they are confused by mrbester · 2012-09-13 09:54 · Score: 1

This law is interesting to me as part of my wireless connection is open, a simple deal with BT meaning that in return for allowing some bandwidth to be used by anyone in range I get to use hotspots all over the world for free where others would have to pay.

However, as the router handles this the IP from BT remains the same regardless of which network is used. This means that copyrighted content can be downloaded via the open network and it would appear at first glance that I am the likely culprit. How would this law deal with that, given that this open network functionality is encouraged by BT?

--
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"

Re:No, NOT a troll by Em+Adespoton · 2012-09-13 10:01 · Score: 2

I think you may need to re-read the post you're flaming... "entitled woman" does not imply violence, and "she'll smack him around" implies this hypothetical (and yet strangely familiar) woman is the one being abusive.

It's not a troll to tell someone that advocating violence against woman is wrong... unless you're doing it in response to something that has absolutely nothing to do with advocating violence against women.

It's like if I posted "I'm planning to move to the tropic of cancer" and someone replied with "HOW DARE YOU IMPLY HAVING CANCER IS A HOLIDAY!" -- they'll get modded offtopic at a minimum, and more likely as a troll.

I've got karma to burn, so don't mind posting educational replies to flamebait threads.

Re:No, NOT a troll by Em+Adespoton · 2012-09-13 10:04 · Score: 5, Funny

Well, it's not very rare, definitely not well done, and I don't think it can tell the future.

So long Internet Cafes by canadiannomad · 2012-09-13 10:10 · Score: 1

I can just picture how well this law will work for free internet providers in public parks, town centers, shopping centers, coffee shops, internet cafes, libraries, etc. Then imagine getting back at your enemies by hacking their WEP keys... We can thank Jack the ripper as we crack their WPA2 network....
I wonder how secure the wireless is at the court house...

--
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.

Re:So long Internet Cafes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-13 13:02 · Score: 1

I can just picture how well this law will work for free internet providers in public parks, town centers, shopping centers, coffee shops, internet cafes, libraries, etc. Then imagine getting back at your enemies by hacking their WEP keys...
1) Hack the personal wifi networks of all the studio executives.
2) Download lots of copyrighted materials until they get three strikes.
3) Profi... er, rub your hands in gleeful Schadenfreude.

Re:No, NOT a troll by Gadget_Guy · 2012-09-13 10:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

it's not a troll to tell someone that advocating violence against women is wrong.

The problem is that you have made the leap from telling a joke about domestic violence to seriously advocating violence against women. That is a flawed argument. People make jokes about all sorts of subject, but it doesn't mean that they are making serious comment about the issue. For example:

Q: What does NASA stand for?
A: Need Another Seven Astronauts

Does anyone who tells this joke really advocate murdering astronauts, or blowing up space shuttles? No. It is just using a tragic event for shock value. Mel Brooks once said "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die". That is basis of a lot of comedy. It is precisely what is happening when people laugh at the Darwin awards.

Here's another one.

Q: What's the biggest difference between 9/11 and the Oklahoma City Bombing?
A: Foreigners once again prove they can do it better and more efficiently.

Is that joke OK? If so, why is a joke about hurting one person not OK? If it is not OK, what is? Perhaps you could provide a list of the acceptable topics for jokes. Or maybe you think we should just eliminate humour completely?

On the same topic as above, let's have a go at another group of vulnerable people:

Q: Why didn't Superman stop the planes from hitting the Trade Towers?
A: Because he's a quadriplegic!

It is a shame that it wasn't Linda Carter who broke her neck, because we could have added a sexist element to that joke too. If there was such a thing as a black, female superhero then we could have had the entire set, but given that female superheros must show 90% skin then it is obvious why there are no black ones. They would use up too much ink!

