Slashdot Mirror
France Revokes Ability To Disconnect Convicted File-Sharers From the Internet
New submitter Nicolas Jondet writes "French courts will not be able to disconnect convicted file-sharers from the Internet anymore. On Tuesday, the French Culture minister issued a decree modifying the graduated response scheme and removing the disconnection penalty. 'The report says that instead of simply disconnecting users, those suspected of copyright could be fined if they did not reply to warnings, with a relatively low fine (€60) to begin, and the size of the fine would increase depending on the number of infractions. French anti-piracy will now their focus – instead of handing heavy punishments to individual users, the government is looking towards penalizing "commercial piracy" and "sites that profit from pirated material," according to an official spokesperson.'"
But I agree, governments should go after the guys that are making $$ from it (*cough* google, bing), and tread lightly on the ones make casual use of the search engines.
France shows more sense than most governments!!
+5 for France on this one.
-2000000 if they surrender within 3 days to the RIAA/MPAA terrorists.
Will they increase the fine, as they say, with the actual number of infractions? Or do they really mean they'll increase it with the number of allegations?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Can you write in English?
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
In order to get a post not modded down on this thread, your post will have to be PC on several levels.
Then expect Disney's web site to be targeted, for a start. Actually, all the major movie studios' unoriginal and uninspiring copies of each other should make them targets of this law.
Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.
Fuck you RIAA and fuck you France, eh?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
I know you're just having fun, but (a) plagiarism of storyline has been a fundamental part of storytelling since prehistory, and (b) even if there were laws against being unoriginal, all of the source material is long out of copyright!
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
The law the French government enacted to cut people off the internet, Hadopi, was basically unenforceable when the French Constitutional Court declared access to the Internet a basic human right in 2009.
Um, all piracy is commercial, and almost always involves some kind of lethal weaponry. If no money changes hands and/or the transaction is consensual, then it ain't piracy. Copyright is piracy. It takes money, heavy weaponry, and coercion to make it work.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Maybe they noticed than in the modern world keeping them away from Internet is as easy as keeping them away from air and its absence just as ... problematic for honest every day life
The only place to find €60 or C20 is Slashdot.
"those suspected of copyright could be fined"
Suspected could be fined?
I guess it's time to overthrow this government and hang them.
Or maybe *I* am misunderstanding it. 2013-596 says "Objet : infraction de négligence caractérisée ; abrogation de la peine complémentaire de suspension de l'accÃs à un service de communication au public en ligne" and " III de l'article R. 335-5 du code de la propriété intellectuelle. "
;
But 355-5 is "Article R335-5 Créé par Décret nÂ2010-695 du 25 juin 2010 - art. 1 I.-Constitue une négligence caractérisée, punie de l'amende prévue pour les contraventions de la cinquiÃme classe, le fait, sans motif légitime, pour la personne titulaire d'un accÃs à des services de communication au public en ligne, lorsque se trouvent réunies les conditions prévues au II :
1 Soit de ne pas avoir mis en place un moyen de sécurisation de cet accÃs
2 Soit d'avoir manqué de diligence dans la mise en Å"uvre de ce moyen. "
EMphasis mine.
In other word, it is not about file sharer, but rather people putting an open access not securized. Now instead of disconnecting them after a 3rd warning, they don't disconnect them but put fines. Which makes sense, but is not about file sharer
Agaiin maybe I am misreading and somebody can check :
The decret :
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000027678782
The original decret
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do;jsessionid=40CAF13F7CA80F3ECF351133E3DD58CF.tpdjo17v_2?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006069414&idArticle=LEGIARTI000022393991&dateTexte=29990101&categorieLien=cid
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
95% of all music, and movies that people might want to download are copyrighted by Americans. What is France's interest in protecting those filthy rich morons?
Nope. It says "[...] regarding information transfer, detailed in L. 331-21 of the Code of Intellectual Property"
When you're caught sharing information/a file that contains intellectual property, you're breaking the law. However, since it's hard to prove the identity of the file sharer with only an IP address, it is up to you to correctly setup and secure your home network, so your neighbor can't share his files thru your network, making YOU responsible before the law.
If you want to share your network with your neighbors or friends, and having no WiFi password or encryption, you're free to do so, and the law has nothing against it, this three-strike law only applies when someone's using torrent or p2p to download copyrighted material.
