Slashdot Mirror
French Court Levies First Fine Under 3-Strikes Piracy Law
itwbennett writes "In the first trial resulting from the controversial three-strikes copyright law, a French court on Thursday fined a man €150 for failing to secure his Internet connection. His negligence led to the illegal download of files, including two Rihanna songs that were downloaded by his wife."
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...
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.
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".
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.
Well, it's not very rare, definitely not well done, and I don't think it can tell the future.
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!