I seem to be going further off topic, but I hope you get my point. A joke isn't real. You can always tell comedy that tries to have a PC message, because it tends not to be funny. The best thing to do if you belong to of a group that is the butt of a joke is to just ignore it. Irish people do it, blondes do it. Even Australians do it (to their sheep). I say that last one as an Australian. Here is what I am talking about:

A ventriloquist visiting Australia walks into a small outback village and sees a local sitting on his porch patting his dog. He figures he'll have a little fun, so he says to the Aussie: "Hey, mind if I talk to your dog?"
Aussie: "The dog doesn't talk, stupid!"
Ventriloquist: "Hello dog, how's it going mate?"
Dog: "Doin' all right."
Aussie: (look of extreme shock)
Ventriloquist: "Is this your owner?"
Dog: "Yep"
Ventriloquist: "How does he treat you?"
Dog: "Good. Walks me twice a day, feeds me well and takes me to the lake once a week to play."
Aussie: ( ...?! )
Ventriloquist: "Mind if I talk to your horse? "
Aussie: "Uhhh..."
Ventriloquist: "Hey horse, how's it going?"
Horse: "Cool"
Ventriloquist: "Is this your owner?"
Horse: "Yep"
Ventriloquist: How does he treat you?
Horse: "Pretty good. He rides me regularly, brushes me down often and keeps me in a nice warm barn."
Ventriloquist: "Mind if I talk to your sheep?"
Aussie: (in a panic) "The sheep's a liar!!!"

My sheep and I had a really good laugh at that one!

someone tell me where i read this wrong by KingBenny · 2012-09-13 10:26 · Score: 1

i thought i just read he accused his wife of downloading two rihanna songs after which she admitted that in a written statement. then he got fined for not securing his network
i must be suffering from temporary autism i don't get it

--
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?

Re:Heh by Pseudonym+Authority · 2012-09-13 11:05 · Score: 1

This is true. If you post AC after you've modded with the same IP, then all those mods are silently erased. If you post AC before you mod though, the mods will stay.

_______________
Source: I've tested it multiple times and with different accounts.

Re:bad car analogy by AK+Marc · 2012-09-13 11:06 · Score: 1

Here, the owner of the car gets the ticket (but no points). If the owner objects and can produce the responsible party, he can apply to have the ticket transferred, but the owner of the car is strictly liable for the actions of it. If someone steals your car, speeds past a camera, and puts it back so the owner doesn't notice and report the theft, the owner will be 100% responsible for the ticket.

And in my case, when my wife gets a ticket, I do end up paying for it, regardless of whose picture was taken.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Three strikes is a bullshit law by GoodNewsJimDotCom · 2012-09-13 11:09 · Score: 1

Using the Internet is similar to freedom of speech. Once a man is banned from the Internet, he is silenced.

Of course, France maybe interested in free speech like the civilized world is.

The people trying to push censorship on the Internet, try it in the US first, and if it fails there, they try and push it in other countries to see how it could be spread around the world.

--
God spoke to me

Re:I'll suck your dick. by Yvan256 · 2012-09-13 11:15 · Score: 2

You are referring to the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, of course.

Re:I'll suck your dick. by Dog-Cow · 2012-09-13 11:34 · Score: 1

I would think that you "love fucking technology".

Re:I'll suck your dick. by Dog-Cow · 2012-09-13 11:35 · Score: 1

Um. That's "fucking" used as an adverb.

Re:No, NOT a troll by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-09-13 12:11 · Score: 1

Q: How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A: Thats not funny!

Re:Heh by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-09-13 12:12 · Score: 1

wow. just wow. i think you must be her.

look, it's a sort of "mobius strip" joke, where the logic twists on itself at the end. it was facetious. anyone not having a shitty day can see that. change your fucking tampon and move on, bitch. i'm not your fucking boyfriend so don't yell at me (don't hit me, either).

for all your trouble, my post is 50% mixed positive/50% troll (labelled troll), while your actual woman bashing poster has 50% funny/50% troll (labelled funny). so your crusade really, really, lost big time here.