I see French law is already completely in control of the copyright maffia.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I also learned that all decret are available on that web site ;). Nice to know for the future.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The report says that instead of simply throwing people in jail those suspected of stealing could be fined if they did not reply to warnings, with a relatively low fine (€60) to begin, and the size of the fine would increase depending on the number of infractions. (change mine)
Ah brave new world. And some people are asking me why I have such strong opinion on copyright. Because to serve a few special interests we throw every common sense out the window, we criminalize whole demographics for a crime that have no impact on anything. We reward monopolies, stifle our culture and create legal frameworks that would be just brain-dead for any real property.
The new government agency is headed by a board of nine members, three appointed by the government, two by the legislative bodies, three by judicial bodies and one by the Conseil supérieur de la propriété littéraire et artistique (Superior Council of Artistic and Literary Property), a government council responsible to the French Ministry of Culture.[15] The agency is vested with the power to police Internet users.
So you have some people, 6 from the current legislative, 3 from the judicial to "police Internet users". You know, normally the power to "police" is given to the executive, the judicial are the courts and assume innocent before proven guilty and the legislative forging out the laws. This is usually called "Separation of powers".
To ensure that internet subscribers "screen their internet connections in order to prevent the exchange of copyrighted material without prior agreement from the copyright holders"
Ah ok. So I am suppose to know in advance that the web site have the copyrights to present me the content? How am I suppose to do that? How am I suppose to know if the work is already in public domains, is licensed under a free license like the Creative Commons http://creativecommons.org/who-uses-cc which about over 100,000,000 works are using the CC license or the site have some contract with the publisher?
(1) An email message is sent to the offending internet access subscriber, derived from the IP address involved in the claim. The email specifies the time of the claim but neither the object of the claim nor the identity of the claimant.
What email address are they using? My gmail address? My company address? My hotmail or yahoo address? There is no law that requires me to register an email address with the government.
I could go on. You can read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HADOPI_law
This bill stinks. It is a shame for a democratic country. It is a shame for Europe.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
..are so incredibly reasonable (it is a new new and tentative situation but a vast improvement when compared to the crap going on in the US for example..)
No. But expect YouTube and DailyMotion to come under attack. YouTube especially makes billions of dollars off of pirated material.
If you and I had their kind of video collection, the Feds would be breaking down our doors in a heartbeat. Ah, the luxury of being
super rich, sigh.
"...those suspected of copyright could be fined..."
Is the idiot who wrote this suggesting that if I copyright something I could be fined?
Fata viam invenient.
all of the source material is long out of copyright!
Thus the hypocrisy...Disney "borrowed" from the public domain pretty much every single storyline they've ever used, and yet they lobby congress to extend copyrights to prevent anyone "borrowing" theirs. Don't worry, I'm sure the concept of copyrights and patents expiring into the public domain will be long forgotten before too long.
Fanfics? What about the canonical storyline? It would implode into a black hole.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"[...] French anti-piracy will now their focus [...]"
This sentence doesn't make sense...
Copyright doesn't protect the storyline, only the details of the actual product. Take the recent film Oz, for example—they were unable to get the rights to the 1939 film from MGM, so despite the fact that the movie was probably prompted by the success of Wicked, there are no explicit references to it and some witches' names had to be changed; the only references to the 1939 film are homages like the use of black and white to denote the real world. The rest comes from the original books.
Similarly, if you've ever actually compared the Grimm versions of the fairy tales to the Disney ones, you'll find they generally feature significant plot and character differences. The Disney myths are legitimately new tellings, derived in the traditional manner from multiple sources and with additional innovations. Notice that there have been several versions of Robin Hood since Disney's.
Disney's mission to extend its copyright isn't about the stories, it's about guarding the look-and-feel of their products, and most importantly, Steamboat Willie, the first appearance of Mickey Mouse. What Disney really seeks to control by extending copyright is the distribution of merchandise with their characters' images on it, which is a huge cash cow for them. The design of Mickey, like Disney's other characters, is entirely their invention.
I'm not saying any of that is good or healthy for civilization, by the way, but the whole "Disney borrowed from the public domain yet refuses to give back" line of reasoning is based on inconsistent logic; they borrowed only the plot, not the whole product.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!