--
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT

Re:Heh by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-09-13 12:34 · Score: 1

thanks, ac. i think. just want to clarify that positing a hypothetical scenario in which a woman might cause violence against a man is not the same as advocating it. on this site and around the internet people posit hypothetical scenarios for things they don't approve to make a point that it could happen. in the context of a joke, it's bad form to suggest one is advocating anything slapstick or otherwise negative should occur. at the least it shows you have no sense of humor and don't understand jokes. worst case, you can cause a misunderstanding that snowballs against you. one example is girlintraining getting several new assholes torn by the readership here. i'll give you another example:

suppose an overweight friend of mine jokingly compares himself to a car. i might then joke that if he steals the last of my cookies and it gives him a heart attack i'll have to put jumper cables on his nipples. nowhere in such a joke do i advocate electrocuting fat people with car batteries (even for the crime of stealing cookies). this is common sense. pick some up on your way home today. and yes, my fat friend thought it was hilarious (we were also drunk).

--
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT

Perhaps this is a good thing... by Brannoncyll · 2012-09-13 13:25 · Score: 1

Now people know that the law is being enforced they will quickly educate themselves on the trivial ways to avoid being caught, which in turn will make it virtually impossible to enforce and will give further evidence to the claim that these three-strikes laws are pointless and ineffective.

Re:Heh by jamstar7 · 2012-09-13 13:28 · Score: 1

150 euros ain't bad for a fine. Sure beats the hell out of multi thousand dollar fines here in the States. Assuming, of course, the dollar hasn't sank THAT much against the euro...

Mebbe, contrary to popular belief here in the States, France just might have something to teach us. Just, not about music. Rhiannon?? Really????

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.

Re:No, NOT a troll by jamstar7 · 2012-09-13 13:30 · Score: 1

Don't forget the Worcester sauce.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.

Re:Heh by Z34107 · 2012-09-13 14:19 · Score: 3, Informative

You're clearly hysterical. Violence is always funny.

--
DATABASE WOW WOW

Re:No, NOT a troll by KingMotley · 2012-09-13 14:52 · Score: 1

I think I already saw that video on the internets, pick a new toy.

Let's fine france by InPursuitOfTruth · 2012-09-13 15:05 · Score: 1

I won't defend US copyright pursuits, but at least here you can share an open wifi with people if you want without some judge (and the lawmakers) treating you like a criminal or an idiot who deserves a fine.

I'd still like to fine France for being a dumb ass country for thinking that sharing internet access with neighbors should be illegal.

well at least it is 150$ by aepervius · 2012-09-13 17:24 · Score: 1

And not 2 bajillon dollar as it would be in the US.

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org

Re:well at least it is 150$ by dyingtolive · 2012-09-14 11:18 · Score: 1

150 EUR, not USD.

http://www.google.com/finance?q=EURUSD

It's actually just under $200 at the moment, which is still trivial in comparison, sure, but mind you this fine doesn't appear to be from the music being downloaded, but merely for the connection being left unsecured.

--
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...

Re:Heh by nedlohs · 2012-09-13 19:05 · Score: 1

It's a special kind of stupid that thinks "she'll smack him around" is advocating violence against women. Congrats on reaching such high levels in the stupidity race.

Re:Heh by tbird81 · 2012-09-13 19:43 · Score: 2

Are you Chris Brown?

Sadly, the guy downloading a copy of Rihanna's songs gets more punishment than the guy who beat the shit out of her.

No one ever, in the universe... by ArturoBandini77 · 2012-09-13 20:27 · Score: 1

... should value 150 eypos Rihanna songs!

Re:No, NOT a troll by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-09-13 21:13 · Score: 1

If there was such a thing as a black, female superhero then we could have had the entire set, but given that female superheros must show 90% skin then it is obvious why there are no black ones. They would use up too much ink!

Ororo Monroe (Storm) from the X-Men comics was a black woman.

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/

Re:No, NOT a troll by Cederic · 2012-09-13 21:26 · Score: 1

No, but it is a troll to advocate a woman smacking her partner around because he's fiscally irresponsible.

Men are often the victims of domestic violence. Men are more likely to be the victims of violent attacks than women.

Domestic violence is bad. Don't do it. But don't assume it's unilateral.

Nice victory! by O'Nazareth · 2012-09-13 21:51 · Score: 1

I would like to congratulate HADOPI for having made 150 euros. This obviously shows that this law was a total success.

Re:bad car analogy by tehcyder · 2012-09-13 23:12 · Score: 1

I heard that in some states if you ignore it, they drop the ticket.

That sounds very urban mythy to me. Here in the UK, if you ignore the original ticket they increase the fine for late payment (or, depending on your point of view, reward you with a lower fine for paying on time).

I don't see how this wouldn't be common knowledge in the era of the internet, with no one ever paying a fine in those states.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Article 6 of ECHR by andersh · 2012-09-14 00:20 · Score: 1

By treaty and domestic law every country in Europe has the presumption of innocence.

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) offers a definition of the presumption of innocence, in the sense of the right to a fair trial. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights indicates that an accused should not be declared guilty until a court has established his or her guilt, and that pre-trial detention should be the exception rather than the rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#Article_6_-_fair_trial

Freedom of Expression is Guaranteed in Europe by andersh · 2012-09-14 00:31 · Score: 1

Freedom of expression is guaranteed by domestic law and international treaty in every European country. What "free speech" entails differs from country to country (see Germany and Nazi symbols).

The penalty in this French case did not include termination or suspension of his Internet access.

Other countries in Europe like Finland and Estonia, both EU members, have found Internet access to be a basic human right protected by law. Usually this idea spreads from one country to the next over time [within the European Union] and the domestic and/or supra-national courts (eqv. or similar to "federal").

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8548190.stm

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

150€ when the cost of implementing the law wa by Herve5 · 2012-09-14 01:04 · Score: 1

title says it all.
France cannot afford 1M€/year for a fine revenue of 150€/year.
Even being totally sold to the RIAA one just *cannot afford* it.

--
Herve S.

Re:No, NOT a troll by Whorhay · 2012-09-14 02:00 · Score: 1

She was rather light skinned though wasn't she? And I seem to remember that she wore a silver outfit that covered much of her body.

Disclaimer - I think I've only ever read one x-men comicbook.

not here by fran6gagne · 2012-09-14 02:38 · Score: 1

Correcting bad modding error, ignore me!

Re:No, NOT a troll by firewrought · 2012-09-14 03:41 · Score: 1

A joke isn't real. You can always tell comedy that tries to have a PC message, because it tends not to be funny. The best thing to do if you belong to of a group that is the butt of a joke is to just ignore it.

It's not the realness of the joke that matters, but the realness of the discrimination/harassment/marginalization. People respect astronauts, feel sorrow for 9/11 victims, and generally think Australians are cool. AFAIK, the Irish (whom I sure had the sheep joke before you) don't feel they are being judged/threatened/stalked day-to-day for being overtly alcoholic and rural... but try making some sort of joke that suggests they ought to be an English province and I'll bet you get a very strong reaction.

Look... I'm a fan of shock humor and make grossly inappropriate jokes myself. But you *always* have to consider audience and context if you don't want to come off as an ass.

--
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction

Game Over For You by andersh · 2012-09-14 05:22 · Score: 1

I don't think you see anything at all, it's quite plain that you have no legal background.

I personally know both Italian lawyers and police officers (Bologna). Checkmate.

I also seriously doubt you know the French or Italian legal systems. Thanks for 'playing', you failed miserably.

Re:No, NOT a troll by Gadget_Guy · 2012-09-15 00:59 · Score: 1

Look... I'm a fan of shock humor and make grossly inappropriate jokes myself. But you *always* have to consider audience and context if you don't want to come off as an ass.

True, and if the original joke had been told to a support group of victims of domestic violence then it would be inappropriate. But this is Slashdot. It's a bunch of mostly male nerds.

Slashdot Mirror

French Court Levies First Fine Under 3-Strikes Piracy Law

165 of 229 comments (clear)